Connect with us

Published

on

Climate governance, how societies organize decision-making around climate change, is often framed through Western political and legal structures. These models tend to prioritize human-centric policies rooted in concepts such as property, ownership, and nation-states. Within this framework, the environment is often reduced to a resource to be managed, extracted, or commodified. In contrast, Indigenous climate governance offers an entirely different paradigm, one that is not about dominion over land but about reciprocal relationships, sacred obligations, and the recognition of ecological sovereignty.

It is essential to emphasize that Indigenous Peoples do not require validation, endorsement, or recognition from non-Indigenous institutions to develop, uphold, or practice their governance systems. These frameworks of law and stewardship are rooted in original relationships to homeland ties that precede and transcend colonial boundaries.

The days are numbered for systems that invite Indigenous Peoples to the table only as tokens or symbolic presences, while denying their voices the space and authority to shape outcomes. Indigenous governance is not a matter of permission from others; it is the lived practice of self-determination that every living being on Mother Earth inherits and is responsible for.

What is Indigenous Climate Governance?

Indigenous climate governance is a holistic system of law, custom, and responsibility that places interdependence at its core. It reflects millennia of Indigenous stewardship and an understanding that humans are not the rulers of ecosystems but participants within them. Governance is not defined solely by human authority, but by respect for the natural laws that sustain all life. This worldview recognizes that the land, waters, plants, animals, and spiritual forces all carry agency and rights. Humans are woven into this vast web of relations, with responsibilities of reciprocity and care.

At its foundation, Indigenous climate governance protects the autonomy and vitality of place, which is often referred to as ecological sovereignty. Decision-making is collective, inclusive of all living beings, and guided by natural law rather than anthropocentric legal constructs. In this way, governance is not about imposing human will but about aligning with the rhythms, responsibilities, and teachings of the natural world.

Climate change is, at its root, a crisis of ecological imbalance. Indigenous Peoples who have retained rights to stewardship through origin relationships to place, space, and homeland understand this balance as sacred. They are best positioned to speak with, rather than for, their human and non-human kin regarding the health and well-being of these homelands. This is where the difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous governance lies: the former is grounded in responsibilities to life systems. At the same time, the latter too often assumes authority to determine for others. True governance is not about control but about nurturing the self-determination of people, lands, waters, and ecosystems.

How Indigenous Climate Governance Differs from Western Models

Western climate governance is profoundly influenced by colonial legacies that prioritize property rights, commodity extraction, and human control over land and water. Such frameworks often fragment ecosystems and communities by enforcing borders and legal regimes that treat nature as something to be divided, owned, and exploited. Indigenous governance rejects these constructs and instead insists on a worldview that frames the Earth as a living relative, with inherent rights and sovereignty.

This worldview demands that human actions serve to maintain balance and harmony in ecosystems, rather than disrupt them. Governance is viewed as a set of ongoing relationships founded on care, respect, and mutual responsibility, rather than as systems of domination and control. By refusing to fragment ecosystems with artificial legal and political borders, Indigenous climate governance opens pathways to climate justice that are inclusive, life-sustaining, and grounded in ecological stewardship.

For non-Indigenous Peoples, this requires a willingness to step aside and listen, to witness the story of life being shared through Indigenous knowledge and practice. It means recognizing that democracy itself must be redefined, not as a system of power over others but as a philosophy of coexistence, rooted in the laws of nature. These are the laws that governance is meant to uphold, not jeopardize. Colonization has had the opposite effect: undermining natural law to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

The Building Blocks of Ecological Sovereignty

Ecological sovereignty is the right of Indigenous Nations and the ecosystems they steward to manage and protect their lands and waters in alignment with their laws and values. It is rooted in kinship relations, where plants, animals, waters, and lands are recognized as relatives with their agency to thrive or suffer. This principle is sustained by natural law, which acts as a living constitution that structures coexistence, respect, and accountability among all beings.

Relational governance is another key element. Rather than separating human interests from ecological systems, it binds humans and non-humans together in an interdependent framework of stewardship and decision-making. Cultural protocols and ceremonies ensure that governance remains responsive to the cycles of nature and ancestral teachings, grounding decisions in gratitude, responsibility, and humility. These building blocks together create a framework for sovereignty that extends beyond political recognition into the living fabric of ecosystems.

The Indigenous Constitution of the Land: Laws and Regulations of Peace and Harmony

In many Indigenous Nations, governance of place is carried out through a constitution that is not confined to written text, but is encoded in ceremony, storytelling, and the role of law keepers. These laws emphasize peace, mutual respect, and the ongoing balance of life. Every action must consider its impacts on the land, waters, climate, and all beings. Reciprocity is essential; humans must return to the Earth what they take, ensuring that ecosystems regenerate and remain vibrant for future generations.

This constitution also recognizes the agency of non-human beings, affirming their right to exist, flourish, and govern their own lives. Governance is inclusive and collective, ensuring that the voices of Elders, youth, women, and the land itself are respected and valued. For example, laws may mandate sustainable harvesting, seasonal restrictions, ceremonies of permission and thanksgiving, and rites of care when ecosystems are vulnerable. These protocols are not static but adaptive, responsive to the cycles of place, and always rooted in harmony and respect.

Why Indigenous-Led Climate Governance Matters

Indigenous climate governance offers a profound alternative to Western models of climate decision-making. It is not about control, but coexistence. This shift is critical in addressing the climate crisis because it directly challenges the colonial systems that have fueled ecological destruction and excluded Indigenous Nations from decision-making. By centring Indigenous leadership, governance becomes about multidimensional wellbeing: ecological, cultural, spiritual, and communal health.

It also restores natural laws that protect biodiversity, climate stability, and the rights of all beings. Where Western systems often respond reactively to crises, Indigenous governance emphasizes proactive care, long-term thinking, and intergenerational responsibilities. By embracing these principles, climate justice transforms into a journey toward genuine equity, recognizing Indigenous Nations as sovereign stewards of their lands and waters, with authority that transcends human political boundaries and includes all life.

Blog by Rye Karonhiowanen Barberstock

Image Credit: Igor Kyryliuk and Tetiana Kravchenko, Unsplash

The post Indigenous Climate Governance: Reclaiming Ecological Sovereignty and Redefining Climate Justice appeared first on Indigenous Climate Hub.

Indigenous Climate Governance: Reclaiming Ecological Sovereignty and Redefining Climate Justice

Continue Reading

Climate Change

REPORT: WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan

Published

on

Prepared by a coalition of nine Western Australian union, industry, conservation, and community organisations—including UnionsWA, the Conservation Council WA, and the Smart Energy Council—the WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan provides a practical roadmap to transform Western Australia into a clean energy powerhouse while creating thousands of secure local jobs.

Western Australia stands at a pivotal crossroads: lead the global clean energy economy or watch investment, future industries, and secure jobs go elsewhere. The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan outlines a transformative blueprint to harness the state’s world-class solar and wind resources. Discover how legislated renewable targets, green iron manufacturing, and a dedicated regional training strategy can generate tens of thousands of local jobs, lower household bills, and build a resilient, net-zero future for all Western Australians.

WA needs a clear and forward-thinking plan if it is going to become a competitive renewable energy powerhouse and maintain its economic strength through the energy transition.
“Western Australians know a faster renewable energy transition will lower their household expenses and prevent harmful climate pollution. But the community also needs clear direction to ensure this transition will create jobs, lower costs and not cause undue environmental harm.
“Here, sectors representing a broad range of interests have laid the groundwork for those outcomes, clearly outlining what is needed to create a future for WA that is good for the environment, for the climate, for workers and for the economy.

Summary

  • Creating local employment.
  • Maintaining industrial competitiveness.
  • Lowering household energy costs

To realize this vision, the framework details actionable measures to follow on from the recent WA Government announcement of a 75% Renewable Energy Target by 2031 for the South West Interconnected System. This includes developing a statewide Renewable Energy Target, coordinating statewide workforce and training pipelines, strategically planning regional infrastructure to safeguard high-value biodiversity and cultural heritage, and ensuring equitable benefit-sharing through household electrification incentives and First Nations equity partnerships. Ultimately, the plan highlights that establishing clear policy and regulatory certainty will unlock lower energy bills, boost power reliability, and secure the state’s global competitiveness in emerging green commodity export markets.

Photo of wind turbines located near the sea at Albany Wind Farm in Western Australia.

Key Findings

  • Statewide Renewable Energy Target and Emissions Reduction Targets: The report calls for a statewide RET and 1.5°C aligned emission reduction targets to remove policy risk, lower capital costs, and attract clean energy investment.
  • Transformative Job Creation: Accelerating the transition offers massive employment prospects, including up to 8,800 solar and battery jobs by 2050, as well as 24,000 ongoing and 11,000 construction jobs in a commercial green iron industry.
  • Industrial Electrification & Competitiveness: Requiring large gas users to adopt binding electrification timetables and providing concessional financing will protect existing energy-intensive manufacturers from rising energy costs and impending domestic gas shortfalls.
  • Green Commodity Export Leadership: Western Australia can build new export markets in green iron, green ammonia, and offshore oil/gas decommissioning by constructing shared common-user infrastructure and setting dedicated Green Commodity Export Targets.
  • Coordinated Workforce & Training Pipeline: To address critical skill shortages the plan recommends establishing a WA Clean Energy Jobs Plan 2050, three regional training hubs, and dedicated pathways for female and under-represented apprentices.
  • Environmental Safeguards & Community Benefits: Fast-tracked development must be paired with State Planning Policies that avoid high-biodiversity and cultural heritage lands, mandate new data centres to run on additional renewable power, and deliver household electrification rebates and First Nations equity partnerships.
Workers at Keppel Prince in Portland manufacture and install wind turbines in Australia's burgeoning industry.

What you can do

WA has an opportunity to lead on sustainable, clean energy and associated industries. You can help by:

REPORT: WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan

Continue Reading

Climate Change

COP17: Key outcomes agreed at the UN biodiversity conference in Yerevan

Published

on

Article Contents

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.