Up to the challenge: Achieving a net zero grid in Alberta
A net zero future for Manitoba through bigger, cleaner, smarter electricity
Beyond Sustainability: The Power of Indigenous Healthy Energy Homes
A new approach to housing in Indigenous communities could improve health outcomes for Indigenous Peoples. It could unlock multiple benefits including: reduced healthcare costs, emissions reductions and savings for households.
Challenges with the housing landscape in Indigenous communities
Current approaches to Indigenous housing are rooted in a colonial legacy. This has resulted in unhealthy housing conditions such as poor ventilation, overcrowding, and homes that are unsuitable for their location or environment.
For decades, Indigenous Peoples have raised concerns that inadequate and unsafe housing in communities aggravates or causes respiratory, cardiovascular, and mental health illnesses. Climate change impacts such as heat waves worsen both unsafe housing conditions and related health challenges.
Figure 2: The links between Indigenous community housing and health
While several factors play a role, governance and accountability challenges are the core issues of these health and housing challenges. They undermine relevant and sufficient investment in Indigenous community housing.
A new approach to Indigenous housing
The housing situation in Indigenous communities has been a long-standing problem. It will continue unless all orders of government not only provide further investments of time and money but, most importantly, take a different and more coordinated, holistic approach to address this issue. The multiple benefits of Healthy Energy Homes make them a worthwhile and smart investment, which could help to drive down healthcare costs while supporting the well-being and health of future generations.
The Healthy Energy Homes project is a partnership between the Canadian Climate Institute’s Indigenous Research stream and Indigenous Clean Energy. It shows how a new approach to housing could address many of these challenges. It could unlock multiple benefits if housing strategies and funding decisions take a holistic view of housing issues and are developed in partnership with Indigenous communities.
The first scoping paper in this project, Beyond Sustainability: The Power of Healthy Energy Homes, sets the foundation for the broader series. It provides important context to both the challenges and innovative solutions linked to housing in Indigenous communities.
The second report, planned for spring 2025, will focus on the policy changes and recommendations that could support building more Healthy Energy Homes in Indigenous communities.
Indigenous Climate Action
ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓐᓂᑦ | Positioning ourselves
This work is being conducted by Indigenous Climate Action (ICA), an Indigenous-led organization that works to support Indigenous communities in reinforcing their place as leaders in driving climate change solutions. Our current programs are designed to empower Indigenous communities to take action on climate change and to nurture the development of community-led solutions that are rooted in Indigenous knowledge and practices.
This identified research need comes from conversations our organization has held with Inuk relatives through informal engagements with ICA’s steering committee and advisory council. This case study provides ICA the opportunity to engage in a healthy critique of our own work, particularly in the area of our Decolonizing Climate Policy Project (DCP), which “aims to investigate the shortcomings and problems associated with Canadian climate policy while at the same time supporting, and developing Indigenous-led climate policy (ICA, 2024)”.
This case study serves as an opportunity for ICA to look inward on our research methods and ethics process. It is a stepping stone for future work on better engagement processes with Inuit, and will inform DCP 3 and other relevant work.
ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔪᖅ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᔾᔭᒋᐊᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ (ICA), ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᓯᕗᓕᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᑎᒥᐅᔪᖅ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᓂ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓂᕐᒥ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᐅᔾᔨᕈᓱᓕᖅᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᓯᕗᓕᖅᑎᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᐊᔭᐅᕆᓂᕐᒥ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ. ᒫᓐᓇᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᑦᓴᖁᑎᕗᑦ ᓴᓇᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓴᙱᓕᖅᑎᑦᓯᒋᐊᕆᓂᕐᒥ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᔾᔭᒋᐊᕈᑎᒋᓗᒍ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓ ᑎᒍᓯᒋᐊᖅᑎᑦᓯᓪᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᓯᓂᕐᒥ ᓄᓇᓕᖃᖅᑐᓄᓪᓗ ᓯᕗᓕᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᑎᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᖃᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᓯᑐᖃᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ.
ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓂ ᐱᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᒍᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᑲᑎᑎᑦᓯᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᒌᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᔾᔭᒋᐊᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᒋᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓂ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᓂᖓ ᐱᕕᑦᓴᖃᖅᑎᑦᓯᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᔾᔭᒋᐊᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑦᓯᓂᕐᒥ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᓗᓂ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑐᑦᓴᐅᒻᒪᖔᖅ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᐃᓗᓕᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᓯᒪᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᑎᒍᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᓯᓂᕐᒥ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓕᐅᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᑦᑎᓐᓂ (DCP), “ᑐᕌᒐᖃᖅᑐᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕆᐊᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥ ᐱᑕᖃᙱᓗᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐱᓇᐃᓗᑕᕈᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑦᑐᐊᓂᖃᖅᑐᓂ ᖃᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᖏᓪᓕ, ᐊᑕᐅᑦᓯᑯᑦᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓪᓗᓂ, ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᓯᓪᓗᓕᔾ; ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ-ᓯᕗᓕᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓕᐅᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥ (ICA, 2024)”.
ᑖᓐᓇ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐱᕕᑦᓴᖃᕆᐊᖅᑎᑦᓯᕗᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᔾᔭᒋᐊᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖓᓐᓂ ᑕᑯᒋᐊᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐃᒻᒥᓄᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑎᖃᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᑦᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᓕᑦᑕᐅᒋᐊᓕᓐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᖃᑦᓯᐊᕋᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦᑕ. ᐊᓪᓗᕆᐊᕐᕕᑦᓴᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᓯᕗᓂᑦᓴᑎᓐᓂ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖃᑎᖃᑦᓯᐊᓂᖅᓴᐅᓗᑕ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᑦ, ᐃᓗᓪᓕᖅᑐᐃᒍᑕᐅᓂᐊᕆᓪᓗᓂ DCP 3 ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂ
ᓄᐃᑎᑦᓯᒋᐊᙵᐅᑎ | Introduction
We know that different environments create different contexts in which the climate crisis unfolds. Consequently, responses to the climate crisis vary across Indigenous communities due to socio-economic, geopolitical, cultural and historical factors.
Indigenous Peoples and communities have been and continue to be structurally excluded from the creation and implementation of Canada’s current climate policy framework. This violates our right to self-determination as well as the right to free, prior and informed consent, which is the inherent “right Indigenous communities have to decide ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to all proposed developments that may affect the collective rights of their communities (What is FPIC, n.d.)”. In Phase 1 of Decolonizing Climate Policy, we highlighted the federal government’s failure to uphold commitments to a Nation-to-Nation and Inuit-Crown relationship, citing examples of violations of Indigenous Peoples’ right to self-determination and free, prior and informed consent in the drafting of the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change as well as the Healthy Environment and Healthy Economy plan.
Inuit have been and continue to be actively engaged in mitigating the impacts of climate change on their lands despite their structural exclusion from federal climate policy development. The purpose of this study is to uplift the richness and validity of Inuit ways of knowing, and amplify the importance of Inuit perspectives in climate policy. There are clear lessons to be learned from the shortcomings of current engagement practices and approaches to policy. Inuit have articulated their own priorities for policy and engagement, providing valuable information and guidance. ICA, along with other ENGOs, can and should learn from these insights to facilitate better, more grounded research and the policies that this research informs.
This exploratory background work is vital to understand how Indigenous Climate Action can participate in and uphold appropriate engagement and representation of Inuit knowledge and worldview in climate policy. We begin by outlining some of the barriers faced by Inuit to participating in climate policy. We then learn of how Inuit are responding to these barriers. Finally, we explore how we can move forward in the equitable inclusion of Inuit perspectives in climate policy as comrades working towards the shared vision of climate justice.
The goals of the case study are as follows:
- Develop an understanding of Inuit approaches to climate policy throughout Canada according to their own teachings, laws and worldview.
- Seek and support recommendations that ensure Inuit rights, worldviews and laws are equitably represented in ICA’s Decolonizing Climate Policy Project. A sub-objective of this goal is to encourage other environmental organizations and orders of government to undertake similar efforts.
- Strengthen the relationship between Indigenous Climate Action and Inuit living in Inuit Nunangat.
ᖃᐅᔨᒪᕗᒍᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᙱᓐᓂᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᕙᑏᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᙱᑦᑑᑎᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᒻᒪᑕ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ. ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ, ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᑦᓴᓕᐊᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔫᖃᑎᒌᓂ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᙱᓐᓂᖃᓪᓛᔪᖅ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒌᑦᑐᑦ-ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ, ᓄᓇᖏᑕ ᒐᕙᒪᓄᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ, ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖃᖃᑎᒌᙱᓐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᙱᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑑᑎᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓂᑦ.
ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑕᐅᙱᓐᓇᓕᒫᖅᑐᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᓱᖅᓯᒪᔪᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓈᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓴᓇᔭᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᓯᓚᒥ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓕᐊᕆᕙᑦᑕᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓯᖁᒥᑦᓯᓂᐅᔪᖅ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅᓱᕈᓐᓇᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᓪᓗᒍᓪᓗ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᑭᖃᙱᑦᑐᒥᒃ, ᓯᕗᓂᐊᒍᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᒪᑎᑕᐅᑦᓯᐊᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓂ, ᐱᑖᕆᓯᒪᒐᒥᐅᒃ “ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ‘ᐄ’ ᐅᑉᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ‘ᐋᒡᒐ’ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑕᐅᒐᓱᐊᖅᑐᓕᒫᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᓕᖏᑦᑕ (ᓱᓇᐅᓂᖓ FPIC, n.d.)”. ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᓂᖓ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᕐᒥ (1) ᑎᒍᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᓯᓂᕐᒥ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓕᐅᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥ, ᐊᓚᒡᒐᐃᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᑎᓚᐅᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕋᖅᓯᒪᔭᒥᓂᑦ ᒪᓕᙱᑦᓯᒪᓂᕆᔭᖓ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᕐᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᖏᑕ, ᐆᑦᑑᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᓯᖁᒥᑦᓯᓯᒪᓂᖏᑕ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅᓱᕈᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑭᖃᙱᑦᑐᒥᒃ, ᓯᕗᓂᐊᒍᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᒪᑎᑕᐅᑦᓯᐊᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓂ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᕐᒨᖓᔪᖅ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᖅ ᓴᓗᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᒍᑎᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᓪᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᐃᙱᑦᓯᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᕙᑎᖃᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕋᓱᐊᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᒥ.
ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᓯᑦᑕᐃᓕᓂᕐᒥ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᒍᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᖏᓐᓂ ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᒻᒪᕆᓂ ᐱᑕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᙱᒃᑲᓗᐊᕋᒥᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓕᐊᕆᕙᑦᑕᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᑕᒪᑐᒪ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕆᐊᕐᓂᐅᑉ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖓ ᒪᑭᑎᑦᓯᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᓪᓚᕆᓐᓂᕆᔭᖓᓂᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᑦᓯᐊᕐᓂᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᓯᖏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᓴᖅᑎᑦᓯᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᓪᓗᑕ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᕐᓂᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓂᕐᒥ. ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᓯᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐃᓕᔾᔪᑎᑦᓴᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᒫᓐᓇᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᙱᓗᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑦᓯᒋᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᓯᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓕᐅᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖃᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᐅᑎᒍᒪᔭᕐᒥᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓕᐅᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑦᓯᒋᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ, ᑐᑭᓯᑎᑦᓯᒋᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐊᑑᑎᖃᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐃᒫᖓᐃᕆᐊᕈᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᓪᓗ. ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᔾᔭᒋᐊᕈᑎᖏᑦ, ᐱᖃᓯᐅᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑎᒥᐅᔪᑦ, ᐃᓕᑦᑐᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓕᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᓯᑦᓯᐊᕐᓂᕐᓴᐅᒍᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᓂᐅᔪᓂᑦ, ᑐᙵᕕᖃᕐᓂᖅᓴᓂᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑎᖃᖅᐸᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᑖᓐᓇ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᔪᖅ.
ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᖅ ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᖅ ᑐᑭᓯᒪᖁᓪᓗᑕ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᔾᔭᒋᐊᕈᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᑦᓯᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑦᓯᓂᕐᒥ ᑭᒡᒐᑐᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᒥᓪᓗ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᕈᓯᖏᑦ ᓯᓚᒨᖓᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᓄᑦ? ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑎᖃᖅᑯᒍᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᐊᐳᖅᑕᕈᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᓂᕐᒥ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓕᐅᕐᓂᕐᒥ. ᐃᓕᒍᑎᒋᓂᐊᕆᓪᓗᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓄᑦ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᐊᐳᕈᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᓄᑦ. ᑭᖑᓪᓕᕐᐹᕐᒥ, ᕿᒥᕐᕈᒋᐊᕐᓂᖃᖅᑯᒍᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓯᕗᒧᐊᒋᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑕᐅᑦᓯᐊᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓇᓕᒧᒌᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᕐᓂᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓕᐅᕐᓂᒥ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖃᑕᐅᑦᓯᐊᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᑖᑦᓱᒥᖓᑦᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᑕᐅᑐᒐᖃᓕᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ.
ᑐᕌᒐᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᑕᒪᑐᒪ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᔫᑉ ᒪᑯᐊᖑᔪᑦ:
- ᑐᑭᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᒍᑎᒋᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᑐᕆᐊᖅᐸᑦᑕᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓕᐅᕐᓂᕐᒥ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᕐᒥ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᖅᑕᐅᒍᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ, ᐱᖁᔭᓕᕆᔾᔪᓯᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᕐᓂᕆᔭᖏᑦ.
- ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᒍᒪᓪᓗᑕ ᐱᖁᔨᕗᖔᓕᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᑦ, ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᕐᓂᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᖁᔭᖏᑦ ᑭᒡᒐᑐᖅᑕᐅᑦᓯᐊᐊᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᔾᔭᒋᐊᕈᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᖏᑎᒍᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᓯᓂᕐᒥ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᓕᐅᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᖓᓂ. ᐱᔭᐅᖃᓯᐅᑎᒍᒪᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᑕᒪᑐᒪᓂ ᑐᕌᒐᕆᔭᐅᔪᒥ ᑲᔪᖏᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑎᒥᐅᔪᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᐅᔪᓪᓗ ᑕᐃᒫᑦᓴᐃᓐᓇᒐᓚᒃ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᑎᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ.
- ᓴᙱᓕᕆᐊᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᕆᔭᖏᖅ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᑉ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᔾᔭᒋᐊᕈᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖓᓐᓂ.
Methodology
Recognizing the unique geopolitical landscapes, specific histories and diverse cultures that shape Inuit globally, as articulated by Kuakkanen (2007), this study is deliberately focused within Canada. It’s important to note that the Canadian context differs from that of Scandinavia or Greenland, and these distinctions play a crucial role in shaping the understanding of self-determination across various regions.
As the only Indigenous-led climate action organization in Canada, ICA bears the responsibility of facilitating meaningful engagement with our kin in the development of our organization offerings so we do not risk mimicking functions of a pan-Indigenous approach to the development of knowledge. Moving away from a Eurocentric discourse and towards one that is rooted in reclaiming, re-storying and researching from our own distinct ways of knowing allows us to nurture and further instill Indigenous worldviews.
Therefore, we have conducted this research using an Indigenous resurgence paradigm. As Cherokee scholar Jeff Corntassel (2021) suggests, an Indigenous resurgence paradigm reframes colonization by shifting focus away from the State, and instead towards the relationships between Indigenous nationhood, placed-based, and community-centred practices that work to revitalize acts of renewal and regeneration. There is no one approach to resurgence, it is constantly being reimagined and reinvisioned dependent on contextually grounded Indigenous landscapes and seascapes. However, Cherokee scholar Jeff Corntassel points to four interrelated elements that stand out from past resurgent mobilizations and emerging literature (Corntassel 2021, p. 74):
- Centering Indigenous nationhood and land/water-based governance;
- Honoring and practicing relational responsibilities, which form the basis for Indigenous self-determining authority;
- Turning away from the state and decentering the politics of recognition, heteropatriarchy, and settler colonialism;
- Engaging in everyday acts of renewal, remembering, and regeneration.
Our selection of methodology is rooted in the understanding that the need for strategies that are contextually grounded in Inuit ways of knowing cannot be understated. Where are the various sites where we might develop relationships with people or places in the search for knowledge? What do contextually grounded methods of knowledge production look like? These are some of the questions we ask ourselves in the application of an Indigenous resurgence paradigm.
During this case study, we embarked on a critical analysis of existing literature that is focused on Inuit approaches to climate change. We engaged with a range of sources to develop this understanding, including:
- federal policies,
- Inuit representational organizations,
- community practices, and cultural teachings.
In alignment with an Indigenous resurgence paradigm, we largely sought literature focused on relationships between nationhood, placed-based relationships and community centred practices. Geographic application of the literature was Canadian-focused; however, we recognize that organizations like Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), an international non-governmental organization representing Inuit of Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and Russia are in service of Inuit on an international scale.
Additionally, we interviewed Inuk participants who were familiar with ICA’s offerings in order to broaden our Decolonizing Climate Policy work towards ensuring that the rights, perspectives and approaches of Inuit are included and centred. Throughout this analysis, we looked for themes of how the climate crisis is described, the shortcomings of current policies, what values and relations should be emphasized moving forward, and proposed solutions.
Why current policy frameworks pose significant barriers to Inuit participation
The already dire climate crisis is compounded for Inuit living throughout Inuit Nunangat, which is comprised of four regions: Inuvialuit (Northwest Territories and Yukon), Nunavik (Northern Quebec), Nunatsiavut (Labrador) and Nunavut, due to its remote location, unique environmental conditions, and the enduring legacy of colonialism. As such, Inuit are facing exacerbated effects of climate change such as thawing permafrost, melting sea ice, and extreme weather.
Canada’s federal climate policy framework continues to pose significant barriers to meaningful engagement of Inuit participation. To begin, the existing federal climate policy framework does not differentiate between northern and southern regions thus failing to create strategies to properly address climate change based on different geographic regions. This is echoed by Inuk woman, Bryanna Brown, who shares:
“The lack of understanding of how we are living life up in the North is really different from the South. So sometimes, a lot of things are not considered, even, for example, the issues that we have with infrastructure and permafrost, and how that causes difficulty with issues like plumbing and waste management. Or capacity issues in various departments and issues with food insecurity and how that impacts people and their ability to continue working (B. Brown, personal communication, April 4, 2024).”
A deeper understanding of the experiences of colonization and how it has manifested differently from Coast to Coast, as well as the subsequent impacts is necessary to support Inuit self-determination. Another evident barrier to meaningful engagement of Inuit participation in the existing federal framework is the tokenistic nature of engagement with Indigenous Peoples, where communities are often consulted as a formality rather than an equal partner in decision-making processes. For example, during the development of the Pan-Canadian Framework (PCF), there was a glaring absence of mechanisms to ensure that the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), ITK, and Metis National Council (MNC) could meaningfully gather input about the PCF Framework on behalf of the Indigenous peoples they are meant to represent (DCP, 2019). As Russel Diabo (2017) highlights, this oversight enabled Canada to mislead the public about the extent of Indigenous Peoples’ involvement and created a facade of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).
Inuit are facing exacerbated effects of climate change such as thawing permafrost, melting sea ice, and extreme weather.
Another glaring example can be seen in the case of the development of the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP), wherein the 2023 ERP Progress Report shared that Indigenous Peoples felt that engagement timelines in the 2030 ERP were inadequate and “highlighted the need for their early, meaningful and consistent involvement in federal climate policy and programming” (ERP Progress Report, p. 58).
A phenomenon known as “siloing” exacerbates these challenges by prioritizing engagement with Indigenous-led political organizations as opposed to grassroots and community-based ones, which further hinders the participation of Indigenous peoples by excluding vital perspectives. To learn more about existing barriers to Indigenous-led climate solutions, check out our recently released DCP Phase 2 Part 1.
A collective pathway for engagement in the pursuit of climate justice
Inuit have persistently advocated for the safeguarding of their homelands, waters, and livelihoods through various means including Inuit governance, community-based organizing, and grassroots direct action. This section will delve into these advocacy strategies employed across Inuit Nunangat and underscore the importance of ICA’s (and other ENGOs) proper engagement with these strategies.
Inuit representational governance organizations have provided clear pathways and actionable steps to ensure inclusion of Inuit knowledge. In 2019, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami introduced the National Inuit Climate Change Strategy (NICCS) which sought to identify climate priorities across Inuit Nunangat. It provided a starting point for provincial and federal governments, international bodies, and non-governmental organizations to coordinate climate strategies within Inuit Nunangat. The goal was to shape climate policies at local, regional, national, and international levels, promoting Inuit-driven research, policy-making and actions through ethical partnerships that address the unique, pressing and diverse needs (ITK, 2019).
The strategy highlights actions that focus on increasing accessibility of information through knowledge transfers for and with Inuit, and Inuit-led research. The five main priority areas identified for action are:
- “Advance Inuit capacity and knowledge use in climate decision-making.
- Improve linked Inuit and environmental health and wellness outcomes through integrated Inuit health, education and climate policies and initiatives.
- Reduce the vulnerability of Inuit and market food systems.
- Close the infrastructure gap with climate resilient new builds, retrofits to existing veils, and Inuit adaptations to changing natural infrastructure.
- Support regional and community-driven energy solutions leading to Inuit energy independence (ITK 2019, p. 19)”.
While not specifically focused on climate, in 2023, the Inuit Circumpolar Council, the national organization representing the rights and interests of Inuit living in so-called Canada, released The Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement. This report outlines best practices for researchers, decision-makers and others who are interested in uplifting the interrelated, interdependent, and indivisible rights of Inuit. There are eight protocols:
- “Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
- Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
- Practice Good Governance
- Communicate with Intent
- Exercise Accountability – Building Trust
- Build Meaningful Partnerships
- Information, Data Sharing, Ownership and Permissions
- Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge (ICC 2023, p. 14)”.
These protocols provide a collective pathway for engagement with Inuit in the pursuit of climate justice, calling for the federal government to approach engagement with the recognition that Inuit have a right to self-determination that must be respected within the context of any climate program, policy or service that is delivered in their territory (ITK, 2019). Furthermore, it highlights that the voices and perspectives of Inuit Elders, women, youth, children, and persons with disabilities must be centred in climate initiatives (ITK, 2019).
During our discussion together, Bryanna Brown highlighted the benefits of a unified front among Inuit representational organizations. Inuit representational organizations have cooperative mechanisms in place that Brown believes offer a promising avenue for effective climate policy integration, because they facilitate seemingly quicker decision-making processes (Personal Communication. April 4, 2024).
However, quicker decision-making processes are not beneficial if they are not inclusive of all community voices, which is often the case in Crown-Inuit relationships where representation often just consists of affiliates from political organizations. One of the Inuit youth interviewed felt that inclusive engagement should extend beyond political organizations:
“The people that should be included are the ones that live in the community and experience the changes first hand. It’s not about who is there but who is not there at decision-making spaces” (M. Dicker, Personal Communication. April 5, 2024).
For instance, youth, who disproportionately bear the brunt of climate change, are often excluded from decision-making processes. Youth bring gifts, knowledge and insight that is vital to addressing the climate crisis. It is imperative that we empower them to be active participants. To do so, we must go beyond inviting them to the decision-making tables, and ensure that their perspectives are valued and implemented in subsequent actions.
Grassroots and community organizers have vital perspectives because of their place-based nature. Establishing a connection to place is integral to truly understanding the impacts of the climate crisis: “If people aren’t experiencing something first hand, or don’t have a connection to a place…they’re not experiencing the same things. It could be easier to brush it off or just think like it’s happening (M. Dicker, Personal Communication. April 5, 2024).”
Examining engagement strategies produced by Inuit representational organizations highlights the importance of ICA and other ENGOs employing inclusive approaches to engagement and decision-making. Complementing this policy review with interviews shows how it can be hard to ensure the right voices are being included in the engagement process, despite specific calls to prioritize perspectives of Inuit elders, women, children and youth in the ITK engagement strategy. By embracing the protocols while recognizing the barriers to their successful implementation, organizations like ICA can be more mindful about their engagement pathways to ensure they contribute to more effective and inclusive efforts towards Inuit-led climate justice.
The path forward
The biggest threats to actualizing Indigenous-led climate solutions and land rights are ongoing systems of colonization, inadequate funding and supports, and a lack of dissemination of critical information directly to communities. Essentially, there is a failure to uphold free, prior, and informed consent by keeping communities disconnected and upholding processes of research done on our communities rather than by or for our communities. There is a clear information gap, lack of funding and access to decision-making spaces that leaves our communities in a deficit, which adds an overwhelming layer of complexity to advancing our solutions.
The biggest threats to actualizing Indigenous-led climate solutions and land rights are ongoing systems of colonization, inadequate funding and supports, and a lack of dissemination of critical information directly to communities.
As outlined above, Inuit have taken the time to lay out the groundwork for us in how to effectively engage with Inuit on climate policy. We must respect and honour this work by engaging with it and applying it to our approach.
The path forward for ICA in the inclusive representation of Inuit knowledge and worldview in our work requires that we do so through a contextually grounded approach. This requires recognition and respect of the unique socio-economic, geopolitical, cultural and historical factors they are faced with. It involves fostering inclusive engagement of Inuit at all levels, from all lived experiences. ICA has and plans to commit to this work through the following actions and initiatives:
Actualize Inuit rights through increased knowledge development and sharing
ICA is currently undergoing a revamp on their research methods and ethics process. This case study is a stepping stone for future work on better engagement processes with Inuit, and will inform DCP 3 and other relevant work.
Centre Inuit knowledge systems by continuing to centre best practices, include marginalized voices and counter misinformation
Research risks serving as a tool for advancing various forms of economic and cultural imperialism by shaping and endorsing unjust power relations (Smith, 2019). Indigenous knowledge is often seen as secondary to the perceived validity of Western knowledge, leading to its misappropriation and exploitation. This sentiment is often reflected in the engagement methods that facilitate researcher’s data collection.
Indigenous knowledge is often seen as secondary to the perceived validity of Western knowledge, leading to its misappropriation and exploitation.
The legitimacy granted to policies by research underscores the importance of inclusive engagement in the research process. Adopting a contextually grounded approach to data collection includes adopting a contextually grounded approach to engagement, which means going beyond Western ideas of whose voices should be included. For policies to be tailored to local communities they must provide a comprehensive understanding of existing unique challenges and opportunities, which can only come from lived experience.
The process of centering Inuit knowledge systems also requires that we prioritize relations with the land. The structure of ICA’s Advisory Committee was intentionally made up of representatives from each of the five biomes. Biomes are characterized by their distinct climate conditions and unique combinations of biotic and abiotic features (DCP Phase 2: Part 1, 2023). Our inspiration was derived from our desire to incorporate Indigenous knowledges from different lands and their human and non-human communities. Throughout the colonial project, Indigenous Peoples were put into groupings that stripped us of our relationality to each other, to our non-human kin and to the land. Decision-making processes that draw from local community observations and efforts provide a more holistic understanding of the climate crisis.
The process of centering Inuit knowledge systems also requires that we prioritize relations with the land.
Support Inuit in developing relevant and effective climate strategies beyond response-based and towards community-driven solutions
Evidently, there is a need for deeper analysis into the potential benefits of contextually grounded approaches to curbing the climate crisis. But the reality is that the funding mechanisms to support this work at the scale that is required are inadequate. Other ways this can be realized are by providing adequate resources and time for Inuit to meaningfully contribute, as well as supporting community-led solutions and local observations of the land.
Conclusion
Through an Indigenous resurgence paradigm, this case study sought to understand how ICA and other ENGOs can participate in and uphold appropriate engagement and representation of Inuit knowledge and worldview in climate policy.
What we found is that this demands a comprehensive understanding of the unique factors shaping Inuit community, paired with a contextually grounded approach to policy development. By centering Inuit voices, ICA and other ENGOs, can contribute to more effective and inclusive efforts towards Inuit-led climate justice.
The path forward involves a concerted effort to dismantle structural barriers and fostering inclusive engagement of Inuit at all levels, from all lived experiences. This study serves as a call to action for Indigenous Climate Action and other ENGOs alike, to strengthen their relationships with Inuit, uplift Inuit knowledge systems, and advocate for policies that are grounded in self-determination and notions of free, prior and informed consent.
References (click to expand)
Aporta, Claudio & Bishop, Breanna & Choi, Olivia & Wang, Weishan. (2020). Knowledge and Data: An Exploration of the Use of Inuit Knowledge in Decision Support Systems in Marine Management.
Canada. (2023). Emissions Reduction by 2030: 2023 Progress Report [Overview]. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/climate-plan-overview/emissions-reduction-2030/2023-progress-report/part-1.html
Canada. (n.d.). Indigenous partnership on climate change. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/indigenous-partnership.html
Corntassel, J. (2021). Life Beyond the State: Regenerating Indigenous International Relations and Everyday. Challenges to Settler Colonialism. Vol. 2021 No. 1 (2021): The Politics of Indigeneity, Anarchist Praxis, and Decolonization.
Indigenous Climate Action. (2023). Decolonizing Climate Policy in Canada, Phase 1. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e8e4b5ae8628564ab4bc44c/t/6061cb5926611066ba64a953/1617021791071/pcf_critique_FINAL.pdf
Indigenous Climate Action. (2023). Decolonizing Climate Policy: Phase 2, Part 1. Retrieved from https://www.indigenousclimateaction.com/programs/decolonizing-climate-policy
Indigenous Climate Action. (2024). Decolonizing Climate Policy. Retrieved from https://www.indigenousclimateaction.com/programs/decolonizing-climate-policy
Indigenous Climate Action. (2024). Decolonizing Climate Policy: Phase 2 Part 2. Forthcoming.
Inuit Circumpolar Council. (n.d.). About ICC. Retrieved from https://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/about-icc/
Inuit Circumpolar Council. (2022). Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement. Retrieved from https://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/project/circumpolar-inuit-protocols-for-equitable-and-ethical-engagement/
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. (2019). National Inuit Climate Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.itk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ITK_Climate-Change-Strategy_English_lowres.pdf
Kuokkanen, R. (2007). Indigenous self-government in the Arctic: Assessing the scope and legitimacy in Nunavut, Greenland, and Sápmi.
Smith, L. T. (2019). Decolonizing Methodologies. Bloomsbury.
“What is FPIC?” n.d. Retrieved from https://whatis.fpic.info/#:~:text=Free%2C%20Prior%20%26%20Informed%20Consent%20is,collective%20rights%20of%20their%20communities
Indigenous Seed Keeping and Seed Climate Adaptation
INDIGENOUS SEED KEEPING: A CULTURAL FOOD AND CLIMATE ADAPTATION PRACTICE
While agriculture is not part of all Indigenous communities’ food systems and practices, many communities’ ancestral food systems include seed keeping and crop cultivation practices. For some Indigenous communities, seed keeping and agriculture was not historically part of their food systems, but has since become so, in some cases due to Indigenous mobility and displacement across regions, climate change altering territories’ growing parameters, and cross-community knowledge sharing. Although the practice of saving and adapting seeds is not exclusive to Indigenous Peoples, they conduct these practices in ways that are culturally distinct, informed by intergenerational belonging to place, and involve Indigenous science, economics, spirituality, gender, environmental stewardship, and community laws and governance.
For generations, Indigenous seed keepers have been seed keeping to develop, maintain, or restore ancestral and culturally significant seed varieties and to adapt existing and newer varieties to respond to regional growing conditions. Indigenous seed practices are guided by ethics of responsibilities and form a culturally specific role often referred to as Indigenous seed keeping or being an Indigenous seed keeper. Indigenous seed keepers steward food crops that have significance to communities’ diets and that support spiritual or cultural practices. These relationships with select seed varieties carry cultural significance, with many communities having stories, songs, dances, games, ceremonies, specific language, food processing technologies, and/or recipes connected to particular crops and varieties. Historically and currently, some communities specialize in particular crops and varieties, trading these with other communities in reciprocal economic alliances for other foods. Seeds have travelled and continue to move across territories through trade routes and exchange networks, resulting in the seed and food biodiversity we see today. Indigenous seed keepers have always adapted and selected seed varieties for new climates and growing conditions, and varieties that thrive in a given territory over time become significant to a family’s or community’s diet and food culture. Through adaptation-oriented decision-making, seed varieties become more equipped to growing conditions influenced by climate change, resulting in more resilient seeds and more successful harvests.
Indigenous seed keeping and agricultural food sovereignty are compromised by both climate change and colonialism. Indigenous seed keepers are having to preserve at-risk cultural seed varieties for cultural survival while also adapting these varieties to be responsive to changing climate factors for current and future food provision .Climate change factors are altering growing conditions and seasons and are destabilizing cultural knowledge about planting cycles, and in consequence, Indigenous seed keepers are struggling with crop yields and seed losses. Indigenous people growing for food production are similarly impacted, with culturally significant seed variety food crops struggling under increasingly unpredictable environmental variables, impacting communities’ health, food access, food security, and food cultures.
Indigenous seed keeping and agricultural food sovereignty are compromised by both climate change and colonialism.
Compounding these climate pressures are the historical and ongoing impacts of colonization Indigenous food cultures and practices. Land dispossession and displacement, federal regulation of identity, the assimilatory imposition of European and industrial agriculture, forced starvation, and the restriction of Indigenous access to capital and equity are all detrimental influences on the health of Indigenous food sovereignty (Carter 2019; Robin et al. 2020). Colonization also continues to obstruct Indigenous seed keepers’ self-determined access to healthy land, preventing seed keepers from conducting agricultural food practices and cultural seed adaptation. Additional facets of colonialism dissect Indigenous Peoples from their relationships with their cultural foods and food knowledge systems, such as the legislation and criminalization of food practices, seed biopiracy and knowledge appropriation, and child apprehension and family rupture through residential schools, the Sixties Scoop, incarceration, and the current child welfare system, among others (Robin et al. 2021; Simpson 2004). Indigenous seed varieties were historically appropriated by museums, private collectors, and companies, and many of these seeds are still in institutional archives and non-Indigenous corporate inventories. Seeds are often retained or sold without the consent of the communities who developed them. While Indigenous seed keepers continue to steward these varieties, low stocks and obstacles to growing have impacted varieties’ genetic health and stability. Cumulatively, these factors have led to the loss of seed varieties and interruptions to knowledge transmission within and across generations.
As stewards of food cultures and climate adaptation, Indigenous seed keepers and growers are a frontline of self-determination through their resistance to and insistence on self-determination from colonialism and biodiversity loss. While there is an information gap on crop biodiversity in Canada, in the past century, there has been a 75 per cent global loss in food crop biodiversity, and today, only 9 to 12 crops comprise 75 per cent of today’s global crop-based food intake (FAO 2004; FAO 1997; Khoury et al. 2021). This trend is concerning as seed biodiversity is significant both culturally and from a dietary perspective to Indigenous people and global populations, and it is also critical to growers to provide greater food security and food system resilience. Genetic and trait diversity across seed varieties also allows for greater regional and genetic solutions for seed keepers to choose from to adapt climate vulnerable food crops.
METHODOLOGY
Sovereign Seeds, a national Indigenous by-and-for seed and agricultural food sovereignty organization, has been working to advance Indigenous-led seed efforts by revitalizing seed keeping knowledges and supporting the adaptation of cultural crops to respond to climate change. Insights generated from Sovereign Seeds’ activities were gathered over three years and were anonymized and analyzed for recurring themes and trends.
These insights were documented with contributors’ consent through a variety of virtual and in-person climate adaptation-oriented activities including collaborative community programming, collective visioning sessions, and partnership communications. This analysis included 16 insight events, as well as email and call correspondence, with 52 contributors in total. Insight event contributors comprised Indigenous individuals, families, grassroots initiatives, organizations, and businesses, with the majority of individuals and groups operating in not-for-profit capacities. A majority of insight contributions occurred between 2022 and 2023; however, some insights gathered in 2021 were provided retrospective consent for inclusion in the analysis. Contributors’ ancestral territory affiliations varied significantly, particularly in cases of urban-situated groups and in multi-group and multi-community events and conversations. Localities spanned British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. Insights were gathered and analyzed using Indigenous research methodologies and frameworks. This case study is one of several organizational actions of relational accountability as an applied Indigenous research methodology in response to community-expressed demands for multi-sector support for Indigenous agricultural food sovereignty and seed adaptation climate action. These learnings offer insights into the intersections of Indigenous food sovereignty and Indigenous climate adaptation that are intimately known and lived by Indigenous people but are often overlooked by non-Indigenous actors and by those operating with influence over levers of power.
With limited public literature on these topics, it is important to acknowledge language use and the case study limitations (see Glossary and Notes on Case Study Language). Not all Indigenous perspectives and experiences are represented here. Indigenous for-profit activities are underrepresented relative to not-for-profit activities, and important realities of gender, sexuality, and multiracial identity are not addressed.
Seeds of wild-harvested or foraged foods native to communities’ ecosystems are also culturally significant food species, but this case study is limited to cultivated food varieties within garden and farming contexts. Further, land dispossession and displacement is the dominant barrier to Indigenous seed adaptation and climate action, but adequately addressing this barrier was beyond the limitations of this case study. Similarly, concerns and recommendations towards international governance mechanisms were voiced in insight events but are also not presented in this case study for brevity. Insight events highlighted some Indigenous priorities and generated calls to action in agricultural food and seed sovereignty that are not included here due to being specific to inter- and/or intra-Indigenous conversations. Lastly, this case study does not present a comprehensive treatise of the historical and ongoing impacts of colonization and the dominant globalized industrial agricultural food system on Indigenous Peoples’ food sovereignty and climate adaptation efforts.
KEY LEARNINGS AND THEMATIC FINDINGS
Findings gathered through Sovereign Seeds’ insight events highlighted barriers and needs in cultural food crop climate adaptation specific to communities’ and regions’ historical, environmental, geographical, and political contexts. Assessed together, common themes related to Indigenous seed and agricultural food sovereignty and adaptation emerged, including knowledge revitalization and transmission, resourcing seed sovereignty and seed climate adaptation efforts, and governance and leadership.
Knowledge revitalization and transmission and seed variety adaptation efforts
Indigenous-led knowledge revitalization is urgently needed to start, strengthen, and continue seed climate adaptation response action. Due to colonial interruptions to seed knowledge transmission, there are not many people within families and community networks with the cultural knowledge and memory of seed keeping who carry multi-decade experience, or what many refer to as seed Knowledge Holders or seed Elders. This relatively small number of experienced seed Knowledge Holders are the primary practitioners of seed climate adaptation and are encouraging newer seed keepers to take climate action. New and emerging seed keepers, who comprise a majority, are keen to revitalize these cultural climate adaptation practices, but identify that seed adaptation is a knowledge and skill set ahead of their current knowledge set.
All seed learners and leaders identified that a strong foundation in culturally rooted knowledge in gardening and seed keeping is a prerequisite to being able to adapt food crop varieties to changing climate conditions. Both emerging and experienced seed keepers expressed a need for improved access to Indigenous-only culturally relevant seed learning opportunities for newer seed keepers to gain the foundational knowledge and applied experience needed to undertake seed adaptation. New and emerging seed keepers named time, capacity, and lack of financial support for learning as barriers. Experienced seed keepers expressed personal capacity concerns, citing financial stressors and lack of resources to fund their and their helpers’ time as barriers to teaching. Many seed Knowledge Holders, also noted negative experiences with non-Indigenous institutional, governmental, non-profit, and small-scale sustainable agriculture actors that resulted in having their knowledge and ideas appropriated, their labour under-compensated, and/or their invited involvement tokenized.
Seed keepers articulated that colonialism has and is impacting Indigenous seeds and knowledge transmission, and that climate change, which is already threatening seed and food cultural crops, is also impacting knowledge transmission, a key activity needed to take climate adaptation action. Between the reality that many experienced Indigenous seed keepers are aging, and the multiple structural and climate-associated challenges that both younger and older experienced Indigenous seed keepers face in learning and teaching, knowledge transmission is a significant and pressing requirement for Indigenous seed climate adaptation.
Seed keepers articulated that colonialism has and is impacting Indigenous seeds and knowledge transmission, and that climate change, which is already threatening seed and food cultural crops, is also impacting knowledge transmission, a key activity needed to take climate adaptation action.
Seed adaptation is multi-year climate action. In this long-term commitment, Indigenous seed keepers face financial precarity arising from the challenges of securing and maintaining infrastructure, labour, equipment, and sustained and self-determined access to land. This precarity undermines the long-term strategic planning and action required to adapt seed varieties for climate. Seed Elders and Knowledge Holders identified the responsibility they carry in both ensuring the survival of culturally significant at-risk seed varieties in their community networks while also teaching others cultural seed keeping and climate adaptation practices. Under these pressures, compounded by a lack of resources, there is little opportunity for experienced seed keepers to scale back their efforts, tend to their wellness, or innovate, let alone navigate a challenging growing season and low seed yield. These combined pressures means newer seed keepers have few learning opportunities and little room for error learning with at-risk cultural seeds while older seed keepers don’t have the time, capacity, or resources for succession of seed inventory and transition of responsibility to others.
Recognizing and resourcing knowledge transmission and adaptation efforts
Insight event contributors—both for-profit and non-profit— overwhelmingly named granting and lending relevance and access across government and philanthropic resources pathways as significant obstacles to seed keeping and variety adaptation.
Contributors expressed frustrations with granting and lending actors not recognizing the complexity of Indigenous cultural agricultural food revitalization and food adaptation, which are not simply practices of food production and distribution or climate monitoring. Contributors noted that across all sectors, funders and lenders did not understand or value the relevance of seeds and seed keeping to culture, education, food security, health, and climate action. For those engaged in non-profit activities, this issue was particularly challenging as they felt funders thought seed-focused projects were irrelevant to granting priorities. Those engaged in for-profit activities experienced a lack of recognition and understanding of the specific barriers and needs they have to start, maintain, or grow for-profit activities due to historical and ongoing Indigenous-context specific barriers they face. Contributors voiced concern that funds often go to initiatives and entities whose activities fit the restrictive criteria and siloed solutions of non-Indigenous funders and lenders.
Those engaged in non-profit seed and agricultural food revitalization and climate adaptation activities emphasized funding approach and delivery as barriers. Non-profit contributors noted that funders prefer new projects and ideas over existing activities and that they predominantly provide short-term and non-renewable funding commitments, an approach that is not appropriate for Indigenous seed keeping projects, which often require multi-year support commitments. Contributors also reported experiences of funders prioritizing investments in Indigenous entities that are high-profile, well-funded, and well-staffed with substantial governance infrastructure, entities that have non-Indigenous partnerships, and entities that promote reconciliation narratives and do not openly express critical viewpoints. These contributors also named the lack of available unrestricted funding opportunities as a challenge. Contributors articulated a need for more self-determination in expenses, greater application and reporting accessibility, greater timeline flexibility, less prescriptive evaluations, culturally appropriate and accessible language, and reduced application and reporting demands.
Indigenous people engaged in both non-profit and for-profit activities strongly expressed a need for funders and lenders to shift away from prescriptive and paternalistic funding models.
Some Indigenous cultural food organizations and businesses are not directly involved in but support and engage with Indigenous seed adaptation initiatives through the use or purchase of their produce and seed harvests. These contributors named conflicts with grantors and lenders on product or service sourcing: many contributors value sourcing from Indigenous producers, while granting or lending partners prioritize profit. Environmentally sustainable and/or climate-responsive Indigenous for-profit food initiatives noted a conflict between their priority to support cultural values of social and environmental seed and food production responsibility with the economic priority of grantors and lenders, who devalue or discredit cultural ethics. These businesses felt overlooked for enterprises that are more in line with western capitalist markets, such as industrial agriculture activities and agriculture initiatives without cultural or social reciprocity-oriented objectives.
Indigenous people engaged in both non-profit and for-profit activities strongly expressed a need for funders and lenders to shift away from prescriptive and paternalistic funding models. Contributors across both activity types identified issues with eligibility requirements, and noted that purchase of land, equipment, and infrastructure should be supported expenses. Recipient eligibility was also a concern. The eligibility criteria in many non-profit government and philanthropic sector funding opportunities disqualified a number of contributors from accessing resources, and for contributors’ for-profit endeavors, small-scale activities were often disqualified based on insufficient capital contribution and perceived insufficient income-generating and scaling potential.
Seed governance, leadership amplification, and understanding and accessing policy-making
While some initiatives are resourced through provincial and federal programs, the Indigenous food sovereignty movement and Indigenous seed variety adaptation efforts are overwhelmingly occurring outside of Canadian government policy and program development. Insight event contributors largely prioritized Indigenous sovereignty and governance and expressed a degree of mistrust of and/or frustration with all orders of Canadian government. The majority of seed keepers noted limitations of government recognition and policy change and that government processes are designed to be inaccessible to grassroots actors. Contributors also felt that while change will not be primarily achieved through policy engagement, national and provincial policies are impacting their seeds, food systems, climate action, cultures, and territories. Many felt strongly that Indigenous people should be meaningfully engaged as sovereign nations and leaders instead of as stakeholders or special interest groups, and that current engagement and translation of government policies, plans, and programs is inadequate. Some barriers identified include exclusionary engagement pathways, inaccessible policies and programs, culturally inappropriate interactions and solutions, and perpetuation of colonization through government regulation of identity, food systems, and territories. There were also challenges of erasure of on-the-ground growers’ voices through preferential engagement with government-recognized Indigenous representative bodies.
Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy (NAS), released in 2023, is the first strategy for climate adaptation objectives, and was accompanied by the re-release of the Government of Canada’s Adaptation Action Plan, which outlines federal financial commitments to climate adaptation amongst provincial, territorial, and Indigenous governments (Government of Canada 2023a; 2024). The degree of meaningful and adequate engagement with Indigenous people in the strategy and action plan was questionable. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) held a National Adaptation Strategy Visioning Forum in 2021 to develop the NAS; of the over 60 participants engaged in the Forum, only two National Indigenous Organizations (NIO) were involved but were not identified, and no other Indigenous participation was named (Government of Canada 2023b). Absent from the NAS is mention of the importance of food crop seed biodiversity and seed adaptation in climate resilience, seed adaptation as a climate action, Indigenous crop adaptation leadership, cultural agricultural food production and factors impacting these activities, and the relationship between Indigenous Peoples and cultural agriculture overall. Similarly, Canada’s 2020 National Biodiversity Strategy (NBS) presents sustainable agriculture as a solution to reduce the impacts of industrial agriculture on biodiversity, yet it only briefly addresses the role of seeds and only in the context of native non-cultivated plants such as trees, with no mention of food crop seed adaptation (Government of Canada 2024a). Further, while it engaged federally-recognized Indigenous governing bodies, the NBS engaged no Indigenous seed or agricultural food sovereignty groups in its engagement sessions (Government of Canada 2024a).
Federal programs funding climate change adaptation efforts fail to adequately recognize and resource Indigenous seed variety adaptation. The First Nation Adapt Program, a Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada climate response program, was developed to support First Nations communities and organizations south of the 60th parallel to assess climate change impacts and develop and take climate response action (Government of Canada 2023c). While not restricted to these action areas, the program has focused largely on climate-related natural disaster mitigation and response, as directed by the again unidentified First Nations groups that ECCC and Natural Resources Canada engaged in the development of the program. Among the 40 projects funded in the 2022-2023 cycle, none were dedicated to food adaptation (Government of Canada 2023d). Similarly, Indigenous Services Canada’s now closed Climate Change and Health Adaptation Program funded a number of meaningful community agricultural food projects through a Food Security stream, yet seed adaptation and adapting crops for climate change were not identified activities in any of the funded projects (Government of Canada 2023e; Climate Telling 2021).
The erasure of Indigenous food climate adaptation leadership from government climate conversations also extends to federal responses to agricultural challenges and solutions.
The SAS discussion document names climate adaptation and resilience as one of five priority issue areas, and specifically, recognizes regionally specific applied climate adaptation research programs as a crucial solution. The SAS 2023 “What We Heard” report highlights barriers and priorities that seed keepers have also named in our insight events, yet the SAS consultation process did not engage an adequate breadth of Indigenous sustainable agriculture experiences and leadership. The report disproportionately represents Indigenous for-profit food producers’ perspectives, and SAS document language overall emphasizes market production activities and examines adaptation for the purpose of increasing commercial yields and commercial product quality. This market based perspective neglects the many cultural value based perspectives Indigenous seed and agricultural actors have on applied Indigenous economics. As a result, Indigenous not-for-profit initiatives and activities, which comprise a majority of Indigenous seed climate adaptation leadership and cultural food knowledge, are largely underrepresented and undervalued in the SAS.
The erasure of Indigenous food climate adaptation leadership from government climate conversations also extends to federal responses to agricultural challenges and solutions.
The absence of Indigenous cultural crop climate adaptation across national action plans and programming reveals government funding priorities and definitions of climate adaptation activities, and it also reflects what contributors strongly voiced in Sovereign Seeds’ insight events, including issues of engagement and consultation, funding priorities, and funding access in areas of climate, culture, and agriculture. Many contributors felt government responses favoured for-profit market participation and sector-based food production as solutions to Indigenous food insecurity and climate adaptation. Contributors described this as culturally inappropriate and assimilationist and an approach that is deepening economic pressures, pitting culture against survival, and creating divisions amongst Indigenous people in the food sovereignty movement. While contributors largely agreed that support is needed for Indigenous for-profit cultural agriculture producers and agrifood market participants that operate sustainably and with accountability to cultural values, many expressed that government responses and policy priorities are neglecting the contributions and perspectives of Indigenous food leaders who are protecting crop biodiversity and leading sustainable agricultural climate adaptation outside of for-profit food production.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Create transparency and accountability of processes and support and increase Indigenous leadership engagement and amplification
The imposition of Canadian state federalism onto Indigenous governance has resulted in preferential engagement with government-favoured Indigenous representative bodies that do not represent seed keepers and cultural growers. Further, bureaucratic accountability has shifted between provincial and federal jurisdictions in ways that do not support Indigenous territorial and traditional governance and nation-to-nation negotiations. Indigenous food sovereignty and seed governance, and the cultural and place-based laws that inform this governance, are sovereign and legitimate, independent of recognition by Canadian and international governments and law. Within western governance frameworks, Indigenous seed keeping and seed climate response exists within and at junctions of climate strategy, intellectual property, biodiversity, cultural rights, and Indigenous rights. Nation-to-nation engagement in Indigenous agriculture and climate adaptation requires increased access to decision making tables, a demystification of mechanisms and decision processes, and more time for preparation and participation. While not a substitute for community-based, community-specific grassroots leadership and Indigenous governance that exists independent of colonial government recognition, Indigenous-led models can generate policies and programs that are better accountable and responsive to community priorities. Our analysis identified recommendations and pathways to improved participation for and amplification of on-the-ground community groups in areas of food sovereignty, agriculture and agri-foods, cultural revitalization, and climate action:
- Deploy an Indigenous-led collaborative model to support decision making transparency, access, and appropriate process timelines. This model would see Indigenous-dedicated Indigenous liaisons across all relevant departments and advisory bodies tasked with providing transparency and translation of processes, documents, and decisions to cultural agriculture leaders and practitioners. The objective of such a model is not to assimilate Indigenous negotiation and decision-making processes within non-Indigenous rights-based governing bodies via Indigenous employment, but rather to better facilitate and operationalize nation-to-nation governance.
- Support on-the-ground Indigenous food and food climate adaptation leadership through multi-year commitments for and the formation of independently organized Indigenous -led and -comprised coalitions. Improved leadership amplification through these measures would help to address the intersecting issues of food sovereignty, agriculture and agri-foods, cultural revitalization, land remediation, and climate action. To ensure accountability and representation, such bodies must be organized by, governed by, and representative of for-profit and not-for-profit regional food producers, growers, and Knowledge Holders independent of (though potentially supported by) band council and government-funded service agency leadership. These collective organizing bodies can act as liaisons with relevant government departments to advance policy change, providing member-responsive programs, and would be accountable to their members’ priorities.
- Operate Indigenous hiring streams within tiers of Canadian government for the development and deployment of Indigenous-led consultations, programs, policy, and strategies with nation-to-nation partnership principles. Give priority accountability to community coalitions’ and on-the-ground leaders’ priorities, timelines, and protocols of conducting governance.
- Improve Indigenous engagement and consultation in government strategies and program development to ensure balanced representation of for-profit and non-profit activities, improved grassroots participation, and more accessible engagement timelines and communications to facilitate their participation. In the case of the SAS for instance, subsequent revisions and associated programs must better recognize Indigenous seed keeping as a uniquely impactful and active climate adaptation action and more strongly engage Indigenous seed keepers and non-profit Indigenous food sovereignty practitioners as key actors in sustainable agriculture and climate response.
- Provide stronger support for the creation of Indigenous-authored content, including policy analyses and research that is developed by Indigenous seed and food sovereignty-dedicated individuals and initiatives operating independently of federally favoured Indigenous representative agencies. Funding support and access to policy power is needed for new and existing Indigenous food sovereignty and Indigenous food climate adaptation research and education centres, programs, community groups in order to generate community-accountable and responsive collaborative contributions.
- Extend greater authority and legitimacy to Indigenous contributions in cultural and creative forms that do not reflect western research and research. Indigenous publications need to be weighed as meaningful contributions to policy and program development across government and philanthropy.
Increase opportunities for and improve processes of low-barrier, multi-year, and self-determined resource distribution for non-profit and for-profit entities
Multi-year commitments create greater space for food relationships and systems to be repaired and help shift initiatives from survival-based operations to long-term success and sustainability, while also making space for exploration and innovation, which is in alignment with Indigenous ways of knowing, being, and doing. Non-Indigenous for-profit and not-for-profit organizations and businesses should consider multi-year and low-barrier contribution policies of directing resources to Indigenous cultural agriculture seed and food initiatives through unrestricted donations and/or multi-year and low-barrier grants opportunities. This funding must be flexible and Indigenous-led or -guided, Indigenous-staffed, accessible, and culturally relevant, with advisory council, board, and/or staff representation of on-the-ground cultural food and climate response experience. Our analysis identified key needs and recommendations to promote these improvements:
- Increase low-barrier and Indigenous-led or Indigenous-guided funding funding support from government and non-government granting foundations for Indigenous-led not-for-profit groups addressing agricultural climate adaptation, seed efforts, and cultural agriculture knowledge transmission. This applies to all funding actors, particularly from large, greater-resourced sources such as granting foundations and multi-year governmental funding programs.
- Increase Indigenous-led or Indigenous-guided flexible funding commitments from values-aligned partners with significantly lower administrative requirements for local scale non-profit efforts, such as seed libraries/banks, community gardens, and cultural food sovereignty learning programs.
- Improve low-barrier investments from Indigenous and non-Indigenous governing bodies and granting agencies for both for-profit and non-profit Indigenous seed keeping and cultural food production initiatives and leadership.
- Provide greater support from all levels of government, local leadership, granting entities, and investment and lending institutions to Indigenous for-profit seed and food initiatives, such as for market gardeners, cultural food producers, and agritourism businesses, and small-scale and family entrepreneurs and enterprises.
- Ensure low-barrier Indigenous-led access to capital and granting from for-profit Indigenous initiatives conducting seed adaptation, and for-profit Indigenous initiatives that provide support to these initiatives, that champions activities and business models that reflect Indigenous economies and ethics.
- Ensure resourcing of cultural agriculture climate adaptation efforts is culturally relevant from development through to delivery. Responsive and effective resourcing includes ensuring Indigenous individuals, families, entities, and formal and informal groups doing the on-the-ground work define and assess success and shape funding processes in food system revitalization and climate adaptation.
- Improve the factors and educate the actors that are influencing the issue of qualified donee status and granting eligibility for non-profit initiatives. Significant change is needed to combat the power disparities and exploitation Indigenous initiatives face as grassroots initiatives operating both independently of and on shared platforms and in intermediary relationships, to dismantle barriers Indigenous initiatives face in accessing resources and expanding administrative capacity.
- Ensure multi-year granting and lending commitments for all Indigenous seed and agricultural food adaptation initiatives, both for-profit and non-profit. Project efficacy is depedent on multi-year planning and action.
- Improve access to unrestricted funding in granting and lending commitments for all Indigenous seed and agricultural food adaptation initiatives, both for-profit and non-profit. Eligible expense criteria need to support Indigenous self-determination by allowing unrestricted funding for self-identified priorities, such as equipment and infrastructure, operations and administration, staff and organizational development, and land access, return, and acquisition.
Recognize seed keeping and food culture and spirituality in food adaptation policy and resourcing
To reduce fundraising burdens on Indigenous initiatives to defend community-informed and culturally appropriate solutions, granting entities need strong operationalized awareness of the role of holistic approaches in Indigenous food adaptation solutions and of the historical and ongoing harms to Indigenous food systems. Our analysis identified recommendations to advance community-responsive and culturally appropriate policy and granting and lending programs:
- Improve anti-oppressive training and education for all actors across government and philanthropic sectors on Indigenous food sovereignty history, politics, perspectives, and ethics. Training that emphasizes non-Indigenous actors learning to practice Indigenous cultural food practices, rather than these learning priorities, fails to address power imbalances inherent in funding relationships, risks replicating histories of cultural knowledge extraction, and does not create systemic and structural awareness needed to create tangible sector change.
- Government and non-government entities must recognize Indigenous seed keeping as a climate adaptation practice. These entities must also recognize associated practices such as healing, food culture, and language learning activities as relevant priorities that are indivisible from seed keeping and climate response action. Spiritual, cultural, and technical knowledge revitalization and knowledge transmission activities are necessary for Indigenous-led food system climate adaptation.
- Extend recognition beyond optics and apply labour justice across government and non-government strategies and programs to see ethical compensation for seed learning and teaching labour and investment in seed adaptation efforts. For Indigenous food systems to thrive, Indigenous food leaders and learners must be provided conditions to thrive.
CONCLUSION
Indigenous seed keeping and Indigenous food sovereignty is subjected to the pressures of survival under an imposed capitalist economic system, the globalized industrial food system, climate change, and colonially constructed food insecurity. As an act of agency and self-determination under these oppressions, Indigenous seed climate adaptation action also exists at the intersections of knowledge revitalization movements, decolonial governance, anti-capitalist community organizing, and entrepreneurship and reimagined cultural economies. While these intersections engender political and cultural tensions across Indigenous seed keepers and the government, philanthropic, and corporate sector powers that impede their efforts, Indigenous seed adaptation learners and leaders continue to apply responsive climate solutions. Learners and leaders do this through the extensive land-based knowledge and community collaboration that has seen Indigenous food systems persist through both colonization and climate change. Pressures to have Indigenous knowledge and strategies fit western philanthropic and government models are not only hindering Indigenous food and climate leadership but are assimilatory and counterproductive to seed biodiversity, agricultural climate monitoring, and adaptation. The Indigenous food climate adaptation movement needs to be recognized as critical climate action and Indigenous seed and food growers need to be engaged as frontline climate responders. For just and effective Indigenous food climate adaptation, government and non-profit actors must better defer to Indigenous definitions of success and Indigenous-led holistic assessments of the activities and resources they need to take action. Indigenous governance and self-determination must lead the development and delivery of funding and investment programs and the development of strategic action plans and policies impacting Indigenous people in climate change and agriculture. Thematic insights revealed in this case study analysis emphasize the interconnectivity of Indigenous sovereignty, seed and food biodiversity, and climate resilience, and the deep need for restitution of leadership and resources towards a just and climate-resilient food sovereignty future.
Indigenous seed keeping and Indigenous food sovereignty is subjected to the pressures of survival under an imposed capitalist economic system, the globalized industrial food system, climate change, and colonially constructed food insecurity.
GLOSSARY AND NOTES ON CASE STUDY LANGUAGE (click to expand)
Indigenous views on the case study topics and associated definitions vary. These terms and definitions are not reflective of all Indigenous perspectives.
Agriculture: Agriculture and farming are alienating terms for many Indigenous peoples in Canada due to their association with colonial efforts to assimilate Indigenous people via western agriculture and its contemporary relationship with industrial farming (NWAC 2021). Forced assimilation and oppression through settler farming methods spanned residential schools, church-run farm settlements, experimental research farms and forced labour farms, and pass and permit policies, among others. Some preferred terms include food sovereignty, growing, and gardening. The term agriculture in other contexts extends to includes livestock, livestock feed, aquaculture, and other food production activities, agriculture and cultural agriculture are used interchangeably in this case study to speak specifically to plant crops grown for food with cultural teachings and methods.
Canada: The use of the term Canada does not reflect many contributors’ perspectives on the politics of acknowledgement of the Canadian state, with many preferring to use so-called Canada, what is colonially known as Canada, and within the colonial borders of Canada as an acknowledgement of settler-colonial occupation and Indigenous displacement and as a linguistic assertion of Indigenous sovereignty.
Communities: Use of the terms communities and community partners refers to and is inclusive of Indigenous on- and off-reserve urban and rural communities, organizations, grassroots initiatives, and informal groups.
Culturally significant seed varieties: In this case study, culturally significant seed varieties and seeds refers to cultivated food crop varieties that Indigenous peoples historically and/or presently have relationships with as part of their cultural food systems. This largely involves seed varieties that were developed by Indigenous ancestors hundreds of years ago and might or might not persevere today, but this term can also include other seed varieties that families and communities have recently developed or adopted into their food systems and have created cultural meaning with in recent decades.
Indigenous: Indigenous in this case study refers to people Indigenous to what is known in the English language as North America.
REFERENCES (click to expand)
Carter, Sarah. 2019. Lost Harvests: Prairie Indian Reserve Farmers and Government Policy (2nd ed.). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Climate Telling. 2021. Food Security. http://www.climatetelling.info/food-security.html
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 1997. The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). https://www.fao.org/3/w7324e/w7324e.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2004. What is Happening to Agrobiodiversity? Building on Gender, Agrobiodiversity and Local Knowledge. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). https://www.fao.org/3/y5609e/y5609e02.htm
Government of Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 2022. Government launches consultations for a Sustainable Agriculture Strategy. https://www.canada.ca/en/agriculture-agri food/news/2022/12/government-launches-consultations-for-a-sustainable-agriculture-strategy.html
Government of Canada. Environment and Natural Resources. 2023a. Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy. https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-
plan/national-adaptation-strategy/intersol-report.html
Government of Canada. Environment and Natural Resources. 2023b. Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy: Vision Forum. https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/national-adaptation-strategy/intersol-report.html
Government of Canada. Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. 2023c. First Nation Adapt Program. https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1481305681144/1594738692193
Government of Canada. Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. 2023d. First Nation Adapt Program: funded projects in 2022-2023. https://www.rcaanccirnac.gc.ca/eng/1698771955468/1698771985864
Government of Canada. Indigenous Services Canada. 2023e. Climate Change and Health Adaptation Program. https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1536238477403/1536780059794
Government of Canada. Environment and Natural Resources. 2024. Government of Canada Adaptation
Action Plan. https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/national-adaptation-strategy/action-plan.html
Government of Canada. Environment and Natural Resources. 2024a. Canada’s 2030 National
Biodiversity Strategy. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/biodiversity/national-biodiversity-strategy/milestone-document.html
Hart, Michael. 2007. “Cree Ways of Helping: An Indigenist Research Project”. Doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba.
Khoury, Colin K., Stephen Brush, Denise E. Costich, Helen Anne Curry, Stef de Haan, Johannes M. Engels, Luigi Guarino, et al. 2021. “Crop Genetic Erosion: Understanding and Responding to Loss of Crop Diversity.” New Phytologist, 233(1) (October 20, 2021): 84–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.17733.
Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC). 2021. The Agrodiversity Pilot Project: Report on Findings Related to Best Practices & Investment Opportunities for Indigenous Women. https://nwac.ca/assets-documents/AGRI-REPORT-2-final-2-2.pdf
National Farmers Union. 2023. AAFC’s Sustainable Agriculture Strategy: Eight things you should know.
https://www.nfu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SAS-8-things-you-need-to-know.pdf
Robin (Martens), T. R., Mary K. Dennis, M. K., and Michael A. Hart. (2020). “Feeding Indigenous People in Canada”. International Social Work, 65(4): 652–662.
Robin, Tabitha., Kristin Burnett, Barbara Parker, and Kelly Skinner. (2021). “Safe Food, Dangerous Lands Traditional Foods and Indigenous Peoples in Canada”. Frontiers in Communication, 6.
Simpson, Leanne. 2004. “Anticolonial Strategies for the Recovery and Maintenance of Indigenous Knowledge”. American Indian Quarterly, 28(3): 373–384.
Ceremony is for Us, for Mother Earth
The Four Siblings Prophecy
Shared by Elaine Alec
In the beginning, there were four siblings from each of the four races and they all lived on the same Land. In our Stories, we have always talked about the siblings and the four colours, like the medicine wheel: black, red, white, and yellow. When our Elders told these Stories, they did not reference the colours of the races in a derogatory way. They have shared these teachings for decades to talk about our relationships and to remind each other that we are all relatives.
Each sibling was given a gift that they were supposed to master. The Creator told the siblings, “You must go off and master these gifts, and when you come back together again, you will teach each other what you have mastered, and you will listen to each other and learn, and the world will be good. If you do not share your gifts, if you keep them to yourselves, or if you do not listen to each other, there will be war.”
The Creator gave each of the siblings a teaching. Some of our nations say the Creator gave each of the siblings a tablet with instructions and that those tablets are still out there. These tablets carry the original teachings that were meant to be shared between people so they could live in peace on Earth together. They were told that if even one of them forgot those teachings or cast their teachings to the side, that all humans would suffer, and the Earth would die. These teachings are said to be on tablets in Arizona, Tibet, Switzerland, and Mount Kenya.
The black sibling was given the gift of water. They were told that even in the desert, they would be able to find water and know how to harness its power. The yellow sibling was given the gift of air, that they would be able to harness its power for discipline and strength. The white sibling was given the gift of fire, that they would harness its power and use it to create engines and machines. The red sibling was given the gift of Land, that they would learn everything about the Land and its Natural Law and know everything about regenerating it.
The Creator told the four siblings that they would be sent into the four directions to master their gifts, and that what separated them would be what brought them back together again. So, the Creator struck the Land with a wooden stick and the Land began to crack and separate. And as the Land began to separate, what came up between them was water. It would be water that would bring them back together again.
Introduction
The global climate crisis is the most pressing challenge facing humanity. Activists, Knowledge Keepers, and scientists have been calling for urgent and concerted climate action at all levels (UNICEF n.d.; Onjisay Aki 2017; EEAS 2021). Yet colonial policy frameworks inhibit climate action through their entrenched patterns of inequality, exploitation, and environmental degradation (Deranger 2021), and are poorly equipped to truly address the challenges now facing society (Jackson and Victor 2019). The disconnect between Indigenous approaches to climate change—rooted in Sacred and Natural Law and Ceremony—and colonial policy frameworks—often siloed and surface-level—presents further challenges to developing effective climate policy. It is imperative that Indigenous Peoples and colonial governments work together to address this crisis and that Indigenous Peoples’ voices and perspectives guide climate policy processes. Climate change is not just an environmental issue, but an issue of human social, economic, and industrial organization at a global scale (Turner 2022; Kyle 2021); Indigenous Peoples know that all people are one with the Land, and that we must all therefore pursue climate policy methods and ways of being that facilitate holistic and interconnected approaches to the problem. As this case study will show, one way this must be done is through Ceremony.
Our case study responds to the question, How should First Nations’ Ceremony in so-called British Columbia (B.C.) influence climate policy? To search for answers, we reflect on our experiences and learnings from the Spiritual Knowledge Keepers’ Gathering on Climate Change (The Gathering) (Naqsmist and BCAFN 2024a). The Gathering was a two-and-a-half-day governance Ceremony hosted in November 2023 on Tsleil-Waututh Territory. It brought together 23 First Nations Knowledge Keepers from around B.C. to address the climate crisis, discuss its underlying causes and impact on the Land and all beings, and offer space to share Stories, songs, and healing. It kicked off the B.C. First Nations Climate Leadership Agenda process between the federal government and B.C. First Nations, coordinated by the B.C. Assembly of First Nations (BCAFN), and funded by Environment and Climate Change Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. The process seeks to set out a B.C. First Nations-specific policy agenda to guide changes to Canadian federal climate policy, programs, and funding through a memorandum to Cabinet. This memorandum will inform federal government budget decisions (BCAFN 2024)1.
The Gathering was grounded in Sacred and Natural Law through the Circle process, which promotes that all voices speak (based on observations from Natural Law that each being is needed for the ecosystem to thrive)2. It was also grounded in prayer and acknowledgement of ancestors, animals, and all living beings, and songs, dances, and Stories that both represent and allow people to embody the natural world in governance. Naqsmist, an Indigenous consulting firm, captured notes and video to create a summary and develop a Mandate for moving the work forward. The event resulted in the Spiritual Knowledge Keepers Gathering on Climate Change report (Naqsmist and BCAFN 2024a) and Mandate (Figure 1):
The fourteenth Mandate item asks us to “create a new path forward in relationship with Mother Earth.” This is the fundamental challenge and where Ceremony can play a pivotal role. To better understand this dynamic, we consider below the legacy and limitations of colonial policies and the potential for their transformation using decolonial approaches rooted in Ceremony and Sacred and Natural Law.
What is ceremony, and why is it essential to climate policy?
“Ceremonies are intended to elicit the deepest response from yourself, from your soul and spirit. It is important in itself, significant; it can’t just be politics anymore. We’ve got to do something. We’ve got to stand up and be counted, be a voice.” — Hereditary Chief Dr. Robert Joseph (Naqsmist and BCAFN 2024a)
Indigenous Ceremony is fundamentally about connecting to the Land and all of Creation, and is itself a way of life. Ceremonies are often place-based, can take many forms, and are “a way of transferring knowledge, and remember[ing] the responsibility we have to our relationships with life” (Cajete 2000). They are also a protocol for belonging—to a family, to a people, to the Land, and to the Sacred, emphasizing interconnectedness, reciprocity, and respect through balance and renewal (Kimmerer 2013; Naqsmist and BCAFN 2024a; Cajete 2000).
Ceremony, in connection with Sacred and Natural Law, can be seen as both a policy in itself (i.e. parameters to guide future decisions), and as something broader (a way of being, a feeling, an ongoing process of discovery and action through relationships). In Ceremony, we arrive with respect and reverence for the Creator and we appeal to Natural and Sacred Law for permission and protection. Including Ceremony in policy helps to set the right relationship with one another and the Land. Ceremony reminds us to be humble and to hold responsibility rather than entitlement. Thus, it translates relational knowledge into parameters (principles, values, and intent) that guide decision making and resource allocation—or what the government of Canada calls policy (CHIN 2021).
Governance Ceremonies are a place where people gather and share Stories. As Indigenous Peoples, we use the information from those who have been on the Land to make decisions for how we will be on the Land for the next four seasons. By applying this understanding to climate policy, we arrive at a more holistic understanding that helps root decisions in larger systems thinking. Ceremony is a protocol and a practice for providing access to this way of thinking and being.
Tensions between ceremony and policy
“We had policy within our ceremonies. We had policies in our day to day life. They were brought out from watching our natural world and looking at creation. We had original instructions given to us. How do we follow those now? How do we maintain that in a colonial state? I think it’s really going back to listening to Land, listening to our youth. Listening to our Elders. Where are they trying to take us?” — Ginnifer Menominee (ICA 2023)
Indigenous Peoples have always known how to act in relationship to the Land. They recognize that the disconnect between people and the Land is the reason for the climate crisis. Policies are tools by which people operationalize values, and are thus a pathway for Indigenous worldviews to help address climate issues. But they are just that: tools. In the wrong hands, they can become weapons. So we must ask what values underlie their use.
Historical policies in Canada have been designed to assimilate and erase Indigenous Peoples. For example, some forms of policy undermined Indigenous Governance by targeting Ceremonial practice. Potlatches, which happen along the northwest coast, were banned by federal government policy from 1885 to 1950 (Section 3 of An Act Further to Amend The Indian Act, 1880, as cited in Indigenous Corporate Training, Inc., n.d.). This Act not only undermined Indigenous governance but also impeded cultural expression, demonstrating the power of policy as a tool of oppression (Monkman, Lenard. 2017).
Other policies moved Indigenous Peoples from their Lands onto reserves, which limited access to their Territories, eroding cultural practices and connection to place. In some cases, selection of reserve lands (often on lands deemed less valuable by settlers) resulted in maladaptation to climate change: homes relocated onto floodplains under the Indian Act are at increased risk of flooding, as seen most recently during B.C.’s atmospheric river of 2021 (Chakraborty et al. 2021; Alderhill Planning Inc. 2022; Yellow Old Woman-Munro et al. 2021).
Policies are tools by which people operationalize values, and are thus a pathway for Indigenous worldviews to help address climate issues.
While some governments and ministries are enhancing their approaches to establishing and managing relationships with Indigenous Peoples, Reed et al.’s (2021) analysis of Canadian climate plans shows that there is consistent failure to uphold Indigenous rights to self-determination; free, prior, and informed consent; or true Nation-to-Nation relationships. The B.C. First Nations Climate Leadership Agenda process is a case in point, although certainly not the only case: it allows for roughly two years of “meaningful engagement” with First Nations to inform a memorandum to federal Cabinet, which, once drafted, will likely undergo interdepartmental consultation (Government of Canada, 2020) before being presented to Cabinet for discussion and decision-making, a process that is shielded by confidentiality rules. Confidentiality supports the free expression of ministers, which promotes good governance (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2014), but it limits transparency in decisions that affect Indigenous Peoples. It also removes Indigenous rights and title holders from the decision-making table, degrading the collaborative intent of meaningful engagement and co-development. As a recent engagement participant shared, “Canada always falls short in its desire to be inclusive because of this Cabinet process. When Canada opens that door, it will be able to look at us as individuals and respect our rights” (Naqsmist and BCAFN 2024b).
This exclusion marginalizes Indigenous worldviews, governance, and rights recognition, protection and, implementation—which together contain answers to questions that much current climate policy seeks to grapple with. To move towards a policy approach that benefits rather than harms Indigenous Peoples, and that meaningfully addresses climate issues, Indigenous Climate Action concludes, “policy making must center our own worldviews and our own diverse approaches to governance [which are] based on relationship to the Land, ancestral knowledge and concern for future generations” (ICA 2022). To address the governance challenge presented above, one incremental way to centre Indigenous Knowledges, governance, and ways of being in climate policy would be to ensure that climate policy development and implementation are rooted in and guided by Ceremony.
A path through
“Ceremony focuses attention so that attention becomes intention. If you stand together and profess a thing before your community, it holds you accountable. Ceremonies transcend the boundaries of the individual and resonate beyond the human realm. These acts of reverence are powerfully pragmatic. These are ceremonies that magnify life.” — Robin Wall Kimmerer (2013)
The Knowledge Keepers at the Gathering emphasized that to address the climate crisis, we must uphold our responsibilities to each other and to Creation. Contextually appropriate Ceremony, conducted with proper protocols, provides access to a way of being that allows us to connect to all that is around us, and thus to better see, delegate, and uphold responsibilities.
The connective element of Ceremony reminds us of the nsyilxcen language (syilx okanagan), in which the word tmixʷ loosely translates to ‘all living things’, and the word tmxʷulaxʷ loosely translates to Land. According to Dr. Jeanette Armstrong, tmixʷ is literally translated as the life force, and tmxʷulaxʷ is the ‘life-force-place’. Humans are considered part of the life force “through Indigeneity as a social paradigm [that fosters] reciprocity in the regeneration of all life forms of a place” (Armstrong 2012).
For this reason, the governance Ceremony has a process orientation rather than one of results to ensure that people stay grounded in an embodied reverence for the Land and Creation. When individuals honour this way of life, their spirit and decisions are aligned with their purpose. Historically, as people contributed from their unique purpose, the group would work towards solutions only after all voices were heard.
Ceremony is an embodied connection to Indigenous identity—to individual and collective purpose in the life-force-place. Respecting Indigenous rights is respecting Ceremony because it promotes relationship with the Land and Creation. To do so properly, Indigenous and colonial institutions, governing bodies, and political, economic, and social structures and relationships need to be founded on Ceremony.
Knowing this, and returning to the first 13 lines of the Knowledge Keepers Mandate, each line is part of a bigger picture of climate solutions. Through Ceremony, the relationships between Mandate lines emerge as more important than any individual line. This is the case because, as elements of the life-force-place, we must all play our role as healthy contributors so that the entire system can be well. We are encouraged to transcend personal and structural barriers so we can grasp interconnectedness for the benefit of all beings.
Each community experiences different challenges on the Land and in their relationships. These challenges require tailored approaches to effectively address the complex relationship with Mother Earth. First Nations’ communities’ self-determining choices to act on—and governments’ support for—any of the Mandate lines constitute climate action, because impacts in one area reverberate to others. Patchwork approaches confined to colonial climate priorities do not meaningfully respect Indigenous rights. Ceremony reminds us why Indigenous-led approaches to climate action, rooted in Indigenous communities’ respective traditions and priorities and grounded in an underlying reverence for the Land, are needed.
While the way forward may not always feel clear, we know we cannot do this work without Ceremony. By connecting humans and the Land, Ceremony can be climate policies’ foundation, and all of our grounding.
A critical element of Ceremony is the way it centres and reinforces both reciprocity and responsibility. In Ceremony, we are reminded of our place in Creation: Sacred and Natural Law tell us how to be in the world and hold us responsible and accountable. While the way forward may not always feel clear, we know we cannot do this work without Ceremony. By connecting humans and the Land, Ceremony can be climate policies’ foundation, and all of our grounding.
The way forward
Ceremony is a necessary component of adapting to and mitigating the climate crisis because it is a way to see ourselves in the context of Sacred and Natural Law and a way to align our actions to Mother Earth’s needs. Policy development processes need to be guided by Ceremony and Indigenous Knowledges. Ceremony, as it relates to climate policy, helps shine a light on a proposed policy’s shortcomings. It helps us find words for the way that we feel when we come up against systemic failures. You cannot heal what you do not acknowledge, and Ceremony shows some of the ways in which Canadian climate policy falls short, as assessed through Indigenous worldviews.
Understanding this, effective climate policy development must be approached holistically, and through intentional grounding in place and Ceremony. Emerging from Naqsmist’s reflections on the Gathering, we offer the following recommendations for policy makers across cultures and within all orders of government:
- Climate policy efforts must be founded on continued implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
In particular, the following articles apply to our recommendations: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, and 45. Broadly, the UNDRIP Annex must guide implementation of these articles to ensure that the approach to respecting Indigenous rights is appropriate (United Nations, 2007).
- Federal and provincial governments must support and provide targeted resource capacity for First Nations to conduct Ceremony in culturally appropriate and self-determining ways.
First Nations and other Indigenous groups should continue to practice and promote Ceremony as a way of relationship building, both with others and with the Land. Furthermore, Ceremony must be an integral and consistent component of any co-development or engagement process between Canadian governments and First Nations. All involved in the policy making process should be active participants or observers of Ceremony, where appropriate. This must include funding Knowledge Keepers to attend policy-development processes, recognizing their Land-based and spiritual experiences as knowledge, and supporting communities to continue to foster coming-of-age ceremonies and practices, thereby creating new generations of Knowledge Keepers to maintain and strengthen humans’ connection to the Land. Care should be taken to avoid misrepresenting, pan-indigenizing, or diluting Ceremonial processes. Ceremony must not be tokenized and must be seen and implemented as an ongoing responsibility to follow Natural and Sacred Laws and protocols.
- Federal and provincial governments must allow First Nations to set the table for Indigenous/non-Indigenous climate policy and law development.
Letting First Nations set the table means ensuring equitable and enhanced rights-based participation that cultivates safer spaces for discussion led by First Nations teachers, guides, and spiritual leaders (Shallard and Wale 2023). Indigenous Peoples must exercise their right to free, prior, and informed consent when policies impact their rights to their lands, territories, and resources. Culturally and contextually-relevant Ceremony must be practiced in these settings from the outset. This could be supported by adding and sharing reflective components within policy development processes to ensure transparency around how Indigenous Knowledges have been valued and upheld, how they need to be further included, and whether and to what extent they are being considered in decision making. Furthermore, many First Nations and Indigenous groups have pre-existing national Laws (both Sacred and Natural Law and in some cases written traditions or other forms of law) that apply to climate initiatives. These laws must be upheld in collaborative governance processes between Indigenous groups and Canadian governments. While there are significant systemic barriers to true Nation-to-Nation climate policy development processes, including the federal Cabinet process, Ceremony opens space for Indigenous worldviews to frame and lead the discussions and provides opportunity for cross-cultural learning, promoting a heart and Land-centred approach that can support incremental changes over time.
- Over time, federal and provincial governments must commit to a paradigm shift in climate policy-making to centre the well-being of the Land by respecting and incorporating Ceremony and Sacred and Natural Law into decision-making and implementation approaches.
In other words, and in alignment with the fourteenth Mandate item, we must work together to forge a new relationship with Mother Earth. A paradigm shift is necessary to transition away from decisions and policy that centre people and profit at the expense of the Land, climate, and Sacred and Natural law. This shift is needed both in many colonial and Indigenous spaces—Ceremony helps all of us come together and live our lives in a good way. Ministries with conflicting mandates should be brought together to engage with Indigenous Peoples in good faith around issues of the natural world—which, as we have learned in this work, touch all ministries, since we humans are part of the natural world. Engaging in Ceremony is an act of good faith, and as Ceremony is included in more and more co-governance initiatives between Indigenous Peoples and Canadian governments, our hope is that small changes at the level of the individual stemming from participation in Ceremony can lead to larger systemic changes that benefit all humans and the Land. Additionally, funds for research initiatives on collaborations across Indigenous communities, academia, and governments could allow for a better understanding of how Ceremony and policy can work together to not only promote First Nations climate leadership but also to promote this paradigm shift. Slowly, we hope, the expansion of Ceremony in governance spaces will reduce the burden that Indigenous Peoples face by participating in siloed engagements that do not align with their worldviews and that lack transparency and accountability, and will promote improved relationships within and between First Nations, other Indigenous communities, and Canadian governments.
Conclusion
Through the practice of Ceremony, we remember who we are.
We believe that if we follow the right protocols and practice Ceremony—even if it is not always clear how to do so or what the result will be—the necessary components to reform colonial climate policy and to begin to respond appropriately to the climate crisis will continue to emerge. This will happen because over time, through the practice of Ceremony, we remember who we are, and our actions will reflect this deeper understanding.
Ultimately, the value of Ceremony does not come from thoughts or through logical analysis. It comes from experiences of connection that spur action. As Kukpi7 Fred Robbins said, “We must know our Territory—where the sun goes up and down, how the wind blows in the morning and evening. There is no ownership of the Land, only a sense of belonging” (Naqsmist and BCAFNa 2024). This feeling of belonging is what the Knowledge Keepers are challenging us to understand. Like in the Four Siblings Prophecy, this is the gift they are sharing. Will it bring us together again?
Footnotes
Fueling the oil and gas transition with Canada’s climate investment taxonomy
Achieving Canada’s climate targets requires transformational emissions reductions in its historically emissions-intensive sectors including oil and gas. Canada also needs to increase private and public investments in clean growth projects by $80 – $110 billion annually to meet its climate targets. In March 2023, the federally appointed Sustainable Finance Action Council recommended that Canadian governments establish a Climate Investment Taxonomy to help support the needed investments. In effect, the taxonomy would serve as a standardized framework to help financial markets assess which projects and investments can help reduce fossil fuel emissions from hard-to-decarbonize sectors in line with Canada’s climate goals and global 1.5°C scenarios.
How should Canada fuel the transition of oil and gas projects in its taxonomy? We looked at the taxonomy framework proposed in the SFAC’s Taxonomy Roadmap Report, and developed an approach to categorize emissions-reducing oil and gas projects.
How can oil and gas projects fit in Canada’s Climate Investment Taxonomy?
A big part of the taxonomy framework developed by the Canadian Climate Institute is about defining “green” investments and projects. Almost all of the 30+ countries that have developed or are developing taxonomies focus on defining this green label. It typically includes activities and projects that are already aligned with a net zero future such as renewable electricity, batteries and storage, electric vehicles, and low-carbon hydrogen. For these types of projects SFAC recommends mirroring the frameworks and leading practices from elsewhere, such as the European Union.
Unlike other countries and regions, the taxonomy framework developed by the Canadian Climate Institute establishes a “transition” category. The role of this label is to identify, and unlock funding for, credible pathways to rapidly decarbonize Canada’s emissions-intensive sectors including oil and gas.
Why include oil and gas projects in a Climate Investment Taxonomy
Including any oil and gas activities in the taxonomy raises legitimate concerns about preserving the taxonomy’s credibility. Climate science is clear that the production and consumption of fossil fuels must decrease significantly and rapidly if the world is to keep global average temperature rise to below 1.5°C.
But it is exactly because of the oil and gas sector’s high emissions profile that it is essential to have a transition label that can evaluate oil and gas decarbonization projects. As global demand for fossil fuels starts to decrease this decade, large-scale investments to decarbonize the upstream production of oil and gas will be necessary to achieve Canada’s climate targets and maintain industry competitiveness.
Figure 1 summarizes the specific requirements for projects to be eligible for the transition label category within SFAC’s taxonomy. Taken as a package, these requirements provide a credible path for determining which pollution-reducing projects in the oil and gas sector could qualify for the taxonomy’s transition label and therefore be eligible for preferential lending terms.
Categorizing oil and gas investments in the taxonomy
To determine whether existing oil and gas projects are eligible for the proposed transition label in SFAC’s taxonomy, we focused on three main questions:
- When are downstream Scope 3 emissions from a particular project considered the dominant transition risk?
- What is the definition of new vs. existing oil and gas facilities?
- How can the taxonomy determine whether project lifespans and emissions reductions align with 1.5°C pathways?
Fueling the transition outlines how these questions can be used to confirm which projects are eligible for the transition label. It details the strengths and challenges of this approach.
Overall, this paper suggests setting a high bar for what types of oil and gas projects could become eligible for the taxonomy’s transition label with a focus on keeping Canada on a pathway to meet its climate targets. Using detailed criteria and metrics, the transition label strikes a balance between promoting transformative investments and preventing carbon lock-in.
An effective and credible climate taxonomy must aim high and reach far. With the proposed transition label, Canada has a unique opportunity to become a global leader on Climate Investment Taxonomies. It is positioned to provide guidance to other countries on how a taxonomy can help to transition hard-to-abate sectors. It can also help position Canada’s economy to remain competitive in a low-carbon world.
Turning the tide on flood risks
Improving flood risk transparency practices can drive equitable outcomes across Canada.
As climate change continues to increase the risk of floods, communities need support to build resilience to flooding. Improved flood risk transparency, which entails the mapping, disclosure, and pricing of flood risk, has a crucial role to play in Canada’s efforts to protect people and communities from flood risks. It can help individuals and communities decide how best to avoid, mitigate, or absorb damages and losses due to flooding.
However, in many instances, flood risk transparency practices can have disproportionately negative impacts, especially on equity-deserving groups. These groups are more likely to live in flood prone areas and are less able to access flood risk information. Equity-deserving groups are also more likely to be disadvantaged by costs related to flood risk and are often unable to afford housing in less risky areas.
What can governments do to help ease the disproportionate and inequitable impacts of flood risk transparency on equity-deserving people?
Flood risk mapping
Flood risk maps are a critical tool for understanding and mitigating flood risk. They provide valuable data on current and future flood risks for a certain area which can then inform purchasing, investment, and adaptation decisions.
But flood risk maps are not widely available, particularly in areas where equity-deserving groups are overrepresented. When they do exist, they may be 25 years or more out of date, physically hard to access, or difficult to read for audiences without technical skills.
In 2020, the federal government announced it would begin updating available maps, and committed to updating flood maps nationwide in the National Adaptation Action Plan, under the Flood Hazard Identification and Mapping Program. That is a good step, but there is no indication that the updated maps will reflect the influence of climate change.
Inaccurate or unavailable flood risk maps are an issue for any community. Those where equity-deserving groups are disproportionately represented can face a more difficult path to recovery if they are impacted by flooding. Individuals in these communities are generally less able to rely on savings to smooth over the impacts and tend to lose a greater share of their overall wealth.
To effectively build equity considerations into mapping, we need public engagement processes, including engagement with stakeholders and right holders to understand the local context and disproportionate impacts.
Flood risk disclosure
For flood mapping to support risk mitigation, property information must be disclosed in a timely, complete and accessible way.
The main mechanism for flood risk disclosure during real-estate transactions is the Property Disclosure Statement (or equivalent). It is a means for communicating to the buyer any risks related to the property. But the details of what needs to be communicated to buyers varies across jurisdictions. Inconsistencies can result in the inability for buyers to make educated decisions about the risks, including the flood risk.
Landlords in Canada are not currently required to disclose hazard or risk information about their properties during rental transactions. Renting a basement suite or in a neighbourhood with inadequate stormwater and wastewater infrastructure may be particularly risky given the higher likelihood of flooding. This significantly impacts equity-deserving communities, who are disproportionately represented among renters.
To date, property and tenant insurance transactions have yet to be used effectively to alert prospective buyers and renters about the flood risks associated with properties they plan to purchase or rent, with more severe impacts for equity-deserving communities who disproportionately live in flood-prone areas. As the flood insurance market grows, insurance agents should be required to inform their clients about the flood hazard and risk profiles of their properties. Local agencies responsible for flood management could also be supplied with flood models used by the insurance industry to underwrite flood coverage and become more active in informing residents of the potential impacts of flood hazards on their property and insurance.
Flood risk pricing
Flood risk pricing can affect real estate, insurance, and rental costs, all of which can disproportionately impact members of equity-deserving groups located.
Insurers’ understanding of risk and competitive pricing shapes the cost of property insurance. As insurers better understand flood-related risks under worsening climate impacts, the cost of insurance is rising. Across Canada, home insurance premiums increased by 20 to 25 per cent between 2015-2019. More than half of this increase is attributable to flood damage. Absent government intervention, insurance coverage may become unaffordable for members of equity-deserving groups living in flood-prone areas.
For those who already own properties, flood risk disclosure can trigger changes in property values. Catastrophic floods can significantly drop the price of real estate and reduced home values can impact savings and retirement options.
Flood risk pricing can also increase the cost of renting, as landlords pass the increased insurance cost to tenants. This disproportionately affects equity-deserving groups who are more likely to rent than others. Renters could be forced to either relocate away from their current communities or pay substantially higher rents. By reducing the relative cost of housing in flood-prone areas and increasing the cost in less flood-prone areas, flood risk pricing may lead to a cycle that disproportionately traps equity-deserving groups in higher-risk neighbourhoods.
A transformational flood risk transparency approach
The federal government, as well as many provincial, territorial, and Indigenous governments, are investing in flood mapping programs, but major gaps remain.To address these gaps, programs and strategies should engage equity-deserving groups and reflect social vulnerability. A short-term step could be to create knowledge-sharing committees that would incorporate diverse perspectives in mapping initiatives. In the longer term, governments should move towards co-development of flood mapping programs. Meaningfully including members of equity-deserving groups in the design and implementation of flood mapping programs can help ensure that the values, concerns, and priorities reflect the diversity of the communities they map.
Flood risk maps should also be designed to be accessible to the public, including equity-deserving groups. This includes making sure that the data is easy to understand so people can make informed decisions on how to prepare for and be more resilient to the impacts of flooding.
Finally, strengthening and standardizing flood-related real estate and rental disclosure requirements and guidelines could help address some of the disproportionate impacts of flood-related risks on equity-deserving communities.
Building resilience to flood risk
Building resilience to flood risk is an important step in protecting people in Canada from some of the increasingly severe impacts of climate change. A step in the right direction is better flood risk transparency so people and communities can make more informed decisions.
Read more about how policy responses can address some of the equity-related challenges related to flood risk transparency.
Recommendations for a more practical Standardized Climate Scenario Exercise
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) works to maintain confidence in Canada’s financial system. As part of its strategy for guarding against climate-related risks, OSFI has released a draft Standardized Climate Scenario Exercise (SCSE) for public comment. The SCSE looks at the financial consequences of transitioning to an economy powered by clean energy, known as transition risk, and the financial consequences of extreme weather and other physical effects of climate change, known as physical risk. The SCSE identifies four different ways these financial consequences will affect Canadian financial institutions: market financial risk, credit financial risk, physical financial exposure, and real estate financial exposure. In its submission to OSFI, the Canadian Climate Institute identifies the SCSE as an important step forward for aligning Canadian financial institutions with an accelerating clean energy transition and an increasingly volatile climate, and shares recommendations for better optimizing the SCSE’s approach to transition risk and physical risk.
Public submission from the Canadian Climate Institute
The Canadian Climate Institute is an independent research institute that informs and shapes climate change policy in Canada. We have previously analyzed the economic impacts of the global clean energy transition in Sink or Swim: Transforming Canada’s economy for a global low-carbon future and have analyzed the threat presented by a warming climate and the costs and benefits of adaptation in our The Costs of Climate Change series. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI)’s proposed approach to climate-related risk management in its Standardized Climate Scenario Exercise (SCSE).
Climate change threatens Canada’s financial health. Over 70 per cent of the country’s goods exports are vulnerable to transition-driven market disruptions. Meanwhile, the physical impacts of accelerating climate change between 2015 and 2025 alone will slow Canada’s economic growth by $25 billion annually, which is equal to 50 per cent of projected GDP growth. Overall, the SCSE is a positive and important step towards standardizing how federally regulated financial institutions respond to climate-related risk.
This comment letter shares several suggestions for how OSFI can better optimize the SCSE by being more upfront about its assumptions and limitations. While we appreciate that the Exercise is necessarily abstract and aggregated, more clarity is needed to avoid negative unintended consequences.
The SCSE would benefit from additional key assumptions and limitations
Although the SCSE’s existing list of assumptions and limitations is not meant to be exhaustive, it needs further clarifications to how it conceptualizes both transition risk from a changing economy and physical risk from a warming planet. Additional transition risk qualifiers should be acknowledged in the SCSE’s market and credit modules, while in its physical module, additional physical risk qualifiers should be recognized and actively addressed. The same goes for transition risk in the real estate module. We discuss each in turn.
The SCSE’s market and credit modules use an approach similar to the Canadian Climate Institute’s Sink or Swim report for analyzing transition risk. Assuming that OSFI will apply the same transition risk factors as used in the Bank of Canada/OSFI Pilot Project, we broadly support the proposed process. There are additional key assumptions and limitations that the Exercise should disclose, however.
- The SCSE should acknowledge that it does not actively analyze opportunities from the clean energy transition and only focuses on transition risk. While opportunities from the clean energy transition are more difficult to quantify than risks in these types of stress-testing analyses, they can give federally regulated financial institutions important insights on strategically managing risks in the transition. We addressed the same limitation in our own analysis of transition risk by complementing the Sink or Swim report with a study of opportunities at the provincial level.
- The SCSE should acknowledge that it does not account for regional differences within Canada. We assume that the SCSE will follow the Bank of Canada/OSFI Pilot Project, and not conduct analysis at the subnational or local level. This limitation is understandable, but its implications should be disclosed and assessed.
- The SCSE should standardize more assumptions when it comes to mapping counterparties to sectors. The amount of autonomy currently devolved to federally regulated financial institutions may result in fragmented and inconsistent counterparty mapping, particularly for the mapping of “support” counterparties. Clarifying boundaries around the oil and gas sector and its supporting activities has been a major component of our work on Canada’s green and transition finance taxonomy. The European Union sustainable activities taxonomy similarly distinguishes and discloses criteria for activities that enable other activities.
Turning to the physical module, the SCSE may be interpreted as using physical risk to identify financial exposure. However, in its current form, the module only captures physical exposure to hazards, not physical risk. The SCSE should address several key assumptions and limitations to elevate its physical exposure analysis to physical risk analysis.
- The SCSE should disclose challenges and limitations for translating Representative Carbon Pathways into physical hazards and physical exposure. Current publicly available data, such as that available from Climate Data Canada, is inadequate for assessing physical exposure to important physical hazards such as flooding and wildfires. Translating the warming and climate projections associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Representative Carbon Pathways into localized physical hazard and exposure data would be a significant improvement but a major undertaking. The current limitations of physical hazard data and the challenges involved in conducting robust physical exposure analysis should be clearly explained.
- To capture physical risk, the SCSE would have to go beyond physical exposure by also incorporating physical vulnerability to physical hazards. Physical risk is determined by both the physical exposure of assets to physical hazards as well as the physical vulnerability of those assets to the physical hazards to which they are exposed. Currently the SCSE does not address the latter. In order to paint a useful picture of the physical risks facing financial institutions, the SCSE will need to provide guidance on how to analyze the vulnerability of exposed assets and how to incorporate that vulnerability in assessments of physical risk.
- The SCSE should pilot a risk assessment approach for a small number of highly material physical risks, rather than to require broad hazard exposure assessment with limited value. Investing in extensive physical hazard mapping and broadly assessing exposure to physical hazards may have little value, as described above. We recommend that the SCSE instead focus on assessing a small number of highly material risks or a single risk, such as that associated with flooding, with a methodology that also incorporates asset characteristics. This will be a challenging undertaking but the results will be much more valuable and there will be important lessons learned about how to, over time, design and implement an effective physical risk assessment methodology that addresses a broad spectrum of risks.
Finally, the SCSE’s real estate module aims to analyze transition risk, similar to the market and credit modules. It has a similar flaw to the physical module, however, as it also presents exposure as risk.
- To capture transition risk, the SCSE should go beyond power sources and greenhouse gas emissions intensities. It is understandable why the SCSE would need to start with power sources and emissions intensities, given the lack of relevant granular real estate data available in Canada. However, we see these metrics more as fundamentals for having usable data, rather than as indicators of transition risk. The real estate module should at least include scenario pathways for power and building sector emissions (e.g. energy efficiency standards, carbon pricing increases).
- The SCSE’s understanding of transition risk for real estate should incorporate climate policy as a whole. Policies that increase transition risk for real estate should be balanced against policies that mitigate risks, such as carbon pricing rebates and labour market retraining. This is particularly important for real estate assets because they are sensitive to domestic policy change as a transition risk driver. By contrast, assets that are more trade exposed tend to be more sensitive to transition risk drivers that alter competitiveness, like changes in global policy, technology, and consumer preferences.
Without more context, the SCSE could misrepresent climate-related risks
Focusing on the risks from the clean energy transition without an analysis of the opportunities can exaggerate anticipated harm from the shift. Commercial investments into activities like carbon capture, hydrogen, bioproducts, and mining may come with transition risk, but the risk may be contrasted with significant market growth. The exaggeration of harm would be more pronounced if the SCSE proceeded with only national-level data. The risks and opportunities in the clean energy transition vary widely among provinces, with British Columbia, Manitoba, and Quebec having a significant clean electricity headstart thanks to existing hydro resources.
Conversely, focusing on risks without accounting for the distribution of opportunities can underestimate harm to Canada’s competitiveness. The SCSE suggests that transition risk is negligible in its baseline current policy scenario because it assumes no new climate policies. This overlooks how technology and consumer preferences may continue to evolve towards cleaner energy sources, driving transition risk in markets. It also overlooks how the current policy environment may put other countries on trajectories to outcompete Canada in clean energy-related markets, even if no new policies were to be added.
Equating exposure with risk in the physical and real estate modules without clarifying the limitations of this assumption may also misrepresent risk. Without accounting for physical vulnerability to physical hazards, the SCSE may drastically mischaracterize physical risk. For example, an assessment of physical exposure alone might flag a commercial building in a flood zone as being at risk, but further investigation of physical vulnerability could reveal that the building is only exposed to a minor depth of flooding and has floodproofed to that depth, and therefore is not at risk of flood-related damage. In a similar vein, the Exercise may mischaracterize transition risk for real estate by basing it only on power sources and emissions intensities, which are more reflections of exposure than of risk. For instance, some emissions-intensive households may receive support to help them navigate the clean energy transition.
The SCSE should refine its approach towards transition risk and physical risk to avoid negative, unintended consequences for the financial system
We understand that OSFI will add more detail to the SCSE as it evolves; this letter is intended to draw attention to specific details that should be included in these future iterations. Ideally, the Exercise should provide a more sophisticated analysis of transition risk and physical risk. In the meantime, it should be careful not to overrepresent its current level of sophistication.
Even though the SCSE cautions that it is not a sizing of climate-related risks, the way it frames these risks could still influence policy and capital allocation. Market and credit risk decision makers may use it to inform their climate-related analysis, without noting the importance of opportunities or subnational differences in the clean energy transition. The Exercise’s physical exposure analysis may also encourage physical risk decision making without adequate consideration of other factors that interact with physical exposure to determine risk level, including characteristics of the asset (e.g. presence or absence of a basement, building materials used) and measures already taken to mitigate risk. Similar concerns also apply to the SCSE’s real estate transition exposure analysis potentially being used to assess transition risk without a fuller accounting of risk factors.
The SCSE is ultimately an important step toward standardizing the identification and management of climate-related risks. It is also a step that would be expected from OSFI, as other financial regulators are taking similar actions. For instance, the European Banking Authority is in the process of developing templates and guidance for climate scenario analysis. As currently written, however, the SCSE is oversimplified, making its use a major undertaking without clear practical value for federally regulated financial institutions—particularly for institutions that already have experience with basic scenario analysis. Going forwards, we recommend that OSFI be clearer about the assumptions and limitations that its Exercise contains and how it intends to improve its accuracy and applicability over time.