- Formal negotiations
- Finance
- Global review
- Global report
- Digital sequence information
- Harmful subsidies
- Marine biodiversity
- Planning, monitoring, reporting and review
- Article 8(j) implementation
- Biodiversity and climate change
- Links with other bodies
- Around the COP
- Armenian presidency
- Protests
- Lobbying and influence
- Carbon and biodiversity markets
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.
Continue Reading
Climate Change
COP17: Key outcomes agreed at the UN biodiversity conference in Yerevan
Countries have completed the first “global review” of their progress towards reversing nature loss by 2030 at the COP17 biodiversity talks in Yerevan, Armenia.
The review “notes with deep concern” that, unless action is “rapidly accelerated”, the goal to reverse nature loss and meet a set of 23 targets by 2030 “will not be achieved”.
It “urges” countries to accelerate action, including by “increased ambition in addressing the gaps”.
Much of the discussions in Yerevan focused on how to raise the necessary funds to help developing countries protect nature.
Some major economies pushed to expand the range of nations that are expected to provide finance, with countries agreeing at the end of the two weeks of talks that non-donors that want to contribute can “signal interest” before COP18.
This came after developed countries failed to meet a target to significantly ramp up nature finance over the last few years.
It also came as a landmark fund agreed at COP16 in Colombia to pay communities for the genetic resources derived from nature stands nearly empty two years on.
The Yerevan talks marked the halfway point of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF), the “Paris Agreement for nature” first made in 2022 and due to be achieved by 2030.
During the nearly 12-hour-long final plenary, countries voted for Quito, Ecuador, to host the COP18 nature talks, which will be held in 2028.
Countries managed to sign off on all the major negotiation texts, marking a stark contrast to COP16, which ran so far over time that the Colombian presidency lost “quorum”, forcing talks to resume in Rome months later.
Below, Carbon Brief has detailed analysis of all of the key outcomes from COP17.
Formal negotiations
Finance
Finance, predictably, was at the heart of the discord and deadlock at the Yerevan talks.
At COP17, discussions on finance had to achieve several outcomes.
The first part – to take stock of biodiversity finance mobilised so far to meet the nature deal’s goals – fell under the global review.
As the global report noted, developed countries failed to meet their commitments to raise “at least $20bn a year by 2025” for nature. Delegates pointed to falling aid levels and a sharp 27% decline in environmental funding for the 2026-30 period.
The second part was to agree on how to mobilise resources for the next four years, to meet the GBF’s goals and targets.
Calls to “broaden the contributor base” of who pays to protect nature – and whether that should include emerging economies – became the most fraught element of the talks.
Eventually, countries agreed on what Switzerland described as a “super, mega-delicate” text. It hinged on major “political compromises”, with “no major winner or loser”, according to Kenya.
Per the decision, countries that want to be included on a list of developed country donors can “signal interest” through bilateral, confidential consultations before COP18 and every alternate COP after.
Finally, countries also agreed on criteria to shape and resource a new, permanent financial mechanism to protect nature after 2030.
However, this did not immediately take the form of a new fund under the COP that biodiverse countries have demanded since 2022, deferring the mechanism’s institutional structure to COP18.
Resource mobilisation discussions at the GBF’s halfway mark were supposed to agree on how to close the “biodiversity finance gap” and to “increase resources from all sources” to “at least” $200bn per year by 2030, as set out in target 19 of the GBF.
The talks were largely dominated by a push, led by the JUSCANZ bloc of developed countries, to “broaden the contributor base”. This could see emerging economies, such as Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia and India, being added to the list of countries that pay to protect nature.

Article 20 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) states that developed countries “shall provide new and additional financial resources” to developing countries to meet the costs of implementing measures to protect nature.

The text states that other countries – including emerging economies – may “voluntarily assume” these obligations to pay. However, it adds that this list of developed countries “shall” be reviewed periodically and amended “if necessary”.
The list was last amended in 2006.
(See this “jargon buster” which explains the specific meaning and legal weight of various terms and verbs used in UN formal documents.)
Discussions around this fraught subject had reached a dead end at intersessional talks this year, but resurfaced in Yerevan.
The first “non-paper” had four different options for expanding the contributor base. These ranged from using the World Bank’s country income groups “as a proxy” to identify high-income countries, to commissioning a study on the impacts of being included on the list.
By 21 October, the number of options swelled to eight, including two from Saudi Arabia and one from Peru.
Some countries “expressed concern” that certain options were based on a CBD secretariat study on “what constitutes a developed country”, Earth Negotiations Bulletin reported.
By the end of the first week, it was clear that the finance deadlock would have to go into informal ministerial consultations for any consensus to emerge.
At a press conference on 28 October, Christopher O’Sullivan, Ireland’s nature minister and representing the EU delegation, told Carbon Brief:
“Our position isn’t that we want to pull back in terms of contributing…but it’s been 20 years since that list was added to, times have changed and there are new realities. We just simply want those new realities reflected. I don’t fully understand why there’s so much opposition to that.”
The EU chose not to comment on which countries it would like to see on that list.
Lim Li Ching from the Third World Network, meanwhile, called the push for others to “assume the obligations” of developed countries “sheer hypocrisy”, adding that any country could make a voluntary contribution. She told Carbon Brief:
“At a forum like the CBD, this linking of income status with finance does not take into account where historical and current responsibilities lie. If you want to generate more funding for biodiversity, let’s look at sovereign debt burdens and rules, which are inequitable for developing countries. But if you can fund wars, and provide resources for your defence industry, then you know where the priorities are.”
On 29 October – at a plenary meant to adopt final texts for the most contentious subjects – Norway’s Gaute Hanssen announced that resource-mobilisation discussions would go into a smaller “friends of the chair” meeting.
Facilitated by Carolina Caceres from Canada and Imèn Meliane from Tunisia, the meeting would discuss the most contentious elements of a draft decision that had swelled to 112 brackets, denoting areas of disagreement on specific details in the text.
While the meeting was open to all, countries that were called to be present included Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, the EU, Fiji, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and the UK.
At the same time, a “non-paper” text by finance and environment ministers laid out countries’ red lines and compromises.

At the end of COP17, countries welcomed a final compromise text, with Kenya thanking the “strong women” co-chairs who strove to strike a “delicate” balance.
China, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland and Fiji cautioned against any further interventions, with Brazil warning: “If we open this text, we will never close it again.”
While the final decision “recognises” that “contributions from more parties would improve the mobilisation” of biodiversity finance, it steered away from issuing criteria to expand the list of donor countries.
The text makes it clear that no additions to the list would be made without inviting and confidentially consulting with interested countries, to secure their explicit consent.
Instead, the CBD secretariat “invites” countries keen to be on the list and “assume the obligations” of developed countries to “signal interest” before COP18 and at every alternate COP thereafter.
At the same time, developing countries can contribute to meeting the GBF and biodiversity convention’s goals on a “voluntary basis”, with contributions not implying inclusion on the list.
A negotiator for China told Carbon Brief at the closing plenary:
“We welcome this balanced document. It was a very long discussion that has gone [on] since [2022 nature talks in] Nairobi. But actually this time, there were a lot of sensitive issues, [there were] a lot of critical things we didn’t open in the contact groups; it mainly went to the high-level discussion.”
The decision also establishes a financial mechanism for nature funding after 2030 under the governance of the COP, a key ask from developing countries.
However, it defers decisions on what form this mechanism would take – whether this would be a new fund or based on existing arrangements – until COP18.
