Search

Background: Indigenous populations in Canada and the United States (US) have maintained reciprocal relationships with nature, grounded in respect for and stewardship of the environment; however, disconnection from traditional food systems has generated a plethora of physical and mental health challenges for communities. Indigenous food sovereignty including control of lands were found to be factors contributing to these concerns. Therefore, our aim was to conduct a scoping review of the peer-reviewed literature to describe Indigenous disconnection from Indigenous food systems (IFS) in Canada and the US. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-SR) and Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, SCOPUS, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Sociological Abstracts, and Bibliography of Native North Americans. Data was extracted from 41 studies and a narrative review completed based on study themes. Results: The overarching theme identified in the included studies was the impact of colonization on IFS. Four sub-themes emerged as causes for Indigenous disconnection from traditional food systems, including: climate change; capitalism; legal change; and socio-cultural change. These sub-themes highlight the multiple ways in which colonization has impacted Indigenous food systems in Canada and the US and important areas for transformation. Conclusions: Efforts to reconnect Indigenous knowledge and values systems with future food systems are essential for planetary health and sustainable development. Traditional knowledge sharing must foreground authentic Indigenous inclusion within policymaking. Highlights: • The main theme identified amongst the SR literature was the lasting impacts of colonization on Indigenous food systems in Canada and the US, which is described through four key areas: climate change; capitalism; legal changes; and socio-cultural changes. • Less than 20% of included papers report author positionality, with only 7% of included papers reporting Indigenous authorship, emphasizing an opportunity for more reporting and Indigenous engagement in the future. • Loss of cultural knowledge and practices was highlighted by many articles reviewed. • Revitalisation of IFS must include authentic Indigenous engagement, support Indigenous knowledge frameworks, community sharing networks, education programs and co-management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The number of nuisance and negligence tort claims in the US against “Big Oil” companies have grown significantly in the last five years. The Netherlands case of Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell represents the first major success of such a claim internationally. While the US cases and Milieudefensie demonstrate starkly different approaches as to how to seek accountability from Big Oil for climate change harms, the increasing judicial engagement on these issues may mean the time is right for similar lawsuits in Canada. Three Canadian common law causes of action are examined: nuisance, negligence, and unjust enrichment. Defences and arguments which stem from society’s (and any potential plaintiff’s) acquiescence and authorization to allow the defendants’ conduct may present difficult barriers to success. This paper focuses on these types of defences, and argues that the responsibility of Big Oil for climate change harms should not be completely vitiated even if governments and plaintiffs have acquiesced, authorized, and arguably contributed to our climate crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses how 10 localities in the USA and England, recognised as leaders in clean energy and climate action, have used collaborative approaches to develop local climate change plans and energy conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy initiatives. It examines these planning and policy-making processes in the context of Margerum's [2008. A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management.Environmental Management, 41 (4), 487–500] typology of “action”, “organizational”, and “policy-level” collaborations, as well as Gray's [1989.Collaborating: finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass] classification of collaboration in the “problem-setting”, “direction-setting”, and “implementation” phases. We conducted interviews with local elected officials, municipal staff, energy professionals, and citizen volunteers in each community, supplemented with an analysis of their adopted energy, climate change, and land-use plans. We find that despite the different government structures and political contexts between the two countries, there was a surprising amount of commonality in how the case study localities used collaborative planning to develop local climate plans and clean energy initiatives. These processes were most often initiated by local elected officials and/or high-level staff members, and then carried out in collaboration with local third-sector organisations and other community stakeholders. In the USA, collaboration was strongest at the policy level and in the direction-setting phase, with the distinguishing feature that citizen advisory boards or stakeholder working groups often took a more active role in shaping local plans and policies. The English localities had some of those same types of collaborations, but were more likely to also employ action collaboration, in the implementation phase, in which third-sector organisations coordinated with the locality to directly provide clean energy services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the context of sub-global participation in greenhouse gas mitigation efforts, this paper investigates the effectiveness of a Canada-U.S. emissions bubble under their existing regional trade agreement. It also explores the potential economic impact of carbon tariff harmonization through the implementation of a common Canada-U.S. external border tariff adjustment as a mean to address competitiveness issues. Using a multi-region, multi-sector computable general equilibrium model the paper finds that the creation of an emission bubble between the two countries could improve efficiency. The findings also suggest that a carbon tariff harmonization policy could give rise to distributional issues among Annex I regions and could fail to mitigate the negative competitiveness impacts of carbon abatement policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multilevel governance poses several challenges for the politics of climate change. On the one hand, the unequal distribution of power and interests can serve as a barrier to implementing coherent policy at a federal level. On the other, these features also enable policy leadership among sub-federal units. In the context of wide variation in climate policy at both national and sub-federal levels in Canada and in the United States, this paper utilizes an original data set to examine public attitudes and perceptions toward climate science and climate change policy in two federal systems. Drawing on national and provincial/state level data from telephone surveys administered in the United States and in Canada, the paper provides insight into where the public stands on the climate change issue in two of the most carbon-intensive federal systems in the world. The paper includes the first directly comparable public opinion data on how Canadians and Americans form their opinions regarding climate matters and provides insight into the preferences of these two populations regarding climate policies at both the national and sub-federal levels. Key findings are examined in the context of growing policy experiments at the sub-federal level in both countries and limited national level progress in the adoption of climate change legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change-related disputes, which often include novel, complex, or politically sensitive matters, have experienced a mixed reception by the courts. Defendants both in Canada and the United States have raised the issue of justiciability-- the question of whether a matter is of the quality or state of being appropriate or suitable for review by a court--with some success in attempts to have these cases summarily dismissed. The author reviews the types of climate change cases that have been launched, examines the US and Canadian laws of justiciability, analyzes the paths in which the caselaw regarding justiciability in these countries is headed, and suggests how these developments will impact future climate change cases. This paper finds that Canadian courts may be increasingly using justiciability as a means to avoid addressing climate change issues--just as US courts may be beginning to take a more progressive approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Information about several papers discussed at a symposium held at Cleveland, Ohio from April 14-16, 2011 on the role and the relationship between the U.S. and Canada regarding energy development. The energy policy of the U.S. is set by the companies Exxon and British Petroleum Co. PLC. Information on the impact of the automotive sector on the climatic change and the development of energy is also presented.

Negotiations on a Canada-US Pacific salmon treaty began in 1908 but the first comprehensive treaty was not achieved until 1985. At that time, catches and landed values in the salmon fishery were near record levels and both countries viewed the agreement as a means of enhancing their individual prosperity. After a short period of co-operation, the 1985 treaty was undermined by arguments over catch sharing and the failure to rebuild some important salmon stocks. A revised treaty, agreed upon in 1999, established conservation of salmon as a priority and included a side-payment, in the form of two endowment funds designed in part to appease Canadian concern over catch imbalances. Major shifts in abundances combined with significant reductions in the value of the fishery were key factors in the negotiations. In this paper, we use the graph model for conflict resolution to examine the stability of the revised salmon treaty. Our assessment suggests that the treaty will be stable if the side-payment is maintained or enhanced even if both countries pursue aggressive fishing strategies. If the side-payment is not maintained, then it is likely that all groups will attempt to maximize their catch and Canada will seek a renegotiation of the treaty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]