Mariam Wallet Aboubakrine; Brenda Parlee; Danika Billie Littlechild; Sherry Pictou; John O’Neil; Murray Humphries; et al.

Abstract

Biodiversity loss is a global crisis which adversely impacts the health and well-being of Indigenous Peoples, who contribute minimally to the problem and have much to offer by way of solutions.

While the potential role of Indigenous Peoples has been acknowledged in various global forums (e.g., the Global Biodiversity Framework), there are, to date, no working models that ensure Indigenous self-determination and respect of equity, diversity and inclusion in the documentation and mobilization of knowledge. The Ărramăt Model discussed in this chapter provides an example of how Indigenous Knowledge can be meaningfully documented and shared; this project supports work in more than 80 Indigenous languages through over 146 Indigenous-led place-based projects in more than 276 ecoregions. The model, grounded in three design principles, demonstrates how Indigenous leadership can advance biodiversity conservation and health and well-being, while also fostering innovative approaches to equitable access to financial resources for Indigenous-led initiatives and projects.

1. Introduction

Biodiversity loss in Canada and globally is now recognized as a crisis.1–3 Indigenous Peoples, particularly in the global south, who have contributed little to the present biodiversity crisis, are among those most impacted. For example, ‘land grabbing’ (in the name of conservation) and criminalization of Indigenous practices 4–9 have resulted in food insecurity and related illnesses (e.g., malnutrition, Type II diabetes),10–16 economic exclusion (i.e. poverty),17–20 cultural discontinuity,21,22 conflict,23–26 and hopelessness.27–30 The exploitation of Indigenous territories has led to the contamination of food resources,31 water insecurity,32 and the extirpation of many valued wild species (e.g. boreal caribou).33 Unhealthy relationships between people and nature have also created scenarios where wildlife-related diseases (e.g., COVID-19) have had devastating global impacts.34

Indigenous leadership is recognized as critical to addressing these losses in biodiversity and their impacts on human health and well-being. While the potential role of Indigenous Peoples has been acknowledged in various global forums (e.g., Global Biodiversity Framework), there are, to date, no working models that ensure Indigenous self-determination and respect of equity, diversity and inclusion in the documentation and mobilization of Indigenous Knowledges, including those target agreements in the landmark Global Biodiversity Framework adopted during the 15th Conference of the Parties of the Convention of Biodiversity.³⁵ Epistemological biases in what constitutes “evidence”, barriers to representation within global institutions, as well as racism against Indigenous Peoples in many countries, remain challenges for meaningful collaboration between governments, Indigenous Peoples and other parties (e.g., environmental organizations). Strengthening capacity and resources for Indigenous-led research may help address these gaps and create new opportunities and solutions to the combined stresses on biodiversity, health, and well-being. To identify solutions to these challenges, this chapter shares lessons learned from developing the Ărramăt Model, including details about the journey to ensure Indigenous self-determination, respect, equity, diversity and inclusion.

The Ărramăt Project will supports more than 146 Indigenous-led research place-based projects in 28 countries, across 276 ecoregions, with funding from the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. In 2024, Ărramăt Project leaders were invited to participate in the Conference on “Indigenous Peoples’ Knowledge and the Sciences” – Indigenous Knowledge science on innovations for resilience to climate change, biodiversity loss, food security, and health. The conference underscored the importance of bridging Indigenous Knowledge with scientific research to co-create effective biodiversity conservation strategies that prioritize the health and well-being of Indigenous communities. This dialogue presents an opportunity to empower Indigenous Peoples to lead research efforts that address global environmental challenges and promote social equity and respect for their cultural values, which is at the core of the Ărramăt Project.

2. Context and Opportunity

The number of opportunities for Indigenous engagement in biodiversity conservation has grown exponentially in recent years.36–39 For example, the Kunming-Montreal Framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity explicitly recognizes Indigenous Peoples as “custodians of biodiversity and partners in its conservation, restoration and sustainable use.” (Article 7 A). These calls to action of the Convention on Biological Diversity have created new spaces for dialogue and innovation.

However, communities without the resources for meaningful participation continue to be disenfranchised from these spheres of global environmental governance. Lack of equity within and between Indigenous communities, organizations, and governments seeking to engage in biodiversity conservation efforts is becoming a growing concern as is transparency about access to funding and representation. For example, evidence about endangered species in CITES is still heavily (if not exclusively) influenced by Western actors and animal rights organizations.40–44 While some governments try to include or bring forward the perspectives and values of Indigenous Peoples, they continue to face racism within their own countries and territories, with women, youth and those of diverse gender identities being notably excluded.45,46

On the whole, Indigenous Peoples are still vastly marginalized from environmental decision-making processes or assigned roles in governance that are less than meaningful and fail to create outcomes that reflect traditional, cultural, or spiritual values.³⁷ Many of these patterns of exclusion are created and compounded by gaps in the availability of Indigenous Knowledge, resources, and support for Indigenous-led research on issues of biodiversity, climate change, and Indigenous health and well-being. To address this bias, the Ărramăt Model is shared to challenge the status quo on what constitutes knowledge and leadership on questions of biodiversity conservation and its impacts on health and well-being.

3. Overview of the Ărramăt Model

The Ărramăt Project, funded from 2021-2027, has been built around three core objectives: strengthening capacity (Obj. 1); building evidence about the interconnections between biodiversity and Indigenous well-being through Indigenous-led place-based research (PBR) (Obj. 2); and synthesizing-scaling research results through working groups aimed at policy transformation (Obj. 3). It is grounded in respect for the physical and spiritual relationships between Indigenous Peoples and Mother Earth around the globe. Our engagement of Indigenous Knowledge is also guided by the principles of “Ethical Space” 36,47 which guides us in working together to support Indigenous Peoples seeking to produce their solutions to addressing biodiversity loss. The Ărramăt Model also aligns with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).⁴⁸ The broadening scholarship has also inspired us in Indigenous research methodologies.49–51

The project is Indigenous-led. We are governed by a team of Co-Principal Investigators, an Advisory Circle of Indigenous Elders, leaders and senior academics, and 27 thematic leads (Global Transformation Pathway Co-Leads). The work is centered around Indigenous-Led and Place-Based Research Projects, which follow a term of reference co-designed through 300+ hours of online meetings with diverse Indigenous organizations, government representatives, and other team members. By 2027, we will have funded more than 150 place-based projects in more than 28 countries, with knowledge about more than 200 ecoregions being documented (Figure 1). The regions where the work has been carried out to date are culturally and ecologically significant – covering 276 ecoregions.33,52,53 Some may be defined as “refugia” (little disturbed);54,55 others are in “hot spots” with at-risk wildlife (e.g., polar bear, white sturgeon, mountain gorilla),56,57 habitats (e.g., sea ice, tropical forests, grasslands), and where Indigenous Peoples (IPs) are also under stress.

Outputs from our work will include: i) culturally appropriate frameworks for defining and describing interconnections between biodiversity and well-being; ii) indicators and methods for tracking and interpreting patterns, trends and tipping points; and iii) modelling innovations and solutions for biodiversity conservation and care of people in hot-spots (e.g., areas/peoples under critical stress); and iv) actionable ‘design principles’ for strengthening holistic governance of biodiversity and health-wellbeing. Guided by theory on social and institutional learning,^58–62 we are working towards achieving the “transformative change” called for by global leaders.⁶³ This will be accomplished by: 1) filling gaps in our global understanding of biodiversity and well-being with IK identified as necessary by many institutions (e.g., IPBES);³³ 2) supporting institutional learning (i.e., changing beliefs about care for people and nature); and 3) catalyzing institutional innovation (e.g., new bridging organizations).

4. Learning from the Ărramăt Model

 

4.1 Foundational Principles

The Ărramăt Model (Figure 3) has many dimensions, including three core or foundational principles that were fundamental during the design of the Ărramăt Project proposal (2020-21) and that have continued to guide the implementation of the project.

4.1.1 Indigenous Leadership and Ethical Governance

A foundational principle of the Ărramăt Model is Indigenous leadership; we are Indigenous-led in all aspects of the structure and process of the research planning, implementation and reporting. This is unique from conventional kinds of research where Indigenous Peoples are commonly framed as vulnerable and powerless.⁶⁴ We confront this colonial stereotype using a strengths-based (rather than deficit-oriented) research approach. This leadership is not a simple process; it is a responsibility that has required significant time and effort to ensure day-to-day operations, resolve conflict, problem-solve and ensure meaningful engagement of all members of the Ărramăt Project team.

4.1.2 Elevating Indigenous Knowledge Systems (Transdisciplinarity)

Our purpose has been to elevate Indigenous Knowledge systems and address the bias towards Western science in biodiversity and health-related research. Indigenous Knowledge has many definitions that reflect the cultural, linguistic and epistemological diversity of Team members and projects. We define Indigenous Knowledge systems as a “way of life”, including knowledge, practices, beliefs, and laws that reflect many generations living and being in place.^65–68 The knowledge system is holistic and transdisciplinary – synergistic with many forms of disciplinary inquiry (e.g., health sciences, biology, law, economics) commonly associated with academic research and policy circles.

4.1.3 Equitable Access to Research Funding

Indigenous Peoples and their organizations have limited access to research funding from academic institutions in Canada and elsewhere. Such exclusion from the enterprise of science and education has been attributed to patterns and tools of cultural assimilation, such as Canada’s residential school system and the missionary schools led by the Catholic Church.^69,70 Much research on Indigenous Peoples, biodiversity, and health has involved objectification or “othering” of Indigenous Knowledge. We/Indigenous Peoples are too often considered only subjects or participants in research rather than having expertise and capacity for leadership, particularly at global scales. These inequities are embedded in the institutions of research funding. These organizations reinforce hierarchies of knowledge where science and those with academic credentials trump Indigenous Knowledge holders who do not necessarily have doctorates or university affiliations.71 Previous research suggests that similar hierarchies of exclusion exist in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).72–74 Partnerships between the Indigenous government and organizations with Canadian universities have been one opportunity for Indigenous Peoples to access research funding. Through a funding arrangement created through the Canadian Tri-Council, funding for Indigenous-led research proposed by the Ărramăt Project became plausible. Specifically, a unique call for proposals privileged Indigenous leadership and community engagement in “large-scale interdisciplinary research projects that address major challenges with the potential to realize real and lasting change.”75 However, inequities persist even in nation-states considered advanced in the recognition and implementation of the rights of Indigenous Peoples; one must only review statistics on the research dollars allocated to Indigenous versus non-Indigenous Peoples for biodiversity-related research. The Ărramăt Model, built around the ideas of “Ethical Space” [1,2] and based around principles of Indigenous leadership, recognition of Indigenous Knowledges and equitable access to research funding, offers a way to address these gaps and biases.

4.2 Principles of Implementation

The Ărramăt Model was developed by the co-authors, was part of a proposal to the New Frontiers in Research Fund Transformation stream of the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and was funded for six years (2021-2027). Among the starting points was the development of a clear and transparent governance framework. The “Ărramăt Project Principles of Working Together” (Figure 4) were the starting point for our governance framework.

Ărramăt Project Principles of Working Together

·       By transforming the approaches and the way we think about biodiversity and well-being, elevating Indigenous knowledges, the project seeks to work towards a higher state of health and wellbeing for the benefit of all Peoples and Mother Earth.

·       Engage as a broader team through Indigenous-led principles of good relations, facilitated through Indigenous and non-Indigenous methodologies and frameworks, informed by our partners and leaders, co-applicants, collaborators and supported by the academies of social, natural and health sciences, transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary voices with a shared vision for Indigenous wellbeing in the context of biodiversity conservation, being guided by principles of inclusivity, respect, kindness, honesty and reciprocity.

·       Ensure an environment that recognizes intersectionality and gender diversity.

·       Facilitate self-determination of Indigenous Peoples in the context of research, as well as elevate Indigenous systems, epistemologies, cosmologies, science, knowledge, language, and spirituality with a view to building capacities, ensuring continuity of Indigenous knowledge and its intergenerational transmission, and transforming relationality between and amongst peoples and the natural world.

·       Promote respect for and full application of the provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the context of the Project and all partners.

4.2.1 Equity Diversity and Inclusion

Principles of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) guided the development of the project structure and are also a component of research themes (e.g., social justice). Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) is “a conceptual framework that promotes the fair treatment and full participation of all people, especially populations that have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination because of their background, identity, and disability.”⁷⁶ There are many definitions. However, equity generally refers to the intention of providing resources according to need; diversity refers to the representation of the total composition of social groups or organizations; and inclusion focuses on affirmations, celebrations and appreciation of the diverse experiences, knowledge, skill-sets and approaches to the engagement of diverse team members.76 These efforts of our Team were positively reinforced through the funding agency, which recognized that “achieving a more equitable, diverse and inclusive Canadian research enterprise is essential to creating the excellent, innovative and impactful research necessary to advance knowledge and understanding, and to respond to local, national and global challenges.”77 We addressed equity, diversity, and inclusion through the structure of our project team, which is Indigenous-led (see above) and includes peoples of diverse gender identities, physical abilities, languages, and ethnicities. Over 60% of the project team comprises women and those of diverse gender identities, and many are primary caregivers for children, aging parents, and their communities. For example, we have accommodated the schedules of our leadership team with particular attention to mothers of young children. This is crucial to building a welcoming working environment and retaining Indigenous women in research who are often far from their family support network. This inclusive approach ensures that traditionally marginalized voices are prominently represented and led within the project. Our project also directly focuses on research about equity, diversity and inclusion. For example, an Indigenous trans-person (Muxhe) is leading a research project on the ancestral Indigenous gender identities of three different social groups in Mexico, Yucatan and Guerrero; she also co-leads the Ărramăt Project working group on “social justice, reconciliation and healing.”

4.2.2 Strengths-Oriented Approach

In the Ărramăt Project, we are also working towards strengthening capacity to ensure that Indigenous Peoples who do not have well-developed skills or experience are supported in their efforts to lead their own projects. Capacity-building is an area of research praxis that has many definitions and dimensions. Definitions are highly context-dependent – “the ability to carry out stated objectives.” It is often referred to as a process over time with domains or fields ranging from technical skill development to institutional development and civil action.^78–80 Building on ethical space and capacity-building frameworks developed in Native American health research, we define capacity-building around four principles⁸¹ (Figure 5).

Capacity-Building Principles

Adapted from Gathering of Native Americans (GONA)

Building relationships (1^st principle) facilitates open communication and the identification of common ground and common goals. Building skills (2nd principle) recognizes the importance of “mastery” and creating and nurturing opportunities for individuals and groups to make practical and unique contributions based on their own place. The third principle – working together – honours the importance of community or the “interdependence” within social groups and the environment (place). These interdependencies are not focused only on the present but also consider past, present and future connections. Promoting commitment (4^th principle) – honours the importance of “generosity” and reciprocity between communities, within communities (e.g. elders and youth) and between people, their environment and the spiritual world.

Chino, M.; DeBruyn, L. Building True Capacity: Indigenous Models for Indigenous Communities. American Journal of Public Health 2006, 96, 596–599.

We take a strengths-based (not deficit-oriented) approach to working together to achieve the research objectives. This strengths-based approach guided our efforts to structure our team and support place-based work as well as knowledge mobilization in our ten working groups (i.e., Global Transformation Pathway Teams). Providing time and flexibility enabled Indigenous organizations to learn at their own pace and follow the best research practices relevant to their cultures and organizations. Capacity-building was also facilitated through a webinar series where Team members could learn from one another. These webinars were hosted to create dialogue about individual team members’ key strengths (assets) and expertise that could be shared with others in the group. In addition to webinars, our Team members have contributed to the Project’s methodological toolboxes (online resources) designed specifically to support Indigenous groups and leaders in planning and implementing their place-based research.

4.2.3 Methodological Diversity

The research approach and methods emerging through the Ărramăt Project build on or synergize with scholarship on Indigenous Research Methodologies.⁵⁰ While the broad research questions and themes are shared across the project, the specific focal points and research methods are not standardized; they reflect a diversity of cultures (e.g., worldviews, languages) and best practices of organizations involved in the work across 28 countries. Examples include participatory mapping, filmmaking, and storytelling and collective remembering. Others designed and nurtured by Indigenous organizations and government have developed within the project’s place and context. Essentially, people learn by doing and innovating new approaches that answer questions that are important to them.

4.2.4 Indigenous Data Sovereignty

Principles of Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDS) also guide the implementation of the project work and the collaborative processes of knowledge mobilization. Some diverse definitions and elements have been developed by Indigenous scholars elsewhere. Among these are the FAIR and CARE principles, which focus on findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability of information (FIND)⁸² and CARE (collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility, and ethics).83 These principles synergize with broader efforts to protect Indigenous rights and ensure free, prior and informed consent (i.e., UNDRIP).84 At its heart, the focus is on protecting the rights and knowledge of Indigenous communities in collection, ownership, and use.85 This framework acknowledges that the knowledge gathered through place-based projects is essential to Indigenous organizations and governments to meet local needs but is also part of a significant and collective effort of Ărramăt team members to bring knowledge together in solidarity to address issues of common concern.

4.2.5 Ongoing Collaboration

The Ărramăt Model is also based around principles of collaboration. Different collaboration modalities have been the project’s core since its design’s early days. Some of the tools we have developed have been around cross-cultural learning and dialogues. Many dialogues have been informal and self-organized; others have been more formal. These dialogues enabled us to identify epistemological synergies and differences, supporting collaboration across cultural and disciplinary contexts. These dialogues were challenging due to language differences and often required translation into three or more languages, as well as recognition and effort to practice and respect the many Indigenous languages (200+) important in global work. Specific collaborations have also been featured with the work of the Indigenous-led place-based projects and through the decisions of Indigenous organizations to engage (or not) in knowledge mobilization activities (i.e., through the Global Transformation Pathway Teams).

4.2.6

Place-Based and Engaged Learning

Another core principle guiding the implementation of the Ărramăt Project is place-based engaged learning. “Place-based research develops around locally relevant issues, which vary among social-ecological contexts… global sustainability issues are those that are common across multiple places and contexts, or those that are made visible by more influential or interconnected stakeholders, or by global bodies”.⁸⁶ Places are sometimes described as sites of intimate relations between people, and between people and the environment, creating opportunities for the “production of knowledge and the reworking of human-nature boundaries. Place and intimate relations to place are also political spaces (i.e., where aspects of power are played out) and embodied places (i.e., indistinguishable from self and identity).71,87,88 Previous research has focused on the opportunities of place-based research for documenting social and ecological change and stewardship of biodiversity. Place can sometimes be considered synonymous with “small-scale”. However, like other multi-scale global projects (e.g., those on climate change), the Ărramăt Project is concerned with scaling insights developed through place-based research to influence global decision-making. In the Ărramăt Project, place generally has three dimensions; geographic location, locale (biophysical and spiritual definition), and social-cultural meaning (e.g., political, emotional). They are the sites and spaces where we collaboratively explore the interconnections between biodiversity and health. Between 2023-2024 we have funded more than 70 Indigenous-led place-based projects and will fund an additional 80+ projects in 2025-2027.

4.2.7 Financial Security and Transparency

Funding to support Indigenous-led place-based research is being allocated through an administrative process housed at the University of Alberta, Canada and guided by the terms of the funding agency (Social Science Humanities Research Council). Allocations of budgets for projects were created during the proposal development phase to honor the contributions of those governments and organizations who contributed intellectually to the development of the proposal and its success. Two kinds of funding are administered. In addition to the direct research costs, administrative overhead is shared with those leading research. This includes Indigenous governments, environmental organizations, not-for-profits, academic institutions, religious orders/groups and several small businesses. Sharing funding outside of Canada and to organizations other than Canadian universities has necessitated administrative creativity and attentiveness to different principles of the project (e.g., equity, diversity and inclusion). While easier to share funding with organizations with significant administrative experience, we intended to challenge the status quo and ensure that those most vulnerable (e.g., due to education levels, socio-economic, ecological stress, and political conflict) have equitable access to funding and are not burdened by top-down and western-academic financial policies and procedures.

Mutual respect for the principles of financial accountability and transparency (i.e. for public funds) throughout the process has ensured that the Ărramăt Project and its host institutions have been able to uphold principles of “research excellence” as defined by the Tri-Council of Canada. There are also challenges related to the capacities of academic institutions and other funding agencies; academic financial administration systems in Canada were not set up to support local organizations or communities, but rather universities and extractive (at best participatory) approaches to engaging with Indigenous Peoples. Our project and staff at the University of Alberta have developed strong working relationships in an “ethical space” to make room for Indigenous Peoples and organizations to be included as “eligible” to receive funding. This has come with a lot of work and effort from communities and administration to solve problems. However, more work is needed to align the administration systems with funding agencies and universities in Canada and elsewhere.

4.2.8 Ecologically Sustainable

Conventional research models depend on graduate students and researchers from urban centers (e.g., universities in the global north). It has been estimated that the carbon footprint of academics involved in research on climate change is high and growing. By funding researchers in-place, the work and outcomes are not only more culturally meaningful and outcomes more robust (i.e., knowledge holders have long-term and precise observations of place), but transaction costs (e.g., airfare travel) are significantly lower, as is the carbon footprint or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of researcher transportation and activities. The work also responds to the challenges of the global pandemic and the risks of increasing zoonotic diseases and viruses. By privileging local-scale and digital (rather than travel-related) communications and research activities, we are ensuring that the research process for the Ărramăt Project is sustainable from a human health perspective.

4.2.9 Action-Oriented

The project is a research project, but the outcomes are not standard academic outcomes. Many materials, reports, video documentaries, and book projects are being produced for educational, management, and policy-change purposes. The Ărramăt Project intends to support Indigenous governments and organizations to make their own “evidence” about issues of importance to them and meet their needs. There are opportunities to work together to achieve actionable solutions to global-scale biodiversity conservation and Indigenous health and well-being. By 2027, we anticipate place-specific data/knowledge being documented related to our ten themes of transformation (Pathways) with outputs speaking to i) culturally appropriate frameworks for defining and describing the interconnections between biodiversity and well-being, ii) indicators and methods for tracking and interpreting patterns, trends and tipping points in biodiversity and health-wellbeing; iii) model innovations and solutions for biodiversity conservation and care of people in hot-spot regions; and iv) actionable ‘design principles’ for strengthening holistic governance of biodiversity and health-wellbeing relevant at local-global scales.

4. Conclusions

Indigenous Peoples are among those most impacted by the present biodiversity crisis.1–3 Despite growing opportunities for recognizing Indigenous Peoples and Knowledges, few models center Indigenous leadership in producing evidence and actionable solutions. Epistemological biases in what constitutes “evidence,” barriers to representation within global institutions, as well as racism in many countries, remain challenges for meaningful collaboration between environmental organizations, governments, and Indigenous Peoples. In this context, this chapter offers the Ărramăt Model as an example of how funding for Indigenous-led research can be equitably and meaningfully supported. We designed this model in response to a Canadian Social Science and Humanities Research Council funding opportunity. The model, grounded in an ‘ethical space’, is based on three core principles: Indigenous leadership and ethical governance, elevating Indigenous Knowledge systems and equitable access to research funding. The funding award for 2021-2027 enabled us to operationalize these principles and offer additional lessons learned related to implementation.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the support, time and efforts of all members of the Ărramăt Project Team. We acknowledge the Indigenous territories of all our team members where we are working together to support our project. We give thanks to our connections to Mother Earth and all beings on Mother Earth who support our health and well-being. We acknowledge the funding of the Canadian Social Science and Humanities and Research (SSHRC) – New Transformation in Research Fund – Transformation (NFRFT-2020-00188). Ethical guidelines for research were developed and followed through the project based on the input of our team members, consistent with local Indigenous protocols and with the Canadian Tri-Council Guidelines on Ethical Research (University of Alberta #Pro00113756).

References

1.         Department of Economic and Social Affairs & Indigenous Peoples. Membership of United Nations Permaent Forum on Indigenous Issues 2020-2022. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/news/call-for-nominations-2020.html (2020).

2.         United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Indigenous Peoples – Human Rights (2019).

3.         World Bank Group. Indigenous Peoples. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/indigenouspeoples (2020).

4.         Colchester, M. Conservation policy and indigenous peoples. Environ. Sci. Policy 7, 145–153 (2004).

5.         Parlee, B.L., Sandlos, J. & Natcher, D.C. Undermining subsistence: Barren-ground caribou in a “tragedy of open access”. Sci. Adv. 4, e1701611 (2018).

6.         Brockington, D. & Igoe, J. Eviction for conservation: a global overview. Conserv. Soc. 424–470 (2006).

7.         Spence, M. Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks (Oxford University Press, New York, 1999).

8.         Fairhead, J., Leach, M. & Scoones, I. Green grabbing: a new appropriation of nature? J. Peasant Stud. 39, 237–261 (2012).

9.         Sandlos, J. Hunters on the Margin: Native People and Wildlife Conservation in the Northwest Territories (UBC Press, Vancouver, 2007).

10.       Gracey, M. & King, M. Indigenous health part 1: determinants and disease patterns. The Lancet 374, 65–75 (2009).

11.       Anderson, I. et al. Indigenous and tribal peoples’ health (The Lancet – Lowitja Institute Global Collaboration): a population study. The Lancet 388, 131–157 (2016).

12.       Kuhnlein, H.V., Receveur, O., Soueida, R. & Egeland, G.M. Arctic indigenous peoples experience the nutrition transition with changing dietary patterns and obesity. J. Nutr. 134, 1447–1453 (2004).

13.       Montenegro, R.A. & Stephens, C. Indigenous health in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Lancet 367, 1859–1869 (2006).

14.       Grant, C.C., Wall, C.R., Yates, R. & Crengle, S. Nutrition and indigenous health in New Zealand. J. Paediatr. Child Health 46, 479–482 (2010).

15.       Reading, J. The Crisis of Chronic Disease among Aboriginal Peoples: A Challenge for Public Health, Population Health and Social Policy (Centre for Aboriginal Health Research, 2009).

16.       Pedersen, J. & Benjaminsen, T.A. One leg or two? Food security and pastoralism in the northern Sahel. Hum. Ecol. 36, 43–57 (2008).

17.       Brockington, D., Duffy, R. & Igoe, J. Nature Unbound: Conservation, Capitalism and the Future of Protected Areas (Earthscan, 2008).

18.       Neumann, R.P. Imposing Wilderness: Struggles over Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa. vol. 4 (Univ. of California Press, 1998).

19.       Goldman, M. Privatizing Nature: Political Struggles for the Global Commons (Pluto Press, 1998).

20.       World Bank. Understanding Poverty – Indigenous Peoples. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/indigenouspeoples (2019).

21.       Greenwood, M. & Leeuw, S. de. Teachings From the Land: Indigenous People, Our Health. Can. J. Native Educ. 30, 48–53 (2007).

22.       King, M., Smith, A. & Gracey, M. Indigenous health part 2: the underlying causes of the health gap. The Lancet 374, 76–85 (2009).

23.       Dowie, M. Conservation Refugees: The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2011).

24.       Sindiga, I. Wildlife-based tourism in Kenya: Land use conflicts and government compensation policies over protected areas. J. Tour. Stud. 6, 45 (1995).

25.       Negi, C.S. & Nautiya1, S. Indigenous peoples, biological diversity and protected area management – policy framework towards resolving conflicts. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 10, 169–179 (2003).

26.       Laungaramsri, P. The ambiguity of “watershed”: the politics of people and conservation in northern Thailand. SOJOURN J. Soc. Issues Southeast Asia 52–75 (2000).

27.       Kirmayer, L., Dandeneau, S., Marshall, E., Phillips, M. & Williamson, K. Rethinking Resilience from Indigenous Perspectives. Can. J. Psychiatry 56, 84–91 (2011).

28.       Davies, J. et al. Attention to four key principles can promote health outcomes from desert Aboriginal land management. Rangel. J. 33, 417–431 (2011).

29.       Berry, H.L. et al. Mind, body, spirit: co-benefits for mental health from climate change adaptation and caring for country in remote Aboriginal Australian communities. New South Wales Public Health Bull. 21, 139–145 (2010).

30.       Trzepacz, D.M., Guerin, B. & Thomas, J. Indigenous Country as a context for mental and physical health: Yarning with the Nukunu Community (2014).

31.       Kuhnlein, H.V. & Chan, H.M. Environment and contaminants in traditional food systems of northern indigenous peoples. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 20, 595–626 (2000).

32.       Mitchell, F.M. Water (in) security and American Indian health: Social and environmental justice implications for policy, practice, and research. Public Health 176, 98–105 (2019).

33.       IPBES. IPBES Global Assessment Report. (2019).

34.       Khetan, A.K. COVID-19: Why Declining Biodiversity Puts Us at Greater Risk for Emerging Infectious Diseases, and What We Can Do. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 1–2 (2020).

35.       Chan, S. et al. The global biodiversity framework needs a robust action agenda. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 7, 172–173 (2023).

36.       Indigenous Circle of Experts (ICE). We Rise Together: Achieving Pathway to Canada Target 1 through the Creation of Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas in the Spirit and Practice of Reconciliation. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57e007452e69cf9a7af0a033/t/5ab94aca6d2a7338ecb1d05e/1522092766605/PA234-ICE_Report_2018_Mar_22_web.pdf (2018).

37.       Zurba, M. & Papadopoulos, A. Indigenous participation and the incorporation of indigenous knowledge and perspectives in global environmental governance forums: a systematic review. Environ. Manage 72, 84–99 (2023).

38.       Zurba, M., Beazley, K.F., English, E. & Buchmann-Duck, J. Indigenous protected and conserved areas (IPCAs), Aichi Target 11 and Canada’s Pathway to Target 1: Focusing conservation on reconciliation. Land 8, 10 (2019).

39.       Convention on Biological Diversity. The Ninth Trondheim Conference on Biodiversity.

40.       Schoeppner, L. Indigenous Peoples in Canada and Beyond: The Inuit Circumpolar Council’s Climate Change Advocacy Work. in Environmental Justice in North America 182–231 (Routledge, 2024).

41.       Cooney, R. & Abensperg‐Traun, M. Raising local community voices: CITES, livelihoods and sustainable use. Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law 22, 301–310 (2013).

42.       Tyrrell, M. & Clark, D.A. What happened to climate change? CITES and the reconfiguration of polar bear conservation discourse. Glob. Environ. Change 24, 363–372 (2014).

43.       Elfving, S.K. The European Union’s Animal Welfare Policy and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights: The Case of Inuit and Seal Hunting. (University of Surrey, UK, 2014).

44.       Parlee, B. & Inuvialuit Game Council. The Politics of a Polar Bear “Crash”, in Arctic Crashes: People and Animals in a Changing North (eds. Krupnik, I. & Crowell, A.) 200–215 (Smithsonian Institute Scholarly Press, Washington D.C., 2020).

45.       Ampumuza, C., Duineveld, M. & van der Duim, R. The most marginalized people in Uganda? Alternative realities of Batwa at Bwindi Impenetrable National Park. World Dev. Perspect. 20, 100267 (2020).

46.       Taylor, P.L. Conservation, community, and culture? New organizational challenges of community forest concessions in the Maya Biosphere Reserve of Guatemala. J. Rural Stud. 26, 173–184 (2010).

47.       Ermine, W. The ethical space of engagement. Indig. LJ 6, 193 (2007).

48.       Cambou, D. The UNDRIP and the legal significance of the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination: a human rights approach with a multidimensional perspective. in The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 33–49 (Routledge, 2020).

49.       Kimmerer, R.W. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants (Milkweed Editions, 2013).

50.       Wilson, S. Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods (2008).

51.       Smith, L.T. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (Zed Books Ltd., 2013).

52.       Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf (2005).

53.       Trimble, M.J. & van Aarde, R.J. Geographical and taxonomic biases in research on biodiversity in human‐modified landscapes. Ecosphere 3, 1–16 (2012).

54.       Garibaldi, A. & Turner, N. Cultural keystone species: implications for ecological conservation and restoration. Ecol. Soc. 9, (2004).

55.       Barthel, S., Crumley, C. & Svedin, U. Bio-cultural refugia – safeguarding diversity of practices for food security and biodiversity. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1142–1152 (2013).

56.       IUCN Global Species Programme Red List Unit. IUCN Red List (2017).

57.       Environment and Climate Change Canada. Species at Risk Public Registry. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-public-registry.html (2020).

58.       Reed, M.S. et al. What is social learning? Ecol. Soc. 15, (2010).

59.       Breit, H. & Troja, M. Institutional change and social learning in environmental contexts: an introduction, in How Institutions Change 13–30 (Springer, 2003).

60.       Sigmund, K., De Silva, H., Traulsen, A. & Hauert, C. Social learning promotes institutions for governing the commons. Nature 466, 861–863 (2010).

61.       Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge University Press, 1990).

62.       Armitage, D., Berkes, F. & Doubleday, N. Adaptive Co-Management: Collaboration, Learning, and Multi-Level Governance (University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, 2007).

63.       IPBES. IPBES Global Assessment: Summary for Policy Makers. https://ipbes.net/global-assessment-report-biodiversity-ecosystem-services (2019).

64.       Haalboom, B. & Natcher, D.C. The power and peril of “vulnerability”: Approaching community labels with caution in climate change research. Arctic 319–327 (2012).

65.       Stephens, C., Porter, J., Nettleton, C. & Willis, R. Disappearing, displaced, and undervalued: a call to action for Indigenous health worldwide. The Lancet 367, 2019–2028 (2006).

66.       Howitt, R. Rethinking Resource Management: Justice, Sustainability and Indigenous Peoples (Routledge, London and New York, 2001).

67.       Jentoft, S. Walking the talk: Implementing the international voluntary guidelines for securing sustainable small-scale fisheries. Marit. Stud. 13, 1–15 (2014).

68.       LaDuke, W. All Our Relations: Native Struggles for Land and Life (Haymarket Books, 2017).

69.       Truth & Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Canada’s Residential Schools: The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. vol. 1 (McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP, 2015).

70.       McKinney, S.J. ‘… and yet there’s still no peace’, Catholic Indigenous Residential Schools in Canada. J. Relig. Educ. 70, 327–340 (2022).

71.       Davidson-Hunt, I.J. & Michael O’Flaherty, R. Researchers, indigenous peoples, and place-based learning communities. Soc. Nat. Resour. 20, 291–305 (2007).

72.       Ford, J.D. et al. Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 349–353 (2016).

73.       Kovács, E.K. & Pataki, G. The participation of experts and knowledges in the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Environ. Sci. Policy 57, 131–139 (2016).

74.       McElwee, P. et al. Working with Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in large‐scale ecological assessments: Reviewing the experience of the IPBES Global Assessment. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 1666–1676 (2020).

75.       Canada Research Coordinating Committee. New Frontiers in Research Fund – Transformation. https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/nfrf-fnfr/transformation/2024/competition-concours-eng.aspx (2024).

76.       American Psychological Association. Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/framework.pdf (2021).

77.       Canada Research Coordinating Committee. Best Practices in Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Research Practice and Design. https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/nfrf-fnfr/edi-eng.aspx#1 (2024).

78.       O’Shaughnessy, T., Carter, H. & Black, L. Capacity Building, a New Approach?: Principles and Practice. (Sydney, 1999).

79.       Honadle, B.W. A capacity-building framework: A search for concept and purpose. Public Sect. Perform. 20–35 (2018).

80.       Liberato, S.C., Brimblecombe, J., Ritchie, J., Ferguson, M. & Coveney, J. Measuring capacity building in communities: a review of the literature. BMC Public Health 11, 1–10 (2011).

81.       Chino, M. & DeBruyn, L. Building true capacity: Indigenous models for indigenous communities. Am. J. Public Health 96, 596–599 (2006).

82.       Go FAIR. FAIR Principles. https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/ (2024).

83.       Carroll, S.R. et al. Using indigenous standards to implement the CARE principles: Setting expectations through tribal research codes. Front. Genet. 13, 823309 (2022).

84.       United Nations. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Resolution/Adopted by the General Assembly. A/RES/61/295 1–15 (2007).

85.       Walter, M., Kukutai, T., Carroll, S.R. & Rodriguez-Lonebear, D. Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Policy (Taylor & Francis, 2020).

86.       Balvanera, P. et al. Interconnected place-based social-ecological research can inform global sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 29, 1–7 (2017).

87.       Ingold, T. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill (Psychology Press, 2000).

88.       Raffles, H. Intimate Knowledge (2003).