The Canadian Arctic is experiencing climate change at a rate two to three times faster than the global average. For Inuit communities who have thrived in this challenging environment for millennia, this rapid transformation presents unprecedented challenges. Yet, drawing on their deep connection to the land, traditional knowledge, and innovative spirit, Inuit are leading the way in climate change adaptation, offering lessons of resilience that resonate far beyond the Arctic Circle.
The Changing Face of the North
The impacts of climate change in the Arctic are stark and far-reaching. Melting sea ice, thawing permafrost, and changing wildlife patterns are not just environmental concerns – they strike at the heart of Inuit culture, livelihoods, and well-being.
Sheila Watt-Cloutier, renowned Inuit activist and author, puts it powerfully: “What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic. The environmental issues we face are a glimpse into the future for the rest of the world. Our struggle for survival is humanity’s struggle for survival.”
Traditional Knowledge: The Bedrock of Adaptation
At the core of Inuit resilience is Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) – traditional knowledge passed down through generations. This holistic understanding of the environment is proving invaluable in navigating the challenges of a changing climate.
Adaptive Hunting and Travel
As sea ice becomes less predictable, Inuit hunters are adapting their practices, combining traditional knowledge with modern technology. In Nunavut, hunters use GPS and satellite imagery alongside traditional navigation methods to safely traverse changing ice conditions.
Tommy Akulukjuk, an Inuk hunter from Pangnirtung, shares, “Our Elders taught us to read the ice, the wind, the currents. Now, we’re teaching our youth to use these skills alongside new technologies. It’s about adapting our traditions, not abandoning them.”
Changing Food Systems
(Image Credit: Getty Images, Licensed from Unsplash)
Climate change is altering the availability of traditional food sources. In response, many communities are revitalizing traditional food preservation techniques while exploring new food sources.
In Nunavik, northern Quebec, community freezers stocked with country food (traditional game and fish) are helping to ensure food security as hunting conditions become more unpredictable. Simultaneously, some communities are experimenting with greenhouse agriculture, adapting southern growing techniques to the Arctic environment.
Community-Led Initiatives
(Image Credit – Dion Tavenier, Unsplash)
Across the Canadian Arctic, Inuit communities are taking the lead in developing and implementing adaptation strategies.
The Nunavut Climate Change Centre
Established by the Government of Nunavut, the Nunavut Climate Change Centre is a hub for climate adaptation initiatives. It combines scientific research with Inuit knowledge to develop practical adaptation strategies.
David Kunuk, a coordinator at the centre, explains, “We’re bringing together Elders, hunters, and scientists to understand how climate change is affecting our communities and what we can do about it. It’s about finding solutions that work for us, rooted in our culture and knowledge.”
SmartICE: Bridging Traditional Knowledge and Technology
SmartICE (Sea-ice Monitoring And Real-Time Information for Coastal Environments) is an innovative program that integrates traditional knowledge of sea ice with state-of-the-art technology. Developed in partnership with Inuit communities, SmartICE provides real-time information on ice conditions, enhancing safety for hunters and travellers.
Trevor Bell, the founder of SmartICE, notes, “This isn’t just about technology – it’s about supporting Inuit knowledge and decision-making. The system is designed and operated by Inuit, for Inuit.”
Health and Well-being in a Changing North
Climate change poses significant challenges to Inuit health and well-being, from increased risk of accidents on unstable ice to impacts on mental health as traditional ways of life are disrupted.
Mental Health Initiatives
Many communities are developing mental health programs that incorporate traditional Inuit values and practices. The Aullak, sangilivallianginnatuk (Going Off, Growing Strong) program in Nain, Nunatsiavut, combines on-the-land activities with mental health support, helping youth build resilience in the face of rapid change.
Revitalizing Traditional Medicine
As the Arctic ecosystem changes, some traditional medicinal plants are becoming scarcer. In response, initiatives like the Nunavik Inuit Research Centre are working to document traditional medicinal knowledge and explore ways to cultivate important plants locally.
Policy and Advocacy: Inuit Voices on the Global Stage
Inuit leaders are ensuring that Arctic voices are heard in national and international climate policy discussions.
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami’s National Inuit Climate Change Strategy
The Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), the national representational organization for Inuit in Canada, has developed a comprehensive National Inuit Climate Change Strategy. This strategy outlines Inuit-led approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation, emphasizing the importance of Inuit knowledge in policymaking.
Natan Obed, President of ITK, states, “Our strategy isn’t just about adapting to climate change – it’s about asserting our right to self-determination in how we respond to this crisis. It’s about ensuring Inuit knowledge and priorities are at the forefront of Arctic climate policy.”
International Advocacy
Inuit leaders are also active on the international stage, bringing Arctic perspectives to global climate negotiations. Their advocacy emphasizes the interconnectedness of Arctic climate change with global systems and the importance of Indigenous leadership in climate solutions.
Challenges and Opportunities
While Inuit communities are demonstrating remarkable resilience, significant challenges remain. Limited infrastructure, high costs of living, and the rapid pace of change all complicate adaptation efforts. However, these challenges are also driving innovation and strengthening community bonds.
The Arctic’s changing climate also presents new economic opportunities, from increased shipping to tourism. However, Inuit leaders stress the importance of approaching these opportunities sustainably and in ways that benefit local communities.
Lessons for the World
The Inuit experience of climate change adaptation offers valuable lessons for communities worldwide. It demonstrates the importance of local knowledge in developing effective adaptation strategies, the power of community-led initiatives, and the need for holistic approaches that consider environmental, cultural, and social factors.
Inuit Leadership in a Changing World
As the Arctic continues to warm, Inuit communities stand as global leaders in climate change adaptation. Their approaches, rooted in traditional knowledge yet open to innovation, offer a model of resilience in the face of unprecedented change.
The story of Arctic adaptation is one of challenge and hope — of a people drawing on ancient wisdom to face a rapidly changing future. As the world grapples with the global impacts of climate change, we would do well to look to the North, where Inuit communities are lighting the way towards a resilient, adaptive future.
Sheila Watt-Cloutier, a prominent Inuit activist, emphasizes that Indigenous Peoples should not be viewed merely as victims of climate change. Instead, she highlights their profound understanding of their environment and their remarkable resilience. Watt-Cloutier argues that the Indigenous experience of thriving in challenging environments has equipped them with unique insights and abilities. These skills and knowledge, she suggests, position Indigenous peoples to take a leading role in global efforts to address and adapt to climate change. A truly remarkable people.
As we face a future of increasing climate uncertainty, the resilience, knowledge, and leadership of Inuit communities offer not just inspiration but practical lessons in how to adapt, survive, and thrive in a changing world.
Blog by Rye Karonhiowanen Barberstock
(Header Image Credit: Unsplash Community, Licensed by Unsplash)
The post Arctic Resilience: Inuit Communities at the Forefront of Climate Change Adaptation appeared first on Indigenous Climate Hub.
Arctic Resilience: Inuit Communities at the Forefront of Climate Change Adaptation
Governments at the COP17 nature summit in Armenia agreed on Saturday to scale up their policies to protect the planet’s shrinking biodiversity, and for the first time invited large emerging economies like China and Gulf states to take on donor responsibilities to help fund those efforts.
For the past two weeks, countries held talks in Yerevan under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to outline a plan to ramp up currently “insufficient” policies to conserve land and marine ecosystems. A recent UN progress report found the world is off track to meet 22 out of 23 global targets aimed at reversing species loss and protecting 30% of land and seas by 2030.
While a response plan, called the “Global Review of Collective Progress”, was expected to be the main outcome of COP17, negotiations struggled to advance amid a deadlock over the controversial subject of how to finance the boost in conservation measures needed.
After an all-night session on Friday, delegates agreed to invite developing countries to voluntarily signal their interest in assuming donor funding obligations alongside developed nations. Negotiators repeatedly warned that any stronger provisions on expanding the donor base would collapse the deal.
COP president: Results beat expectations
An exhausted COP17 president Hambardzum Matevosyan, Armenia’s environment minister, told journalists in the early hours of Saturday that “we’ve achieved more than we could’ve expected” given the “importance” of the decisions being taken.
“It was 100% possible that those items did not made it through. 100% possible,” he said, adding that the conference had made progress on “all the most important items”.
Speaking at the closing plenary, the group of Pacific Islands said that, while the summit had achieved “great outcomes”, delegates are also departing Yerevan “with realities not reflected in the official text”, such as the low replenishment of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a key funder of nature projects.
-
Lula’s election win in Brazil raises hopes for zero deforestation drive
Lula’s re-election makes it more likely Brazil can meet a key goal to end forest loss in the Amazon and builds confidence in a new fund to protect the world’s rainforests, experts say
Some observers also said the deal did not go far enough. Steven Guilbeault, a former Canadian environment minister who helped broker the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), said the Yerevan package of action is “an important step forward”, but still “falls short of what is needed to meet our 2030 commitments”.
An Lambrechts, biodiversity politics expert at Greenpeace International, said COP17 had kept things moving forward and set well-intentioned promises, but added that these “won’t remove major roadblocks to implementation” such as insufficient finance and debt constraints in developing countries.
WWF chief conservation officer Daudi Sumba noted that financial issues were not fully resolved. Despite the deal in Yerevan, “I fear finance will remain the key issue that continues to haunt the UN biodiversity summits,” he said in a statement.
‘Yerevan Pathway’ tackles nature plans and subsidies
In the lead-up to the summit, the UN assessment report showed countries are falling short on virtually all targets in the GBF, the 2022 global deal often referred to as the ‘Paris Agreement for nature’.
They include a landmark target to protect at least 30% of the planet’s land and sea by 2030. If countries all stick to their current national goals, about 26% of land would be protected and only about 12% of marine ecosystems would be under conservation measures.
The main COP17 decision – named the Yerevan Pathway by the presidency – calls for countries to revise their biodiversity plans, subject to available funding, with a particular focus on addressing the gap in coverage of “marine, coastal and inland water ecosystems”.
It also urges the over 60 countries who have not submitted a biodiversity plan yet to finalise them “as soon as possible” and taking into account the gaps identified by the UN progress report.
Countries also agreed to tackle the drivers of biodiversity loss by “accelerating” the reduction of subsidies for activities that damage nature. Subsidy reform, covered by Target 18 of the GBF, is where countries have made the least progress so far, according to the assessment report.
Jill Hepp, director of nature and marine policy and incentives at green group Conservation International, said singling out subsidies in the Yerevan Pathway “gives a strong signal” that closing the gap for biodiversity action requires “more urgent efforts to reform harmful incentives and scale up positive incentives”.
“Timid” steps to expand base of donors
Having failed to meet a target to channel $20 billion for biodiversity conservation by 2025 and faced with shrinking aid budgets, the EU pushed a proposal to expand the list of which countries count as donors, so that wealthy emerging economies like China and Saudi Arabia could also voluntarily contribute. The group of Arab nations strongly opposed this.
During the talks, Irish minister of state for nature, Christopher O’Sullivan, whose country holds the EU presidency, said the bloc wanted the world’s “new realities” to be reflected in the donor list.
Negotiations remained gridlocked for most of the two-week talks, until a last-day compromise was struck to invite developing countries that may want donor status “to indicate to the [Convention on Biological Diversity] secretariat their interest in being included in the corresponding list”.
Countries also asked the secretariat to send an invitation to emerging economies wanting donor status at each subsequent COP, and requested a technical report on “the implications of inclusion in the list” for emerging economies.
Swiss lead negotiator Gabriela Blatter said during one of the sessions that her country had expected greater steps towards expanding the base of contributing countries, but added that “if we’re mutually unhappy, it’s probably the closest we can get on these very delicate political compromises”. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, also noted their dissatisfaction but said it had expected “a lot less”.
The fragile deal was approved in a package of decisions together with the Global Review, after some delegations including Brazil and China appealed to the plenary not to make further changes to the text at the risk of collapsing the whole agreement.
In a statement delivered to the closing plenary, the EU said the finance outcome had delivered “timid” progress towards fully broadening the base of donors.
Cali Fund still not operational
Adopted two years ago at COP16, the Cali Fund was seen by some observers as a way to channel private-sector finance into biodiversity conservation, as governments struggle to find public funds. But it is still struggling to get up on its feet.
The fund allows big corporations to access certificates for the use of genetic material found in biodiversity in return for a financial contribution, which experts estimate has the potential to raise up to $6.9bn for biodiversity. While voluntary, companies are encouraged to pay 1% of their profits or 0.1% of revenue into the fund.
But since its creation, the fund has received little more than $10,000, which Guilbeault argued is because the rules for disbursements to local communities and the operation of the fund had yet to be fleshed out. This was due to happen at COP17.
Yet, while the final decision on the fund laid out some of the rules – including how companies can earn “Cali Fund certificates” – some key technical details were left to the next COP in 2028 in Ecuador. This includes the issue of whether companies can pay a lower rate if they use genetic data for only a small portion of their products.
“By punting essential decisions to two years from now, parties have all but ensured the fund remains empty until then,” said Pakhi Das, a public policy advisor at NGO Plant-for-the-Planet.
The post COP17 delivers fragile deal to boost conservation and funding for nature appeared first on Climate Home News.
COP17 delivers fragile deal to boost conservation and funding for nature
SYDNEY, Thursday 30 October 2026 — In response to reports that the Albanese government is set to introduce draft legislation this year that would seek to ban data centres in Australia’s suburbs, Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“These reports are a testament to the growing community opposition to these completely inappropriate AI factories that have sprung up across our suburbs, and Big Tech corporations should take heed — the data centre build-out must not happen without the endorsement of the Australian people.
“But the government can’t simply ship this problem out to regional Australia without addressing the fundamental issues with this extractive new industry.
“We’re already seeing a trend of AI data centre proposals moving to the regions, in areas that are more water-scarce, more environmentally sensitive, and next to sources of fracked and coal seam gas to support their massive BYO gas-fired power plans — a pattern we’ve seen play out in the United States.
“From the Beetaloo Basin in the NT to the Western Downs in Qld, we’re seeing a wave of AI data centre proposals that would see new gas fast-tracked to support their massive energy demand, and threaten to completely derail Australia’s energy transition.
“Just as suburban Australians are asking, “what for?”, regional communities like Berry Springs and Dalby do not want dirty data centres setting up shop with absolutely no benefit to their communities. Greenpeace is calling for a moratorium on AI data centre developments until strict and enforceable safeguards are in place to protect our climate and our communities.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on +61 406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
AI data centre ban in suburbs would not address fundamental issues: Greenpeace
In the thick of the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan in 2024, the UN climate talks were rattled by what can only be described as a major PR disaster. The BBC, Reuters and The Guardian all carried headlines, attributed to leading climate policy experts, that the COPs were “no longer fit for purpose”.
The articles outlined a series of reforms called for in an open letter signed by 22 eminent scientists and politicians, including a former UN secretary-general and previous UN climate chief, with a further 150 lending their support. The headlines shook confidence in the COP process, just as governments were wrestling over a new climate finance goal.
The Club of Rome – which handled the media relations for the letter – hurried to say that its “constructive, supportive ideas” had been “misinterpreted”. Negotiators kept calm(ish) and carried on, in the end landing the finance goal after some high-stakes drama on the final day.
-
Early speakers’ list suggests few powerful leaders will attend COP31
Just 77 heads of state or government are scheduled to address the COP31 climate summit in Antalya, a third less than the COP28 peak -
Africa wants adaptation finance on COP31 agenda, raising risk of a fight
The African Group wants dedicated space on tripling adaptation finance, the Green Climate Fund and trade, setting up a possible clash
To my surprise, when I went back this week to read the letter again, I could not find the offending line about the COPs not being fit for purpose. The Club of Rome has yet to respond to my query about its disappearance.
Whatever happened to the wording, that sentiment has been widely shared. COPs have ballooned in size while the importance of their outcomes seems to have diminished since the 2015 Paris Agreement (with the exception of the 2023 COP in Dubai where countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems).
The same on the surface
Two years on from those painful headlines in Baku, has anything changed for the better? You might be forgiven for thinking not. Official decisions are still made by consensus rather than the majority voting some have called for to stop blockers.
Tens of thousands of officials, activists and business execs still scurry around the halls to an ever-growing list of side events, roundtables and dialogues, while deals still come down to rows, all-nighters and jargon-filled texts adopted to rounds of applause.
But it would not be true to say that COPs have completely failed to respond to the very real need to translate the words of the Paris Agreement into action in the outside world.
Global warming is projected to be around 1.3C lower this century than it would have been if the world had not committed to tackle the climate crisis under that accord. Developing countries have a valued space at COPs in which their voices have equal weight in decision-making, unlike in many other international fora. And most importantly, perhaps, there has been a subtle shift, tipping the balance away from negotiating towards doing.
Brazil branded last year’s summit in Belém as the “COP of Implementation”, corralling the sprawling Action Agenda into six axes. This was a bid to impose some structure on the mushrooming efforts between governments, UN agencies, cities, businesses and civil society to set targets and spur faster results on their pet issues, from methane emissions to health and adaptation in conflict zones. COP30 alone saw the launch of 120 “plans to accelerate solutions”.
COP30 roadmaps off the cuff
Meanwhile, as the formal negotiations drew to a close, it was clear that consensus decision-making was evolving into something a little more improvised.
With only around half of all countries on board with the idea of a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels, COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago announced his team would put one together over the coming year, along with another on how to meet a global goal to halt deforestation by 2030. Those roadmaps will be launched next week, presented and discussed at COP31, though it’s still unclear whether or how they’ll be incorporated into the formal negotiating agenda.
