Key Finding 1
Many Indigenous peoples in North America follow traditional agricultural and land-use practices that govern carbon cycling on tribal lands. These practices include no-till farming; moving domesticated animals seasonally in accordance with forage availability; growing legumes and cover crops; raising crops and livestock native to ancestral landscapes; and managing forests sustainably with fire, harvest, and multispecies protection.
Description of evidence base
Key Finding 1 is supported by studies and detailed reports about Indigenous tribes (e.g., AANDC 2013; Assies 2007; Chief et al., 2016; NCAI 2015; Tiller 1995) and agricultural crop and grazing and forestry practices (Zomer et al., 2017; Baker et al., 2007; Redsteer et al., 2010; Drinkwater et al., 1998; Gabriel et al., 2006; CSKT 2000; Bennet et al., 2014).
Major uncertainties
Uncertainties result from the limited number of reports in the literature documenting the extent to which traditional practices on native lands have impacted carbon cycle processes.
Key Finding 2
Scientific data and peer-reviewed publications pertaining to carbon stocks and fluxes on Indigenous (native) lands in North America are virtually nonexistent, which makes establishing accurate baselines for carbon cycle processes problematic. The extent to which traditional practices have been maintained or reintroduced on native lands can serve as a guide for estimating carbon cycle impacts on tribal lands by comparisons with practices on similar non-tribal lands.
Description of evidence base
Key Finding 2 is supported by findings presented in the First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (CCSP 2007) and resources on carbon programs in the United States (NICC 2015), deforestation in Mexico (Deininger and Minten 1999), and the First Nations Carbon Collaborative in Canada (IISD 2010, 2011).
Major uncertainties
Uncertainties result from a lack of in-depth studies and technical reports documenting carbon stocks and fluxes on tribal lands throughout North America.
Key Finding 3
Fossil fuel and uranium energy resources beneath tribal lands in the United States and Canada are substantial, comprising, in the United States, 30% of coal reserves west of the Mississippi River, 50% of potential uranium reserves, and 20% of known oil and gas reserves, together worth nearly $1.5 trillion. Fossil fuel extraction and uranium mining on native lands have resulted in emissions of carbon dioxide and methane during extraction and fuel burning. Energy resource extraction on tribal lands also has resulted in substantial ecosystem degradation and deforestation, further contributing to carbon emissions.
Description of evidence base
Key Finding 3 is supported by resources on fossil fuel and uranium extraction on tribal lands (Indigenous Environmental Network 2016; Mills 2016; Regan 2014, 2016; U.S. EIA 2017a, 2017b; Grogan 2011; U.S. EPA 2018; Moore-Nall 2015) and on ecological degradation from energy extraction (Brugge and Goble 2002; Diep 2010).
Major uncertainties
Uncertainties result from the lack of carbon emissions monitoring during energy extraction on tribal lands. Although energy extraction and use on Native American and First Nation lands are fairly well documented, carbon emission and consumption measurements are scarce, and studies of the adverse effects of tribal fossil fuel economies are limited.
Key Finding 4
Renewable energy development on tribal lands is increasing but is limited by federal regulations, tribal land tenure, lack of energy transmission infrastructure on reservations, and economic challenges.
Description of evidence base
Key Finding 4 is supported by reports on the opportunities and challenges for renewable energy production on tribal lands in the United States (Saugee 2012; Anderson 2005; Bronin 2012; U.S EIA 2017a, 2017b; Jones 2014; Royster 2012; Canada Energy and Mines Ministers’ Conference 2016; Natural Resources Canada 2016a; Notzke 1994].
Major uncertainties
Uncertainties result from a limited number of case studies of areas where renewable energy sources have been developed and operated on tribal lands for extended periods of time.
Key Finding 5
Colonial practices of relocation, termination, assimilation, and natural resource exploitation on native lands have historically hindered the ability of Indigenous communities to manage or influence land-use and carbon management both on and off tribal lands. These factors combined with contemporary socioeconomic challenges continue to impact Indigenous carbon management decision making.
Description of evidence base
Key Finding 5 is supported by reports on climate vulnerability of Indigenous peoples (Bennet et al., 2014; Melillo et al., 2014) and the impacts of European settlement on tribal communities (NCAI 2015; GAO 2015; Indigenous Environmental Network 2016; Mills 2016; Regan 2016; Royster 2012; Statistics Canada 2011; Cultural Survival 1999; Minority Rights Group International 2017).
Major uncertainties
Uncertainties result from the limited number and duration of carbon cycle education programs implemented in North America and globally.
Key Finding 6
The importance placed on youth education by Indigenous communities creates opportunities for future generations to sustain and pass on traditional knowledge important to managing carbon stocks and fluxes on native lands.
Description of evidence base
Key Finding 6 is supported by reports on the tribal community youth education programs in the United States (Tippeconnic III and Tippeconnic Fox 2012; Kimmerer 2002; Cajete 1999; Brookshire and Kaza 2013).
Major uncertainties
Uncertainties result from the limited number of comprehensive studies on the role youth education plays in sustaining traditional practices for different Indigenous groups in Mexico and Canada, as well as uncertainty in the magnitude to which those practices could affect the carbon cycle.
