The clean energy transition must be a vehicle for First Nations justice, enduring cultural protection, and real economic participation — not a repeat of earlier patterns of dispossession. 

The Network supports recognising First Nations outcomes through optional attributes on renewable electricity Guarantee of Origin certificates. However, Free, Prior and Informed Consent must be embedded as a core policy principle and a condition of access to government programs.

Exploring the impacts of offshore development on First Nations’ cultural heritage, this article proposes integration of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), into the regulatory and legislative offshore environment.

In the Australian context, this particularly regards administrative and regulatory reforms to overcome uncertainty arising from recent decisions in the Federal Court.

The international focus on new energy has fast-tracked many processes that sideline First Nations’ rights, hitherto understood within the onshore minerals extraction regimes.

The reforms proposed in this article recognise an international commitment to enact the principles contained in the UNDRIP and other relevant international law.

Authors: Hoskins, R.; Ogilvie, G.; Storey, M.; Hill, A. Why Are Cultural Rights over Sea Country Less Recognised than Terrestrial Ones? Heritage 2025, 8, 283. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/heritage8070283

Read the report

Thanks for use of the photo by Maël BALLAND on Unsplash

First Nations rights, interests and priorities, including Free Prior and Informed Consent, must be incorporated as core components of the government’s Guarantee of Origin Scheme framework. 

New research confirms First Nations people in Australia have the legal ability to veto clean energy projects on Country.

The clean energy transition has the potential to be very beneficial for the Australian First Nations people on whose Country much of it will occur.

This paper documents results of interviews with legal and financial experts who have very particular insight into the contents of benefits agreements currently being negotiated with First Nations groups for large scale clean energy developments – agreements which are conventionally confidential.

The results of our analysis give reason for cautious optimism in this space, confirming that First Nations people in Australia have the legal ability to veto clean energy projects on Country.

We note the wider impacts of this emergent power of veto, which makes consent more valuable to developers, but also might encourage developers to avoid First Nations Country altogether.

We further observe that as First Nations groups become key stakeholders, or co-owners, in these kinds of development, they also can become exposed to significant financial risk.

The need to access excellent advice for First Nations groups in Australia who are navigating these projects – as developers, co-owners, shareholders, board members and contractors – is more urgent than ever.

Authors: Lily O'Neill, Kathryn Thorburn, First Nations at the forefront: The changing landscape of clean energy agreements in Australia, Energy Research & Social Science, Volume 127, 2025

Read the paper

The Network is concerned the Queensland government's Bill diminishes the value of agreement-making and engaging early and properly with Traditional Owners and First Nations communities.

The Planning (Social Impact and Community Benefit) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (the Bill) enables proponents to meet their social licence / benefit-sharing obligations by negotiating directly with local governments.

By directing proponents to engage with and enter into community benefit agreements with local councils, the scheme established by the Bill has the potential to silence and diminish the priorities, rights and interests of Traditional Owners and First Nations communities impacted by proposed developments.

The Network recommends that the Queensland Government should clarify that proponents should enter into benefit sharing agreements with Traditional Owners, and that agreements with Traditional Owners should not be set-off or diminished in any way by community benefit agreements with local councils.

Policy frameworks like the First Nations Clean Energy Strategy, and schemes like the Future Made in Australia Act 2024 (Cth) and the Capacity Investment Scheme are taking steps towards specifically incorporating First Nations outcomes in their design.

The Bill, as presently framed, fails to appropriately incorporate First Nations rights, interests and perspectives in its processes. This will diminish the planning system as a whole and the potential for it to shape projects that realise the best value for Queensland.

The Network recommends that the Queensland Government:

• establish a First Nations-specific assessment pathway and guidance for proponents engaging with Traditional Owners and First Nations communities
• require that all SIA include a cultural heritage assessment and incorporate First Nations-defined priorities.
• develop templates and resources to support First Nations participation in community benefit agreements, including governance, monitoring and accountability mechanisms.

Furthermore, the Network recommends that the Development Assessment Rules and the SIA Guideline must be updated to:

• require proponents to engage with Traditional Owners and First Nations communities early and continuously in the project lifecycle
• recognise First Nations people and groups as rightsholders with specific rights and interests in land, culture and development, and that Traditional Owners and First Nations communities must be engaged with and heard in the development of a SIA
• ensure principles of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (as articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People) is incorporated as a core principle of engagement
• require that providers undertaking social impact assessments must include First Nations people, or at a minimum, ensure that providers are culturally competent and wherever possible, that priority is given to providers with deep local experience and understanding of First Nation community priorities and aspirations in Queensland.

In relation to New State Code 26: Solar farm development, the Network also raises a number of concerns.

Our full submission to the State Development, Infrastructure and Works Committee Inquiry on this Bill can be accessed here.

Read our submission

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) details the rights of First Nations peoples in international law and policy. It establishes a universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity, wellbeing and rights of the world's indigenous peoples.

Click here for the official document of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It contains the rights and principles that First Nations peoples should enjoy as equal and free peoples, based on their cultures, traditions and histories.

The standard of Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) set by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is expected when engaging on projects which impact on the rights and lands of First Nations peoples, where:

• Free means that a community/group must be able to give consent voluntarily and without coercion, intimidation or manipulation.
• Prior means the free consent of First Nations people is obtained before an action impacting a group and lands is taken, and the time needed for First Nations consultation / consensus processes has been respected.
• For consent to be informed, it must be based on accurate, timely, accessible and sufficient information. 
• Consent of First Nations people should be determined in accordance with a group’s customary laws and practices, through procedures and representative institutions determined by First Nations peoples. 

In Australia, there are now many examples of Traditional Owners developing clean energy projects in partnership with clean energy developers and companies.

This discussion paper looks at how Australian Traditional Owners are taking charge of large-scale clean energy projects on their Country.

Key takeaways include finding that regulatory approvals are likely to be faster where the Traditional Owner group is the owner/co-owner of the project, or substantially involved in the project from an early stage. 

Additional takeaways include:

• Traditional Owners have a legal veto over large-scale clean energy projects.
• Many groups are taking charge of clean energy projects on their Country, far more so than is possible for mining, oil and gas.
• Cultural heritage is easier to protect for clean energy projects than it is for mining, oil and gas projects.
• Traditional Owners must be resourced properly - to undertake their own wind and solar mapping, to obtain legal & financial advice - in order to best benefit from the clean energy transition.

Authors: Dr Lily O’Neill and Dr Kathryn Thorburn, University of Melbourne, published March 2025.

Read the paper

Community benefit agreements (CBAs) negotiated in Canada are legally binding through contract law and set out obligations for project developers and local communities.

Also referred to as impact and benefit agreements, CBAs are common resource governance tools that are negotiated across the globe between private project developers and local, often Indigenous, communities whose land must be accessed or disturbed for major extractive resource projects.

According to the literature, CBAs have the potential to help facilitate economic and social development of Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities by providing revenue benefits, employment and training opportunities, contracting opportunities for local businesses, new community infrastructure, and impact mitigation measures.

Although CBAs are only legally required in certain regions in northern Canada in accordance with lands claim agreements, CBAs are negotiated for virtually every major extractive resource project developed in Canada and are becoming increasingly common all around the world.

Some attribute the prevalence of CBAs to private developers recognizing the right of communities to free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) as affirmed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) while others attribute the prevalence of CBAs to project developers managing social risk and attempting to satisfy consultation and accommodation requirements to obtain approval.

While this paper's case focus is on the Canadian North, the authors hope that the theoretically-informed study finds resonance with other jurisdictions host to CBAs.

Authors: Cameron Gunton, Eric Werker, Mark A. Moore and Sean Markey, Simon Fraser University, Canada

Read the paper

Thanks for use of the photo by Jonny Rothwell