Fossil Fuel-based Economy and human rights - Submission by Indian Civil Society Groups

On 28 February 2025, a joint submission was made by 12 Indian civil society groups to the United Nations Human Rights Council. The Human Rights Council is an intergovernmental body within the United Nations system, composed of 47 States, responsible for the promotion and protection of all human rights worldwide. The submission is intended to inform the thematic report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change to be presented at the 59th session of the Human Rights Council.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights’ call for inputs aims to advance understanding on how to respect, protect and fulfil all human rights, while preventing harm and ensuring non-discrimination, in the context of a just transition away from fossil fuels and the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies. The call is to highlight the current and potential human rights impacts of the transition away from fossil fuels and the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies. Support the protection of human rights in the context of the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies, identify areas of impediment and share good practices and lessons in regulating a fossil fuel-based economy, as well as proposals for a just transition away from fossil fuels, in order to protect all human rights, consider interrelationships (A/HRC/56/46), and contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, in particular Goals 13 and 14.

Key questions and the inputs from Indian Civil Society Organisations

Question 1: What is the full range of human rights impacts of the fossil fuel-based economy? What are the systemic causes of these impacts? Who is disproportionately affected by these impacts and why?

A new report, “Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change”,estimates that more than 330,000 people in India died in 2020 from exposure to particulate matter released from fossil fuel combustion. That is 1.2 deaths every two minutes. More than a third of these deaths were directly related to fossil fuels.

The fossil fuel (FF) economy has far-reaching effects on human rights. It continues the cycle of environmental destruction, health crises, displacement and inequality. These impacts affect not only individuals but also entire communities, ecosystems and future generations. Basic human rights are affected by the fossil fuel industry – specifically, coal mines, oil and gas, thermal power plants. Related rights such as the right to food security, right to water security, right to flood protection, right to disaster protection, right to breathe, right to land, right to clean water, right to clean air, right to livelihood and right to health of the affected community, right to play and right to peace and mental health are threatened by the operations of fossil fuel industries.

Examples for the impact of the FF based economy can be found in the Ennore industrial FF cluster in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, Jhabua Thermal Power Plant (TPP) in Seoni, Madhya Pradesh and Khapadkheda TPP in Maharashtra all of which pollute air, rivers and streams, severely impact crop and affect farmers’ livelihoods. The shutting down of the Chandrapura TPP in Jharkhand in 2017, resulted in thousands of job losses and forced migration of local communities.

People living near the petrochemical refineries in Panipat have complained of various illnesses, including skin diseases, respiratory issues, diabetes, hypertension, and even cancer. Livestock has also been affected, with reports of poor health and lower productivity.

Question 2: What are the current and likely human rights impacts of a transition away from fossil fuels and of the phase out of fossil fuel subsidies? What are the causes of these actual and potential impacts? Who is likely to be disproportionately affected by these impacts and why?

By March 2024, fossil fuels—coal, gas and lignite—made up 54 per cent of installed capacity, but 77 % of electricity is generated from coal suggesting that fossil fuel (FF) power will not disappear anytime soon. It will contribute 56 per cent of total electricity generation in 2030. But what will change is that new renewable energy sources, which generate about 13 % of electricity today, will contribute 32 %.

Transitioning away from FF and eliminating its subsidies marks a pivotal moment for the human rights of displaced communities significantly affecting the employment, livelihoods and economic stability of workers working in coal mines, TPPs, oil and gas industries. The coal ecosystem of India’s large coal states—Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Jharkhand and West Bengal—is deeply embedded in its economic structure. Additionally, the transition must address the environmental concerns and health impacts on these communities that have historically been affected by industrial pollution. With subsidies eliminated, low-income households may have to grapple with higher energy costs. Use of large amounts of pastureland for large-scale/ mega solar and wind power in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, forced displacement, acquisition of land of communities near these sites poses risks to health and the environment. This requires job creation, reskilling and protection of these workers during the transition. These actual and potential impacts are on the people – especially the tribals – facing large-scale displacement due to mining and power plants.

Since the 1970s, local communities, especially entire settlements, have been displaced several times for mining operations. For example, the troubles of the people of the Singrauli region have increased even more after the announcement of the auction of coal mines in India in 2022.13 coal mines have already been auctioned and about 27 mines are likely to be auctioned in the future.The local displaced population often comes from indigenous communities such as the Gond, Baiga and Kharwar tribes. These communities have already faced problems due to fossil fuels. To prevent this from happening again, while transitioning, these communities need to be provided and protected for economic, land rights, clean water, clean air, livelihood, health security, food security, and employment security. This would enable a just, equitable and sustainable transition.

Question 3: Which areas of international law are relevant to the protection of human rights in the context of the fossil fuels-based economy? In what ways do they support or hinder the protection of human rights in international law that would arise in the transition away from fossil fuels and the phase out of fossil fuel subsidies?

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) recognises free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) as a basic right of indigenous peoples. It ensures that the indigenous and marginalised populations are contacted and included prior to any “development” on their ancestral land or the utilisation of resources on their territory. The International Labour Organisation (ILO), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries, and Forests (VGGTs) all acknowledge the FPIC. However, FPIC is only ratified and legally obligatory in 22 countries, thus there is an urgent need for national governments to adopt it into domestic legislation so that it may be implemented on the ground to promote human rights protection and the transition away from fossil fuels.

Though there are several criticisms against the gaps that remain in the SDGs, especially the SDG 8 for promoting economic growth, it has several provisions for the marginalized communities and human rights. For example, the SDGs have 73 targets with substantial links to indigenous peoples, 6 specific references to them and affirmation of the right to free, prior and informed consent. SDGs need to be strengthened with a specific focus on the “wedding cake paradigm” developed by the Stockholm Resilience Institute that gives maximum weightage to the SDGs no 6, 13,14 and 15 targeting water, climate action, life below water and life on land which have a multiplier effect on the SDGs targeting human rights, poverty, hunger, education, gender equality, peace and justice among others. Similarly, the Rights of Nature (RoN) that gives nature the right to exist, thrive, and evolve could be the paradigm shift needed to transform our legal approach to nature and its defenders. Recognising the RoN in international laws will allow communities to not only protect human rights but also the rights of nature, allowing for a just transition towards a sustainable and eco-centric world.

Question 4: Are there good practices or lessons learned in regulating the fossil fuel-based economy that can support a just transition away from fossil fuels? Are there lessons from other sectors that can provide transferable insights for the transition away from fossil fuels?

The ban on single-use plastics leads to a reduction in plastic waste and a switch to reusable alternatives. This leads to a decreasing amount of disposable plastic entering the environment and also a reduction in plastic production, which is derived from fossil fuels. Plastics are the fossil fuel industry’s Plan B, as their budgets indicate an expansion of their petrochemicals production capacity. An effective ban on single-use plastics can derail their plans and provide a right path towards a transition. However, ineffective bans such as the one imposed in India have no effect since they target less than 2% of the total plastic produced.

The Yasuní-ITT Initiative project attempted to keep over a billion barrels of oil in the ground under the Yasuni National Park in Ecuador and conserve biodiversity, protect indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation, and prevent CO2 emissions in return for at least half of the revenue of what Ecuador would have realized in revenue from exploiting the resources. However, just 0.37% of the target was provided by international donors, which ultimately led to the abandonment of the initiative. Initiatives like this, which are attempts to transition away from fossil fuels and protect human rights, must be supported by the international community by applying the principles of climate finance and climate justice.

Question 5: Are there gaps or barriers in the domestic regulation of business activities in the fossil fuel-based economy that prevent the protection of human rights? Are there specific examples of State regulation of a just transition away from fossil fuels and/or fossil fuel phase out? To what extent do these examples provide rights-based, gender-responsive, age-sensitive, disability-inclusive and risk-informed approaches to a just transition away from fossil fuels that prevent discrimination?

There are removal of several barriers in the domestic regulation of business activities under the guise of facilitating “Ease of Doing Business” (EoDB). In the pursuit of renewable energy and a transition from fossil fuels, large-scale projects such as solar and hydropower are being promoted on common lands. While these initiatives aim to benefit the environment, they are displacing numerous pastoral communities and causing significant impacts on local ecosystems and biodiversity. The recent dilution of the Air and Water pollution control acts by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) by exempting industries from obtaining consent to establish and exemptions given to 39 Industries from requirements of consent to operate and consent to establish by categorizing them as “white category” industry exacerbates human and environmental rights.

The Forest Rights Act (FRA) is being diluted to undermine the rights and protections given to tribals and the conditions of “free, prior and informed consent” from gram sabhas. Furthermore, the government’s push to exploit the forests and monetise them, has led to a slew of policies that hand over commons used by tribals for their livelihoods to profit-making private firms. The recent amendment of the Forest Conservation Act by the Madhya Pradesh government for handing over about 38% of the state’s total forests to private investors is a classic example of policies that instigate human rights violations by displacing and impacting the livelihoods of the marginalised.

Question 6: Are there specific examples of business conduct supporting a just transition away from fossil fuels and/or fossil fuel phase out? To what extent do these examples ensure the protection of human rights and the prevention of non-discrimination? On the other hand, are there specific barriers in the context of business conduct that undermine efforts to transition away from fossil fuels? How can these barriers be addressed?

India’s move away from fossil fuels confronts numerous challenges, including government policies that continue to favour fossil fuels, a knowledge vacuum in sustainable alternatives, and corporate lobbying. One of the main economic barriers in India to phasing out fossil fuels is the need for energy in a developing country, and India is mainly dependent on fossil fuels for primary energy. As of 2022, 75% of primary energy supply comes from coal, oil or natural gas. Another big economic barrier is the employment in the fossil fuel sector in India. As of March 6, 2024, the coal sector in India employs 369,053 individuals in Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), including Coal India Limited and NLC India Limited, along with their subsidiaries. This number includes 128,236 contractual workers.

One of the main technological barriers is false solutions such as carbon capture, “green coal”, coal gasification and waste to energy incineration (WTE) that divert the attention away from divestment in fossil fuels. Another barrier is the push towards new coal technologies such as super-critical (SC), ultra-super-critical (USC), and Advanced Ultra SuperCritical (AUSC) systems, which are often touted as “clean and efficient” energy solutions. By enabling these new technologies, India is locking its economy in an endless cycle of coal dependency.

Furthermore, over the last decade, India has been diluting its environmental protection laws, which is a huge barrier to stopping further growth of fossil fuels in India. India needs to align itself with the International Climate Treaties such as the Paris Agreement and could support initiatives such as the Fossil Fuels Non-Proliferation Treaty that will complement the Paris Agreement by providing the global roadmap needed to halt the expansion of fossil fuels. There is also an urgent need to recognize indigenous land rights and stop extraction on their lands by strengthening the Forest Rights Act (FRA) which not only protects their lands but also supports community-led forest conservation as a livelihood means.

Question 7: How can States, businesses, and UN bodies contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, in particular Goals 13 and 14, in the context of a just transition away from fossil fuels and fossil fuel phase-out?

Achieving sustainable development goals, in particular, Goals 13 (Climate Action) and 14 (Life Below Water), requires moving away from techno-fixes and addressing the root causes of the fossil fuel menace. While businesses/corporates have a staunch focus on economic development, the states and UN bodies should mandatorily prioritize eco-social justice and human rights, ensuring that the marginalized communities such as Indigenous peoples, fisherfolk, and forest dwellers, are not further dispossessed or forcibly displaced in the name of development or climate action. For instance, the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 was ostensibly designed to recognize and protect the rights of tribal and forest-dwelling communities. However, in reality, it has served as a tool for usurpation and gentrification, enabling the state and corporations to appropriate forest lands for infrastructure, mining, and industrial projects. The ulterior intentions have been witnessed in the case of numerous fossil fuel-based projects including mining projects in Hasdeo Aranya, ONGC hydrocarbon drilling in the Cauvery delta, etc.

Therefore, for a just transition, instead of relying on and promoting false solutions like green hydrogen or large-scale renewable projects that are based on extractive models, States should invest in decentralized, community-owned renewable energy systems, such as rooftop solar and microgrids, ensuring energy sovereignty for rural, Indigenous, tribal and marginalized communities.

For SDG 14, ocean conservation must protect the rights of indigenous coastal communities. India’s Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification and Blue Economy Policy often prioritize industrial interests over traditional livelihoods. An eco-social justice-oriented approach, aligned with the communities’ traditional knowledge and needs, can safeguard marine ecosystems while ensuring food sovereignty for fisherfolk.

There are treaties/policies internationally to hold businesses accountable for environmental harm through mechanisms such as the UN Binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights to address corporate impunity, however, these mechanisms have chronically faced criticism from the affected communities and CSOs for their attempts to accommodate corporate and state interests. Therefore, a just transition must prioritize reducing consumption, equitable and just resource distribution, inclusive decision-making, and respecting ecological limits, rather than perpetuating extractive models under a green veneer.

Question 8: Are there proposals to scale up national, regional or global action a just transition away from fossil fuels and fossil fuel phase-out? And how do these proposals take into account the principle of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, all in pursuit of the objectives of the Convention and the Paris Agreement?

There are proposals to scale up sub-national/national, regional or global action for a just transition away from fossil fuels and fossil fuel phase-out, however, it is important to center these efforts on ecosocial justice and also adhere to the principles of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities And Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC). While applying CBDR principles, attention needs to be paid to increasing corporate interests which drive fossil fuel consumption in developing countries and adjustments need to be made accordingly.

In simpler terms, at the global level, there is the proposal of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty (FFNPT) for a fair phase-out of fossil fuels, urging wealthy nations to lead the transition and support developing countries financially and technologically. Although this proposal lacks enforcement mechanisms, ways to be inclusive of marginalized communities in the Global South vulnerable to continued exploitation. Similarly, it is troubling that the Paris Agreement’s incorporation of CBDR-RC on a voluntary nature has allowed developed nations to fall short on climate finance commitments, undermining equity.

Likewise, at the regional level i.e., at the South Asia level, the India-Nepal Cross-Border Transmission Lines have been established to promote renewable energy integration. In this case, hydropower projects in Nepal have displaced tribal and forest-dwelling communities, raising questions about their true intentions and alignment with eco-social justice. While moving away from fossil fuels is important, it should not be done at the expense of ecosystems or marginalized communities’ lives and livelihoods.

In India, the target of increasing renewable energy to 500 GW by 2030 and the National Just Transition Policy ostensibly aim to move away from fossil fuels and promote renewable energy by focusing on large-scale renewables, often replicates extractive models, ignoring the needs of coal-dependent communities in states like Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh. However, the focus Programs like Solar Ujjwala and KUSUM promote decentralized energy but remain underfunded and poorly implemented, failing to ensure energy sovereignty for marginalized groups. Therefore, a just transition must integrate ecosocial justice and CBDR-RC by centering marginalized voices, equitable financing and systemic change.

Joint submission By –

Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD)
Bargi Visthapit sangathan
Bindrai Institute for Research Study and Action (BIRSA)
Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA)
Chhatisgarh Bachao Andolan
Jharkhand Mines Area Co-ordination Committee (JMACC)
Srijan Lokhit Samiti
Manthan Adhyayan Kendra
Machimar Adhikar Sangharsh Sangathan (MASS)
Movement for Advancing Understanding on Sustainability And Mutuality (MAUSAM)
Poovulagin Nanbargal
Save Ennore Creek Campaign