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]