How State-Driven Protectionist Conservation Efforts Have Violated the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

The Indigenous World 2023 Report (herein, The Report), developed by The International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), reveals how, globally, many state-driven conservation efforts are not protecting the rights and knowledge of Indigenous Peoples, or practicing Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). The Report shows how governments, while supporting international policies on the conservation of biodiversity, continue to engage in protectionist conservation practices at the expense of the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Indigenous World 2023 Report consolidates reports from regions and countries all over the word, and provides updates from international processes and initiatives, including those driven by the United Nations. The Report provides numerous examples and critiques of state-driven fortress conservation or protectionist conservation practices, that have resulted in violence against, and a refusal of, the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

For example, The Report notes how the government of Tanzania is furthering its efforts to protect and conserve lands, including expanding the Ruaha National Park and the Pololeti Game Reserve; however, in doing so, the government further encroaches into Maasai ancestral lands, demolishing Maasai homesteads, and forcibly displacing Indigenous villagers. The Report also explains how the government did not seek the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of Maasai villagers in the expansion of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in 2022.  The Tanzania Times reports that over 2,000 villagers from Loliondo, located at the border of Tanzania and Kenya, have been displaced due to the expansion of the conservation area. The Maasai took the Government of Tanzania to court to contest the eviction of their villages but lost, “send[ing] a dangerous message that Indigenous [P]eoples can be evicted from their land in the name of conservation.”

The Report also highlights the significance of The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) (December 2022) which “acknowledges the important roles and contri­butions of Indigenous peoples and local communities as cus­todians of biodiversity and partners in conservation, restora­tion and sustainable use.” The KMGBF is a strategy for nations “to protect and restore biodiversity by 2050.” The Report acknowledges the contradictions between the intentions of the KMGBF and the actions of many countries in protecting Indigenous rights and knowledge, and how there is more work to be done to fulfil the intentions of the strategy. For example, as noted in The Report, the KMGBF was adopted at the COP 15 meeting, chaired by China. However, despite China’s global leadership on biodiversity, domestically, the Chinese government has not acknowledged “the existence and relevance of Indigenous Peoples in the country.” To align with the KMGBF, China’s intentions to establish a national park system would need to recognize the rights and the contributions of Indigenous Peoples to the governance and protection of biodiversity.

While The Indigenous World 2023 Report commends the KMGBF and the efforts of the International In­digenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB), it also offers example after example of how state-driven conservation efforts are violating the rights and lives of Indigenous Peoples worldwide.

 

By Leela Viswanathan

 

(Image Credit: Mariola Grobelska, Unsplash)

/by

First Nations Fire Protection Strategy 2023-2028

With wildfires occurring earlier in the Spring and Summer months due to climate change, First Nations in Canada, especially those located in remote locations, face challenges due to limited access to fire prevention and safety services. The First Nations Fire Protection Strategy 2023-2028 provides long-term and short-term actions to “set out a path to improve fire outcomes for First Nations.”

The First Nations Fire Protection Strategy 2023-2028 (herein referred to as “Strategy”) was co-developed by the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and Indigenous Services Canada. The aim of the Strategy is to establish concrete actions for First Nations’ fire protection and fire prevention. The Strategy also integrates these actions with emergency management measures as per the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction Sendai Framework.

The Strategy is reinforced by six pillars, each with a set of goals, and ends with an appendix that outlines guidelines for “municipal type service agreements.” The strategic pillars are:

  1. Partnership for First Nations fire protection
  2. Fire prevention education
  3. Community standards
  4. Fire service operational standards
  5. Climate change
  6. Critical infrastructure

Wildfires in Canada are at an all-time high in 2023 and are attributed to especially warm and dry conditions. Climate change, as the fifth pillar of the First Nation Fire Protection Strategy 2023-2028, calls for investing in the capacity of First Nations’ fire departments to better respond to fire events and to increasing efforts that reduce the risk of wildfire emergencies in Indigenous communities.

 

By Leela Viswanathan

 

(Image Credit: John Towner, Unsplash)

/by

The Three Sisters as Indigenous Sustainable Agricultural Practice

The Three Sisters—corn, beans, and squash—is a form of Indigenous sustainable agriculture that involves the practice of intercropping or companion planting, where plants are grown next to each other for mutual benefit. This Indigenous sustainable agricultural practice invites environmental stewardship, increases the quality of life of Indigenous Peoples, and helps communities to achieve food sovereignty.

Environmental stewardship is a key component to Indigenous sustainable agriculture; it involves the “responsible use and protection of the environment,” which includes “ limiting the harvest of natural resources.” The Three Sisters is a form of environmental stewardship because they “support growth without requiring fertilizers, pesticides, equipment or intense irrigation.” The plants support each other in unique ways. The corn stalks provide support to the beans, and the plants exchange nitrogen with the soil to facilitate growth. The squash, planted between the beans and corn, and their leaves, cover and protect the soil, to stop weeds from propagating. It is reported that the Three Sisters thrive better together than if each of the corn, beans, and squash were planted on their own. Together, they also deter pests. EcoWatch provides instructions for how to grow a Three Sisters Garden.

The quality of life of Indigenous Peoples is improved through the Three Sisters. Once used heavily by Indigenous Peoples in the Great Lakes region of North America, the Three Sisters, as a model of sustainable agriculture, holds the potential to offer business opportunities and a sustainable food source for Indigenous communities in ways that connect these communities to their own cultural traditions. In addition, the Three Sisters are rich in minerals and vitamins to “support community health and quality of life.” Currently, Indigenous communities are working with researchers from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) to explore how and why the Three Sisters’ model is especially successful.

Promoting local food production is crucial to Indigenous food sovereignty and long-term food security. As a traditional form of intercropping, the Three Sisters also produces a high agricultural food yield (i.e., average energy measured in kCal and grams of protein per unit of farmland per year). According to research conducted by Dr. Jane Mt. Pleasant (Cornell University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences), “The Three Sisters yields more energy (12.25 x 106 kcal/ha) and more protein (349 kg/ha) than any of the crop monocultures or mixtures of monocultures planted to the same area.”

Indigenous farmers could benefit from a network of peers who engage in indigenous sustainable farming and gardening year-round, through large-and-small-scale farms, community gardens, and greenhouses. The potential for such a network to facilitate information exchange, knowledge sharing, and advocacy to promote Indigenous agricultural practices is one that is worth exploring. The Three Sisters is just one example of Indigenous sustainable agriculture, rooted in regional knowledge, Indigenous traditions, and cultural experiences. Other examples of Indigenous sustainable agricultural practices across Turtle Island could be explored to build a stronger shared understanding of Indigenous approaches to sustainability.

 

By Leela Viswanathan

 

Photo Credit: Meritt Thomas, Unsplash

/by

Upholding Indigenous Data Sovereignty in Research

Indigenous data sovereignty addresses the misuse, cooptation and stealing of Indigenous traditional knowledge and cultural heritage. Indigenous data sovereignty is defined as “the ability for Indigenous Peoples, communities and Nations to participate, steward and control data that is created with or about themselves.” The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which upholds the inherent and inalienable rights of Indigenous Peoples, is foundational to recognizing the rights of Indigenous Peoples worldwide, and is crucial to Indigenous data sovereignty in research.

At the core of Indigenous data sovereignty, are the rights of Indigenous Peoples to collect, own, store, and use the data collected about and with Indigenous Peoples, including information about Indigenous cultures, ways of life, and territories. The disaggregation of population data and other statistics regarding Indigenous Peoples remains controversial, because it also informs the politics of recognition, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the protection of Indigenous lands.

Several resources can guide researchers  to uphold Indigenous data sovereignty.  FAIR principles (i.e., Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) promote open access to data, while “CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance” (i.e., Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics) centre on how data collection and research objectives should directly benefit Indigenous Peoples. Furthermore, the First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC) promotes First Nations principles of OCAP®  (i.e., ownership, control, access, and possession) and training, to outline how First Nations’ information and data “will be collected, protected, used, or shared.”

 

By Leela Viswanathan

 

(Image Credit: Andrew George, Unsplash)

/by

Indigenous-led Conservation of Caribou

Indigenous-led efforts to conserve caribou, highlight efforts to sustain cultural and ecological connections among First Nations and endangered species. According to a 2013 report by the Assembly of First Nations and the David Suzuki Institute, in Canada, “boreal woodland caribou herds share the land with approximately 300 First Nation communities.” Both boreal caribou and Southern Mountain caribou, in British Columbia, Canada, are listed as “threatened” under the Species at Risk Act (SARA).

Caribou contribute to the lives and cultures of Indigenous Peoples across Turtle Island (the continent of North America). For example, caribou is a traditional food among the Inuit and the parts of the caribou that are not eaten, such as the skin and fur, are transformed into material for tents, clothing, and bedding. The hunting and harvest of caribou play social and spiritual roles in maintaining kinship and community relationships.

Indigenous led-conservations efforts are saving caribou from local extinction (also referred to as extirpation), thus contributing to the protection of Indigenous self-determination. For example, the size of the Klinse-Za caribou herds (one of 54 subpopulations of caribou in British Columbia) on the traditional territories of the West Moberly First Nations and the Salteau First Nations, have declined from approximately “250 in the 1990s to only 38 in 2013.” However, about nine years of conservation efforts by these First Nations have increased the size of the herd to 101 caribou in 2021, and more recently, to 114 caribou . The increase in the numbers of caribou, is attributed to the leadership and conservation actions undertaken through a conservation partnership agreement between West Moberly First Nation and the Salteau First Nation. The partnership agreement provides habitat protection for the Klinse-Za and for other caribou subpopulations in neighbouring areas. In addition, the agreement aims to “stabilize and expeditiously grow the population” to self-sustaining levels and to maintain consistency between traditional caribou hunting practices and harvesting practices and Aboriginal and Treaty rights. The conservation agreement also invites the reinstatement of cultural traditions of caribou hunting.

The degradation of caribou habitats has contributed to the steep decline of caribou in British Columbia as well as in other parts of Canada. For example, in Northern Québec and Labrador, the George River caribou herd has declined by 98% since 2001. Although the numbers of caribou in the herd went up slightly in 2020, they went down again in 2022, and while non-Indigenous people are banned from hunting the caribou, the Innu and Cree Nations are also taking measures to curb hunting. On January 24, 2022, the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee and Innu Nation of Québec jointly signed the Maamuu nisituhtimuwin/ Matinueu-mashinaikan atik u e uauinakanit or mutual understanding, that “establishes mutually agreed upon terms by which Innu communities in Québec will be able to access caribou within the Cree traditional territory of Chisasibi, Eeyou Istchee.”

Indigenous-led caribou conservation protects not only the caribou, but also Indigenous ways of living with the land, and “maintaining balance” between Indigenous cultures and biodiverse ecosystems.

 

By Leela Viswanathan

 

(Image Credit: Orna Wachman, Pixabay)

/by

Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC)

Recently, the United Nations (UN) chastised the governments of Denmark and Greenland for undertaking mining without having first consulted with the Inuit who make up the majority of Greenland’s inhabitants. The UN highlighted colonialism as a root cause for these countries’ errors in not seeking the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of Indigenous Peoples. Consultation, however, should not be conflated with or considered a replacement for FPIC.

Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is embedded within fundamental human rights to self-determination. The framework by which FPIC is legally implemented internationally, includes the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), as well as the International Labour Organization’s Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Convention (ILO 169), and the Convention of Biological Diversity. The FPIC process is not just a means to consult Indigenous Peoples and seek consent about a project; rather, “it is also a process in itself, one by which Indigenous peoples are able to conduct their own independent and collective discussions and decision-making” at their own pace and using culturally appropriate approaches on any matters that concern them.

Engaging in an FPIC process may involve participatory processes and does not guarantee consent by Indigenous communities. Outcomes of an FPIC process include obtaining consent of an Indigenous community about undertaking a project, making changes to the conditions under which a project is intended to happen, or withholding consent to a project or activity and doing so at any time.

 

By Leela Viswanathan

 

(Photo Credit: Johannes Plenio, Unsplash)

/by

Indigenous Marine Protected Areas

Marine conservation that is led by or that involves Indigenous Peoples requires protecting vital community resources and traditional territories and strengthening broader conservation initiatives around the world. A Marine Protected Area (MPA) “is part of the ocean that is legally protected and managed to achieve the long-term conservation of nature.“ Indigenous Marine Protected Areas also connect marine conservation efforts with Indigenous cultural values and Indigenous self-determination.

Strategies undertaken by Indigenous communities to protect coastal waters and marine life include:

  • traditional resource management.
  • environmental conservation.
  • data collection and monitoring.
  • networking and collaboration with non-Indigenous supporters.
  • reinvestment into education and strengthening community building.

Indigenous Marine Protected Areas in Canada have involved co-management among First Nations’ and Canadian governments. For example, MPAs, that are a part of the Coastal First Nations Great Bear Initiative, are co-managed by the Council of the Haida Nation with the Government of Canada, according to what values the Indigenous communities want to be protected. Values may include supporting food security; protecting coastal areas and species; protecting coastal jobs; and keeping ecosystems productive and resilient.

Networks have enabled First Nations to effectively plan for the ongoing protection of marine areas by creating specific zones to limit activities for community use or halt all activities to prevent fishing. For example, The MPA Network of the BC Northern Shelf is a “collection of individual marine protected areas that operates cooperatively and synergistically, at various spatial scales, and with a range of protection levels, in order to fulfill ecological aims more effectively and comprehensively than individual sites could alone.” Network planning on the BC Northern Shelf began in 2011 with the National Framework for Canada’s Marine Protected Areas and it now involves a partnership of multiple First Nations, the BC Provincial government, and the Canadian government.

The Eastern Shore Islands (ESI) of Nova Scotia is “an area of interest for MPA establishment.” Mi’kmaq communities are seeking out ways that they can become more involved in the governance of MPAs in Atlantic Canada. However, the systemic barriers to enhancing the inclusion of Mi’kmaq Peoples alongside non-Mi’kmaq peoples involve “limited understanding of Mi’kmaq culture, governance, and rights.” In turn, the establishment of a Marine Protected Area in the Eastern Shore Islands is also linked to the resurgence of Mi’kmaq culture and Indigenous ways of knowing.

Canada’s Oceans Protection Plan was implemented in November 2016. As a $1.5 billion initiative, the Oceans Protection Plan is designed to provide protection to coastal regions and waterways and promote economic growth across Canada. In its first five years, the Oceans Protection Plan has funded various pilot projects, implemented in partnership with Indigenous Peoples to address marine safety, marine emergency response training, enhanced situational awareness through web-based platforms, environmental protection priorities, and create Indigenous-led Coast Guard Auxiliary Chapters.

While information available about Marine Protected Areas focuses heavily on co-management initiatives among Indigenous and local non-Indigenous communities, more examples are needed of marine protection initiatives that highlight Indigenous-led practices and that prioritize values of Indigenous Peoples.

 

By Leela Viswanathan

 

(Photo Credit: Sharissa Johnson, Unsplash)

/by

Protecting the High Seas and Oceans

On March 4, 2023, the United Nations passed the High Seas Treaty to protect all parts of the world’s oceans defined by international law as “the high seas.” Up until then, only 1% of the high seas, an area where all countries had “a right to fish, ship and do research,” was protected from exploitation. It took over a decade for the UN High Seas Treaty to be developed as a legal instrument of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The treaty is getting praise from diverse groups for its potential to prevent further loss of species at risk, and biodiversity loss, in general; however, the treaty is not yet at the stage of implementation.

The area covered by the UN High Seas Treaty has significant impact on the climate. The high seas “takes up 90% of the excess heat and around 25% of the CO2  generated by humanity’s burning of fossil fuels.” The treaty intends to protect the high seas from the ongoing effects of climate change such as pollution and ocean acidification, as well as the threats of overfishing and other forms of resource extraction. The treaty also aligns with the UN’s COP 15 Global Biodiversity Framework, established in December 2022; member nations agreed to “30 x 30” – that is, protecting 30% of the ocean, coastal areas, and lands by 2030.

The Carbon Brief offers more details as to the development, content, and next steps for the Treaty.

 

By Leela Viswanathan

 

(Image credit: Abigail Lynn, Unsplash)

/by

Gender Inequality in the Context of Climate Change

,

COP 27 showed that although there is “increasing mention and integration of gender in nationally determined contributions over time,” climate change continues to reinforce gender inequality and disparities in socio-economic, health, and leadership initiatives. Various UNFCCC reports  show how women and non-binary people from around the world, are made vulnerable by climate change, given the “interplay of gender norms and social norms.” Referred to as “solution multipliers,” women and gender minorities could be in a better position to effect solutions and influence climate mitigation and adaptation policies if they were included in “decision-making at all levels.”

Women living in households experiencing poverty are over represented in the world’s population and are more likely to experience climate hazards than people living in wealthy households. According to the World Bank, “nearly 2.4 billion women globally lack the same economic rights as men.” Indigenous women leaders state that climate change threatens the ties that connect Indigenous Peoples together (e.g., cultural identity, attitudes towards elders, and natural resources), and put pressure on community practices of hunting, as well as practices of gathering seeds and plants.

Gender-based health disparities are worsened by climate change. The Lancet reports that “there is an unacceptable scarcity of research on climate change health effects for non-binary people, who might also be particularly vulnerable as a result of compounding discrimination.”  In turn, research data must be disaggregated for gender in order to facilitate “gender-sensitive assessments, and gender-responsible interventions” that are critical for effective, gender-responsive policies on climate adaptation and mitigation. There is also a lack of disaggregated and longitudinal population health data addressing the experiences of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people; this translates into a “lack of strength-based and community-driven health indicators.” Chapter 2 of the Health of Canadians in a Changing Climate Report (2022) also notes how First Nation, Inuit, and Métis men, women, boys, girls, and gender-diverse people experience health impacts differently, and that research does not adequately respect the unique cultures and needs of these communities.

Increasing funding to gender-based Indigenous climate change initiatives is needed. For example, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) with the Government of Nepal have implemented climate finance to enhance collaboration with Indigenous Peoples; they intend to secure “collective tenure rights as well as the full participation of [I]ndigenous and tribal women and youth in decision making processes.” The Government of Canada funds Indigenous environmental leadership through several initiatives. It would be worthwhile for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous governments to work with Indigenous communities and ensure that gender-inclusive initiatives are incorporated in climate leadership initiatives.

Indigenous Peoples are responsible for stewarding the biodiversity of approximately one-third of the world’s ecosystems, but receive only 17% of climate funds intended for them, and Indigenous women receive only 5% of this funding. This lack of funding reinforces barriers that limit the participation and engagement of Indigenous women and gender minorities in climate action, thus reinforcing gender inequality in the context of climate change.

 

By Leela Viswanathan

 

(Image Credit: Ken Kahiri, Unsplash)

/by

The Need to Safeguard Indigenous Languages

On December 16, 2022, the President of the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN), Csaba Kőrösi, proclaimed the start of the International Decade of Indigenous Languages, 2022-2032. The aim of the International decade is “to secure the rights of Indigenous peoples to preserve, revitalize and promote their languages.” In his speech, Kőrösi called upon the UN’s Member States to work with Indigenous communities to: “[s]afeguard [I]ndigenous peoples’ rights” to learn and access resources in their native languages; “[e]nsure that Indigenous peoples and their knowledge are not exploited…[and] meaningfully consult Indigenous peoples, engaging with them in every stage of decision-making processes.”

The Language Conservancy estimates that Indigenous languages are lost at the rate of nine languages per year and that “[b]y 2080 the rate will rise by [sixteen] languages per year – one every two weeks.” The Language Conservancy provides a series of maps that depict centuries of language loss from the 1920s to present, drawn from the research by Gary F. Simons. The “growing wave” of Indigenous language loss is caused by the impacts of colonization, the rapid development of human settlements and by choices to leave the countryside for the city. Language loss is further exacerbated by climate change, especially as Indigenous peoples are forced to migrate and resettle due to adverse climate events.

Policies and educational programs to revitalize Indigenous languages are crucial to fight language loss and to prevent more than half of all languages becoming extinct over the next century.

 

By Leela Viswanathan

 

(Image credit: Satyam HCR, Unsplash)

/by