June 18, 2026
Reading time: 5 minutes
June 21 marks National Indigenous Peoples Day in Canada, a moment to reflect on the histories, cultures, and contributions of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit. This year, we mark the occasion by spotlighting research related to Indigenous-led stewardship of the land.
Indigenous-led conservation initiatives across Canada store carbon and protect biodiversity at rates comparable to federally designated protected areas, according to new peer-reviewed research published in Earth’s Future by Camilo Alejo, Graeme Reed, and Damon Matthews. The researchers examined 62 Indigenous Guardians programs and two Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas funded by the Government of Canada between 2018 and 2020, using satellite-derived carbon and biodiversity data to compare outcomes on Indigenous Lands against conventional protected areas. The findings point toward a rethinking of how Canada structures its conservation commitments, and who holds the authority to lead them.
What the research measured
The study tracked two primary outcomes: the amount of carbon held in biomass and soil across a given landscape, and a composite measure of biodiversity combining species richness, species rarity, and ecological intactness. Ecological intactness refers to how much of the living fabric of an ecosystem remains undisturbed from grey infrastructure, energy development, agriculture, and other forms of intense human pressure.
At first glance, protected areas appeared to store more carbon. That initial advantage dissolved once the researchers applied a statistical technique called matching analysis, which creates balanced comparisons by pairing Indigenous Lands with protected areas sharing similar elevation, ecozone, population density, and road access. Once those geographic and socioeconomic variables were accounted for, the gap narrowed considerably. Government-funded Indigenous-led initiatives showed carbon stocks approximately four per cent higher than matched protected areas. Unfunded Indigenous Lands showed stocks around eight per cent higher. Biodiversity outcomes were similarly close, with differences of less than two per cent in either direction.
The researchers flag these as conservative figures. The legislative boundaries used to define Indigenous Lands in the analysis do not capture the full geographic reach of Indigenous stewardship across Canada. The actual climate and biodiversity contributions are likely greater than the study was able to measure.
A measurable effect from government funding
One of the study’s more striking findings concerns what happened to carbon stocks during the funding period itself. From 2017 to 2020, both government-funded Indigenous Lands and their matched protected area counterparts experienced net losses in carbon. The losses on government-funded Indigenous Lands, however, were 2.8 times lower than on matched protected areas.
That difference in carbon loss has direct climate significance. Carbon kept locked in soil and vegetation rather than released through land conversion counts as avoided emissions, a key measure under Canada’s commitments through the Paris Agreement. The findings suggest relatively modest federal investment in Indigenous Guardians programs and Indigenous Protected Conserved Areas can produce measurable climate benefits in the near term, even when individual programs usually receive support for only a year or two.
Biodiversity outcomes over the same period showed minimal change across all land types. The authors acknowledge this may partly reflect the limits of measurement: the study’s resolution of one kilometre means subtle ecological changes at finer scales can go undetected. Future research would benefit from integrating habitat quality and connectivity data alongside more detailed land cover information.
Governance, knowledge exchange, and intergenerational connection
The researchers did not limit their analysis to satellite imagery and statistics. They also analyzed written descriptions submitted by Indigenous governments and organizations for their funded initiatives. Using topic modelling, a computational technique identifying recurring themes across large volumes of text, they surfaced patterns in how communities described their work.
Three recurring themes emerged. The first centred on land and water governance: stewardship and management actions rooted in Indigenous laws and coordinated across regional scales. The second connected climate change adaptation directly to the protection of lands, waters, and biodiversity through the combined participation of youth and Elders. The third focused on knowledge exchange, the processes by which Elders transmit Traditional Ecological Knowledge to younger generations and place it in dialogue with Western scientific approaches.
Together, these themes reveal something important: environmental outcomes on Indigenous Lands are not incidental byproducts of being near intact ecosystems. They arise from deliberate governance structures treating ecological health and cultural continuity as inseparable.
The barrier of unrecognized jurisdiction
Federal funding has enabled tangible results, but the study is clear about what funding alone cannot accomplish. Many of the Indigenous Guardians programs analyzed operate within federally recognized land boundaries, failing to reflect the customary governance of Indigenous Peoples over their traditional territories. This creates practical constraints wherein Guardians cannot fully exercise their monitoring and enforcement mandate because their jurisdictional authority is limited by a federal framework.
The authors frame this as more than a methodological limitation. It represents a structural barrier to Indigenous self-determination. Funding programs and financial incentives do not resolve the underlying question of who holds authority over the land. Some of the most effective conservation outcomes observed globally, including significant reductions in deforestation in Peru and Brazil, followed the formal recognition of Indigenous land rights, not the introduction of conservation funding alone.
Recognizing Indigenous jurisdiction is not secondary to achieving Canada’s climate and biodiversity targets. It is a prerequisite.
Conservation at a crossroads
Canada has committed to protecting 30 per cent of its land and freshwater by 2030 under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Meeting this target through conventional protected areas alone would require an enormous expansion of the existing system. The research by Alejo, Reed, and Matthews suggests meaningful, sustained support for Indigenous-led conservation offers a path advancing both climate and biodiversity goals while remaining grounded in the priorities and rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The environmental outcomes observed on government-funded Indigenous Lands did not emerge from conservation metrics or carbon accounting alone. They emerged from reciprocal relationships between people and place, from knowledge exchanged across generations, and from governance systems holding the land and its inhabitants in a sustained and accountable relationship.
Funding provides resources. Recognition makes outcomes possible.
References
Alejo, C., Reed, G., & Matthews, H. D. (2025). Indigenous-led nature-based solutions align net-zero emissions and biodiversity targets in Canada. Earth’s Future, 13, e2025EF006427. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025EF006427