Connect with us

Published

2 years ago

on

As climate change intensifies the threat of wildfires across Canada, many are turning to the traditional knowledge of First Nations for solutions. For thousands of years, Indigenous Peoples have been stewards of the forests, using sophisticated land management techniques to maintain ecological balance. Today, these time-honoured practices are gaining recognition as powerful tools in mitigating wildfires and reducing carbon emissions.

The Ancient Wisdom of Fire Management

Long before the concept of carbon emissions entered our vocabulary, First Nations across Canada were practicing advanced forms of forest management, with fire playing a central role.

Cultural Burning: A Time-Honoured Tradition

Cultural burning, also known as prescribed or traditional burning, involves deliberately setting small, controlled fires to manage the landscape. This practice, passed down through generations, serves multiple purposes: it reduces fuel loads that could feed larger fires, promotes biodiversity, and maintains the health of ecosystems.

Elder Mack Michell of the Nlaka’pamux Nation in British Columbia explains, “Our ancestors understood fire as a tool, not just a threat. They knew that small fires could prevent big ones, that some plants need fire to thrive, and that a diverse forest is a healthy forest.”

Traditional Practices in Modern Wildfire Management

Today, many First Nations are working to revitalize and apply these traditional practices in the context of modern wildfire management. An online Indigenous resource can be found here: Cultural Burning & Prescribed Fire.

The Revitalization of Cultural Burning

(Image Credit: Karsten, Winegeart, Unsplash)

In recent years, there’s been a resurgence of cultural burning practices across Canada. In British Columbia, the First Nations’ Emergency Services Society has been training Indigenous firefighters in both modern techniques and traditional burning practices.

Shane Warwick, a firefighter from the Stz’uminus First Nation, shares his experience: “Learning about cultural burning has been eye-opening. It’s not just about fighting fires; it’s about working with the land to prevent them. This knowledge, combined with our modern training, makes us more effective in protecting our communities.”

Traditional Knowledge in Fire Prediction and Response

First Nations’ deep understanding of local ecosystems is proving invaluable in predicting and responding to wildfire risks. In Alberta, the Beaver Lake Cree Nation has developed a wildfire management plan that incorporates traditional knowledge about weather patterns, vegetation cycles, and wildlife behaviour.

Crystal Lameman, a member of Beaver Lake Cree Nation, explains, “Our Elders can read the land in ways that complement modern scientific methods. By combining these approaches, we’re better able to anticipate and prepare for wildfire risks.”

Carbon Sequestration Through Traditional Land Management

Beyond wildfire mitigation, First Nations’ forest management practices have significant implications for carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation.

Promoting Forest Diversity and Resilience

(Image Credit: Jaël Vallée, Unsplash)

Traditional First Nations land management promotes diverse, multi-age forests that are more resilient to climate change and more effective at sequestering carbon. In Ontario, the Wikwemikong First Nation is working to restore mixed-wood forests, combining traditional knowledge with scientific research on carbon sequestration.

Forester Shauna Tait explains, “A diverse forest isn’t just more resistant to pests and diseases; it’s also better at storing carbon. By promoting a mix of species and age classes, we’re creating forests that can adapt to climate change while helping to mitigate it.”

Traditional Harvesting Practices and Carbon Storage

Many First Nations practice selective harvesting techniques that maintain forest cover and carbon stocks. The Iisaak Forest Resources, a forestry company owned by the Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations on Vancouver Island, employs traditional harvesting methods that prioritize ecosystem health alongside timber production.

Anne Mack, Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks Coordinator, notes, “Our approach to forestry is about balance. We harvest in a way that respects the forest’s ability to regenerate and continue storing carbon. It’s about thinking seven generations ahead, as our teachings instruct us.”

Challenges and Opportunities in Implementing Traditional Practices

While the value of traditional forest management practices is increasingly recognized, challenges remain in their widespread implementation.

Regulatory Hurdles

Many current forestry and fire management regulations were developed without consideration for traditional practices. Some First Nations face bureaucratic obstacles when trying to implement cultural burning or traditional harvesting methods.

Joe Gilchrist, Fire Keeper for Stz’uminus First Nation, describes the frustration: “We know these practices work – our ancestors used them for thousands of years. But sometimes we have to jump through hoops to get permits for cultural burns. It’s a challenge, but we’re working with government agencies to change this.”

Knowledge Gaps and Capacity Building

As many communities work to revitalize traditional practices, there’s a need for knowledge transfer between Elders and younger generations. Additionally, building capacity within communities to implement these practices on a larger scale is an ongoing process.

Collaborative Approaches: Bridging Traditional and Western Knowledge

Some of the most promising initiatives in forest stewardship involve collaboration between First Nations, government agencies, and academic institutions.

The Indigenous Fire Marshall Office

The newly established Indigenous Fire Marshall Office is working to integrate traditional knowledge into fire safety and prevention strategies across Canada. This initiative aims to build capacity within First Nations communities while promoting the value of Indigenous fire management practices.

Research Partnerships

Universities across Canada are partnering with First Nations to study the effectiveness of traditional forest management practices. The University of British Columbia’s Faculty of Forestry, for instance, has several ongoing projects examining the ecological impacts of cultural burning.

Dr. Lori Daniels, a professor of forest ecology, shares, “Our research is showing that many of these traditional practices not only reduce wildfire risk but also promote biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. It’s a powerful validation of Indigenous knowledge.”

Policy Implications: Recognizing Traditional Stewardship

The growing recognition of First Nations’ forest stewardship practices is beginning to influence policy at various levels of government.

British Columbia’s Cultural and Prescribed Fire Program

In 2020, British Columbia launched a Cultural and Prescribed Fire Program, explicitly recognizing the value of Indigenous burning practices in wildfire management. This program provides funding and support for First Nations to implement cultural burning projects.

Federal Recognition of Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas

The federal government’s commitment to protecting 30% of Canada’s lands and waters by 2030 includes recognition of Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs). These areas managed according to Indigenous values and practices, play a crucial role in both conservation and carbon sequestration.

First Nations Leading the Way in Forest Resilience

As Canada grapples with the dual challenges of increasing wildfire risks and the need to reduce carbon emissions, First Nations’ traditional forest management practices offer a path forward. These time-honoured techniques, refined over millennia, demonstrate that effective forest stewardship is about more than just preventing fires or maximizing timber yield – it’s about maintaining a holistic balance within ecosystems.

The resurgence of these practices represents not just a return to traditional ways but a sophisticated, forward-thinking approach to forest management in the age of climate change. As First Nations reassert their role as stewards of the land, they’re not only protecting their own communities but offering valuable lessons for forest management across Canada and beyond.

In the words of Clearwater River Dene Nation Elder Evelyn Kittayacoot, “The forest has always been our home, our grocery store, our pharmacy. When we care for the forest with respect and wisdom, it cares for us in return. This is the teaching we offer to all who are willing to listen and learn.”

As we face an uncertain climate future, the revival of First Nations’ forest stewardship practices offers hope – a reminder that sometimes, the most innovative solutions are rooted in ancient wisdom.

Blog by Rye Karonhiowanen Barberstock

(Header Image Credit: Matt Howard, Unsplash)

The post Forest Stewardship: First Nations’ Traditional Practices in Mitigating Wildfires and Carbon Emissions appeared first on Indigenous Climate Hub.

Forest Stewardship: First Nations’ Traditional Practices in Mitigating Wildfires and Carbon Emissions

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Climate Change

Coles, Woolworths failing on deforestation commitments 

Published

6 hours ago

on

August 25, 2026

By

SYDNEY, Wednesday 26 August 2026 — New 2026 Sustainability Reports released by supermarket giants Coles and Woolworths this week demonstrate the retailers are failing on their commitments to end deforestation in their supply chains.

Adele Chasson, Nature Policy Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific said:

“These so-called sustainability reports are revealing. Despite their public commitments in 2024 and 2025, neither Coles nor Woolworths have taken deforestation-linked beef off their shelves. Meanwhile, bulldozers continue to tear up forests and bushland, pushing wildlife closer to extinction and causing mass toxic runoff to flow into the Great Barrier Reef. Millions of native animals like koalas are losing their homes to beef pastures each year, while the big supermarkets put off action.

“Australians would be shocked to know that beef on the shelves of our biggest supermarkets could be pushing threatened species to the brink of extinction. Collectively Coles and Woolworths have made more than $2 billion in profits in the last year, profiting from the destruction of wildlife and precious Australian nature. Coles and Woolworths owe it to shoppers to deliver on their promises and end deforestation in their supply chains now.

“As big beef buyers, Coles and Woolworths have an essential role to play in keeping Australia’s unique forests standing. They can help stop the Great Barrier Reef from being poisoned by runoff and protect iconic forest wildlife by taking deforestation off their shelves. It’s time these big companies put their money where their mouths are and follow through on their promise of sourcing and supplying deforestation-free beef.”

Coles, Woolworths failing on deforestation commitments 

Continue Reading

Climate Change

New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation

Published

2 days ago

on

August 24, 2026

By

New Zealand’s parliament has adopted a controversial new law blocking a whole avenue of climate litigation and shutting down its most advanced corporate lawsuit, which has been blamed by the government for shaking business confidence and investment.

The Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, expected to take effect in the coming days after it is formally signed by the Governor-General, prevents all current and future civil claims for climate loss or harm under tort law.

Justice minister Paul Goldsmith said last week that the aim was to give businesses “certainty around their climate change obligations”, noting it would not alter the government’s responsibilities under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 nor business obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme.

“Our response to climate change is best managed by the Government at a national level and not through piece-meal litigation in the courts,” he added in a statement.

Such litigation, he said, “risks developing a new regime that contradicts the framework Parliament has already enacted” to tackle climate change.

    Goldsmith singled out a key domestic climate lawsuit brought by Northland iwi leader and activist Mike Smith against six big companies: dairy firms Fonterra and Dairy Holdings, energy firms Genesis Energy and Z Energy, New Zealand Steel and coal mining firm BT Mining. A seventh original defendant, Channel Infrastructure, was dropped after it permanently decommissioned its Marsden Point oil refinery.

    Smith argued that these companies had caused him harm under public nuisance and negligence law, as well as a third breach of a duty to cease contributing to climate change that has yet to be tested domestically. He did not seek financial compensation, instead asking for the companies to immediately stop emitting or contributing to net greenhouse gas emissions.

    In one of the most advanced corporate climate accountability lawsuits in the world, a trial had been scheduled for April 2027 after the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the case to continue.

    Corporate lobbying in the shadows

    Smith described the passing of the bill as “deeply concerning”, particularly as it coincided with the Supreme Court hearing another of his climate lawsuits. In that case, Smith v Attorney-General, he argues that the government’s response to climate change and its impacts on Māori communities in particular breaches rights to life and culture.

    “That timing raises profound questions about the separation of powers and the rule of law,” said Smith. “Whatever one’s view of the merits of these cases, it is deeply troubling when parliament intervenes to remove a legal pathway while the courts are actively considering fundamental questions about climate responsibility, rights and the crown’s obligations.”

    The bill – which says that no person (including the government) can be found liable in tort for emissions-related climate change effects – followed major lobbying efforts by the companies defending themselves in Smith’s lawsuit. They outlined a proposed legal amendment in a briefing note to the government in 2024.

    The centre-right government has been fiercely criticised over its lack of transparency in relation to this lobbying activity. The national ombudsman recently found that the Prime Minister’s Office effectively withheld information requested by the Environmental Law Initiative about meetings, discussions and conversations regarding Smith’s case.

    Green groups fail to stop bill

    The bill sparked huge concern among environmental campaigners in New Zealand and elsewhere. Greenpeace Aotearoa called it a “shocking abuse of executive power” and the vast majority of submissions to a parliamentary inquiry said it should be rejected.

    But in the end, it was adopted with little resistance, moving relatively smoothly through parliament, passing its third reading by 67 votes to 53. Sam Bookman, climate law lecturer at Melbourne Law School, told Climate Home News he was not surprised by this, given that the coalition government has a secure majority.

    A complaint has been made to the UN special rapporteur on climate change and human rights by Smith, the National Iwi Chairs Forum Pou Tikanga and youth coalition Climate Clinic Aotearoa over what they see as the government’s heavy-handed approach. Smith is also challenging the new law in yet another lawsuit.

    “Pathetic”: New Zealand plans to barely cut emissions between 2030 and 2035

    Bookman thinks it “very unlikely” that such a challenge will succeed, noting that New Zealand’s constitution is firmly anchored in parliamentary sovereignty.

    But the expert in climate law does not see the bill as the end of legal action in the country, noting that New Zealand has a “sophisticated climate litigation landscape with a growing number of specialist and experienced lawyers and NGOs”.

    The country is also approaching its next general election in November, and some opposition parties have pledged to restore access to the courts if elected.

    Amanda Larsson, global project lead on agriculture for Greenpeace International, said: “This law deserves to be tested, and I strongly encourage the international climate litigation community to unite and help defend New Zealanders’ fundamental right to hold polluters accountable before this becomes a global blueprint.”

    Copycat legislation on the rise

    New Zealand’s move is part of a small but growing legislative effort to shut down climate litigation around the world.

    In the US, Republican politicians introduced legislation in the House and Senate in April that would shield fossil fuel firms from climate liability lawsuits. Similar laws have already been passed at state level in Tennessee, Utah, Iowa and Louisiana.

    The German state of Bavaria has put forward a similar proposal to the Federal Council, aiming to block private climate claims as well as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments imposing such liability. There are also proposals to limit available remedies and actions in the Netherlands and Belgium.

    UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court

    Bookman said he expects more efforts to counter climate damages litigation and advised plaintiffs to think about how to respond, including drawing on broader support in opposing them.

    “Even though it’s very hard for plaintiffs to win these types of cases, companies are very eager to avoid the expense, embarrassment and political accountability that come even with unsuccessful lawsuits,” he said.

    The post New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation appeared first on Climate Home News.

    New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry 

    Published

    2 days ago

    on

    August 24, 2026

    By

    Bhima Yudhistira Adhinegara is the Executive Director of the Center of Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS), an Indonesia-based economic think tank. Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat is the Director of the China-Indonesia desk at CELIOS. 

    Indonesia produces around 60% of the world’s nickel, a metal used to manufacture batteries for electric vehicles (EVs) – more than any other country in the world. But in 2026, the government sharply reduced how much of its nickel can be extracted from the ground.

    Production quotas were reduced by around 40% this year compared to 2025. Weda Bay, the largest nickel mine on Earth, had its allowance cut by more than 70% and exhausted its full-year quota by the end of May, halting mining entirely; it cannot resume large-scale extraction until next year unless regulators grant an extension.

    The policy has sparked a vivid debate in Indonesian policy circles: how can the country shift its strategy from a decade of mining vast quantities of cheap nickel to producing a high-value and low-carbon material that the rest of the world wants for EV batteries.

    The cuts aren’t a silver bullet to clean up Indonesia’s nickel industry, whose smelters are powered by coal – the most polluting fossil fuels. But alongside stricter enforcement of environmental rules, it is one side of efforts to produce more sustainable nickel for a premium.

    Restricting Indonesia’s nickel output

    Production quotas were introduced to stop the collapse of nickel prices because of oversupply in the market. Prices had fallen more than 40% in 2023 alone and kept sliding as Indonesian supply kept growing, hitting a four-year low of around $13,900 a ton in late 2025.

    Critics called the recent tightening of production quotas proof that Indonesia’s nickel strategy has failed, arguing that the industry shouldn’t need to throttle its own output to survive. But when assessed against what the policy was supposed to do – push up nickel prices – it has worked. Prices jumped to $20,000 a ton in May, the highest since 2024.

      Chinese industry groups representing companies that have invested billions to mine and refine the country’s nickel were furious, warning Indonesia’s president Prabowo Subianto that the cuts put $50 billion worth of investment at risk. But much of that Chinese capital is sunk into smelters and processing plants built specifically to run on Indonesian ore, and cannot simply be moved elsewhere. That gives Jakarta more room to hold its ground than the warning suggests.

      Stronger environmental enforcement

      Since the start of the year, Indonesia’s forestry task force has seized more than four million hectares of land from mines and plantations operating illegally in protected forests, collecting over two trillion rupiah ($113 million) in fines.

      This included 148 hectares seized from Weda Bay for lacking a forestry permit. The share of nickel produced from illegal small-scale mining also fell from about a quarter in 2022 to roughly 10% by 2024.

      The crackdown responds to serious environmental damages in the nickel industry. On Obi Island, a waste pond collapsed after heavy rain in June 2025, flooding three villages and killing a resident. Internal company tests found chromium-6 – a carcinogen – in the water, in quantities far above the legal limit. The footprint of another mine near Raja Ampat, which is home to some of the world’s richest coral reefs, grew 60-fold in just eight years.

      A coastal village is wedged between the sea and a large nickel mine in Indonesia
      The fishing villages of Tapunggaya in Sulawesi, Indonesia, are squeezed between the sea and an expanding nickel mine (Photo by Garry Lotulung/NurPhoto)

      The market is responding to early cleanup efforts. Low-carbon nickel now sells for a real premium, roughly $18,800 to $19,300 a ton compared with $17,900 to $18,300 otherwise, as carmakers seek to source cleaner materials to comply with the European Union’s new emissions rules for imports.

      In turn, this is incentivising the industry to do more to green its operations. Vale Indonesia’s smelter in South Sulawesi now runs almost entirely on hydropower, for example.

      None of this addresses coal use, however. Major Indonesian nickel producers still emitted an estimated 15 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2023. Indonesia may be cracking down on illegal mining and rewarding cleaner producers but it is still running its mines on the dirtiest fuel available.

      Unequal benefits

      For Indonesia to truly benefit from producing cleaner and high-value nickel, it needs to reap the economic benefits too. Although the industry has boosted the country’s economic growth, the reality on the ground tells a different story.

      Konawe in Southeast Sulawesi is home to a major smelting complex. Growth in the district jumped from 6% to 22% between 2015 and 2023, driven almost entirely by the nickel industry, according to a study by the Lowy Institute study. At the same time, poverty levels increased slightly and unemployment remained unchanged.

        In Halmahera, another epicentre of the nickel industry, spending by the poorest fifth grew just 5% between 2019 and 2022, compared with 28% for the wealthiest fifth, according to a separate study.

        Part of the reason for this inequality is the system for transferring mining royalties to district authorities where the mines are located. In theory, they are entitled to the largest share. But in practice, payments are delayed, companies routinely dispute what they owe and royalties are pooled and distributed across a larger area.

        The Natural Resource Governance Institute has found that decentralisation handed local governments power to approve new mines faster than they could build their capacity to manage them. Higher output raises national income on paper, but local governments remain constrained by fiscal rules and infrastructure costs that scale with mining.

        None of this makes the 2026 quota cuts a mistake. Indonesia has every right to defend its pricing power over a resource it controls. But limiting extraction isn’t going to fix underlying issues around environmental enforcement and revenue-sharing. That requires rules that are consistently enforced, royalties that reach communities living by the mines, and a plan to wean smelters off coal.

        The post Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry  appeared first on Climate Home News.

        Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry 

        Continue Reading

        Trending

        Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com