A Landscape Analysis of Nature-based Solutions in Canada

October 8, 2022

Reading time: 34 minutes

Abstract

• Nature-based Solutions can mitigate carbon emissions and provide multiple ecosystem services that improve the well-being of humanity. However, their performance is poorly understood.
• We assessed publicly available data from Canadian projects that could be considered Nature-based Solutions (NbS) according to the IUCN Nature-based Solutions framework.
• Across three sectors (government, industry, and Indigenous) we observed a general lack of standardized monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV), and high variability in funding mechanisms. This hinders NbS effectiveness, deters further financing and renders MRV difficult to properly integrate in Nationally-Determined Contributions.
• We also observed geographic and ecosystem coverage gaps that exclude key regions, stakeholders, and ecosystems within Canada.
• The effective participation of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC) is fundamental to equitable and effective climate and biodiversity action. Five principles are highlighted to promote effective NbS co-design and implementation with IPLC.
• Novel artificial intelligence and machine learning methods can also help overcome current gaps in the Canadian NbS landscape, but more research is needed to determine the full scope of limitations and benefits of these big-data driven approaches.

1. Nature-based Solutions, Canada’s opportunity to meet climate goals

If Canada is to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, a combination of emissions reduction and innovative carbon sequestration approaches are needed. Nature- based Solutions¹ (NbS) are promising, as they could help achieve up to 35% of Canada’s 2030 carbon reduction commitment (Griscom et al., 2017, Drever et al., 2021). In addition, NbS can protect biodiversity and provide multiple ecosystem services that improve the well-being of humanity. However, their performance and long-term impacts are still poorly understood.

In this report, we aim to provide an improved understanding of Nature- based Solutions to help decision-makers prioritize actions that support carbon storage, biodiversity, resilience, and reconciliation goals.

The report presents an assessment of publicly available data from current NbS projects in Canada to outline opportunities for improved reporting, funding, and geographic distribution of NbS (Section 2). We present a rationale for the necessity of co- creating NbS with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (Section 3) and suggest ways to do so, based on consultation with over 100 stakeholders (Section 4). We also present potential applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning for NbS, based on a review of the literature (Section 5). Finally, Section 6 presents conclusions that weave all these considerations together, to enhance understanding of the current status and future potential for NbS in Canada.

---

¹ There is overlap and divergence in the literature with the term “Nature-based Solutions” (as defined by Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016) and “natural climate solutions” (as defined by Drever et. al, 2021). Both have merit and we use Nature-based Solutions in this report for simplicity.

2. Trends across sectors funding Nature-based Solutions in Canada

What we analyzed

We assessed 50 illustrative funding programs, spanning over 200 NbS project examples, to begin to identify trends across multiple categories (i.e., project monitoring, geographic distribution, ecosystem type, project funding). We searched publicly available websites of Indigenous communities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), industry, and the Canadian government and compiled these into three NbS categories: Government, Industry, and Indigenous-led projects. As there are no standard criteria for monitoring NbS in Canada, this review included only programs that mentioned some mechanism to evaluate results.

We recognize this is not an exhaustive analysis of all the NbS projects in Canada. More work is needed to examine the full scope and breadth of projects, potentially with the aid of natural language processing. Trying to understand trends and success through government and industry websites and blog posts may paint an incomplete picture of the current status of Nature-based Solutions, but we put forward this effort as a start.

What the trends tell us

Existing data on the Canadian NbS landscape is fragmented. Below we describe the main gaps and outline opportunities to address these gaps, based on trends observed in four categories:

• Monitoring and Transparency
• Geographic Distribution
• Ecosystem Type
• Funding

Gaps and opportunities are followed by example opportunities in Box 1. A detailed description of trends by project type can be found in the Appendix.

Trend: Across all projects, performance metrics were infrequently assessed and not standardized (see Appendix for details).

Trend: Over half (60.6%) of Canada’s NbS projects occur in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec. Peatlands NbS are funded predominantly in Quebec.

---

[1] Sawyer et al., 2020; [2] IUCN, 2021; [3] Hugelius et al., 2020; [4] Tarnocai, 2006; [5] Harris et al., 2021.

Trend: Across all sectors, most NbS project types focused on aquatic and forest ecosystems. Other NbS types with high carbon mitigation potential, like agriculture, grasslands, and oceans, are less represented under current funding schemes.

---

[1] Drever et. al. 2021; [2] Sala et al., 2021; [3] Nunavut Food Security Coalition, 2014; [4] Locke, 2019.

Trend: Funding timeframes varied (usually five years or less). Funding ranged from hundreds of thousands to billions and many funding programs required matching funds. Projects are more frequently motivated by compliance than by co-benefits.

3. Importance of co-creating Nature-based Solutions with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities

The convergence of multiple knowledge systems has been highlighted as necessary to reach climate and biodiversity goals (Garnett et al., 2018). Hence, Indigenous Knowledge Systems are increasingly being brought into present-day environmental science and land management practices. Yet, Indigenous Peoples have long developed their approaches to climate change, which facilitated carbon storage for thousands of years (ICA, 2021, Artelle et al., 2019). Failing to centralize these approaches in the development and implementation of NbS will result in perpetuated acts of colonialism, continued seizure of territories from Indigenous communities, and the continued erosion of Indigenous sovereignty over knowledge and resources (M’sɨt No’kmaq et al. 2021; Prosper et al. 2011; Townsend et al., 2020). Further, Indigenous territories span all of Canada and occupy large segments of land outside large urban centers, with most being currently explored for NbS implementation (Artelle et al., 2019). Thus, scaling up Nature-based Solutions in Canada must proceed in a direct co-creative process with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC). Here, we explore three important elements that underscore the importance of designing NbS with IPLC to maximize carbon and biodiversity benefits.

Boundaries and stewardship on Indigenous lands for improved ecosystem management

Globally, Indigenous land boundaries and land uses are poorly understood and quantified. Still, it is estimated that Indigenous communities, despite comprising less than 5% of the world’s population, protect 80% of the world’s biodiversity (Raygorodetsky, 2018) and retain sovereignty of approximately 40% of the remaining intact ecosystems (Garnett et al., 2018). This is likely an underestimate given that many Indigenous communities maintain ties to landscapes lost to colonial land grabs.

Canada is no exception. Around 7% of Canada is federally legislated for reserves, land claim settlements, and Indian Lands (Gocke, 2013; Artelle et al., 2019). Yet, it is increasingly evident that Indigenous rights, titles, and responsibilities apply to a far greater portion of Canada. When considering all the land depicted under Indigenous treaties between the Crown and First Nations in Canada (Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information System (ATRIS), 2021) and recognizing that communities have maintained ties to land lost during colonial times, Indigenous lands account for over 80% of Canada’s landmass. The western concept of marking exclusive ownership or use rights is also problematic. Euro-Canadian cartography and mapping of lands solidified the borders and boundaries of colonial governments, ignoring the ways in which Indigenous Peoples had already mapped their land (Hunt & Stevenson, 2017).

Globally, degradation and fragmentation by developed nations have reduced the number of pristine ecosystems. Suppression of Indigenous stewardship actions have led to catastrophic consequences in many Canadian ecosystems that are still being felt today. As such, there is a need to work towards common perceptions of land management responsibilities to capture all opportunities Canada has to preserve, promote, and support the historical and active Indigenous stewardship of carbon and ecosystems.

Irrecoverable carbon on Indigenous lands

Stored carbon may be considered irrecoverable if the timeframe to recovery exceeds necessary emission targets (Noon et al., 2021). In Canada, the amount of irreplaceable carbon within Indigenous boundaries varies greatly, but we estimate that 80% of carbon- rich peatlands occur within the bounds of Indigenous lands (Government Canada, 2021a). (Interactive map  of Irrecoverable Carbon within Indigenous Treaties in Canada). Indeed, Indigenous Treaty 9 and Treaty 5, which overlap with the Hudson Bay Lowlands in Ontario and Manitoba, contain one of the largest peatland and carbon pools on Earth (Packalen et al., 2014). Based on our calculations of irrecoverable carbon contained in Canadian peatlands (using data from Noon et al. 2021), we estimate that 4.8 Gt of carbon exists in lands defined by Indigenous Treaties. This represents three orders of magnitude more carbon than the annual Canadian carbon emissions (780Mt). Despite this, only 1 of the 62 projects federally funded to establish Indigenous Protected Areas² (IPA) in Canada overlaps with Ontario’s part of the Hudson Bay lowlands.

To maximize the irrecoverable carbon and biodiversity benefits on Indigenous lands, we need to understand: a) what are the current spatial and temporal distributions of Indigenous management activities and land uses that impact carbon storage, biodiversity, and resilience? b) what are the direct and indirect impacts of Indigenous land management activities on carbon storage, biodiversity, resilience, and human health? c) how can this data be obtained working together with Indigenous Peoples and respecting their data sovereignty?

Carbon potential beyond federally protected areas in Canada

In Canada, federally protected areas (i.e., national, provincial, territorial parks, and Indigenous Protected Areas) account for only 12.5% of land area and 13.8% of marine area (Government of Canada, 2021b). Further, we estimate that less than 20% of Canadian peatlands are federally protected, accounting for only 1.2 Gt of stored carbon. Therefore, major opportunities exist for carbon-driven NbS beyond federally protected lands, to increase both carbon uptake and land/marine coverage.

Questions to help determine regions to prioritize include: What is the extent of all carbon rich habitats in Canada, such as peatlands, grassland, forests, and wetlands? How can we improve our estimates of extent and health within and across habitat types?

---

² The term Indigenous Protected Areas is a regulatory term that encompasses established or proposed protected areas under Indigenous stewardship, within federal lands (Government Canada, 2021a).

4. Structuring successful NbS with Indigenous and local partners

On October 26, 2021, Sustainability in the Digital Age and Future Earth held a series of virtual, expert convenings to inform the scale-up of equitable Nature-based Solutions in Canada. The convenings took place over three, half-day sessions and engaged over 100 expert participants (75% from Canada, 25% international including US, South America, Africa, and Europe). The workshops gathered actors representing the private sector, research communities, Indigenous communities, and nonprofits, and included over 20 Indigenous leaders, Elders, experts, and Chiefs. Each half-day explored one of three central themes:

1. Exploring the connection of Indigenous worldviews and technology through digital technologies
2. Enabling equitable Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for climate change mitigation and ecosystem resilience to climate change.
3. Leveraging digital technology for innovating, strengthening, and upscaling Nature-based Solutions

The outcomes from all three workshops were then synthesized with other background research and evaluated with the Indigenous Elders, experts, and Chiefs that attended the workshops. The following 5 principles can be followed to successfully work together with Indigenous partners in the implementation of Nature-based Solutions:

4.1. Include, consult, and partner with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities

The only way Canada can reach climate and biodiversity goals equitably is by building NbS in a direct co-creative process encompassing collaboration and consent of Indigenous communities. Over 600 Indigenous communities live within Canada, representing First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples, each with teachings grounded in their own localities (Townsend et al., 2020). As such, any co-development of NbS or technological applications must be developed locally and be culturally relevant to those it is meant to serve. Information used for these purposes must be validated by Elders and Knowledge Holders from the community to ensure authenticity and proper representation (Bartlett, Marshall, & Marshall, 2012; Berkes & Berkes, 2009). Lastly, NbS needs to support the resurgence and revitalization of Indigenous Peoples from the effects of colonialism. This means funding for Indigenous communities to lead their own solutions, supporting language revitalization, and the return of Indigenous lands. All projects implemented together with Indigenous partners should aim to strengthen their land and resource rights, their institutions, organizations, and networks to support concerted action to protect their land, nature.

4.2. Prioritize synergistic goals by working bottom-up

To ensure NbS can be implemented inclusively and equitably, precision in framing the goal before a project begins is crucial. Considerations of human rights protection, food security, access to potable water, biodiversity conservation, land conservation, cost of implementation and maintenance, and ability to co-design with impacted communities, should all be weighed along with carbon uptake potential at the outset of any decision to invest in each NbS. Since all these considerations can only be assessed when working with specific communities, projects must be implemented from a bottom-up approach. Admittedly, because NbS often addresses many societal challenges simultaneously, prioritizing some in a goal-setting process will inevitably lead to trade-offs between competing goals. Yet, decision-making should be based on the “no regret” principle, where the priority is to minimize harm before optimizing certain benefits (Rizvi et al., 2014) and where NbS projects should minimally aim to maintain biodiversity and ideally to increase it in concert with prioritizing benefits for impacted communities (IUCN, 2020) to pursue and maintain sustainable livelihoods.

4.3. Consider who will be impacted by the project, from local to global scales

Working with the beneficiaries of the NbS projects during the project design phase is crucial to ensure that projects can be responsive to both local and global needs (Beaudouin, 2020). The granularity of data must first reflect local context and place-based needs. Only then can it be used to link global benefits with local needs and vice versa. Carbon uptake and food security are two examples of how local and global needs can align under one project. While carbon is an issue of planetary scale, food security is more localized, and considering them together offers a balanced approach.

4.4. Recognize all knowledge systems are equal

The co-development of goals by non-Indigenous and Indigenous groups and communities should also happen within collaborative spaces, where all knowledge systems are respected. There are multiple conceptual frameworks to achieve this, such as the ethical space of engagement for discussions around Indigenous and Canadian legal systems (Ermine, 2007) and the vast diversity of long-standing Indigenous frameworks of knowledge coexistence (Reid et al., 2021). One widely used framework known as Two-Eyed Seeing, can also help operationalize ways of coming together from distinct knowledge systems (Bartlett et al., 2012; Reid et al., 2021). While this process may not be straightforward, shifting and adjusting to different factors requires time and effort to ensure the universality is replaced with the equality of different systems (Indigenous Council of Experts (ICE), 2018; Ermine 2007). This process can help to ensure that everyone can work towards goals effectively and ethically.

4.5. Nothing about us without us

Ultimately, whatever the means used to upscale equitable Nature-based Solutions, the principle of, “nothing about us without us” should be at the core of any project to ensure equity in the design process and implementation.

5. Potential applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning

Recent developments in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning could play a significant role in the planning, implementation, scaling, and monitoring of Nature-based Solutions in Canada. There is already much remote sensing data readily available and some of Canada’s ecosystems are mapped extensively, in part via government frameworks. However, through our background research, we gathered over 60 examples of new types of satellite data (examples available on request) and found that many datasets in their current form are not useful for implementing NbS. In some cases, missing years or missing pixels (due to cloud interference, for example) make a dataset less useful. Some landscape features (e.g., understory vegetation and secretive wildlife) cannot be detected without on-the-ground surveys. Scale is also vital, and many recent datasets are only available at global scales. A lack of dataset interoperability is also problematic. Similar limitations hold true for carbon metrics which we also inventoried (data available on request). Measurements do not exist at a relevant scale and would also require additional processing.

Approaches to closing the data gaps

Novel machine learning data processing and classification techniques can help to downscale satellite data and fill in gaps, so that the new layers are appropriate for answering specific research questions. For example, correlative machine learning classification models, such as MaxEnt and Random Forest, can forecast invasive species range expansions (Srivastava et al. 2020), as well as peatland depth across large spatial scales (Hugelius et al. 2020). Machine learning models, such as the multilayer perceptron neural network models, variations of adaptive neuro fuzzy inference systems (Zhu et al. 2018) and the OceanParcels models – Computationally Efficient Lagrangian Simulator – (Kaandorp et al., 2022), may also be useful for predicting water temperatures and tracking particle movements in oceans, vital metrics of ecosystem health that impact biodiversity and carbon storage, when limited data exist. Machine learning initiatives like Microsoft Azure FarmBeats are also tackling the issue of dataset interoperability by building models on fused datasets coming from sensor, satellite, and drone imagery. Ultimately a combination of big-data techniques with on-the-ground and satellite monitoring is the ideal scenario to collect and enhance data.

Novel digital technologies can enable rapid implementation of NbS, but these tools should not be treated as a panacea, nor displace traditional ecological knowledge. There are well-documented limitations with machine learning (e.g. models can be computationally intensive, highly sensitive to noise, may not be transferable) so further analysis is needed to assess how NbS could best benefit from big-data driven approaches.

This includes exploring how NbS monitoring and implementation can draw on conceptual frameworks like Two-Eyed Seeing that equally value technology and Indigenous Knowledge Systems. Building from others’ work such as the Indigenous Futures Research Centre (IFRC) and the efforts of the Indigenous AI Protocol Working Group, ensures that novel AI solutions draw on Indigenous epistemologies and ontologies. For instance, while cloud-based platforms (e.g. Google Earth Engine) are able to perform large scale analysis, data holders (including Indigenous communities and others) may require more stringent policies of data privacy and data ownership, to house sensitive information, such as locations of cultural sites and medicines. Thus, there are opportunities for cloud-based platforms to tailor new services to meet the needs of Indigenous Peoples or local communities in this area of research.

6. Conclusion

Nature-based Solutions (NbS) have the potential to contribute up to 35% of Canada’s 2030 carbon reduction target (Griscom et al., 2017), yet NbS performance and long-term impacts are poorly understood. This report presents an analysis of the current NbS landscape in Canada. We reviewed 50 funding programs spanning over 200 NbS project examples to identify preliminary trends across the government, industry, and Indigenous sectors. We also conducted a series of stakeholder workshops on equitable Nature-based Solutions in Canada, that convened 100 expert participants worldwide, including 20 Indigenous Elders, experts, and Chiefs. Finally, based on a literature review, this report touches on the role of AI and machine learning to support the monitoring of Nature-based Solutions in Canada. Combining the findings of these three streams of exploration, this report makes the following conclusions.

Expanding NbS in Canada to cover peatlands and agriculture will help address current regional imbalances, increase co-benefits, and capitalize on high carbon mitigation potential.

• Peatlands: One of the largest peatland carbon pools on Earth is found in Canada, specifically across Indigenous Treaty 9 and Treaty 5 Lands, overlapping with the Hudson Bay Lowlands in Ontario and Manitoba. Efforts here, such as accurate mapping and ground truthing of satellite data, in collaboration with the Mushkegowuk First Nations and all provincial stakeholders, is thus critical for both the national and international fight against climate change.
• Agriculture: Agricultural NbS represents Canada’s largest NbS carbon mitigation opportunity for 2030 (more than forest and aquatic ecosystems combined). In Nunavut, promising opportunities have been proposed to increase northern agriculture guided by machine learning monitoring, increasing both food security and carbon uptake in this area most vulnerable to climate change. Across other regions of Canada, the federal government has made a significant commitment to agricultural NbS so there is an opportunity now for parallel investments from the industry and Indigenous sectors.

Improving monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) for NbS efforts in Canada will help evaluate the efficacy and long-term impacts of NbS. This can lead to more transparent distribution of funds and better integration of NbS carbon mitigation potential into Nationally Determined Contributions.

• Standardize and centralize NbS monitoring and evaluation data: A standardized MRV framework and central repository of NbS efforts can provide the needed data to assess NbS efficacy and performance, guide future NbS policies and funding, and enable needs-based distribution of NbS across Canada.
• Continue to explore big-data driven approaches: There is a role for big-data driven approaches to improve NbS data collection and monitoring, especially when co-developed with and complemented by the communities conducting on-the-ground monitoring, as evidenced by examples throughout this report.

The right balance of technology, public and private investment, and meaningful collaboration with Indigenous communities, especially in key areas like peatlands and agriculture, can accelerate Canada’s efforts to achieve net-zero and 2030 conservation targets. Standardized metrics, in combination with digital tools and inclusive stakeholder participation, have great potential to restore balance to ecosystems, optimize carbon capture, increase biodiversity, promote community resilience, and provide opportunities for reconciliation of past colonial harms.

Appendix

We assessed 50 illustrative funding programs, spanning over 200 NbS project examples, to begin to identify trends across multiple categories (i.e., project monitoring, geographic distribution, ecosystem type, project funding). We searched publicly available websites of Indigenous communities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), industry, and the Canadian government and compiled these into three NbS categories: Government, Industry, and Indigenous-led projects. As there are no standard criteria for monitoring NbS in Canada, this review included only programs that mentioned some mechanism to evaluate results.

Table 1 presents an analysis of trends across Government, Industry, and Indigenous-led Nature-based Solutions. This analysis categorized government-led projects as those funded by the federal or provincial government. The three main government NbS projects analyzed were the Coastal Restoration Fund, the Natural Heritage Conservation Program, and the Canada Nature Fund for Species at Risk. This analysis considered Indigenous-led programs as those implemented and available only to Indigenous Peoples. Note that government-led programs can fund Indigenous communities but are not exclusively for Indigenous communities. We did not find any private funding initiatives directed exclusively to Indigenous Peoples’ projects; all projects categorized here as Indigenous-led are federally funded. Among the most representative Indigenous-led NbS, we identified the Indigenous Guardians Pilot, First Nations Adapt Program, and the Indigenous Community-Based Climate Monitoring Program. Finally, we assessed three large-scale industry-led programs funded by three private companies: Walmart, Aurora Cannabis Inc., and Shell Oil.

Table 1. Trends across NbS funding types (please see PDF for text versions of these tables)

Contributions

Sustainability in the Digital Age Project Team

Project Lead: Eliane Ubalijoro
Project Manager: Santiago Ramirez Said
Interns: Wynona Acco-Baron, Timothy Law, Katia Forgues, Mélisande Teng, Kayden Schwartz
Report Contributors: Alyson Surveyer, Andréa Ventimiglia, Wynona Acco-Barron, Jordan Rosencranz, Paola Fajardo
Editing and Report Design: Andréa Ventimiglia, Rachelle Fox
Facilitation and Graphic Harvesting: Erin Dixon (Reconciliation Canada), Aaron Williamson (Goal 17)

Advisors

• David Rolnick – Scientific Co-Director, Sustainability in the Digital Age. Canada CIFAR AI Chair, McGill University. Core Academic Member, Mila – Quebec AI Research Institute.
• Damon Matthews – Scientific Co-Director, Sustainability in the Digital Age. Tier 1 Research Chair in Climate Science and Sustainability, Concordia University.
• François Soulard – Chief of the Research and Development section in Environmental Accounts and Statistics Program, Statistics Canada.
• Andrew Gonzales – Co-Chair, GEO BON. Professor of Biology, McGill University. Founding director, Quebec Centre for Biodiversity Science.
• Elena Bennett – Canada Research Chair in Sustainability Science, McGill University. Co-chair, ecoSERVICES project.
• Angela Kross – full-time faculty in Geospatial Technologies, Concordia University.
• Mehrdad Hariri – Founder and CEO, Canadian Science Policy Centre.

External Expert Contributors

100 experts participated in consultations from 20 countries.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

Sustainability in the Digital Age would like to acknowledge the Fonds de Recherche du Québec (FRQ) for core operational support that has complemented project funding.

Citation

Sustainability in the Digital Age. (2022). A Landscape Analysis of Nature-based Solutions in Canada. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7301733

References

Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Information system (ATRIS). (2021). Government of Canada. https://sidait-atris.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/atris_online/home-accueil.aspx

Agriculture Canada. (2021). Agricultural Climate Solutions – agriculture.canada.ca. Agricultural Climate Solutions. https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/agriculture-and-environment/agricultural-climate-solutions

Artelle, K. A., Zurba, M., Bhattacharyya, J., Chan, D. E., Brown, K., Housty, J., & Moola, F. (2019). Supporting resurgent Indigenous-led governance: a nascent mechanism for just and effective conservation. Biological Conservation, 240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108284

Bartlett, C., Marshall, M. & Marshall, A. (2012). Two-Eyed Seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together Indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. J Environ Stud Sci vol. 2 pp. 331–340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0086-8

Beaudouin, V., Bloch, I., Bounie, D., Clémençon, S., d’Alché- Buc, F., Eagan, J., Maxwell, W.,Mozharovskyi, P., & Parekh, J. (2020). Flexible and Context-Specific AI Explainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach. SSRN Electronic Journal. Published. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3559477

Berkes, Fikret, and Mina Kislalioglu Berkes(2009). Ecological Complexity, Fuzzy Logic, and Holism in Indigenous Knowledge. Futures, vol. 41, no. 1, 2009, pp. 6–12., DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2008.07.003

Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C., & Maginnis, S. (2016). Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en

Commonwealth Secretariat. (2021). Accelerating Financing for Nature-based Solutions to Support Action Across the Rio Conventions. Discussion Paper.

Cox, S. (2020). B.C. partners with First Nations to create a new park in habitat for endangered caribou herds, threatened species. https://thenarwhal.ca/b-c-partners-with-first-nations-to-create-new-park-inhabitat-for-endangered-caribou-herds-threatened-species/

Drever, C. R., Cook-Patton, S. C., Akhter, F., Badiou, P. H., Chmura, G. L., Davidson, S. J., … & Kurz, W. A. (2021). Natural climate solutions for Canada. Science Advances, 7(23), eabd6034. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd6034

Ermine, W. (2007). The Ethical Space of Engagement. Indigenous Law Journal, 6, 193–203.

Garnett, S. T., Burgess, N. D., Fa, J. E., Fernández- Llamazares, Á., Molnár, Z., Robinson, C. J., … & Leiper, I. (2018). A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability, 1(7), 369-374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6

Gocke, K. (2013). Protection and realization of Indigenous Peoples’ land rights at the national and international level. Goettingen J. Int’l L., 5, 87.

Government of Canada. (2021a, Jan 13). Greenhouse gas emissions. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html

Government of Canada. (2021b, Jan 13). Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/conserved-areas.html

Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., Houghton, R. A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D. A., Schlesinger, W. H., Shoch, D., Siikamäki, J. V., Smith, P., Woodbury, P., Zganjar, C., Blackman, A., Campari, J., Conant, R. T., Delgado, C., Elias, P., Gopalakrishna, T., Hamsik, M. R., . . . Fargione, J. (2017). Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(44), 11645–11650. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114

Harris, L., Richardson, K., Bona, K.A. et. al.(2021) The essential carbon service provided by northern peatlands. Front Ecol Environ; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2437

Hugelius, G., Loisel, J., Chadburn, S., Jackson, R. B., Jones, M., MacDonald, G., Marushchak, M., Olefeldt, D., Packalen, M., Siewert, M. B., Treat, C., Turetsky, M., Voigt, C., & Yu, Z. (2020). Large stocks of peatland carbon and nitrogen are vulnerable to permafrost thaw. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(34), 20438–20446. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916387117

Hunt, D., & Stevenson, S. A. (2017). Decolonizing geographies of power: Indigenous digital counter-mapping practices on Turtle Island. Settler Colonial Studies, 7(3), 372-392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473X.2016.1186311

Indigenous Council of Experts (ICE) (2018). 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. Retrieved from https://www.conservation2020canada.ca/ice-resources

Indigenous Climate Action (ICA) (2021). The Risks and Threats of “Nature-based Climate Solutions” for Indigenous Peoples. Retrieved from Ottawa, ON: https://www.indigenousclimateaction.com/entries/new-nature-based-climate-solutions-report-sneak-peek

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (2020). IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions: First edition. IUCN. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/49070

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (2021). Issues Brief. Peatlands and climate change. https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/peatlands-and-climate-change

Kaandorp, M. L. A., Ypma, S. L., Boonstra, M., Dijkstra, H. A., & van Sebille, E. (2022). Using machine learning and beach cleanup data to explain litter quantities along the Dutch North Sea coast. Ocean Science, 18(1), 269–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/os-18-269-2022

Locke, S. (2019). Canada’s Coast and Marine Mapping Strategy (CCOMS). Regional Coordinating Committee (RCC) Meeting Inuvik Community Corporation Boardroom, Inuvik, NT Natural Resources Canada.

M’sɨt No’kmaq, Marshall, A., Beazley, K. F., Hum, J., Joudry, S., Papadopoulos, A., … & Zurba, M. (2021). “Awakening the sleeping giant”: re-Indigenization principles for transforming biodiversity conservation in Canada and beyond. FACETS, 6(1), 839-869. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2020-0083

Nesshöver, C., Assmuth, T., Irvine, K. N., Rusch, G. M., Waylen, K. A., Delbaere, B., Haase, D., Jones-Walters, L., Keune, H., Kovacs, E., Krauze, K., Külvik, M., Rey, F., van Dijk, J., Vistad, O. I., Wilkinson, M. E., & Wittmer, H. (2017). The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective. Science of The Total Environment, 579, 1215–1227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.106

Noon, M. L., Goldstein, A., Ledezma, J. C., Roehrdanz, P. R., Cook-Patton, S. C., Spawn-Lee, S. A., … & Turner, W. R. (2021). Mapping the irrecoverable carbon in Earth’s ecosystems. Nature Sustainability, 1-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00803-6

Nunavut Food Security Coalition. (2014). Overview | Nunavut Food Security Coalition. https://www.nunavutfoodsecurity.ca/soverview

OECD. (2020). A Comprehensive Overview of Global Biodiversity Finance. Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/environment/resources/biodiversity/report-a-comprehensive-overview-of-global-biodiversity-finance.pdf

Packalen, M. S., Finkelstein, S. A., & McLaughlin, J. W. (2014). Carbon storage and potential methane production in the Hudson Bay Lowlands since mid-Holocene peat initiation. Nature communications, 5(1), 1-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5078

Prosper, K., McMillan, L. J., Davis, A. A., & Moffitt, M. (2011). Returning to Netukulimk: Mi’kmaq cultural and spiritual connections with resource stewardship and self- governance. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 2(4), 7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2011.2.4.7

Raygorodetsky, G. (2018). Indigenous peoples defend Earth’s biodiversity—but they’re in danger. National Geographic Environment. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/can-indigenous-land-stewardship-protect-biodiversity-

Reid, A. J., Eckert, L. E., Lane, J., Young, N., Hinch, S. G., Darimont, C. T., Cooke, S. J., Ban, N. C., & Marshall, A. (2021). “Two-Eyed Seeing”: An Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management. Fish and Fisheries, 22(2), 243–261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12516

Rizvi, A., Barrow, E., Zapata, F., Cordero, D., Podvin, K., & Adhikari, A. (2014). Ecosystem based Adaptation: Building on No Regret Adaptation Measures1. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ecosystem-based-Adaptation%3A-Building-on-No-Regret-Rizvi-Barrow/0847e9eaa33b17f9b565b6393870f2dc2fb6f477

Sala, E., Mayorga, J., Bradley, D., Cabral, R. B., Atwood, T. B., Auber, A., et al. (2021). Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate. Nature 592, 397–402. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03371-z

Sawyer, D., R. Ness, D. Clark, and D. Beugin. 2020. Tip of the Iceberg: Navigating the Known and Unknown Costs of Climate Change for Canada. Canadian Institute for Climate Choices.

Statistics Canada. (2021).Table 36–10-0402-02 Gross domestic product (GDP) at basic prices, by industry, provinces and territories, growth rates (x 1,000,000). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3610040202

Srivastava, V., Roe, A. D., Keena, M. A., Hamelin, R. C., & Griess, V. C. (2020). Oh the places they’ll go: improving species distribution modelling for invasive forest pests in an uncertain world. Biological Invasions. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-020-02372-9

Tarasuk, V. & Mitchell, A. (2020) Household food insecurity in Canada, 2017-18. Toronto: Research to identify policy options to reduce food insecurity (PROOF).

Tarnocai, C. (2006). The effect of climate change on carbon in Canadian peatlands. Global and planetary Change, 53(4), 222-232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2006.03.012

Tomlinson, B., & AidWatch Canada. (2021). Setting a Framework for the Allocation of Canada’s $5.3 billion Post- 2020 Climate Finance. 74.

Townsend, J., Moola, F., & Craig, M. K. (2020). Indigenous Peoples are critical to the success of Nature-based Solutions to climate change. Facets, 5(1), 551-556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2019-0058

Unc, A., Altdorff, D., Abakumov, E., Adl, S., Baldursson, S., Bechtold, M., Cattani, D. J., Firbank, L. G., Grand, S., Guðjónsdóttir, M., Kallenbach, C., Kedir, A. J., Li, P., McKenzie, D. B., Misra, D., Nagano, H., Neher, D. A., Niemi, J., Oelbermann, M., . . . Borchard, N. (2021). Expansion of Agriculture in Northern Cold-Climate Regions: A Cross- Sectoral Perspective on Opportunities and Challenges. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.663448

Zhu, S., Heddam, S., Nyarko, E. K., Hadzima-Nyarko, M., Piccolroaz, S., & Wu, S. (2018). Modeling daily water temperature for rivers: comparison between adaptive neuro- fuzzy inference systems and artificial neural networks models. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3650-2

With support from