- 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
The Land Back movement is more than a political demand—it is a climate imperative rooted in local and regional ancestral knowledge, relationship, and responsibility. Across Turtle Island, returning land to Indigenous stewardship has shown tangible ecological benefits, helping restore biodiversity, increase climate resilience, and revitalize sacred relationships between peoples and place. Land Back is not solely a political movement—it is fundamentally about and the inherent right to care for the land through Indigenous laws, governance systems, and lifeways rooted in sustainability, reciprocity, and long-term balance.
Why Land Back is a Climate Solution
For generations, Indigenous Nations have safeguarded the natural world by managing ecosystems in accordance with natural law, ensuring the continuity and balance of all life. Today, a growing body of research confirms what many Indigenous Peoples have always known: lands under Indigenous stewardship often outperform state-managed lands in terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and resilience to climate stressors.
A landmark report by the United Nations highlights that Indigenous-managed lands hold as much or more biodiversity than formally protected areas (UNEP-WCMC, 2021). This is not coincidental. Indigenous stewardship is built upon place-based knowledge systems emphasizing interdependence, seasonal cycles, and respect for non-human relatives.
Real-World Examples of Land Back as Ecological Restoration
Across Canada, Indigenous Nations are leading land reclamation and stewardship efforts that serve as powerful models for climate action:
- Syilx Okanagan Nation (British Columbia): Through salmon reintroduction projects in the Columbia River system, the Syilx people have revived an essential species with deep cultural and ecological significance. These efforts are rebuilding food sovereignty, restoring riparian ecosystems, and improving watershed health. The Syilx Nation’s work with the Okanagan Nation Alliance demonstrates how climate action and cultural resurgence go hand-in-hand (Syilx.org).
- Mississaugas of Alderville First Nation (Ontario): The Alderville Black Oak Savannah is one of the best-preserved examples of native grassland ecosystems in Ontario. Using cultural burning and traditional land management techniques, the community has restored a once-fragmented landscape, supporting pollinators, rare plants, and diverse wildlife. These actions have increased carbon storage, soil health, and ecosystem connectivity (Alderville.ca).
- Haida Gwaii (British Columbia): The Haida Nation’s co-governance model with the Government of Canada in the Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve and Haida Heritage Site demonstrates what respectful partnership and Indigenous leadership can achieve. Through this model, logging was halted, marine protection zones were expanded, and Haida ecological knowledge was embedded in park management strategies.
These are not isolated success stories—they are evidence of what becomes possible when Indigenous Peoples are given the authority and support to govern their territories.
What Land Back Looks Like in Practice
Land Back can take many forms: co-governance agreements, the return of Crown or park lands, support for Indigenous land trusts, and legal recognition of Indigenous land title. In all these models, ecological outcomes improve when Indigenous values and protocols shape land management.
For example:
- Controlled burns restore grassland health.
- Seasonal harvesting prevents overuse.
- Watershed monitoring improves water quality.
- Language and ceremony are woven into stewardship practices that care not just for the land but also for the relational responsibilities associated with it.
These approaches move beyond conservation as enclosure and towards regenerative guardianship.
Recommendations for Readers
- Learn More: Explore the research and advocacy work of Indigenous-led organizations like the Yellowhead Institute.
- Support Indigenous Stewardship: Donate to or volunteer with Indigenous land trusts, guardianship programs, or Nations actively engaged in ecological restoration.
- Advocate for Policy Change: Push for co-governance agreements, the return of protected parklands, and meaningful inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in environmental decision-making.
- Listen and Follow: Center Indigenous leadership, particularly local nations whose territories you reside in. Support their calls to action and respect their governance systems.
Reference Points and Additional Reading
- Yellowhead Institute, Land Back Red Paper: https://yellowheadinstitute.org
- Syilx Okanagan Nation Salmon Restoration: https://www.syilx.org
- Alderville Black Oak Savannah: https://alderville.ca/our-offices-services/alderville-black-oak-savanna/
- UNEP-WCMC, Territories of Life Report, 2021
Blog by Rye Karonhiowanen Barberstock
(Image Credit: Michael Hamments, Unsplash)
The post Land Back Means Climate Action: Connecting Land Reclamation with Ecological Restoration appeared first on Indigenous Climate Hub.
Land Back Means Climate Action: Connecting Land Reclamation with Ecological Restoration
Continue Reading
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 th