Across Canada, climate change is reshaping what can grow and where it can grow. For Indigenous communities, especially the Haudenosaunee, whose ancestors thrived on biodiverse diets, the disruption of traditional food systems is more than an environmental crisis. It is also a cultural and spiritual rupture. Yet, within this challenge lies hope: reviving a food economy rooted in Indigenous plant foods can heal the land, strengthen communities, and build resilient local economies.
A Rich Legacy: The Haudenosaunee Foodscape
Arthur C. Parker’s classic book, Iroquois Uses of Maize and Other Food Plants, documents the astonishing diversity of Haudenosaunee agriculture. Based on early 20th-century fieldwork in New York, Ontario, and Quebec, Parker recorded not only the range of foods but also the recipes, terminology, and cultural contexts that guided their use.
Maize was at the heart of this foodscape, with numerous varieties used for flour, hominy, and whole kernels. Thirteen types of beans and five varieties of squash were intercropped with corn in the renowned “Three Sisters” system. Melons, cucumbers, and husk tomatoes (also known as ground cherries) were cultivated alongside sunflowers grown for their seeds and oil.
Foraged foods were equally important, supplementing the diet with wild peas, asparagus, mushrooms, puffballs, blueberries, grapes, plums, hickory nuts, and acorns. Arrowhead roots, cattails, and the sap of maple and birch added further diversity, both for sustenance and ceremony.
This mix of cultivated and wild foods represented far more than calories; it was a system of resilience, reciprocity, and respect for the land. By diversifying their food sources, the Haudenosaunee developed economies that could withstand ecological changes while upholding cultural values of responsibility and abundance.
Soil Regeneration
One of the greatest challenges of modern farming is soil degradation. Industrial agriculture often strips soil of nutrients, leaving it fragile and dependent on chemical inputs. The Haudenosaunee “Three Sisters” method offers an alternative. Corn provides a natural trellis for beans, beans fix nitrogen in the soil, and squash shades the ground to retain moisture and suppress weeds. Together they create a self-sustaining, regenerative system.
Restoring such practices could play a key role in regenerating soils that have been depleted by centuries of extractive farming. It serves as a reminder that Indigenous agricultural knowledge has always been about working in harmony with nature rather than against it.
Climate Mitigation
Indigenous agriculture is also a climate solution. Practices such as polycultures, perennial planting, and traditional land stewardship help store carbon, protect biodiversity, and stabilize water systems.
- Deep-rooted plants like wild rice, sunchokes, berry bushes, and sunflowers enrich soil, stabilize riverbanks, and filter toxins from water.
- Polycultures, such as the Three Sisters system, reduce pest infestations, conserve moisture, and thrive in extreme climates. Learn more here.
- Traditional stewardship practices, including controlled burning, wetland restoration, and responsible harvesting, help regulate local climates while protecting wildlife corridors.
Research indicates that Indigenous-managed lands are among Canada’s most effective carbon sinks. As Michael Twigg (2024) explains in his article on Indigenous agriculture, scaling these practices could transform agriculture into a climate-positive force.
Economic Revival
Reintroducing Indigenous plant foods carries enormous economic promise. Crops like heritage beans, heirloom corns, and wild rice already perform well in niche markets, but the potential is far greater. Regional processing facilities, community-owned food businesses, and strengthened distribution networks could create livelihoods while retaining wealth within Indigenous nations.
Across Canada, promising initiatives are already underway:
- Indigenous Agriculture and Food Systems Initiative – A federal program funding infrastructure, training, and food-business development anchored in Indigenous crops.
- Prairie Research Kitchen & Métis Food Security Consortium – A Manitoba partnership developing Indigenous recipes, training students, and supporting community food businesses.
- Farm Credit Canada (FCC) – FCC projects that equitable Indigenous participation in agriculture could add $1.5 billion to Canada’s GDP, quadrupling the current value of Indigenous farm operations. Read more here.
- Untapped Potential – Studies suggest Indigenous-led agriculture could grow Canada’s economy by as much as $27 billion while advancing biodiversity and food sovereignty goals.
- Grassroots projects – Initiatives like Understanding Our Food Systems in Northwestern Ontario support First Nations to design food sovereignty plans rooted in community values.
These examples demonstrate how Indigenous food economies can enhance food security, preserve cultural knowledge, and foster sustainable prosperity for both Indigenous nations and Canada as a whole.
Health Reinvigoration
Literature, such as “Traditional Plant Foods of Canadian Indigenous Peoples: Nutrition, Botany and Use ” (Kuhnlein & Turner, 1991), underscores how traditional diets supported strong health long before colonization. Foods like corn, beans, squash, berries, wild rice, and medicinal plants provided fibre, micronutrients, antioxidants, and lean proteins fueling immune strength and metabolic balance.
The replacement of these foods with heavily processed, calorie-dense alternatives has fueled an epidemic of diabetes, heart disease, and obesity in Indigenous communities. Restoring traditional foods to modern diets could reduce these disparities while revitalizing cultural connections.
Stewardship Over Exploitation
Reviving Indigenous food systems requires Indigenous leadership. Without it, there is a risk of commodification and appropriation cycles that repeat historical harms. Indigenous stewardship ensures cultural protocols, ecological respect, and intergenerational responsibility guide food economies. As BCA Global’s Food as Medicine highlights, Elders, knowledge keepers, and land-based educators are central to passing on stewardship values, ensuring food sovereignty endures.
More Than Farming—Healing
At its heart, revitalizing Indigenous food economies is not only about growing food; it is also about preserving and promoting traditional knowledge and practices. It is about healing.
- Healing the land through biodiversity, soil restoration, and water stewardship.
- Healing people through nutrient-rich ancestral foods that improve health and nourish the spirit.
- Healing relationships by renewing responsibilities between people, plants, and place.
- Healing economies through meaningful work that strengthens sovereignty and stewardship.
This is responsible farming at its best: an economy that not only grows crops but also fosters hope. When we restore the food systems that once sustained us, we also regain balance with the land, with each other, and with future generations.
Blog by Rye Karonhiowanen Barberstock
(Image Credit: Diego Marin, Unsplash)
The post Re-Constituting Indigenous Food Economies: The Promise of Plant-Based Regeneration appeared first on Indigenous Climate Hub.
Re-Constituting Indigenous Food Economies: The Promise of Plant-Based Regeneration
The launch of the Africa Energy Bank (AEB) has been put back yet again, raising doubts about the institution’s future ability to finance fossil fuel projects – its main objective – as global lenders retreat from such investments over climate concerns, experts told Climate Home News.
The bank, which had been billed to launch in September after a series of delays, is now scheduled to begin operations in November, according to the head of the African Energy Chamber, an advocacy body for the continent’s oil and gas sector.
Even as the world aims to transition away from fossil fuels, many African leaders have made clear they want to continue exploring and extracting the continent’s large oil and gas deposits – estimated at around 125 billion barrels of crude and over 600 trillion cubic feet of gas – to boost economic development.
As a group, Africa sided with a number of powerful oil-and-gas producing nations in blocking progress on negotiations to craft a global roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels at last year’s UN COP30 climate talks, although some countries did individually support the proposal.
-
Campaigners oppose Dangote’s planned Kenya refinery over climate and ecological risks
Plans to build Africa’s second largest oil refinery in ecologically sensitive region criticised as “environmental recklessness” -
Tanzania pushed African nations to oppose fossil fuel transition at COP30
While chairing the African group at the summit, the gas-dependent nation advised the continent’s ministers to block language on transitioning away from fossil fuels
Meanwhile, major projects under development across the continent – including the 1,443-km East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) and Dangote’s 700,000-barrel-per-day Kenyan refinery – show that African governments see oil and gas as playing a significant role in meeting their energy and economic needs for many years to come.
In 2022, at a gathering of the African Petroleum Producers’ Organization (APPO) in oil-rich Angola, ministers from its member states adopted a resolution to create the Africa Energy Bank to finance projects for the production, use and trade of oil, gas and broader energy sources.
African control over energy resources
An article on the APPO website explains that the bank was conceived as a way to overcome “disenchantment” with fossil fuels among “the international community” which it said had crystallised around the “energy transition” concept.
“If Western countries, after having long taken advantage of the energy sources they now revile to develop, can afford the luxury of abandoning them, this is not the case in Africa,” it adds, noting that many of the continent’s economies are still largely dependent on oil and gas revenues.
A separate web page about the bank, also hosted on APPO’s website, says its objectives include financing the exploration, production and refining of oil and gas, as well as supporting member states in transitioning from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources “while ensuring energy security”.
Said Addi, a former executive with Shell and energy commodities trading house Gunvor, said the new bank was judged necessary because financing for hydrocarbons from many traditional international lenders has become constrained.
In trying to fill this financing gap, Africa is not simply setting up another fund to support oil and gas, he added. “It is also an attempt to give African countries greater control over how their energy resources and infrastructure are financed,” he explained.
Nigeria to host the AEB
The energy bank – a joint initiative of APPO and the African Export–Import Bank (Afreximbank) – has so far suffered several delays and is almost two years behind schedule. The initial plan was to start operations in January 2025, with Nigeria as the host country, but the bank’s opening was delayed to June of that year to allow Nigeria time to finalise the construction of the bank’s headquarters in Abuja.
After the government announced the completion of the offices in late November 2025, a new launch date was set for January 2026, which was moved back to April, June and then September. Now it has shifted again to November, raising concerns that the institution may be losing momentum.
Former Shell executive Addi said that if the capital is eventually paid in, the bank becomes operational and its first projects are commercially credible, then the delays will be regarded as normal teething troubles in setting up a multilateral institution. But, he added, scepticism will be justified if it continues to stall.
Uganda may see lower oil revenues than expected as costs rise and demand falls
Baron Lamarré, an oil and gas expert and former Petronas oil trader, said that missing “three deadlines in a row is not normal”, and warned that if the timeline slips again, “the story flips from ‘ambitious institution finding its footing’ to ‘good idea that lost momentum before it found any’.”
The Nigerian government, APPO and Afreximbank did not respond to requests for comment by the time of publication.
The funding challenge
The Africa Energy Bank is targeting base capital of $5 billion, with plans to scale up to $120 billion within five years by mobilising private-sector funds. However, it is expected to start operations with initial seed capital of $500 million.
The funding plan is to have the 18 member countries of the APPO contribute $83 million each to the bank as equity for a combined $1.5 billion. Afreximbank, other non-APPO African countries and investors outside the continent are expected to provide the remaining $3.5 billion.
But even the initial $500 million has not been easy to mobilise. In May, APPO Secretary-General Farid Ghezali called on members to deliver on their pledges towards the startup goal before the end of June. But the delays suggest this may not have been met, with experts saying Africa may be finding it difficult to self-fund its oil and gas projects in the absence of international capital.
Lamarré said every extension of the deadline points to the fact that “raising fossil fuel capital in Africa without the majors and their financing networks is brutally hard”.
Why the global electrification agenda misses the point on Africa’s energy crisis
Since 2020, Western lenders, export credit agencies and insurers have been in steady retreat from African hydrocarbons, he said, while oil majors are divesting their African assets, handing over fields to smaller local operators whose credit ratings are not high enough to borrow cheaply.
Even capital from China and the Gulf, which has partially filled the gap, cannot match the volume, tenor or pricing that Western investors once offered, Lamarré argued.
“If mobilising the first $500 million of seed capital [for the AEB] has taken this long, that’s the clearest signal yet of how steep the climb to $120 billion looks,” he said, noting that the continent’s energy financing gap is as large as $30 billion-$45 billion per year.
Africa’s investment landscape, meanwhile, has been shifting. While foreign direct investment dropped from a 2024 peak, inflows remained roughly one-third above the continent’s long-term average in 2025, according to the 2026 World Investment Report from UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD). They are concentrated in a few sectors including critical minerals needed for renewable energy technologies, battery manufacturing and advanced industrial production.
At the same time, data on global energy investment from the International Energy Agency (IEA) shows that fossil fuel investment in Africa has declined over the last decade.
“Trojan horse” for fossil fuels
While the Africa Energy Bank struggles to get off the ground, climate campaigners have criticised its primary aim of financing oil and gas on the continent at a time when the world is starting to move away from high-carbon fuels to cleaner alternatives.
Bhekumuzi Dean Bhebhe, founder of Africa Change Lab, described the bank as a “Trojan horse”, arguing that its focus on fossil fuel financing runs counter to the global energy transition and the African Union’s Agenda 2063 goals of sustainable development and inclusive growth.
The energy bank, he warned, “risks locking Africa into a new cycle of debt, dependency and fossil fuel entrenchment”, adding that its financing blueprint does not pave the way for a climate-resilient future. “In truth, it is to deepen the same extractive, carbon-heavy pathways that the continent should be moving away from,” he added.
Ugandan farmers use British court to try to stop East Africa oil pipeline
Kenya-based climate and energy expert Joab Okanda said the AEB’s plan to finance oil and gas is “a misplaced priority” and it should instead back clean energy in line with the policies of some of Africa’s major export markets like Europe.
In addition, the new bank could struggle to mobilise enough resources to advance large-scale oil and gas projects, he added, noting that its proposed $5-billion initial capital is equivalent to the cost of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline alone.
The AEB’s aim of backing more fossil fuels should be flipped “to support countries that are oil-dependent to start working on their transition plans”, Okanda said.
The post Launch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes appeared first on Climate Home News.
Launch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes
A booklet published by the UK’s opposition Conservative party includes a “cost of net-zero” that appears to have been doubled by a spreadsheet error.
The “common sense” policy document argues that “what people ultimately want is a government competent enough to solve the problems for which it takes responsibility”.
In a section that says “sophisticat[ed]…modelling” should not be a substitute for “political judgement”, the “Right Way” document disparages various estimates of the cost of net-zero.
The Conservative document then claims – incorrectly – that the government’s official adviser, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), had put the cost of net-zero at close to £1tn. It says:
“In 2020, the CCC estimated that its route to net-zero would cost £957bn.”
In fact, the CCC’s 2020 estimate was exactly half this amount – £478bn – and last year it published a revised figure of £108bn, largely as a result of the falling cost of electric vehicles (EVs).
Spreadsheet error
The Conservative party’s erroneous claim appears to stem from another report that had accidentally added up numbers twice, using a spreadsheet published by the CCC in 2020.
The 2020 spreadsheet contains a table listing the additional investments that would be needed to build a net-zero economy, from low-carbon electricity generation through to heat pumps and EVs.
These extra capital expenditures, listed as “CAPEX”, add up to a total of £1.38tn over the 30 years of 2020-50. They are set against operational savings, listed as “OPEX”, of £0.90tn.
Added up over 2020-50, the combined CAPEX and OPEX figures come to a total of £478bn.
In addition to the annual sectoral CAPEX and OPEX figures, the CCC’s 2020 spreadsheet also has a line giving combined totals for each year. It appears that someone has added all of these numbers together, resulting in the savings and costs being counted twice.
This double-counted total for the cost of net-zero amounts to £957bn – as shown in the image below – and it appears to be the source of the claim in the Conservative booklet.
At the time of publication in 2020, the CCC said that the £478bn net cost of net-zero amounted to less than 1% of GDP over 30 years – and that the large investment needed would not only result in savings due to lower fossil-fuel imports, but that it would boost GDP overall, by around 2%.
In 2025, the CCC revised its estimates for investment costs and operating savings to £670bn and £562bn respectively, giving a net total of £108bn over 2025-50, or less than 0.2% of GDP.
Earlier this year, the committee said that cutting emissions to net-zero would cost less than a single fossil-fuel price shock and that doing so would have benefits worth £110bn per year.
Paper trail
The erroneous claim in the Conservative document is referenced to the CCC’s 2020 advice on the UK’s sixth “carbon budget”, which, as explained, does not contain the £957bn figure.
The earliest online use of the £957bn figure found by Carbon Brief is a 12 January 2026 article in the Spectator, by retired engineer and self-described “accidental energy analyst” David Turver.
A day later, Turver repeated the mistaken number in a report for the free-market Institute of Economic Affairs. His report cites figure 5.3 of the CCC’s 2020 advice.
However, as set out above, the CCC spreadsheet containing the data for figure 5.3 only adds up to £478bn, half the figure claimed by Turver.
It appears that Turver accidentally added up all of the numbers in the CCC spreadsheet, without noting that it already included a line for the annual total. This results in double-counting the cost.
(Turver’s report also triggered a slew of inaccurate headlines stating that net-zero would cost £7.6tn – or even £9tn. These figures, which came from Turver’s report, were based, among other things, on the implicit assumption that fossil fuels and the cars, boilers and power plants that use them are all free.)
After Turver’s report and article in January 2026, the erroneous £957bn figure was repeated in March by the Great British Think Tank. The organisation has the tagline “data, not vibes” and says of its work: “Every figure [is] sourced from official public bodies.”
The £957bn figure then appeared in the Conservative “Right Way” document in October 2026.
