Connect with us

Published

2 years ago

on

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

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Climate Change

New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation

Published

2 days ago

on

August 24, 2026

By

New Zealand’s parliament has adopted a controversial new law blocking a whole avenue of climate litigation and shutting down its most advanced corporate lawsuit, which has been blamed by the government for shaking business confidence and investment.

The Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, expected to take effect in the coming days after it is formally signed by the Governor-General, prevents all current and future civil claims for climate loss or harm under tort law.

Justice minister Paul Goldsmith said last week that the aim was to give businesses “certainty around their climate change obligations”, noting it would not alter the government’s responsibilities under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 nor business obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme.

“Our response to climate change is best managed by the Government at a national level and not through piece-meal litigation in the courts,” he added in a statement.

Such litigation, he said, “risks developing a new regime that contradicts the framework Parliament has already enacted” to tackle climate change.

    Goldsmith singled out a key domestic climate lawsuit brought by Northland iwi leader and activist Mike Smith against six big companies: dairy firms Fonterra and Dairy Holdings, energy firms Genesis Energy and Z Energy, New Zealand Steel and coal mining firm BT Mining. A seventh original defendant, Channel Infrastructure, was dropped after it permanently decommissioned its Marsden Point oil refinery.

    Smith argued that these companies had caused him harm under public nuisance and negligence law, as well as a third breach of a duty to cease contributing to climate change that has yet to be tested domestically. He did not seek financial compensation, instead asking for the companies to immediately stop emitting or contributing to net greenhouse gas emissions.

    In one of the most advanced corporate climate accountability lawsuits in the world, a trial had been scheduled for April 2027 after the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the case to continue.

    Corporate lobbying in the shadows

    Smith described the passing of the bill as “deeply concerning”, particularly as it coincided with the Supreme Court hearing another of his climate lawsuits. In that case, Smith v Attorney-General, he argues that the government’s response to climate change and its impacts on Māori communities in particular breaches rights to life and culture.

    “That timing raises profound questions about the separation of powers and the rule of law,” said Smith. “Whatever one’s view of the merits of these cases, it is deeply troubling when parliament intervenes to remove a legal pathway while the courts are actively considering fundamental questions about climate responsibility, rights and the crown’s obligations.”

    The bill – which says that no person (including the government) can be found liable in tort for emissions-related climate change effects – followed major lobbying efforts by the companies defending themselves in Smith’s lawsuit. They outlined a proposed legal amendment in a briefing note to the government in 2024.

    The centre-right government has been fiercely criticised over its lack of transparency in relation to this lobbying activity. The national ombudsman recently found that the Prime Minister’s Office effectively withheld information requested by the Environmental Law Initiative about meetings, discussions and conversations regarding Smith’s case.

    Green groups fail to stop bill

    The bill sparked huge concern among environmental campaigners in New Zealand and elsewhere. Greenpeace Aotearoa called it a “shocking abuse of executive power” and the vast majority of submissions to a parliamentary inquiry said it should be rejected.

    But in the end, it was adopted with little resistance, moving relatively smoothly through parliament, passing its third reading by 67 votes to 53. Sam Bookman, climate law lecturer at Melbourne Law School, told Climate Home News he was not surprised by this, given that the coalition government has a secure majority.

    A complaint has been made to the UN special rapporteur on climate change and human rights by Smith, the National Iwi Chairs Forum Pou Tikanga and youth coalition Climate Clinic Aotearoa over what they see as the government’s heavy-handed approach. Smith is also challenging the new law in yet another lawsuit.

    “Pathetic”: New Zealand plans to barely cut emissions between 2030 and 2035

    Bookman thinks it “very unlikely” that such a challenge will succeed, noting that New Zealand’s constitution is firmly anchored in parliamentary sovereignty.

    But the expert in climate law does not see the bill as the end of legal action in the country, noting that New Zealand has a “sophisticated climate litigation landscape with a growing number of specialist and experienced lawyers and NGOs”.

    The country is also approaching its next general election in November, and some opposition parties have pledged to restore access to the courts if elected.

    Amanda Larsson, global project lead on agriculture for Greenpeace International, said: “This law deserves to be tested, and I strongly encourage the international climate litigation community to unite and help defend New Zealanders’ fundamental right to hold polluters accountable before this becomes a global blueprint.”

    Copycat legislation on the rise

    New Zealand’s move is part of a small but growing legislative effort to shut down climate litigation around the world.

    In the US, Republican politicians introduced legislation in the House and Senate in April that would shield fossil fuel firms from climate liability lawsuits. Similar laws have already been passed at state level in Tennessee, Utah, Iowa and Louisiana.

    The German state of Bavaria has put forward a similar proposal to the Federal Council, aiming to block private climate claims as well as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments imposing such liability. There are also proposals to limit available remedies and actions in the Netherlands and Belgium.

    UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court

    Bookman said he expects more efforts to counter climate damages litigation and advised plaintiffs to think about how to respond, including drawing on broader support in opposing them.

    “Even though it’s very hard for plaintiffs to win these types of cases, companies are very eager to avoid the expense, embarrassment and political accountability that come even with unsuccessful lawsuits,” he said.

    The post New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation appeared first on Climate Home News.

    New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry 

    Published

    2 days ago

    on

    August 24, 2026

    By

    Bhima Yudhistira Adhinegara is the Executive Director of the Center of Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS), an Indonesia-based economic think tank. Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat is the Director of the China-Indonesia desk at CELIOS. 

    Indonesia produces around 60% of the world’s nickel, a metal used to manufacture batteries for electric vehicles (EVs) – more than any other country in the world. But in 2026, the government sharply reduced how much of its nickel can be extracted from the ground.

    Production quotas were reduced by around 40% this year compared to 2025. Weda Bay, the largest nickel mine on Earth, had its allowance cut by more than 70% and exhausted its full-year quota by the end of May, halting mining entirely; it cannot resume large-scale extraction until next year unless regulators grant an extension.

    The policy has sparked a vivid debate in Indonesian policy circles: how can the country shift its strategy from a decade of mining vast quantities of cheap nickel to producing a high-value and low-carbon material that the rest of the world wants for EV batteries.

    The cuts aren’t a silver bullet to clean up Indonesia’s nickel industry, whose smelters are powered by coal – the most polluting fossil fuels. But alongside stricter enforcement of environmental rules, it is one side of efforts to produce more sustainable nickel for a premium.

    Restricting Indonesia’s nickel output

    Production quotas were introduced to stop the collapse of nickel prices because of oversupply in the market. Prices had fallen more than 40% in 2023 alone and kept sliding as Indonesian supply kept growing, hitting a four-year low of around $13,900 a ton in late 2025.

    Critics called the recent tightening of production quotas proof that Indonesia’s nickel strategy has failed, arguing that the industry shouldn’t need to throttle its own output to survive. But when assessed against what the policy was supposed to do – push up nickel prices – it has worked. Prices jumped to $20,000 a ton in May, the highest since 2024.

      Chinese industry groups representing companies that have invested billions to mine and refine the country’s nickel were furious, warning Indonesia’s president Prabowo Subianto that the cuts put $50 billion worth of investment at risk. But much of that Chinese capital is sunk into smelters and processing plants built specifically to run on Indonesian ore, and cannot simply be moved elsewhere. That gives Jakarta more room to hold its ground than the warning suggests.

      Stronger environmental enforcement

      Since the start of the year, Indonesia’s forestry task force has seized more than four million hectares of land from mines and plantations operating illegally in protected forests, collecting over two trillion rupiah ($113 million) in fines.

      This included 148 hectares seized from Weda Bay for lacking a forestry permit. The share of nickel produced from illegal small-scale mining also fell from about a quarter in 2022 to roughly 10% by 2024.

      The crackdown responds to serious environmental damages in the nickel industry. On Obi Island, a waste pond collapsed after heavy rain in June 2025, flooding three villages and killing a resident. Internal company tests found chromium-6 – a carcinogen – in the water, in quantities far above the legal limit. The footprint of another mine near Raja Ampat, which is home to some of the world’s richest coral reefs, grew 60-fold in just eight years.

      A coastal village is wedged between the sea and a large nickel mine in Indonesia
      The fishing villages of Tapunggaya in Sulawesi, Indonesia, are squeezed between the sea and an expanding nickel mine (Photo by Garry Lotulung/NurPhoto)

      The market is responding to early cleanup efforts. Low-carbon nickel now sells for a real premium, roughly $18,800 to $19,300 a ton compared with $17,900 to $18,300 otherwise, as carmakers seek to source cleaner materials to comply with the European Union’s new emissions rules for imports.

      In turn, this is incentivising the industry to do more to green its operations. Vale Indonesia’s smelter in South Sulawesi now runs almost entirely on hydropower, for example.

      None of this addresses coal use, however. Major Indonesian nickel producers still emitted an estimated 15 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2023. Indonesia may be cracking down on illegal mining and rewarding cleaner producers but it is still running its mines on the dirtiest fuel available.

      Unequal benefits

      For Indonesia to truly benefit from producing cleaner and high-value nickel, it needs to reap the economic benefits too. Although the industry has boosted the country’s economic growth, the reality on the ground tells a different story.

      Konawe in Southeast Sulawesi is home to a major smelting complex. Growth in the district jumped from 6% to 22% between 2015 and 2023, driven almost entirely by the nickel industry, according to a study by the Lowy Institute study. At the same time, poverty levels increased slightly and unemployment remained unchanged.

        In Halmahera, another epicentre of the nickel industry, spending by the poorest fifth grew just 5% between 2019 and 2022, compared with 28% for the wealthiest fifth, according to a separate study.

        Part of the reason for this inequality is the system for transferring mining royalties to district authorities where the mines are located. In theory, they are entitled to the largest share. But in practice, payments are delayed, companies routinely dispute what they owe and royalties are pooled and distributed across a larger area.

        The Natural Resource Governance Institute has found that decentralisation handed local governments power to approve new mines faster than they could build their capacity to manage them. Higher output raises national income on paper, but local governments remain constrained by fiscal rules and infrastructure costs that scale with mining.

        None of this makes the 2026 quota cuts a mistake. Indonesia has every right to defend its pricing power over a resource it controls. But limiting extraction isn’t going to fix underlying issues around environmental enforcement and revenue-sharing. That requires rules that are consistently enforced, royalties that reach communities living by the mines, and a plan to wean smelters off coal.

        The post Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry  appeared first on Climate Home News.

        Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry 

        Continue Reading

        Climate Change

        Risk of “catastrophic” oil spill reaching Kimberley coast found in Woodside’s Scott Reef gas drilling plans

        Published

        2 days ago

        on

        August 24, 2026

        By

        SYDNEY, Monday 24 August 2026 – New analysis of Woodside modelling released by Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Environs Kimberley has revealed the oil and gas corporation’s plans to drill at Scott Reef could cause an oil spill up to 30 times bigger than the 2009 Montara disaster, impacting the Kimberley coastline and reaching as far as Indonesia.

        The new analysis details the “catastrophic” oil spill risk put to environmental regulators for approval by Woodside in its Browse to North West Shelf Project (Browse) plans, the worst-case scenario being a blowout directly below Scott Reef, polluting whale migratory pathways and covering isolated turtle nesting ground with oil condensate.

        An FOI application (F348) revealed the federal environment department (DCCEEW) asked offshore oil and gas regulator NOPSEMA to look into the oil spill risk in 2025. NOPSEMA’s response to the application refused access to its report, and one document shows DCCEEW sought further advice this year.

        Greenpeace and Environs Kimberley are calling on the Federal Government to publicly release the NOPSEMA report given the risk of an uncontrolled release of oil condensate from directly below Scott Reef.

        Hannah Schuch, Senior Campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “Woodside is aware that drilling at Scott Reef risks a massive oil spill that would have severe, far-reaching consequences. It appears environmental regulators are aware too.

        “The state and federal governments need to take this risk from Woodside’s drilling plans seriously, as they could end up allowing the worst oil spill in Australian history.

        “The pygmy blue whales that migrate up and down the WA coast with their newborns each year could be swimming and feeding in toxic, oil-slicked water. Woodside’s proposal to drill at Scott Reef is an environmental disaster waiting to happen, and the WA and federal governments have one surefire way to prevent catastrophe — reject Browse.”

        Martin Prichard, Executive Director at Environs Kimberley, said: “A catastrophic oil spill by Woodside would be disastrous not just for marine life in the area but also for the Kimberley’s $500 million tourism industry.

        “The state and federal governments will see five marine parks on the Kimberley coast included in the risk area of a catastrophic Woodside oil spill.

        “The Montara oil spill was disastrous for West Timor with the toxic oil destroying seaweed farmers’ livelihoods. The Kimberley dodged a bullet with Montara, we were lucky the spill didn’t head our way. Myself and a crew flew over the Montara oil spill and followed it as far as we could. It was like a scene from a disaster movie.”

        After the WA Environmental Protection Authority deemed Browse “unacceptable” due, in part, to oil spill risk, Woodside submitted a mitigation plan based on technology that has never been used “in anger”, a weakness stated in an independent expert review of the plan.

        Professor Richard Steiner, independent oil spill expert, said: “A large offshore spill is impossible to effectively contain or recover. Historically, only 2-6% of total spill volume is recovered and the ecological injury from the release of toxic hydrocarbons in the sea can be severe, extensive, and long-term.

        “Here in Alaska, government research concludes that several marine populations injured by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, including whales, fish, and seabirds, are still not recovering today, 37 years later. We should expect similar long-term ecological impacts in Western Australia if there were to be a major oil spill. The only sure way to avoid the risk of a catastrophic marine oil spill is to not develop oil and gas projects in marine environments.”

        -ENDS-

        Media contact

        Emma Sangalli on emma.sangalli@greenpeace.org or 0431 513 465

        Risk of “catastrophic” oil spill reaching Kimberley coast found in Woodside’s Scott Reef gas drilling plans

        Continue Reading

        Trending

        Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com