"The report makes three key contributions: it identifies the main forms of climate disinformation in India, examines their specific impacts on indigenous peoples (IP) communities and sets out targeted policy recommendations for national and international stakeholders. First, four forms of climate disinformation circulating in the media landscape in India are identified: one-sided coverage, where the media circulate disinformation by the state, by highlighting false ecological progress while omitting data on biodiversity loss, environmental impacts and displacement; promoting false climate solutions, like afforestation and green credit programmes, which are dubbed as climate action despite their harmful ecological impacts and effects on IPs; attributing environmental disasters to climate change, where state authorities deflect accountability for disasters arising from governance failures and poor infrastructure to climate change; denialism of climate change and its causes, which relies on the suppression of scientific data, promotion of anti-renewable myths and the institutional erasure of climate-linked mortality, thereby sowing doubt and enabling the deflection of accountability.
Second, the report shows that the deliberate circulation of climate disinformation in the media subverts IPs’ rights and legal safeguards in favour of state and corporate interests in five critical ways: bypassing IPs’ rights to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) by deliberately spreading distorted information effectively marginalising IP voices from environmental decision-making; restricting traditional practices by promoting false state initiatives while claiming environmental legitimacy, thereby worsening climate adaptation and livelihoods; undermining IPs’ forest conservation efforts, through the reframing of unsustainable top-down conservation efforts as climate action, thus enabling the loss of biocultural diversity; forced evictions and deterritorialisation, often enabled by the misrepresentation of environmental data in judicial rulings under the guise of ecological progress; legal persecution, Intimidation and physical violence, where IPs and environmental defenders are subjected to both online harassment and militarised control in order to suppress resistance to state or corporate projects.
Third, this report outlines a set of recommendations for action: United Nations (UN) bodies should conduct an audit of India's compliance with IPs’ rights, investigate how state and corporate disinformation facilitates violations and support the ratification of relevant international laws and conventions; the government should strengthen legal safeguards for IPs by providing greater technical and administrative support to effectively implement the Forest Rights Act, ensuring robust FPIC protocols in all climate and development projects; international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) should support Indigenous-led audits of government programmes, submit evidence of digital surveillance to UN bodies, and help establish rapid-response legal networks and community fact-checking hubs in IP languages; civil society organisations (CSOs) should establish a national database for eco-development displacements, offer mobile legal clinics for land rights and advocate for policies requiring IPs’ representation in environmental bodies; the media sector should expose data manipulation in official forest reports, establish Indigenous-language fact-checking and leverage public broadcasting to boost digital literacy and amplify community voices; technology companies should develop tools to detect disinformation targeting IPs, conduct transparent audits of algorithmic bias on their platforms and partner with CSOs to provide digital literacy and secure communication tools; IP communities should continue to document land-use violations using community mapping, file collective petitions to audit projects violating their rights and build alliances to establish Indigenous-owned media platforms to control narratives." (Executive summary, pages vi-vii)