For millennia, Indigenous Peoples across Canada have relied on intimate knowledge of seasonal cycles to guide their hunting, fishing, and gathering practices. This deep connection to the land has sustained communities, shaped cultures, and ensured the sustainable use of resources. However, as climate change alters weather patterns, migration routes, and ecosystem dynamics, many Indigenous communities are facing unprecedented challenges to their traditional ways of life.
The Changing Face of Seasons
Climate change is not just about rising temperatures; it’s about the disruption of long-established patterns that Indigenous Peoples have relied upon for generations.
Unpredictable Weather Patterns
Across the country, Indigenous communities are reporting increasingly erratic weather. Winters are becoming shorter and less predictable, springs are arriving earlier, and extreme weather events are more frequent.
Elder John Keesis from the Moose Cree First Nation in northern Ontario shares, “When I was young, we could predict the seasons. Now, the weather is all mixed up. It affects everything – when the geese come, when the ice forms, when plants are ready to harvest.”
Shifting Migration Patterns
As temperatures change, so do the movements of animals that many Indigenous communities depend on for sustenance and cultural practices.
(Image Credit: Warren Sammut, Unsplash)
In Nunavut, Inuit hunters have noticed changes in caribou migration patterns. Jayko Alooloo, an experienced hunter from Pond Inlet, explains, “The caribou used to come at certain times, following the same routes. Now, their movements are less predictable. We have to travel farther and search longer to find them.”
Impacts on Traditional Practices
These environmental changes are having profound effects on traditional hunting, fishing, and gathering practices across Canada.
Hunting Challenges
In many regions, changing snow and ice conditions are making traditional hunting grounds less accessible and more dangerous.
James Walkus, a Kwakwaka’wakw hunter from Vancouver Island, describes the challenges: “The snow doesn’t come as early or stay as long. This affects when and where we can hunt. The animals are changing their patterns too. It’s becoming harder to teach our youth the old ways.”
Fishing Disruptions
(Image Credit: Fredrik Öhlander, Unsplash)
Warming waters and changing ice patterns are impacting fish populations and traditional fishing practices.
In the Yukon, Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in citizens have noticed changes in salmon runs. Elder Angie Joseph-Rear shares, “The salmon are coming at different times, and there are fewer of them. Our traditional fishing spots aren’t as reliable anymore. It’s affecting not just our food supply, but our whole way of life.”
Gathering Uncertainties
(Image Credit: Dmitry Bukhantsov, Unsplash)
Climate change is also affecting the availability and timing of traditional plant harvests.
Brenda Olsson, a Métis Elder from Alberta, notes changes in berry-picking seasons: “The berries are ripening at different times now. Sometimes they come early and are gone before we expect, other times they come late. It’s changing how and when we can harvest them.”
Adaptation Strategies
Despite these challenges, Indigenous communities are demonstrating remarkable resilience and adaptability in the face of climate change.
Flexible Hunting and Fishing Practices
Many communities are adjusting their hunting and fishing schedules to accommodate changing animal patterns.
In Nunavik, northern Quebec, Inuit hunters are using GPS and satellite imagery to track changing ice conditions and animal movements. Adamie Delisle Alaku, Executive Vice-President of Makivik Corporation, explains, “We’re combining our traditional knowledge with new technologies. It helps us adapt to the changing conditions while still practicing our traditional ways.”
Diversifying Food Sources
Some communities are exploring new food sources and reviving forgotten practices to ensure food security.
The Heiltsuk Nation in British Columbia has been working to revitalize traditional clam gardens, an ancient form of mariculture that can help buffer against changing ocean conditions. Hilistis Pauline Waterfall, a Heiltsuk knowledge keeper, shares, “By bringing back these old practices, we’re not just preserving our culture, we’re also creating more resilient food systems.”
Community Food-Sharing Programs
Many Indigenous communities are strengthening or establishing community food-sharing programs to help mitigate the impacts of unpredictable harvests.
In Kuujjuaq, Nunavik, the community freezer program allows successful hunters to share their harvest with Elders and families in need. This practice helps ensure that traditional foods remain accessible even as hunting conditions become more challenging.
Preserving and Adapting Traditional Knowledge
As the environment changes, there’s an urgent need to preserve Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) while also adapting it to new realities.
Intergenerational Knowledge Transfer
Many communities are focusing on programs that bring Elders and youth together to share traditional knowledge and practices.
The Dene Tha’ First Nation in Alberta has established on-the-land programs where Elders teach youth traditional skills while also discussing how to adapt these practices to changing conditions. Chief James Ahnassay emphasizes, “It’s about keeping our knowledge alive, but also teaching our youth how to be adaptable, just as our ancestors were.”
Documenting Traditional Knowledge
Efforts are underway in many communities to document traditional knowledge about seasonal patterns, animal behaviors, and gathering practices.
The Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami has been working on a project to document Inuit knowledge of sea ice across the Canadian Arctic. This information not only preserves crucial cultural knowledge but also provides valuable data for climate scientists studying Arctic change.
Policy Implications
The impacts of climate change on traditional practices highlight the need for policies that support Indigenous adaptive capacity and sovereignty.
Flexible Wildlife Management
There are growing calls for wildlife management policies that are more responsive to changing environmental conditions and Indigenous needs.
In the Northwest Territories, the Inuvialuit have negotiated flexible quota systems for some hunts, allowing for adjustments based on environmental conditions and community needs. This approach recognizes the dynamic nature of both the environment and traditional practices.
Support for Land-Based Activities
Some jurisdictions are developing programs to support Indigenous land-based activities in the face of climate change.
The Government of Nunavut’s Harvester Support Program provides funding for equipment and supplies needed for traditional harvesting activities. This type of support is crucial as changing conditions often require new or modified equipment.
The Broader Implications
The challenges facing Indigenous hunters and gatherers offer important lessons for broader society about the impacts of climate change and the need for adaptive, sustainable practices.
Dr. Gleb Raygorodetsky, an ethnoecologist working with Indigenous communities, notes, “Indigenous peoples’ experiences with changing seasons and wildlife patterns are like an early warning system for the rest of the world. Their adaptive strategies offer valuable insights into building resilience to climate change.”
Resilience in the Face of Change
(Image Credit: Francesco Ungaro, Unsplash)
The story of how climate change is impacting traditional hunting and gathering practices is one of both challenge and resilience. As seasons shift and long-established patterns change, Indigenous communities across Canada are drawing on their deep connection to the land and their capacity for adaptation to navigate these new realities.
These experiences underscore the urgent need for climate action, not just to preserve traditional ways of life, but to maintain the delicate balance of ecosystems upon which we all depend. They also highlight the importance of Indigenous leadership in developing climate adaptation strategies.
As we move forward, supporting Indigenous rights, traditional practices, and adaptive capacities will be crucial not only for the well-being of Indigenous communities but for developing more sustainable relationships with the natural world in the face of a changing climate.
In the words of Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Inuit activist and author, “What is happening in the Arctic is nothing less than a reflection of the health of the planet as a whole. By supporting Indigenous peoples in maintaining their traditional practices, we’re not just preserving cultures – we’re preserving knowledge that could be key to our collective survival.”
The resilience and adaptability demonstrated by Indigenous hunters and gatherers in the face of dramatic seasonal shifts offer both inspiration and practical lessons for us all as we navigate the uncertainties of a changing climate.
Blog by Rye Karonhiowanen Barberstock
(Header Image Credit: LaDawn Preuninger, Unsplash)
The post Seasonal Shifts: How Climate Change is Impacting Traditional Hunting and Gathering Practices appeared first on Indigenous Climate Hub.
Seasonal Shifts: How Climate Change is Impacting Traditional Hunting and Gathering Practices
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