- 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
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
Continue Reading
Climate Change
COP17: Key outcomes agreed at the UN biodiversity conference in Yerevan
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 this text, we will never close it again.”
While the final decision “recognises” that “contributions from more parties would improve the mobilisation” of biodiversity finance, it steered away from issuing criteria to expand the list of donor countries.
The text makes it clear that no additions to the list would be made without inviting and confidentially consulting with interested countries, to secure their explicit consent.
Instead, the CBD secretariat “invites” countries keen to be on the list and “assume the obligations” of developed countries to “signal interest” before COP18 and at every alternate COP thereafter.
At the same time, developing countries can contribute to meeting the GBF and biodiversity convention’s goals on a “voluntary basis”, with contributions not implying inclusion on the list.
A negotiator for China told Carbon Brief at the closing plenary:
“We welcome this balanced document. It was a very long discussion that has gone [on] since [2022 nature
