Connect with us

Published

on

As the global community grapples with the urgent need to mitigate climate change, Indigenous-led conservation efforts are emerging as a powerful and effective approach. Rooted in millennia-old traditions of sustainable land stewardship, these initiatives not only protect biodiversity and sequester carbon but also revitalize cultural practices and assert Indigenous sovereignty.

The Power of Indigenous Land Stewardship

Indigenous Peoples have been stewards of their lands since time immemorial, developing sophisticated systems of resource management that maintain ecological balance while sustaining communities.

According to Valérie Courtois, who leads the Indigenous Leadership Initiative, the Indigenous perspective on environmental protection goes beyond simply cordoning off natural areas. Instead, she emphasizes that their approach focuses on fostering sustainable and respectful interactions with the environment, including the land, water, and all forms of life. Courtois asserts that this comprehensive and interconnected view of nature is precisely the kind of approach required to effectively tackle the challenges posed by climate change.

Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs)

A cornerstone of Indigenous-led conservation efforts in Canada is the establishment of Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs). These are lands and waters where Indigenous governments have the primary role in protecting and conserving ecosystems through Indigenous laws, governance, and knowledge systems.

The Thaidene Nëné Indigenous Protected Area

One prominent example is the Thaidene Nëné Indigenous Protected Area, established by the Łutsël K’é Dene First Nation in the Northwest Territories. Covering 26,376 square kilometers of boreal forest, tundra, and freshwater ecosystems, it represents a new model of conservation that prioritizes Indigenous leadership.

Steven Nitah, Lead Negotiator for the Łutsël K’é Dene First Nation, shares, “Thaidene Nëné isn’t just about protecting the land; it’s about maintaining our way of life and our relationship with the land. By doing so, we’re also contributing to global efforts to combat climate change.”

Carbon Sequestration and Climate Mitigation

Indigenous-led conservation efforts play a crucial role in climate change mitigation by protecting and enhancing natural carbon sinks.

The Great Bear Rainforest Agreement

The Great Bear Rainforest Agreement, led by Coastal First Nations in British Columbia, protects 6.4 million hectares of temperate rainforest. This agreement not only safeguards one of the world’s largest intact temperate rainforests but also secures significant carbon stores.

Marilyn Slett, Chief Councillor of the Heiltsuk Nation and President of Coastal First Nations, notes, “By protecting these forests, we’re not just preserving our cultural heritage; we’re also keeping millions of tonnes of carbon out of the atmosphere. It’s a powerful example of how Indigenous stewardship contributes to global climate solutions.”

Restoring Ecosystems, Restoring Balance

Many Indigenous-led conservation initiatives focus on restoring degraded ecosystems, which can significantly enhance carbon sequestration while revitalizing habitats.

The Bloodvein River Watershed Restoration Project

In Manitoba, the Bloodvein First Nation is leading efforts to restore the Bloodvein River watershed. This project combines traditional knowledge with scientific approaches to enhance wetland habitats, improving their capacity to store carbon and mitigate flooding.

Elder Florence Paynter of the Bloodvein First Nation shares, “We’re healing the land, and in doing so, we’re healing ourselves. This work connects us to our ancestors and ensures a healthier future for our children and the planet.”

Traditional Fire Management

Indigenous fire management practices, long suppressed by colonial policies, are being revitalized as an effective tool for both ecosystem management and climate change mitigation.

The Revitalization of Cultural Burning in British Columbia

(Image Credit: Elisabeth Jurenka, Licensed from Unsplash+)

In British Columbia, many First Nations are working to bring back cultural burning practices. These controlled, low-intensity fires reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires while promoting biodiversity and enhancing the land’s carbon storage capacity.

Fire Keeper William Nikolakis of the Tsilhqot’in National Government explains, “Our traditional burning practices create a mosaic of habitats that are more resilient to climate change. By reducing fuel loads, we’re also preventing larger, more intense fires that release massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.”

Guardian Programs: Indigenous-Led Monitoring and Management

Indigenous Guardian programs, where community members are employed to monitor and manage their traditional territories, are a crucial component of many conservation efforts.

The Haida Gwaii Watchmen Program

The Haida Nation’s Watchmen Program in British Columbia is one of the oldest and most well-established Guardian programs in Canada. Guardians monitor protected areas, conduct wildlife surveys, and manage tourist activities, ensuring that conservation efforts align with Haida laws and values.

Cindy Boyko, a Haida Watchman, shares, “As Guardians, we’re the eyes and ears on the land. We’re not just collecting data; we’re maintaining our connection to the land and passing on our knowledge to future generations. This work is crucial for both conservation and our cultural continuity.”

Challenges and Opportunities

While Indigenous-led conservation efforts have shown remarkable success, they also face significant challenges.

Funding and Capacity Building

Securing long-term, stable funding for IPCAs and Guardian programs remains a challenge. However, initiatives like the federal government’s Target 1 Challenge and the Indigenous Guardians Pilot Program are providing crucial support.

Reconciling Legal Frameworks

Implementing Indigenous-led conservation within existing colonial legal frameworks can be complex. However, progress is being made in recognizing Indigenous laws and governance systems in conservation efforts.

The Global Impact of Indigenous Conservation

Indigenous-led conservation efforts in Canada are part of a global movement. Indigenous Peoples manage or have tenure rights over at least ~38 million square kilometres in 87 countries, overlapping with about 40% of all terrestrial protected areas and ecologically intact landscapes.

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, former UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, emphasizes, “Indigenous-led conservation is crucial not just for local ecosystems, but for global climate mitigation efforts. These initiatives demonstrate that respecting Indigenous rights and traditional knowledge is key to effective climate action.”

Policy Implications: Supporting Indigenous-Led Conservation

The success of Indigenous-led conservation efforts has important implications for climate policy at both national and international levels.

Canada’s Commitment to Indigenous-Led Conservation

The Canadian government has committed to supporting Indigenous-led conservation as part of its plan to protect 25% of lands and waters by 2025 and 30% by 2030. This includes funding for IPCAs and Guardian programs.

International Recognition

Internationally, there is growing recognition of the importance of Indigenous-led conservation in global climate strategies. The UN’s post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework explicitly acknowledges the role of Indigenous Peoples in achieving global conservation targets.

Healing the Land, Healing the Climate

Indigenous-led conservation efforts represent a powerful approach to climate change mitigation, one that recognizes the intrinsic link between environmental health, cultural well-being, and Indigenous rights. By protecting and restoring ecosystems, these initiatives not only sequester carbon and preserve biodiversity but also revitalize cultural practices and assert Indigenous sovereignty.

As the world searches for effective climate solutions, Indigenous-led conservation offers a model of stewardship that is both ancient and innovatively relevant to our current crisis. These efforts demonstrate that healing the land and addressing climate change are deeply intertwined processes rooted in respect for Indigenous knowledge and rights.

In the words of Valérie Courtois, “When we heal the land, we heal ourselves, and we contribute to healing the planet. Indigenous-led conservation isn’t just about protecting nature – it’s about restoring right relations between all living things. This is the foundation of true climate resilience.”

As we move forward in our global efforts to mitigate climate change, supporting and learning from Indigenous-led conservation initiatives will be crucial. These efforts offer not just hope for a more sustainable future but also a practical pathway to achieving it – one that honours the deep connections between land, culture, and climate that have sustained Indigenous peoples for millennia.

Blog by Rye Karonhiowanen Barberstock

(Image Credit: Nathan Anderson, Licensed from Unsplash+)

The post The Healing Land: Indigenous-Led Conservation Efforts as Climate Change Mitigation appeared first on Indigenous Climate Hub.

The Healing Land: Indigenous-Led Conservation Efforts as Climate Change Mitigation

Continue Reading

Climate Change

COP17: Key outcomes agreed at the UN biodiversity conference in Yerevan

Published

on

Article Contents

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.

BlueSky post by Aruna Chandrasekhar (@arunacsekhar.bsky.social): "COP17 was supposed to be a nature finance stocktake, ramping contributions to "at least $30bn/yr" and sketching the bones of post-2030 nature funding. "Broadening the contributor base" was an outlier, appearing exactly once in the COP16 decision. Now it's the headliner."

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 second paragraph of Article 20 of the UN biodiversity convention. The text says: "The developed country Parties shall provide new and additional financial resources to enable developing country Parties to meet the agreed full incremental costs to them of implementing measures which fulfil the obligations of this Convention and to benefit from its provisions and which costs are agreed between a developing country Party and the institutional structure referred to in Article 21, in accordance with policy, strategy, programme priorities and eligibility criteria and an indicative list of incremental costs established by the Conference of the Parties. Other Parties, including countries undergoing the process of transition to a market economy, may voluntarily assume the obligations of the developed country Parties. For the purpose of this Article, the Conference of the Parties, shall at its first meeting establish a list of developed country Parties and other Parties which voluntarily assume the obligations of the developed country Parties. The Conference of the Parties shall periodically review and if necessary amend the list. Contributions from other countries and sources on a voluntary basis would also be encouraged. The implementation of these commitments shall take into account the need for adequacy, predictability and timely flow of funds and the importance of burden-sharing among the contributing Parties included in the list."
The second paragraph of Article 20 of the UN biodiversity convention. Source: UN CBD

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.

A key paragraphs from a minister’s non-paper on nature finance published on 29 October. The text says: "Operative paragraphs (the following paragraphs would replace options A-H in the CRP) 1. Emphasizes the importance of accelerating the implementation of the strategy for resource mobilization for the period 2025–2030; 2. Invites Parties not on the list of developed country Parties and other Parties that may voluntarily assume the obligations of the developed country Parties as adopted in Decision VIII/18, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the Convention, to indicate to the Secretariat their interest in being included in the corresponding list established in accordance with that Article and invites Parties to provide their views on improving the modalities and timing of such invitations;"
A key paragraphs from a minister’s non-paper on nature finance published on 29 October. Source: UN CBD

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 talks in] Nairobi. But actually this time, there were a lot of sensitive issues, [there were] a lot of critical things we didn’t open in the contact groups; it mainly went to the high-level discussion.”

The decision also establishes a financial mechanism for nature funding after 2030 under the governance of the COP, a key ask from developing countries.

However, it defers decisions on what form this mechanism would take – whether this would be a new fund or based on existing arrangements – until COP18.

Oscar Soria at the Common Initiative told Carbon Brief that the decision on the financial mechanism leaves things “very open”, with “no movement” towards a new fund or money and no upgrades to existing funding arrangements.

The text acknowledges the links between debt and biodiversity eight times, mentioning how debt-related instruments can be included in biodiversity plans, but does not go further.

“It is almost as if the debt studies they called for at COP16 didnR