Edited by: Edgar Liu, University of New South Wales, Australia
Reviewed by: Joshua Cousins, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, United States; Neil Simcock, Liverpool John Moores University, United Kingdom
This article was submitted to Urban Energy End-Use, a section of the journal Frontiers in Sustainable Cities
†These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Climate policies and plans can lead to disproportionate impacts and benefits across different kinds of communities, serving to reinforce, and even exacerbate existing structural inequities and injustices. This is the case in Canada where, we argue, climate policy and planning is reproducing settler-colonial relations, violating Indigenous rights, and systematically excluding Indigenous Peoples from policy making. We conducted a critical policy analysis on two climate plans in Canada: the Pan Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (Pan-Canadian Framework), a federal government-led, top-down plan for reducing emissions; and the Québec ZéN (zero émissions nette, or net-zero emissions) Roadmap, a province-wide, bottom-up energy transition plan developed by civil society and environmental groups in Quebec. Our analysis found that, despite aspirational references to Indigenous Peoples and their inclusion, both the Pan-Canadian Framework and the ZéN Roadmap failed to uphold the right to self-determination and to free, prior, and informed consent, conflicting with commitments to reconciliation and a “Nation-to-Nation” relationship. Recognizing these limitations, we identify six components for an Indigenous-led climate policy agenda. These not including clear calls to action that climate policy must: prioritize the land and emphasize the need to rebalance our relationships with Mother Earth; position Indigenous Nations as Nations with the inherent right to self-determination; prioritize Indigenous knowledge systems; and advance climate-solutions that are interconnected, interdependent, and multi-dimensional. While this supports the emerging literature on Indigenous-led climate solutions, we stress that these calls offer a starting point, but additional work led by Indigenous Peoples and Nations is required to breathe life into a true
“
There is mounting support that Indigenous knowledge systems are key to combating the climate crisis (IPCC,
In light of this existential threat, a growing number of governments—federal, territorial, provincial, and municipal—are declaring climate emergencies, proposing new policies, and plans. The Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (“Pan-Canadian Framework” or “PCF”) is one such plan: a beam of “sunny ways” creeping into Canadian climate policy following the election of a majority Justin Trudeau government. This period came to a grinding halt in 2018 when a federal House of Commons climate emergency declaration was immediately—coincidentally or serendipitously—followed by an announcement of the (re)approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline (a pipeline to transport bitumen oil from the Alberta tar sands to the British Columbia coast for export). Furthermore, it became evident that despite the policies contained with the Pan-Canadian Framework, Canada was at minimum 77 megatons from meeting its 2030 greenhouse gas target
According to the 2019 United Nations Emission Gap report, emissions across the globe continue to rise at a pace that is inconsistent with a stable climate and current emissions pledges are not sufficient to limit warming to less than 3°C by 2100, let alone achieving the target temperature range of 1.5 to well-below 2°C of the Paris Agreement. As a result, severe climate impacts are being felt across the globe: wildfires, floods, droughts, and massive storms are already devastating lives, communities and ecosystems (Ripple et al.,
In lieu of this inaction, Indigenous Peoples have led, and continue to lead environmental and climate justice movements across the world (Gedicks,
Indigenous climate policies, driven by fierce love for lands and waters and bolstered by inherent, treaty, constitutional, and international rights, emphasize the connection between colonialism and capitalism to understand, acknowledge and “challenge the unequal social and environmental relations in which carbon emissions are embedded” (Chatterton et al.,
This study seeks to explore how climate policy can be more just, inclusive to Indigenous rights and knowledge systems, and more effective. We do this by analyzing two settler-developed climate plans in Canada—the Pan-Canadian Framework, a federal climate plan and the ZéN Roadmap, a provincial level, civil society led plan. More specifically, we ask whether these plans are: (a) in alignment or conflict with the governments' commitments to reconciliation and Nation to Nation relationships; (b) violating or respecting inherent, treaty, constitutional, and international Indigenous rights, and (c) centering or ignoring and erasing Indigenous perspectives, knowledge, and approaches to climate mitigation and adaptation. Couched with an Indigenous Research Paradigm (IRP), we use a novel critical policy analysis based in sustainable self-determination, key-informant interviews, and our participant involvement in the development of the two policies (described in section Materials and Methods) to explore the inclusion, or more aptly exclusion of Indigenous Peoples and their rights, knowledge, and approaches, to climate action.
Our analysis found that, despite multiple references to Indigenous Peoples, both the Pan-Canadian Framework and the ZéN Roadmap failed to include Indigenous Nations and communities at the policy-making table. We argue that this exclusion constitutes a violation of Indigenous rights to self-determination and to free, prior and informed consent. In the case of the Pan-Canadian Framework, it is also in conflict with the federal government's commitments to reconciliation and advancing a Nation-to-Nation relationship. Further, the plans propose certain climate solutions—such as hydro-electric development and natural gas—that can disproportionately impact Indigenous Peoples. In these and other ways, we found that the Pan-Canadian Framework and the ZéN Roadmap ignore Indigenous perspectives, knowledge, and approaches to climate mitigation and adaptation.
Based on these findings, we propose some key principles for Indigenous-led climate policy agenda going forward. These include clear calls to action that climate policy must: prioritize the land and emphasize the need to rebalance our relationships with Mother Earth; position Indigenous Nations not as stakeholders, but as Nations with the inherent right to self-determination; prioritize Indigenous knowledge systems; and advance climate-solutions that are interconnected, interdependent, and multi-dimensional. Through this, we hope to contribute to the growing amount of literature that supports the development of Indigenous-led climate solutions, which can, when done correctly, “generate well-being and Indigenous-determined futures in the face of dramatic environmental and climatic change” (McGregor et al.,
Compared to Indigenous land defense, which has been ongoing since European contact, settler-led environmentalism is relatively new in Quebec and Canada (Hill,
Canada's current efforts to reduce GHG emissions and take action on climate change is encapsulated in the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change.
The plan, directed by the Vancouver Declaration, sought to capitalize on the momentum generated by the adoption of the 2015 Paris Agreement. It was developed by four working groups composed of federal, provincial, and territorial representatives: Pricing Carbon Pollution; Mitigation; Adaptation and Climate Resilience; and Clean Technology, Innovations, and Jobs. The Working Groups held roundtables and a multi-day stakeholder engagement event, processes which included national Indigenous organizations, stakeholders such as non-government organizations, think tanks, and industry associations including Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. These four groups laid the groundwork for the four pillars of the Pan-Canadian Framework: Pricing Carbon Pollution; Complementary Actions to Reduce Emissions; Adaptation and Climate Resilience; and Clean Technology, Innovations, and Jobs. Since the launch of the plan, the Federal Government has been issuing periodic status reports of the progress in implementing the plan, beginning in 2017 and most recently in 2019. During the course of writing this, the federal government introduced a “strengthened climate plan,” entitled
Example mentions of the word “Indigenous” in the PCF.
Forward | “As we implement this Framework, we will move forward respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples, with robust, meaningful engagement drawing on their Traditional Knowledge. We will take into account the unique circumstances and opportunities of Indigenous Peoples and northern, remote, and vulnerable communities. We acknowledge and thank Indigenous Peoples across Canada for their climate leadership long before the Paris Agreement and for being active drivers of positive change” | Knowledge, leadership |
3 | “The Pan-Canadian Framework reaffirms the principles outlined in the Vancouver Declaration, including…strengthening the collaboration between our governments and Indigenous Peoples on mitigation and adaptation actions, based on recognition of rights, respect, cooperation, and partnership” | Collaboration, engagement, rights |
3 | “The Pan-Canadian Framework reaffirms the principles outlined in the Vancouver Declaration, including…recognizing the importance of Traditional Knowledge in regard to understanding climate impacts and adaptation measures” | Knowledge |
3 | “Our governments will continue to recognize, respect and safeguard the rights of Indigenous Peoples as we take actions under these pillars.” | Rights |
4 | “Indigenous Peoples will be important partners in developing real and meaningful outcomes that position them as drivers of climate action in the implementation of the Pan-Canadian Framework.” | Collaboration, leadership |
1 | “Indigenous Peoples, northern and coastal regions and communities in Canada are particularly vulnerable and disproportionately affected. Geographic location, socio-economic challenges, and for Indigenous Peoples, the reliance on wild food sources, often converge with climate change to put pressure on these communities. Much has been done to begin addressing these challenges, including by Indigenous Peoples.” | Vulnerabilities |
8 | “The federal government will also engage Indigenous Peoples to find solutions that address their unique circumstances, including high costs of living and of energy, challenges with food security, and emerging economies” and that “carbon pricing policies should include revenue recycling to avoid a disproportionate burden on vulnerable groups and Indigenous Peoples | Carbon pricing |
The Roadmap is a province-wide, bottom-up energy transition plan developed by civil society and environmental groups in Quebec to reach net zero emissions. It was led by with
The ZéN Roadmap lays out concrete steps “towards a Québec that will be carbon neutral, more resilient and more just” (p. 3). The first section of the document focused on building
Example mentions of the word “Indigenous” in the ZéN.
3 | “Indigenous Peoples have warned us against this for centuries and environmentalists have too for quite some time”. | Knowledge, leadership |
53 | “What would prevent us from succeeding: Ignoring the knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and peasants regarding sustainable agriculture and land use planning”. | Knowledge |
20 | “What we need to do to achieve that vision: Include from the start, in the decision-making process, the groups whose rights may be affected by the transition. Respect the right of Indigenous Peoples to a free, prior and enlightened consent”. | Rights, collaboration |
20 | “Human rights issues will arise from the transition because the changes accompanying it could have specific impacts on certain groups of people such as women, youth, Indigenous Peoples, northern, coastal and insular communities, minorities and disabled people”. | Vulnerabilities |
34 | “While respecting Indigenous Peoples' territorial rights, Québec protects half of its lands and half of its internal, coastal and marine waters, including those of crucial importance for biological diversity and ecosystem services (such as carbon control and sequestration)”. | Rights |
“
To appropriately consider the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples within these two climate plans, we will base our analysis under the broad parameters of an IRP (Kuokkanen,
To do this, we use sustainable self-determination as a critical conceptual lens to assess how each climate plan—the Pan-Canadian Framework and the ZéN Roadmap—considers Indigenous Peoples and their rights (Reed et al.,
We developed a critical policy analysis framework, based on the concept of sustainable self-determination to examine the various dimensions of each climate plan. This included considering the inherent, Treaty, and constitutionally protected nature of Indigenous rights, drawing on the section 35 of the Canadian Constitution and minimum standards affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). To build on this rights framework, we considered the recommendations stemming from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), and Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls
To learn more about the development of each policy document, including who was and was not invited to that policy-making table, we engaged in key-informant interviews and strategic partnerships with Indigenous-led organizations. For the Pan-Canadian Framework, we conducted a series of short telephone interviews with federal public servants involved in its creation. Based on their direction, we have kept each response anonymous. Future research, in partnership with Indigenous Climate Action, will be conducted with First Nations, Inuit, and Metis people from across the country to develop Indigenous-led climate policy and plans. For the ZéN Roadmap, we also conducted a series of in-depth interviews with Indigenous Peoples living in and outside Quebec. These Experts came from different Indigenous nations and brought different experiences and knowledge related to climate change, policy, and planning. In advance of the interview, each individual was asked to read the ZéN Roadmap (version 1.0) and provide feedback, critical commentary, and recommendations through an interview with one co-author (JG), which was recorded and transcribed. All Experts were compensated for their time, and recommendations were then shared with the FCTE who wove the critiques and recommendations into the final, 2.0 version of the ZéN Roadmap which was released to the public in mid-November 2020. Direct quotes from these Experts are included below and cited as (E#), to indicate which Expert is being quoted. A table of all Expert interviews are provided in the
List of Indigenous Experts who were interviewed about the ZéN Roadmap.
E#1 | Ojibwe/Scottish | F |
E#2 | Anishinaabe | F |
E#3 | Anishinaabe | M |
E#4 | Innu | F |
E#5 | Mohawk | F |
E#6 | Western Métis | F |
E#7 | Anishinaabe/Ojibway | F |
E#8 | Innu | F |
E#9 | Mi'kmaw | F |
E#10 | Nisga'a | M |
Beyond reflections on the literature and key-informant interviews, direct observation and engagement in the establishment of each climate plan also served to enrich our findings. In particular, one co-author (GR) participated in the design, negotiation, and implementation of the Pan-Canadian Framework, from 2016 to the present, working to advance First Nations rights, knowledge, and governance as a representative of a National Indigenous Organization. Another co-author (JG) was involved with the FCTE's process by gathering feedback from Indigenous people on the ZéN Roadmap and based on the feedback, revising it and drafting the 2.0 version. This process involved many meetings and negotiations.
The Pan-Canadian Framework and ZéN Roadmap add to the unrelenting number of pledges, declarations, and policies promising ambitious greenhouse gas emission reductions. Like many of these, both exhibit, in different ways, a fundamental flaw in the current neoliberal approach to climate policy: no amount of “tweaking” of the current system will get us to an equitable and abundant model of prosperity for all of humankind (Klein,
Summary of other, existing critiques of the PCF.
Insufficient GHG reductions target | Various independent scientific analyses have shown the emissions reduction target that the PCF is designed to achieve, is highly insufficient and “not remotely in line with the international community's goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C” (MacNeil, |
Burck et al., |
Inadequate policies and plans | The total emissions reductions that the PCF policies and plans are capable of, even if fully implemented, will fall short by 77 megatons of GHG emissions. As such the PCF is too weak to achieve even the insufficient target it is designed around. | Lee, |
Politically fragile | The PCF has proven to be “extremely politically fragile”, developed within the context of ongoing tensions stemming from Canada being a federated state – meaning it is made up of provinces with their own constitutional authority to make and enforce laws. | MacNeil, |
Oil and gas industry | The PCF essentially gives the oil and gas industry a pass. Not only does the PCF lack any regulations to curb the expansion of the fossil fuel industry (other than a phase out of coal), but it in fact also allows the continuation of government subsidies to the industry until 2025. | Lee, |
Failure to name and address causes and drivers of climate change | Along with failure to address fossil fuels as a driver of climate change, the PCF also fails to name, let alone address other primary drivers and root causes of climate change including economic dependance on endless growth and neoliberal logics. | O'Manique, |
In this section, we seek to advance these perspectives by drawing on our interviews and experience to ask whether each policy is: (a) in alignment or conflict with the governments' commitments to reconciliation and Nation to Nation relationships; (b) violating or respecting inherent, treaty, constitutional and international Indigenous rights; and (c) centering or ignoring Indigenous perspectives, knowledge, and approaches to climate mitigation and adaptation. Based on this exploration, we close with a discussion of what an agenda for Indigenous-led climate policy would look like.
Since 2015, the Trudeau government has campaigned on a proposed “new” relationship with Indigenous Peoples. He regularly stated that: “[n]o relationship is more important to Canada than the relationship with Indigenous Peoples. Our Government is working together with Indigenous Peoples to build a nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown, government-to-government relationship – one based on respect, partnership, and recognition of rights” (Office of the PMO,
In both plans, there are limited references to the approach that was taken to engage Indigenous Nations on a “Nation-to-Nation” relationship. The Pan-Canadian Framework called for “robust engagement” with Indigenous Peoples on one hand, but on the other refused to include Indigenous representatives on the four working groups mandated to develop the plan's four pillars. Far from sematic, this removed Indigenous Peoples from the decision table and instead identified them as one of many groups to consult with. In doing this, Indigenous Peoples were positioned as stakeholders—a position that minimizes their ability to exercise their own self-determination and afford them little opportunity to participate as self-governing Nations (Alfred and Corntassel,
For the ZéN Roadmap, the organizing group was not able to reach Indigenous Peoples in Quebec and instead continued to draft the entire report themselves. Once the report was drafted, they then asked a co-author (JG) to conduct a consultation with Indigenous Peoples. Unfortunately, this is a common trend in the mainstream environmental organizing as described by one Expert: “
Much of the wording regarding Indigenous Peoples in the two plans are aspirational, with words such as “should,” “the need for,” “will find solutions,” but no wording is included that commits to any of these, or no indication that these efforts have been commenced thus far. One such example is the usage of the phrase “unique circumstances” in the Pan-Canadian Framework to refer to the multiple and urgent crises facing Indigenous Peoples across Canada. Through choice of language, this reduces these crises to “unique circumstances” while falsely promoting a peaceful and respectful relationship. This diminishes and negates ongoing Indigenous claims for justice, furthering division and distrust between Indigenous Peoples and the state—a state that continues to place Indigenous Peoples systemically and actively in a vulnerable position through ongoing colonial relations, land dispossession and failure to take meaningful action on climate change (O'Manique,
“
Indigenous rights are mentioned six times in the Pan-Canadian Framework. One of these references includes the UNDRIP, including the right to “free, prior and informed consent” (FPIC), which Canada signed on to as a “full supporter without qualification
In the ZéN Roadmap, there was limited reference to the UNDRIP: a fact highlighted by one Expert: “
Pushing this one step further, neither plan discussed the right to self-determination: a right that is affirmed in the UN Declaration and provides Indigenous Peoples with the ability to “…freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development” (United Nations,
At its core, both plans reference Indigenous rights repeatedly, but Indigenous rights appear to have had no influence on the actual policies and plans developed. An Expert captured this in her intervention: “
“
While both plans acknowledge the role of Indigenous Peoples in addressing climate change, neither included Indigenous Peoples in the design of the climate plan. For instance, the ZéN Roadmap only engaged Indigenous Peoples after the first version of the report was completed. The result of this oversight is that the plans reflect a western, reductionist worldview, whereby elements of the plan are not holistically integrated into others, but instead framed in isolation from each other. The Pan-Canadian Framework, for example, seems to break up the climate problem into four “pillars,” overlooking how these pillars are interconnected to one another.
This approach aligns with the explanation of Behn and Bakker (
As a result, it is clear that there was no critical interrogation of the limitations of settler ways of knowing and unwillingness to look to other ways of knowing, reproducing epistemological violence (Dugassa,
Among other actions, the Pan-Canadian Framework and the ZéN do this by framing the climate problem as exclusively about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, rather than addressing the root causes of the crisis. An Expert spoke to this oversight in climate policy more generally: “
Another Expert echoed this sentiment by calling out the language contained with the Framework: “…
Our analysis shows that, despite references to Indigenous Peoples, both the Pan-Canadian Framework and the ZéN Roadmap conflict with their commitments to reconciliation and the advancement of a Nation-to-Nation relationship; disrespects, and in some cases violates, the inherent, Treaty, and constitutionally-protected rights of Indigenous Peoples; and largely ignores Indigenous perspectives, knowledge, and approaches to climate mitigation and adaptation. While this not entirely surprising, given the Government's tendency to: “…introduce half-measures as a cover for the uninterrupted extraction and transportation of gas, coal, and oil” (Foran et al.,
In this light, it is clear that the only way to address the simultaneous three “c”s driving catastrophic climate change—capitalism, colonization, and (de)carbonization—is for Indigenous Nations to “…take matters into their own hands” (Ladner and Dick,
The restoration of balance to the relationships between humans and nature, as well as between Indigenous Peoples and the Crown are intimately linked to another (Borrows,
Throughout the analysis of the two climate plans, it was evident that governments, civil society, and industry associations were unwilling to acknowledge the true role of Indigenous Nations in the founding of Canada. Several Experts highlighted this role quite clearly: “
While there was acknowledgment of the role of Indigenous Peoples climate leadership, it was not meaningfully incorporated in the design of climate solutions. This is a missed opportunity, as one Expert spoke to this quite clearly, highlighting that Indigenous Peoples have had “…
While not completely in the scope of this paper, it was clear that there is a deep ontological disjuncture between mainstream climate solutions and those that would be advanced by Indigenous Peoples. Indeed, one Expert pointed this out clearly: “
In the two climate policies, there was zero discussion of the diversity of Indigenous Nations, creating the impression of a homogenous reality across Turtle Island. This aligned with what one Expert pointed out: “
Many of the solutions proposed by the Pan-Canadian Framework and the ZéN Roadmap completely disregard the interconnectedness between proposed policies presented in different sections of the Plans. One clear example in the ZéN Roadmap is the proposal to eliminate single use plastic. This proposal wholly ignores the realities that many Indigenous Peoples still lack clean drinking water. Solutions must seek to address these systemic inequalities, and the ongoing legacy of settler colonization. One Expert proposed this approach instead: “‘
Drawing on a novel critical policy analysis based in sustainable self-determination, key-informant interviews, and our participant involvement, we critically analyzed two settler-developed climate policies—the Pan-Canadian Framework and the ZéN Roadmap, a civil society-led plan in Quebec, Canada. Each conflicted with the aspirations of reconciliation, disrespected inherent, treaty, constitutional and international Indigenous rights, and largely ignored Indigenous perspectives, knowledge, and approaches to climate mitigation and adaptation. In light of this failure—and the growing failure of mainstream climate policy to address the climate crisis—we drew on our Experts to propose six potential components of an Indigenous-led climate agenda. Lessons from this Indigenous-led climate agenda can support the aspirations of Indigenous Peoples across Turtle Island, as well as around the world, as they increasingly reassert their role in climate action.
We stress that this is only a starting point, and deep and meaningful engagement with Indigenous Peoples and Nations is required to breathe life into these components in a way that reflects each Nations' individual history, culture, jurisdiction and legal systems. These considerations are central to the development of Indigenous climate futures that not only support, but advance the flourishing of future generations (Wildcat,
Due to respecting research ethics protocols and respecting confidentiality agreements with Experts interviewed, raw data will not be made available by authors.
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Dr. Richard DeMont, Chair, University Human Research Ethics Committee, Concordia University. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
JG conducted interviews with experts. JG, GR, RS, and RI conducted policy analysis on the PCF. HM provided expertise on climate science. GR and RS provided expertise on Indigenous Knowledge and Indigenous approaches to climate policy. The writing of the article was led by GR and JG. RI and HM provided editing support. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
We would like to also acknowledge the invaluable insight of the 10 Indigenous Experts consulted. They have enriched and shaped this analysis immeasurably.
1
2
3
4
5
6