Indigenous Peoples are critical to the success of nature-based solutions to climate change

Abstract

Nature-based solutions (NbS) to climate change mitigation-such as ecosystem protection or conservation, improved forest management practices, as well as afforestation-can significantly reduce global net emissions (Griscom et al. 2017; Seddon 2019). This is particularly the case when NbS are paired with emissions reductions and clean energy solutions (Anderson et al. 2019; Griscom et al. 2019; IPCC 2019). NbS could provide 30%-40% of the CO 2 mitigation required by 2030 to help ensure warming is capped at under 2°C (Seddon 2019). While holding great potential for effective climate change policy, some NbS measures such as protected areas and forest plantations can negatively impact Indigenous Peoples globally through displacement, livelihood restrictions, and ensuing cultural impacts (e.g., Osborne 2015; Vanclay 2017) and thus must be designed and implemented with Indigenous participation and consent if they are to be successful. These impacts intensify the disadvantages already faced by Indigenous communities, including human rights violations, discrimination, and poverty (Chatty and Colchester 2002; Dowie 2009; United Nations 2009). Indigenous Peoples are also more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change including food insecurity; displacement as a result of catastrophic flooding, drought, and fires; and threats to critical infrastructure (Havemann 2009; Ford 2012; Williams 2012; Lynn et al. 2013). Given the twin vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples to both the impacts and potential solutions to climate change, we contend that questions about how NbS are developed, on whose territories, and with what outcomes matter deeply to the success of climate change policy as well as to the rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is of particular relevance in Canada, which has extensive carbon sinks (Kurz et al. 2013; Price et al. 2013) and is home to over 630 distinct First Nations communities, as well as Métis and Inuit (Government of Canada 2017). Many of the high carbon density forests and peatlands that are prioritized for NbS globally are found within the traditional territories of Indigenous Nations across the country, such as Canada's expansive Boreal Forest biome (Carlson et al. 2010; Wells 2020). Canada, like other settler colonial states, is layered with multiple territorial claims, jurisdiction (state and recognized and asserted Indigenous title), and systems of governance (state and Indigenous hereditary and elected) (Borrows 1999, 2015). This complexity-and the conflicts inherent to it-complicates environmental governance and can hinder state-Indigenous collaborative efforts in conservation and climate change mitigation (e.g., Van Schie and Haider 2015; Willow 2016). Despite the devastating impacts of colonialism (TRC 2015), most Indigenous Peoples in Canada have long histories of sustainable coexistence with their territories (Stephenson et al. 2014; Turner 2014).

Natural climate solutions for Canada

“…Principal among these are issues related to land tenure and rights, particularly those of Indigenous peoples whose territories encompass opportunities for NCS. Inclusion of Indigenous knowledge and respect for Indigenous rights, alongside participation and consent by Indigenous peoples in the design of NCS, are necessary for successful implementation (39). Indigenous-led NCS provide an opportunity for reconciliation and reliance on time-proven and effective approaches for land stewardship and biodiversity conservation (40).…”

Maximizing the effectiveness of national commitments to protected area expansion for conserving biodiversity and ecosystem carbon under climate change

“…Such an inclusive planning model has broad relevance to other communities which have been historically unrepresented in land use decisions or negatively impacted by protected area expansion. Given that existing carbon market mechanisms are poorly suited for carbon conservation within intact ecosystems, First Nations are exploring new mechanisms for generating carbon‐related payments to help support local communities in lieu of revenue from extractive industries such as logging, oil and mining (Townsend et al, 2020). These mechanisms may also be applicable to other rural economies dependent on revenue from public lands.…”

Commercial Forest Carbon Protocol Over-Credit Bias Delimited by Zero-Threshold Carbon Accounting

“…Improved and/or alternative forest carbon offset protocols could link the Paris Agreement [71], [72], REDD+ projects [27], community forests and Indigenous Peoples land management projects [73]. Investors, buyers and sellers of compliance or regulatory offsets and voluntary offsets would have access to equivalent NEE based tCO2 trading units.…”