Study offers new policy tool for considering ‘Indigenous climate justice’

§ Climate justice pathways

The new research is designed to help address the gaps in the inclusion of Indigenous climate justice policies within climate action. 

Climate justice is a term used to explain efforts to reshape climate action from a technical effort to cut emissions into an approach that also focuses on human rights and social inequality. It includes an understanding that those least responsible for climate change often suffer the worst impacts.

In many parts of the world, Indigenous communities bear the brunt of adverse impacts from climate change, as well as facing systemic disadvantages in climate change mitigation efforts due to structural inequity. 

The paper says that, even if a policy is deemed “just”, it will still be inadequate because “true” justice “cannot be achieved in the context of a dominant colonial, capitalist patriarchy whose associated hierarchical structures, oppressive dynamics…are antithetical to Indigenous ways of being”. However, recognising the long-term nature of systemic change, the authors highlight the potential to make progress within current systems. 

The tool is, therefore, designed to empower Indigenous communities to realise progress within existing governance systems, even though the authors say they recognise that justice is conditional upon “system transformation”. 

Historically, colonialism has significantly contributed to climate change, as revealed by Carbon Brief analysis published in 2023. As such, climate change action necessitates addressing colonial emissions and practices by integrating “decolonial” theories, which prioritise dismantling harmful structures over efforts to reform the status quo, the research argues.

“Climate injustice is inextricably linked to colonialism, capitalism and extractivism, yet dominant environmental justice frameworks often overlook the unique experiences of Indigenous communities,” says Harjeet Singh, global engagement director of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, who was not involved in the study. Singh tells Carbon Brief:

“The very countries and corporations responsible for the climate crisis are now positioning themselves as the arbiters of climate solutions. Yet, they steadfastly avoid addressing the broader polycrisis – manifestations of colonial, capitalist, extractive and patriarchal systems from which they have reaped immense benefits.”

Existing approaches have been insufficient in effectively guiding climate policy for Indigenous people’s health and equity, the research states. The authors note that conventional environmental justice literature does not explicitly prioritise kinship relationships (whakapapa), which they say are central to the Indigenous conception of climate justice. 

The authors refer to the Māori creation story which follows that all beings “emerge from the realms of Ranginui, the Sky, and Papatūānuku, the Earth – our common ancestors”. These “more-than-human” relatives are central to kin-based systems which emphasise a shared ancestry between humans and the natural world. 

This “inherently anti-colonial” conception of climate justice embraces the “restoration and maintenance of harmonious relationships between humans, ancestors of all current beings and those still to come”, the research says, in contrast to settler colonialism which is “a form of violence that disrupts relationships between humans and our more-than-human relations”.

According to the authors, this tenet has largely been overlooked in mainstream climate justice efforts. In fact, limitations within existing political and legal frameworks prevent Indigenous communities from fulfilling the responsibilities they have towards the environment and other beings.

§ Key criteria  

The research is underpinned by Kaupapa Māori – Māori customary practice and principles. This includes “wellbeing, priorities and aspirations, social and cultural contexts, and Indigenous rights”, the authors say, as well as policy frameworks, health impact assessments, ecological models and Indigenous understanding of environmental justice.  

This was the basis for the tool, which incorporates 13 essential criteria (C1-C13) shown in the table below and classified under five key dimensions of justice.

Specifically, these five dimensions are relational justice, procedural justice, distributive justice, recognitional justice and restorative justice, described in more detail underneath the table.

The first three criteria focus on relational justice, including on relationships and how they form rights and responsibilities. In this context, it also extends “cosmopolitanism”, the notion that emphasises equal moral worth and respect for all humans. 

Next, there are three criteria on procedural justice. These emphasise transparency and active and fair participation of all in the decision-making process. The paper extends the notion of active participation to non-human entities, such as land, air and water, providing them with political agency through human guardians who represent their interests. 

For example, the Whanganui River in New Zealand has been granted legal personhood, represented by the respective local Indigenous people who are imbued with guardianship obligations. This translates to a legal right of recourse if harm is caused to the natural entity by human activities, such as releasing pollution. 

The next three criteria focus on distributive justice, including the disproportionate impact of climate change on Indigenous communities who contribute least to greenhouse gas emissions. The authors advocate for free and fair distribution of burdens and benefits across groups. 

Criteria 10 and 11 focus on recognitional justice. These emphasise recognition of and respect for diverse cultures, experiences and identities, validating multiple ways of knowledge production and dissemination, including Indigenous epistemologies alongside traditional Western knowledge. 

The final two criteria are about restorative justice, focusing on repairing harm to individuals, communities and the environment. The paper’s conceptualisation encompasses correcting the harms against “people, other living things and the natural world” and distinguishes between reparations (financial) and remedying underlying injustices (restoration of land).

Each of the above criterion is graded against three levels of achievement:

• Unacceptable, indicating harmful impacts or no change.
• Progress towards justice, indicating some improvement usually within current systems and norms.
• Climate justice, signifying complete justice for all human and non-human entities beyond the constraints of current frameworks.

The paper notes that the tool’s multidimensional nature often extends the analysis to matters outside the purview of policymakers. 

For example, the case of political agency for non-human entities is useful in understanding the constraints of policymaking within existing frameworks, they note. This, essentially, means that the tool evaluates policies by standards that are currently “impossible to meet within the context in which policy development currently occurs”.

§ Applying the tool

The tool was piloted in New Zealand by analysing the 2021 advice to the government produced by the country’s Climate Change Commission.

Using 11 questions – six about the criteria and five about the tool as a whole – the authors identified gaps, shortcomings, redundancy and duplication issues for improvement.

The pilot also assessed the feasibility of embedding the framework in the policymaking process, whereby the tool could have continued benefits. 

The research is “well-grounded in climate justice theory”, says Dr Zoha Shawoo, a scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute, who was not involved in the study. 

She says the tool could be “particularly useful in conducting gap analyses and to guide the implementation of climate finance, to ensure that climate finance projects are also advancing justice”. 

Shawoo adds the tool faces many challenges including not “getting a buy-in from decision-makers and those in power, who have a vested interest in not undoing the existing systems that they actively benefit from”. 

The tool was designed primarily for the political and geographical context of New Zealand, but the authors say they have “endeavoured to make it adaptable for use in other settings”. 

In particular, it could be applied to other settler-colonial nations, the authors add.

Dr Rhys Jones, one of the study authors and associate professor at the University of Auckland, tells Carbon Brief about the challenges to embedding the tool within policymaking:

“First, using the tool requires particular capabilities, knowledge and expertise, which may not always be present in policymaking agencies. Second, it can be quite resource-intensive to undertake a comprehensive analysis using the tool. Third, some of the issues addressed by the tool are beyond the scope of conventional policy considerations, such as the capacity for all (human and non-human) entities to express political agency. Fourth, particularly in the current political climate in many countries, including Aotearoa New Zealand, there may be significant political resistance to the focus on Indigenous rights and recognition of Indigenous values and knowledges in policymaking processes.”

Prof Alexandra Macmillan, an environmental health researcher at the University of Otago, another author involved with the study, tells Carbon Brief:

“[The] current structures, processes and distribution of power in climate policy…are not keeping the world’s populations safe from climate change, instead, continuing to subsidise and support an insupportable status quo.” 

She adds that the tool is also “relevant to countries who consider themselves to be post-colonial, including high income countries like the UK whose wealth has accumulated from colonial extractivism, and whose current climate policies risk relying upon ongoing colonial violence in other countries”.