Connect with us

Published

2 years ago

on

Across Canada, Indigenous communities are taking a stand as guardians of the nation’s waterways. Rooted in a sacred relationship with water that spans millennia, these “Water Protectors” are leading innovative initiatives to safeguard rivers, lakes, and oceans in the face of climate change. Their efforts not only address immediate environmental concerns but also assert Indigenous rights and revitalize cultural practices tied to water.

The Sacred Relationship with Water

For Indigenous Peoples across Canada, water is not merely a resource but a living entity deserving of respect and protection. Josephine Mandamin, an Anishinaabe Elder and renowned Water Walker, once said, “The water is sick… we need to do something for the water.” This sentiment echoes through many Indigenous cultures, driving a powerful movement for water protection.

Climate change poses unprecedented threats to Canada’s waterways, from changing precipitation patterns and increased flooding to rising water temperatures and altered ecosystems. These changes not only impact the environment but also threaten the cultural practices and livelihoods of Indigenous communities deeply connected to these water bodies.

Traditional Water Governance

(Image credit: Arno Ryser, Unsplash)

At the heart of Indigenous water protection efforts lies traditional water governance – systems of stewardship that have sustained healthy waterways for generations. These governance models, often overlooked by colonial systems, are now gaining recognition for their effectiveness in promoting sustainable water use.

In the Great Lakes region, Anishinaabe water governance is rooted in the concept of “mino-mnaamodzawin” or “living the good life.” This holistic approach considers the interconnectedness of all living things and emphasizes responsibility to future generations. Deborah McGregor, an Anishinaabe scholar and advocate, explains, “Our traditional laws teach us that we have a sacred responsibility to protect the water, not just for ourselves, but for all of creation.”

Indigenous-Led Water Protection Initiatives

Across the country, Indigenous communities are launching grassroots initiatives to monitor, protect, and restore their waterways.

Community-Based Monitoring Programs

The Six Nations of the Grand River in Ontario have developed a comprehensive water monitoring program. Community members, trained in both traditional knowledge and Western scientific methods, regularly test water quality and track changes in the watershed. This program not only provides crucial data on water health but also empowers the community to take an active role in water stewardship.

Restoration of Traditional Water Systems

In British Columbia, the Okanagan Nation Alliance has been leading efforts to restore salmon habitats damaged by development and exacerbated by climate change. By combining traditional knowledge with modern conservation techniques, they’ve successfully reintroduced salmon to streams that haven’t been seen in decades.

Pauline Terbasket, executive director of the Okanagan Nation Alliance, shares, “Bringing the salmon back is not just about food security or environmental health. It’s about cultural revitalization and asserting our role as caretakers of the land and water.”

Legal and Policy Advocacy

Indigenous Water Protectors are also making waves in the legal and policy realms. Many nations are asserting their inherent rights to water governance, challenging colonial water laws that have long marginalized Indigenous perspectives.

The Yukon First Nations’ Together Today for Our Children Tomorrow proposal, which eventually led to modern treaties in the territory, explicitly includes provisions for water management and protection. This groundbreaking approach ensures that Indigenous water rights are enshrined in legally binding agreements.

Combining Traditional Knowledge and Western Science

One of the strengths of Indigenous water protection initiatives is their ability to bridge traditional knowledge and Western scientific approaches. This synergy creates more comprehensive and effective water management strategies.

In the Northwest Territories, the Tracking Change project brings together Indigenous knowledge holders and university researchers to study the Mackenzie River Basin. This collaborative approach has yielded insights into climate change impacts that neither group could have achieved alone.

Dahti Tsetso, a member of the Dehcho First Nations involved in the project, notes, “Our Elders can tell you how the river has changed over decades. When you combine that with scientific data, you get a full picture of what’s happening and what we need to do.”

Water Ceremonies and Cultural Revitalization

Water protection is not just about environmental conservation – it’s also about cultural revitalization. Many Indigenous-led initiatives incorporate traditional ceremonies and cultural practices, recognizing the inseparable link between water health and community wellbeing.

The Water Walks, initiated by Anishinaabe Elder Josephine Mandamin, have inspired Indigenous and non-Indigenous people alike to reconnect with waterways. These ceremonial walks around the Great Lakes and other water bodies raise awareness about water issues while revitalizing cultural practices.

Autumn Peltier, a young Anishinaabe water activist following in Mandamin’s footsteps, emphasizes the spiritual dimension of water protection: “We don’t see water as a resource. We see it as a living thing, as sacred. That’s why we call ourselves Water Protectors, not protesters.”

Challenges and Successes

Despite their crucial work, Indigenous Water Protectors face significant challenges. Industrial activities, from pipeline projects to mining operations, continue to threaten water sources in many Indigenous territories. Navigating complex jurisdictional issues between Indigenous, provincial, and federal governments also poses ongoing challenges.

However, there have been notable successes. In 2021, the Wet’suwet’en Nation’s efforts to protect the Wedzin Kwa (Morice River) from pipeline construction garnered national attention and support. Their actions highlighted the role of Indigenous peoples as frontline defenders of Canada’s waters.

The Future of Indigenous Water Protection

As climate change intensifies, the role of Indigenous Water Protectors becomes ever more crucial. Emerging leaders are combining traditional knowledge with new technologies, using drones, AI, and social media to monitor and protect waterways.

Eriel Deranger, Executive Director of Indigenous Climate Action, sees hope in these developments: “Our young people are taking up the mantle of water protection, armed with both our ancestral knowledge and new tools. They’re the future of this movement.”

Indigenous Water Protection as a Model for Climate Resilience

(Image credit: Getty Images, Licensed, Unsplash)

The efforts of Indigenous Water Protectors offer a powerful model for climate change adaptation and mitigation. Their holistic approach, which views water health as inseparable from community and cultural well-being, provides a roadmap for sustainable water management in a changing climate.

As Canada grapples with the water-related impacts of climate change, from flooding to droughts, the wisdom and practices of Indigenous Water Protectors become increasingly valuable. Their work not only protects vital ecosystems but also paves the way for a more just and sustainable approach to water governance.

Supporting Indigenous water rights and protection efforts is not just an environmental imperative – it’s a step towards reconciliation and a more sustainable future for all Canadians. As we face the growing challenges of climate change, the vision and dedication of Indigenous Water Protectors light the way toward a future where clean, healthy waters flow for generations to come.

Blog by Rye Karonhiowanen Barberstock

(Header Image Credit: Ries Bosch, Unsplash)

The post Water Protectors: Indigenous-Led Initiatives Safeguarding Canada’s Waterways in a Changing Climate appeared first on Indigenous Climate Hub.

Water Protectors: Indigenous-Led Initiatives Safeguarding Canada’s Waterways in a Changing Climate

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