Self-determination is critical to Indigenous-led climate action

Self-determination and governance are key rights and aspirations for First Nations, Inuit and Métis in the face of climate change. We must recognize and address how the impacts of climate change affect our ability to determine our own futures, govern ourselves and adapt our governance structures to the impacts of climate change.

We possess the right to self-determination, to govern ourselves and exercise rights for the well-being of our lives, the Land, Water and Ice, as well as for future generations and all life. In the context of climate change, past approaches to research, scientific inquiry, assessments, program design and delivery, funding and policy development have not been led by us.

This is changing. We are taking leadership and innovating in climate research, policy and actions that reflect our respective realities and experiences. These processes are generating knowledge and actions that inform responses to the climate change impacts our communities face. Within diverse Indigenous societies, women, youth and gender-diverse individuals are also assuming leadership roles and defining climate action.

As the climate changes, our ability to govern ourselves is affected, as relationships to the natural world are disrupted. As we move into the future, we must adapt our governance structures to maintain and transform decision-making processes for the benefit of all. It is critical that our governments maintain authority and jurisdiction over our Lands, Waters, Ice and territories, and maintain our ability to exercise our rights and responsibilities.

9.1

Introduction

Indigenous self-determination is critical for effective adaptation and to actively address the compounding impacts of climate change as well as historical and ongoing forms of colonialism. Supporting Indigenous self-determination, recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ rights and supporting Indigenous knowledge-based adaptation are critical to reducing climate change risks and achieving success with climate action (Bird, 2021; Dawson et al., 2020; Gunn, 2020; Townsend et al., 2020).

Until recently, the most common response to addressing climate change impacts in the lives of Indigenous Peoples has included participation in developing local, regional, national and international climate change responses (e.g., accords, plans, policies and strategies). Currently, First Nations, Inuit and Métis are creating our own laws, climate strategies and initiatives that draw on our knowledge, governance, laws and legal systems (see Case Story 10; Case Story 11; Case Story 12). Youth are articulating their responses and identifying pathways for a self-determined future (Yukon First Nations Climate Action Fellowship, 2023; Lim with Ɂehdzo Got’ı̨nę Gots’ę Nákedı [Sahtú Renewable Resources Board] and The Pembina Institute, 2014).

Despite the barriers to Indigenous leadership in current climate change approaches, learning from Indigenous-led frameworks can support Indigenous climate governance. This includes recognizing that climate policy must prioritize the Land and emphasize rebalance with the Land, operate on a nation-to-nation basis, recognize the right to self-determination, prioritize and generate Indigenous Knowledge and governance, and advance integrated and interdependent climate actions.

Case Story 10

Indigenous law in action: The Listuguj Mi’gmaq Fishery

In 1993, the Listuguj Mi’gmaq First Nation Government reclaimed the management of the salmon fishery in the Restigouche River, where it flows between the provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. These are Waters that the Listuguj Mi’gmaq people had fished for many generations. They did so by passing their own law, without seeking permission from provincial and federal governments. This was a Listuguj Mi’gmaq law, an assertion and manifestation of the nation’s right to fish and govern its people, Lands and Waters in its own ways. Since its adoption, the Listuguj Mi’gmaq First Nation Government Law on Fisheries and Fishing has been the effective law governing salmon fishing on the Restigouche River, displacing provincial and federal authority.

The law reflects that the lives of the salmon and the lives of the Mi’gmaq are intertwined and is also one of affirmation: to use, manage and occupy the Land and the Water in accordance with Mi’gmaq values, philosophies and ways-of-being (Mettalic and Chamberlain, 2006, as cited in Ladner and Tait, 2017). As Fred Metallic writes, “in Mi’gmaq, I say ‘the salmon is my brother.’ If the salmon is my brother, then he’s no different than my uncle, my cousin, my aunt’s husband who has passed away. And all these people are buried here, all these people who shared their experience and understanding of salmon fishing; they shared their experiences and knowledge of this territory. They taught my father everything that he knows about salmon fishing… and he taught me… we continue to give back to people through the salmon so that we can continue to acknowledge and strengthen that we are connected” (p. x).

The law provides for co-management agreements with adjacent governments, in the interests of conservation and effective management of the resource. It also establishes means of monitoring the condition of the resource, setting harvest limits and carrying out other management activities. The creation of the Mi’gmaq fisheries law was a groundbreaking step in reclaiming governance as a Mi’gmaq right and practice. The law is about the fishery, but its significance extends far beyond the management of the river and the salmon, as important as those are. It restores to the government of the Listuguj First Nation its status as a lawmaking body. The nation has since expanded their lawmaking as it relates to fisheries, enacting in 2019 their Law on the Lobster Fishery and Lobster Fishing (Cornell et al., 2010).

A monochromatic watercolor illustration of a caribou heard walking through the snow as seen from a bird’s eye view. Designed by Gitxsan author, artist and climate researcher Hetxw’ms Gyetxw (Brett D. Huson).

Case Story 11

The connection between climate action and the protection of Métis rights

Describing the significance of the 2022 participation of the Métis Nation at the 27th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 27), President Cassidy Caron of the Métis National Council (MNC) shared the following thoughts (Métis Nation of Alberta, 2022):

“Here in Canada, we need to be having conversations with the folks that are at the decision-making tables to make sure that the Métis-specific Lands, that we have an inherent right to use and protect and be in relationship with, are going to be protected. We might not have those Lands within our own grasp right now, but we will be working towards that in the future so that we can raise our families on these Lands. And right now, what we need to do is make sure that those Lands will be protected so that we can have those Lands, that our families will be on those Lands, and growing up connected to the Lands that our ancestors grew up on…. As Métis people we are in a really unique position of being able to combine our deeply held connection to the Land with our really distinct history of adaptation and resiliency. Those are all things that we need to draw on…those strengths, as we move forward in trying to tackle the climate crisis.”

The Métis People rely on the Land for continued vitality of their physical, spiritual, socioeconomic and political life. Métis have found innovative ways to live in their particular environments, despite diminished access and displacement from Land and Waters (MNC’s National Environment Committee [JF Consulting, 2020]). This resilience to change, built over generations, will allow the Métis to play an important role in adaptation efforts and environmental sustainability as the climate changes. The MNC’s National Métis Climate Change and Health Vulnerability Assessment identified the following climate change impacts as major risks to all Governing Members including increased frequency and severity of forest fires, flooding, extreme heat and drought, vector-borne diseases and invasive species. The assessment also identified regionally-specific risks for each Governing Member (JF Consulting, 2020). However, despite these risks, the Métis Nation is taking proactive action to protect its citizens and advance Métis Climate Leadership through a number of programs and research, like the MNC’s work around Métis connections to wildland fire (see Case Story 13).¹

In 2024, the Métis National Council, in partnership with its Governing Members, will be releasing its National Climate Strategy, which will define the roadmap to move forward on our self-defined climate change priorities.

Case Story 12

Research by Inuit for Inuit

Inuit-academic research relationships in Inuit Nunangat have a fraught history (e.g., Gearheard and Shirley, 2009), and Inuit have worked for decades to shift the power imbalances that characterize research institutions (ITK, 2018). Inuit have made key contributions to research throughout Inuit Nunangat for generations but historically have rarely if ever been acknowledged for their work and even then only as unidentified assistants (Bell, 2019).

Two decades ago, Inuit communities came together to carry out the first research study to document Inuit observations of climate change and its impacts on Inuit lives across Inuit Nunangat. Unikkaqatigiit: Putting the Human Face on Climate Change (Nickels et al., 2005) was released in 2005. Within days, the Inuit Circumpolar Council Canada launched one of the first legal petitions seeking relief from human rights violations caused by the United States government’s lack of action to combat GHG emissions (ICC, 2005). While the petition was denied a hearing at the time, it played a key role in initiating a normalized global dialogue about the human rights implications of climate change that continues to this day.

The National Inuit Strategy on Research (2018) is the first road map for achieving the Canadian Inuit vision for self-determination in research, and its implementation plan defines Inuit expectations for research partnerships in Inuit Nunangat (ITK, 2018). At an international level, the Inuit Circumpolar Council has outlined a series of Inuit-driven protocols for the equitable and ethical engagement of Inuit in research (ICC, 2022). The first Inuit-led, governed and directed research program, Inuit Qaujisarnirmut Pilirijjutit, was established in 2021. Along with the Canada-Inuit Nunangat-United Kingdom Arctic Research Programme, it is at the forefront of Inuit-led and co-developed research programs. The forthcoming Inuit Nunangat research policy will clarify Inuit expectations for Inuit involvement in setting Canada’s Arctic research agenda in the future.

Inuit research methodologies are now fostered in a number of Canadian Inuit policies and strategies, including the National Inuit Climate Change Strategy (ITK, 2019a) and the Inuit Nunangat Food Security Strategy (ITK, 2021), and through the work of Inuit co-management institutions such as the Fisheries Joint Management Committee and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (Snook et al., 2018b). Internationally, the Inuit-led Pikialasorsuaq (North Water Polynya) Commission brought Inuit from Nunavut and Greenland together to determine Inuit research and management priorities for a key marine area vulnerable to climate change in the High Arctic (Canada, 2019).

A growing number of Inuit and non-Inuit researchers now engage in meaningful and collaborative research partnerships in Inuit Nunangat, tied to aspirational work to renew Inuit knowledge systems linked to Inuit-driven policy needs, and guided by Inuit knowledge experts and Elders (e.g., Cuerrier et al., 2022; Harper et al., 2021; Ittaq Heritage and Research Centre, 2021; Loseto et al., 2020; Pedersen et al., 2020; Sawatzky et al., 2020; K.J. Wilson et al., 2020; Carter et al., 2019; Huntington et al., 2019; Qaujigiartiit Health Research Centre, 2019; Jones et al., 2018; McGrath, 2018; Cuerrier et al., 2015).

Case Story 13

Indigenous-led stewardship and research: Yunesit’in First Nation fire stewardship

To be resilient in the face of increasing wildfire risk due to climate change, Yunesit’in First Nation, located 90 km west of Williams Lake, BC, is revitalizing their fire practices. In the winter of 2017, in collaboration with Gathering Voices Society, the community developed a pilot program to revitalize Yunesit’in fire stewardship. This pilot project allowed Yunesit’in fire practices to be used on the Land for the first time in at least two generations. It began in 2019, with 15 hectares burned and six community members trained to interpret landscapes, seasons and local ecological indications to determine where and when to burn. By 2021, the program expanded to include more than 150 hectares burned.

The fire stewardship program involves landscape planning for applying low-intensity “cool” burns to areas with high fuel loads. The fuels typically include dried grasses and shrubs as well as woody debris from trees that have died from insect infestation, disease, drought or previous wildfire. The volume of fuels in these forests and grasslands is significant and acknowledged as unhealthy by community members for several reasons: the buildup of debris is a wildfire risk; the forest is difficult to access for community members; and wildlife like deer and moose have trouble navigating through this debris. Community members have identified that a key role for people is to “clean the landscape” with fire, opening up grasslands for wildlife, making forests easier to access and promoting new growth for animals to feed. The fire stewardship program is also studying the effects of cultural burning on fire behaviour, forest health, berries, ungulates and carbon emissions. This research will help to further the understanding of the role of fire as a stewardship tool.

The program fulfills three general goals identified by the community: 1) it strengthens cultural connection and well-being through revitalizing and sharing Indigenous Knowledge around fire; 2) it helps restore the health of the Land through Indigenous fire stewardship, which can result in fewer wildfires, the protection of biodiversity and the maintenance of culturally important sites; and 3) fire stewardship is a way to respect traditional laws, reflecting responsibilities to the Land and future generations.

Fire stewardship is viewed by the community as a pathway to revitalizing teachings and Land stewardship practices and restoring the health of the Land. The ambition for the program is to build public awareness of Indigenous fire stewardship and then to catalyze these programs across British Columbia and Canada.

Monochromatic red bullrushes. Designed by Hetxw’ms Gyetxw (Brett D. Huson).

9.2

Indigenous governance, self-determination, law and legal systems

Indigenous Peoples have long histories of governance systems to manage our Lands, resources and relations with other beings (Whyte, 2017a). As a result of this place-based knowledge, many communities possess a well-developed capacity to adapt to environmental and climatic change (Whitney et al., 2020). Governance systems (see Table 2) vary among nations and communities, yet they are generally structured by webs of mutual responsibilities that are shared across humans, the Land and more-than-human beings (Whyte, 2016). In the environmental sphere, governance includes systems that range from customs to processes and coordinate the achievement of environmental outcomes, such as clean air and water and resource development (Whyte, 2016). These processes can be categorized as monitoring climate change, mitigating and adapting to impacts and ensuring climate resilience (Wale, 2022; Lindenmayer and Likens, 2010).

There are other examples of Indigenous governance (see Table 2) that address broader environmental issues rather than specific climate-related targets. Their structures range from top-down plans to collaborative partnerships and Indigenous-led climate actions.

Table 2

Indigenous environmental governance

Type of Initiative	Examples and References
Environmental guardianship programs	Case Story 8; Reed et al., 2021a
Resource and fisheries co-management	Galappaththi et al., 2022; Stefanelli et al., 2019; Snook et al., 2018b; Armitage et al., 2011
Writing laws	Listuguj Mi’Gmaq Government, 2019; Cornell et al., 2010
Marine conservation activities	Ban et al., 2019
Land use plans	Dehcho First Nations et al., 2016
Disaster recovery plans	Yellow Old Woman-Munro et al., 2021
Government-to-government agreements and activities	Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, 2023
Modern treaty negotiations and the land claims process	Curran and Napoleon, 2020
Conservation agreements	2010 Gwaii Haanas Marine Agreement and the Great Bear Rainforest Agreements
Community environmental assessments	Tsleil-Wautuh Nation, 2021; Morales, 2019
Community lawmaking	The First Nations Land Management Act regime; Curran and Napoleon, 2020; Case Story 10
Stewardship policies	The Stk̓ emlúpsemc te Secwépemc Nation’s (SSN) assessment of the Ajax Mine in British Columbia; SSN Ajax Decision Summary, 2017
Conservation policies	Cree Regional Conservation Strategy developed by the Eeyo Protected Areas Committee; Cree Nation Government, 2015
Fire and forest stewardship through cultural burning	Nikolakis and Ross, 2022
Impact and Benefit Agreements with private entities	Richardson, 2008

As climate change transforms the landscapes around Indigenous communities, it also affects Indigenous Peoples’ legal traditions and our ability to transmit them. Central to this reality is the understanding that Indigenous laws and legal systems are intertwined with the Land, Water and Ice and practices that occur there, such as hunting, fishing, cooking and medicinal practices. Asch et al. (2018), drawing on teachings from Elder Basil Johnston, describes this as akinoomaagewin, meaning that “… we learn how to live well by giving our attention to the Earth and taking direction from her” (p. 51). Luschiim, a Cowichan Elder, explains how the Land is inextricably tied to the transmission of law or the manner in which snuw’uyulh (law) is taught, refined and studied in the Coast Salish legal tradition: “The land opens the door for our snuw’uyulh. It gives us the opportunity to learn. For me and my family, being out on the land, it opens the door to share our snuw’uyulh. Looking back, so many plus years ago, that’s what it did for myself. When my great grandfather Luschiim would come to visit, after sitting down with us for a while, he would always take us for walks (me and my sister) and that’s where he shared the snuw’uyulh. At that particular time, I didn’t know why he was doing that. But as I think about it now, in relation to my experiences with my own grandchildren, it becomes clear. You see, I can sit here, like we’re doing, in the house and talk about these things, but there are always some things you can miss. But when I’m out there in the mountains, or on the salt water, it opens my eyes to what I should be sharing. What I should be sharing with them right now” (Morales et al., 2016, p. 115).

For instance, climate change impacts on the sockeye salmon stocks in the Coast Salish world is one such example. If Indigenous Peoples no longer have access to sockeye salmon, then they not only lose a source of dietary support but also lose the intangible teachings (laws and legal practices) associated with that resource. They lose the ability to transmit the teachings of sharing, reciprocity, responsibility and stewardship, as it relates to the sockeye. Other examples linking Land to laws and other teachings exist as well, such as fishing sites regarded as sacred portals to access Stó:lō ancestors (see Case Story 5.1 in RPR‑5; Kelly, 2017); the role maple syrup holds as a central place in Algonquin worldview (Corbiere, 2011); the Lakota, Nakota and Dakota creation story connected to the buffalo and the buffalo hunt (Macdougall and St-Onge, 2013; Deloria, 2006) and, in an Inuit context, a lens of balance and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (Rahm et al., 2017).

Indigenous author, theologian and historian Vine Deloria Jr. confirmed the special relationship between Indigenous Peoples and our territorial spaces when he stated that “Indigenous Peoples often give greater prominence to the place and environment that we occupy than we do to time in the western sense of the word” (Deloria Jr., 1973). So, our continuing connection to the Land and fulfilling our role within that ongoing relationship is centered on our specific environment and the relationships it maintains. As one can see, the practice of law is greatly affected when climate change alters the landscapes and related natural resources, which Indigenous Peoples rely on.

9.3

Impacts of climate change on Indigenous governance

Whyte (2016) introduced the concept of “colonial déjà vu” to characterize how climate injustice is embedded within a cyclical and larger history of anthropogenic change driven by colonialism, industrialism and capitalism. This cyclical and structural legacy has also manifested in the supremacy of one knowledge system and its description of the climate “problem,” blocking discussions on the root causes of the biodiversity and climate crisis (Stoddard et al., 2021). Furthermore, this has manifested in the design and implementation of current environmental governance frameworks. For example, Mackey (2016) describes how some foundational concepts of ownership, separation and improvement that underlie western scientific thought—and by consequence, environmental governance—differ from Indigenous ways of knowing. When management or governance regimes are built upon these ideologies, the inherent rights of Indigenous Peoples are dominated, overshadowed and marginalized (Walsey and Brewer, 2018). Unfortunately, when Indigenous Peoples do participate, it has been limited due to power imbalances and differences in worldviews (e.g., western science emphasizes facts, whereas Indigenous Knowledge Systems emphasize relationships) (Littlechild, 2014). In this regard, Whyte (2019) discusses how these differences, including how climate “solutions” disregard the essential role of relationships, including those with our more-than-human kin, push society past both an ecological and relational tipping point.

Until recently, the most common response to addressing climate change impacts in the lives of Indigenous Peoples has included participation in climate approaches led by others. This has proven to be unsatisfactory (Indigenous Climate Action, 2021a; Reed et al., 2021b). There are few formal and public examples of Indigenous assertions of Indigenous climate governance and self-determination. The National Inuit Climate Change Strategy (ITK, 2019a) offers one such example. This strategy demonstrates how Indigenous Peoples are working towards addressing climate change issues from the local to global scales on our own terms and to create effective adaptation initiatives that speak to the needs and priorities of our communities (ITK, 2019a). A more regional example is the British Columbia First Nations Climate Strategy and Action Plan (British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, 2022), created with British Columbia First Nations and informed by Indigenous Knowledge, principles and worldviews. The objective of the Strategy is to: “Identify strategies and actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen Indigenous climate leadership in British Columbia, to reduce vulnerability to impacts and to build capacity, understanding and resilience in First Nations. The Strategy is intended to help guide climate responses while also communicating to governments and partners of priority areas. This will, in turn, remind governments and partners that successful climate action is possible only when co-created with First Nations in ways that protect and strengthen Title, Rights and jurisdiction, and when Indigenous Knowledge and unique connections to territories are respectfully acknowledged and thoroughly incorporated in all aspects of climate planning and action” (British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, 2022).

In support of Indigenous climate governance, First Nations, Inuit and Métis are developing our own culturally relevant climate toolkits and delivering training to youth, community activators and leaders (see the work of the Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources and the Arctic Institute of Community-Based Research, for example). A noteworthy example by the Métis Nation British Columbia (MNBC) is a virtual climate preparedness workshop series called Strengthening Our Resilience to Climate Change (MNBC, 2021). The purpose of the series was to share multi-generational knowledge, skills and experience to support good decision-making in a changing climate (refer to graphic on page 5 of MNBC, 2021).

The Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) developed the Environmental Conservation and Climate Change Office (ECCCO) toolkit known as Impact of Climate Change on Indigenous Women, Girls, Gender-Diverse and Two-Spirit People (NWAC and ECCCO, 2022). The purpose of the toolkit is to generate gender-diverse climate knowledge in support of decision-making. A key example of grassroots climate self-determination is the launch of Indigenous Climate Action’s Indigenous Climate Leadership Program and associated toolkit. These are intended to develop climate actions that are community derived and led (Indigenous Climate Action, 2021c). Finally, the First Nations Health Authority (FNHA) leads and administers a community-driven funding program focused on climate change—the FNHA’s Indigenous Climate Health Action Program (ICHAP) supports First Nations leadership in reducing climate change impacts on health. Projects through this program can support climate health in general or on developing a strategy or action plan to reduce climate change impacts on community health” (First Nations Health Authority, n.d.).

9.4

Adaptive Indigenous governance in the face of a changing climate

9.4.1 Indigenous-led opportunities and meaningful recognition

When Indigenous Peoples are in control of climate change policy and programming, as opposed to being managed by an external entity, the outcomes are drastically different (Thompson et al., 2020). Success of Indigenous-controlled climate actions, however, comes with the qualifier of needing sufficient funding and resources. Without adequate government support and investment, free of paternalistic conditions, even the most effective and prospective Indigenous-led climate actions will face challenges.

Examples of Indigenous-led climate actions include independent renewable resource development (Stefanelli et al., 2019), disaster recovery programming (Yellow Old Woman-Munro et al., 2021), and the codification and enforcement of Indigenous laws, such as Grand Council Treaty 3’s Great Resource Law and the Manito Aki Inakonigaawin, which ensure the duty to respect and protect Lands that may be affected from over-usage, degradation and un-ethical processes. The Tsleil-Waututh Nation in British Columbia conducted their own environmental assessment of Kinder Morgan’s proposed expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline using its Stewardship Policy as the assessment framework. The Policy is based on Tsleil-Waututh and Coast Salish legal principles and provides a site- and species-specific list of stewardship obligations (Curran and Napoleon, 2020). Additionally, the Siksika Nation in Alberta’s flood recovery system is centred on the legal principle of Ispommita, which connects community members and creates a shared belonging in response to the impacts of catastrophes related to climate change (Yellow Old Woman-Munro et al., 2021).

A necessary precursor to success in these types of programs is the meaningful recognition of Indigenous nationhood and self-determination (N. Wilson et al., 2018). Settlers must do their part to respect Indigenous Land relationships, honour legal obligations, restore governance, and institute action to ensure a respectful relationship (Irlbacher-Fox and MacNeill, 2020). The delegation of responsibilities to Indigenous Peoples, such as transferring customary maritime rights areas to Indigenous Peoples (Fischer et al., 2022), is requisite for the meaningful recognition of Indigenous rights and nationhood. The optimal outcome is sustainable self-determination, in which Nations have the capacity to manage resources and the Land according to traditional governance (Cameron et al., 2019). These Indigenous-led climate programs can then set standards for state entities in managing resources and the Land (Curran and Napoleon, 2020). Moreover, they begin to curb government control in favour of Indigenous environmental governance (Curran and Napoleon, 2020).

In terms of research, Indigenous-designed frameworks draw on traditional law and ensure more control and autonomy over data collection within communities (Reid et al., 2021). Indigenous Peoples and communities are involved in research on climate change and on projects and initiatives focused on renewable energy (CBC News, 2022; Hoicka et al., 2021; Mercer et al., 2020a; 2020b; 2020c; Stefanelli et al., 2019; McDiarmid, 2017), improving food security (Johnston and Spring, 2021; Desmarais, 2019; Lee et al., 2019; Delormier et al., 2017), monitoring impacts of climate change (N. Wilson et al., 2018), building on traditional knowledge to combat and adapt to the climate crisis (Thompson et al., 2019; Pearce et al., 2015; Reid et al., 2014), and engaging with youth, women, Elders, and the community to build on climate knowledge and action (Whitney et al., 2020; Arruda and Krutkowski, 2017; MacDonald et al., 2015; Allen et al., 2014; Big-Canoe and Richmond, 2014; Dowsley et al., 2010).

9.4.2 Collaboration, pluralistic approaches and partnerships

Collaborative approaches to the climate crisis that incorporate Indigenous and western knowledge systems are beneficial structures to facilitate Indigenous climate governance (Ermine, 2005). The benefits of these approaches include empowering self-determination (Cameron et al., 2019), reversing dependency on governments (Cameron et al., 2019), the development of shared priorities such as the need for holistic and integrative approaches and the complementary differences between the two knowledge systems (Thompson et al., 2020).

Examples of collaborative policy models include nation-to-nation resource sharing agreements, co-management of Lands and ocean resources, pluralistic legal frameworks and Indigenous environmental guardianship programs (see Case Story 14). The Gwaii Haanas Marine Agreement (‘Marine Agreement’) of 2010 expands shared responsibilities for cooperative planning, operation and management of Canada’s first national marine conservation reserve (Curran and Napoleon, 2020). The Marine Agreement explicitly names the Haida as a full partner and notes that the relationship will fail if one party unilaterally exercises jurisdiction (Curran and Napoleon, 2020). Bypassing state authorities, Indigenous Peoples have also entered impact and benefit agreements with industrial developers to prevent and reduce the negative effects of industrial projects and address the distribution of benefits to communities (Bowie, 2013).

There are several caveats raised in the scholarship when it comes to collaborative approaches and co-management. First, legal pluralism and collaboration may perpetuate “legal centrism,” in which Indigenous legal systems and knowledge are overshadowed by dominant legal systems (Richardson, 2008). Second, there remain cautions as to whether Indigenous Knowledge Systems and western science may be successfully framed as equal within a shared structure (see Case Story 14). As stated by Fischer et al. (2022), the two may be diametrically opposed: “we feel deeply that Indigenous and Traditional Peoples’ knowledge is for connecting and living, while western science is for conquering and controlling” (Fischer et al., 2022, p. 292).

Case Story 14

Enhancing the reintroduction of plains bison in Banff National Park through cultural monitoring and traditional knowledge

While collaborative approaches are gaining traction, there is still a need to ensure Indigenous Knowledge and practices are given equal consideration. First Nations, Inuit and Métis are working to have their expertise and traditional knowledge recognized and meaningfully implemented in co-management settings.

In 2017, Parks Canada released 16 bison in the northeast section of Banff National Park. This herd has since grown to over 60 animals roaming throughout the reintroduction area. Although Parks Canada has been monitoring the ecological impacts of this reintroduction, there has been little to no cultural monitoring data collected. In response, the Stoney Nakoda Nations prepared their own report, which emphasizes the importance of their traditional and cultural knowledge and provided recommendations for how they can be meaningfully included in the management of the buffalo. The report notes that western science, legislation, and policy continue to play the leading role in park management.

The report recommendations include several ways that Parks Canada and the Stoney Nakoda can work more closely together to ensure the continued success of the bison reintroduction program. Stoney Nakoda Elders and field technicians emphasized the importance of ceremony for project success at all stages of the Bison Cultural Project and the need for continued cultural monitoring. Cultural monitoring can be used to better understand bison herd dynamics, predator-prey relationships with wolves and grizzly bears, and to better describe the renewed connection to the Land by the Stoney Nakoda Nations. The report stresses that projects such as this are an integral part of Truth and Reconciliation and demonstrate how Traditional Ecological Knowledge can be woven with western science to define a more holistic approach to park management.

Meaningfully including Stoney Nakoda people and knowledge in the bison reintroduction in Banff National Park is a way to not only ensure the successful reintroduction of bison to the landscape but also to ensure the reconnection of the Stoney Nakoda peoples to their ancestral and sacred territories.

Source: Stoney Nakoda Nations (2022)

9.4.3 International collaboration, knowledge-sharing and solidarity

Globalization has the positive effect of facilitating communication and sharing of strategies and solutions among global Indigenous Peoples (Fischer et al., 2022). Knowledge-sharing and solidarity on the international stage bridge diverse knowledge systems and challenge historical tactics of division inherent to colonization (Cameron et al., 2019). On the international stage, Indigenous Peoples have pushed for the inclusion of their knowledge, rights, and governance in conventions and initiatives such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, the IPCC, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). In the UNFCCC, Indigenous Peoples secured the inclusion of rights-based language in the preamble to the Paris Agreement and five other references to Indigenous Peoples, including the recognition of their knowledge (Art. 7, para. 5). The emergence of references to Indigenous Peoples within the UNFCCC has been tracked by the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change and the Centre for International Environmental Law (UNFCCC, 2021), showing a clear positive increase in references to Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous Knowledge.

A key outcome of this work can be found in the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform, which, after several years of negotiation, created the Facilitative Working Group (FWG)—the first constituted body under the UNFCCC with equal representation between Indigenous Peoples and States. The term “local communities” has raised serious concern among Indigenous Peoples, leading to a slow erosion of rights afforded to Indigenous Peoples in international documents, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Inuit Circumpolar Council Canada has released a position paper in this regard, arguing that “…the practice of lumping Inuit and other Indigenous peoples together with ‘local communities’ is part of an alarming trend in the behavior of States to diminish the standards in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including actions to devalue Indigenous peoples’ status, rights, and role” (ICC, 2020). Similar positions have been taken by the Assembly of First Nations and the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

In the context of the IPCC, a 2023 article (Carmona et al., 2023) assesses how its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) recognizes and promotes Indigenous Peoples’ role and knowledge systems in climate governance. The article used a content analysis of the Working Groups I, II, and III reports, as well as the Synthesis Report, to show a growing number of references to Indigenous Peoples and their knowledge systems compared to previous assessment reports. Despite this growth, they also found that the IPCC continues to reproduce a reductionist approach to Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and rights, which risks promoting harmful stereotypes that increase inequity. As the IPCC prepares for the Seventh Assessment Report (AR7), Indigenous Peoples are preparing to increase their involvement to ensure further progress.

Progress was also made with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in December 2022, where Indigenous Peoples’ rights were explicitly recognized, including in relation to the new 30 by 30 Target (which calls for at least 30% of terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine areas to be effectively conserved and managed by 2023).

Footnotes

For more information, see the video Métis National Council Wildfire Workshop available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe45DiYvgd4 ↩