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.
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