Center for American Progress

The Biden Administration’s Conservation Plan Must Prioritize Indigenous Leadership

The Biden Administration’s Conservation Plan Must Prioritize Indigenous Leadership

In its efforts to protect 30 percent of U.S. lands and ocean by 2030, the federal government has an obligation to acknowledge tribal sovereignty and support Indigenous-led conservation.

 (A row of five people (part of a longer chain) holding hands, backs to the viewer. They are standing in a field looking out to a blue/gray sky, seemingly in the evening, with police barely visible in the distance.)
Water protectors join hands in prayer at Standing Rock during an ongoing protest over the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, Cannon Ball, North Dakota, November 2016. (Getty/Jessica Rinaldi/The Boston Globe)

Newly elected President Joe Biden, in his Plan for Tribal Nations, promised to “provide tribes with a greater role in the care and management of public lands that are of cultural significance to Tribal Nations.”1 This is one of the most powerful, consequential commitments he made during his campaign, signaling a recognition of—and willingness to confront—three fundamental injustices that affect nearly all aspects of U.S. natural resource policy.

The United States has a long-standing legal and moral obligation to protect and promote tribes’ best interests, including through supporting tribal self-determination, respecting tribal sovereignty, and providing the resources necessary for cultural survival and economic development.

First, all public lands that the U.S. government owns and manages were stolen from Native Americans and Alaska Natives, often through violence, genocide, and forced removal.2 National parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests, and other national public lands would not exist but for this dispossession. Second, the U.S. government has largely failed to manage public lands in a manner that is consistent with its trust and treaty obligations to tribal nations, including its responsibilities to safeguard ancestral homelands that are home to sacred and ceremonial sites and landscapes, inspiration for place-based languages, and sources of subsistence for tribes.3 Finally, federal government agencies and the wider conservation community have often failed to recognize the integral contributions that Indigenous peoples have made to biodiversity and the climate as the original and best stewards of their natural resources.4 Although the environmental movement is engaging in efforts to better acknowledge these histories, there remains a lack of respect for the conservation efforts that tribes have undertaken despite opposition, infringement, and usurpation from outside interests.5 The Biden administration must take action to direct resources to support these efforts and enable tribes to execute a conservation vision of their choosing, both as a matter of tribal sovereignty and effectiveness for overall conservation.

Tribal sovereignty is the basis for Indigenous-led conservation

The building blocks for Indigenous-led conservation in the United States already exist. Federal tribal law is centered on principles established in the treaties through which the federal government acquired vast swaths of tribal territory. Treaties stated that the federal government would hold land and its natural resources in trust for tribes. The United States therefore has a long-standing legal and moral obligation to protect and promote tribes’ best interests, including through supporting tribal self-determination, respecting tribal sovereignty, and providing the resources necessary for cultural survival and economic development.6

In practice, however, the United States has rarely lived up to these obligations. In land management, this is seen in the frequently feeble agency efforts to conduct tribal consultation.7 Instead of serving as a necessary platform to collaborate with tribes to develop federal policy, tribal consultation is too often seen as a formality that agencies undertake after making the substantial decisions on their own.8 During the Trump administration, this dynamic was evidenced in significant decisions concerning oil and gas leasing, mining, logging, and monument downsizing.9

Reckoning with colonialism in the environmental movement

Historically, elements of the dominant Eurocentric environmental movement—including some of the largest and oldest private conservation organizations—have not fared much better than the federal government when it comes to respect for tribal sovereignty, often advancing policies that dispossessed Indigenous peoples of their lands, waters, and rights. Many of these organizations have started to reckon with this history and realign themselves with Indigenous-led conservation, recognizing not only the injustice and illegality of their former stances, but also that strong, sovereign tribal nations are allies, constituents, and original stewards with whom it is invaluable to build respectful working relationships. The Sierra Club, for example, has begun to engage in a more candid accounting of its founders’ colonial, white supremacist mindsets.10 But the marginalization and sidelining of Indigenous voices is not confined to the distant past: It persists in the underrepresentation of Native people on environmental organizations’ staff and boards, organizations’ failure to acknowledge and incorporate Indigenous knowledge and contributions, and organizations’ lack of meaningful relationships with tribal nations. More environmental institutions must strive to follow the lead of groups that have begun working to dismantle these structures and build trust with Indigenous conservationists.

Although U.S. natural resource agencies have come to acknowledge and honor, in some of the places they manage, the current and historical connections of Indigenous peoples to the lands and waters,11 Native Americans and Alaska Natives have been erased from public lands too often—both in name and in practice. True co-management of public lands requires land management agencies to honor tribal sovereignty, as well as support tribes in designing and executing a conservation vision that is consistent with their priorities and inclusive of time-tested, evidence-backed, and well-funded Indigenous knowledge. Despite the fact that there is a strong legal and scientific basis to support such a paradigm, examples of true co-management remain few and far between; instead, tribes are often relegated to the sidelines when agencies design and implement new policies.12

Biden, Haaland, and the 30×30 goal

The Biden-Harris administration cannot afford to perpetuate these mistakes as it begins the process of building a new natural resource policy framework to deal with the climate and biodiversity crises. The administration has taken a significant first step in a reparative direction by nominating Rep. Deb Haaland (D-NM) to serve as secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior.13 If confirmed, Haaland would not only be the first Native American to serve as a secretary in a presidential Cabinet, but she would also exercise control over the department that has been most complicit in disenfranchising tribes of their lands and resources.

One of the big ideas championed by both Rep. Haaland and President Biden is 30×30, a goal to protect 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030.14 In 2019, Haaland was the lead sponsor of a House resolution to formally establish such a goal;15 meanwhile, Biden’s presidential campaign made 30×30 a key part of its plan to address climate change.16 Notably, Haaland’s resolution text establishes Indigenous-led conservation and respect for tribal sovereignty as a cornerstone of the 30×30 goal.17 This is a clear and positive sign that the next administration and its congressional allies understand that any conservation goal lives and dies on the basis of support from tribal nations.

By meaningfully prioritizing tribal sovereignty, 30x30 can be an example of the United States striving to meet its trust and treaty obligations.

Indeed, the Biden-Harris administration has an opportunity to consciously and proactively signal that it will center tribal sovereignty when figuring out the specifics of their currently broad 30×30 plan. The administration should adopt sovereignty-affirming principles that ensure tribes are included early in the process at the highest level of decision-making. Additionally, all new conservation opportunities should be available to tribes with funding and flexibility. By meaningfully prioritizing tribal sovereignty, 30×30 can be an example of the United States striving to meet its trust and treaty obligations, rather than once again offering lofty language without the backing of institutional muscle.

Several tribal leaders have extended their support for the 30×30 goal18 and are ensuring that their voices are heard early and often during establishment of the plan’s contours, details and processes.19 The key task for the next administration is to ensure that such cooperation is deepened and institutionalized. The federal government cannot afford to let this goal go the way of the many resource management plans that have been devised in the absence of tribal input, only to be presented to tribes for a last-hour consultation or tokenistic sign-off. Instead, tribal leadership must govern the very concept of what it means to protect 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030; if they do not, the objectives of this goal will not be maximally achieved.

Indigenous-led conservation is overwhelmingly effective

The U.S. government has both moral and legal obligations to support the conservation and natural resource priorities of tribal nations. But doing so would also provide universal scientific benefits: There is growing evidence from around the world that Indigenous-led conservation work leads to better outcomes across landscapes.

Studies from varied landscapes across Canada, Brazil, Australia, and Namibia find that lands under Indigenous control and management have greater biodiversity than equivalent areas under all other types of ownership, including federally protected national parks and wildlife reserves.20 This corroborates the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services 2019 report, which found that the rapid global mass extinction is slower on lands managed by Indigenous communities, which are better on average at managing the hazards of pollution and species decline.21 Such biodiverse landscapes also execute more efficient ecological functions, from carbon sequestration to climate regulation.22 Studies across the tropics find, for example, that greater recognition of Indigenous rights over forest land can lead to reduced deforestation and a higher carbon storage rate per hectare.23 Similarly, Indigenous knowledge can enable more effective management of landscapes so that they are more resilient against drought, fires, and other natural disasters that are increasing in frequency worldwide as a result of climate change.24 These ecological benefits complement the positive socioeconomic outcomes seen in countries such as Australia, where more Indigenous participation in designing and implementing conservation plans has led to improved life expectancy, employment, and health indicators for surrounding communities.25

Greater recognition of Indigenous rights over forest land can lead to reduced deforestation and a higher carbon storage rate per hectare.

In the United States, a study commissioned by the Center for American Progress and conducted by a team of scientists at Conservation Science Partners found that tribal lands—lands that are not public but are owned or managed by tribes—experienced the lowest proportion of nature loss over the past two decades compared with federal, state, and private lands.26 This is true despite the fact that tribal lands have few federally recognized protections, raising the possibility that affirmative decisions tribes have made to conserve natural resources are not reflected in the dominant accounting of protected areas.27 The House and Senate 30×30 resolutions envision using “a wide range of flexible and enduring conservation solutions” to meet the goal,28 which could allow acknowledgment of more categories of Indigenous-managed land for their conservation value.

Compelling examples of tribal co-management in the United States

There are myriad successful examples of Indigenous-led conservation in the United States, but one of the most famous is the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah.29 The monument’s declaration and statutory adherence to co-management principles were the result of direct advocacy and leadership from an intertribal coalition comprising representatives of the Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Ute Indian Tribe, and Pueblo of Zuni.30 One of the coalition’s goals is to enable the application of traditional ecological knowledge in a manner that serves as a blueprint for other co-management projects nationwide.31 Tribes have been instrumental in improving protections for the Badger-Two Medicine,32 Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks,33 Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness,34 and other landscapes with ecocultural significance. Sovereignty and trust principles have been implemented in the successful management of specific resources such as Yurok and other fisheries programs in the Northwest.35 Tribes in the West have received recognition for the effectiveness of Indigenous disaster management techniques to improve resilience to fires, underscoring the importance of traditional knowledge.36

In addition to all of these programs, Native activists are also increasingly at the forefront of the climate and biodiversity movements, as demonstrated by front-line protests at Standing Rock,37 the Gwich’in resistance to the Trump administration’s push for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,38 and Tohono O’odham actions to prevent devastating U.S.-Mexico border wall construction.39 Most recently, the 116th Congress acknowledged both its fiduciary responsibility to the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes as well as the success of Indigenous-led bison conservation40 by returning the National Bison Range to tribal management.41

Indigenous leadership can unlock a wealth of underrecognized conservation opportunities that historical marginalization has denied to both Native communities and the country as a whole. Yet although Indigenous communities are often best positioned to design, lead, and manage protections for natural, historic, and cultural resources, they are often sidelined by the federal government. Tribal sovereignty is essential to effective land management, as tribes cannot implement their stewardship knowledge fully if they are consulted as an afterthought or impeded by bureaucratic, procedural, or funding hurdles.

Current barriers to effective co-management

While trust and treaty law provide the legal foundations for genuine tribal co-management of public lands, problems arise in implementation. Several existing barriers to pursuing co-management can be addressed through additional will, resources, and creativity on the part of the federal government to lead to real progress.

First, trust and treaty obligations and the sovereignty principle are not well-integrated into laws or agency decisions on public lands. Congress has often shortchanged tribes on funding opportunities vis-a-vis states and private partners, failing to name tribes in relevant legislation or dismantle the barriers that block access and use where it is available. Federal agencies, meanwhile, often use their considerable discretion to forgo the kind of long-term investment and relationship-building that is necessary for genuine co-management.42

Furthermore, when the federal government does engage in consultation, tribes are too often an afterthought. In order for tribal consultation to have actual substance, agencies must integrate tribes early into the decision-making process. Agencies currently tend to develop plans without tribal input and then approach consultation as a procedural roadblock to achieving a predetermined outcome. Tribes find themselves in a reactionary or defensive position without any kind of legal or institutional power, instead of in a proactive, vision-establishing role.

Several agencies and offices have not invested in long-term partnerships with tribes, working instead on a project-specific basis. This means that even if tribes were to be consulted earlier and more often in the process, their efforts might still be hampered by the maze of permitting and systemic hurdles that could have been preempted had the relevant processes been designed with prior tribal input. In addition, procedural control requirements and agencies’ use of the nondelegation doctrine allow the federal government to cede little ground in underprioritized tribal partnerships. Federal agencies must build the capacity necessary to remain in more constant and dynamic dialogue with tribes in order to move beyond this inefficient, ad hoc system.

Yet since much of the tribal consultation process as it currently exists is ad hoc, tribes rarely have access to dispute mechanisms or legal recourse for agency failures, meaning that there is not enough accountability in the system. Today’s limited procedural protections are rarely embedded into agency plans in a manner that would make them enforceable through defined standards, guidelines, or conditions.43

Moreover, Indigenous knowledge and tribal science have been marginalized and not given their due. From controlled burning to prevent forest fires, to knowledge of species-specific stewardship, to identifying sacred sites with ecological significance, tribal cultural practices and knowledge banks have been ignored, impeded, discounted and underfunded, to the detriment of the entire country.44 As discussed above, even where agencies allow space for Indigenous leadership and design guided by cultural knowledge, bureaucratic barriers and lack of institutional capacity do not let these collaborations meet their full potential.

Finally, the United States has not been proactive in creating legitimation structures to enable tribes to declare their own protected areas and conservation visions. This is in contrast with other countries that, despite often not having equally robust Indigenous government frameworks, have been able to establish and fund various conservation opportunities for Indigenous communities. Where the United States has extended funding programs to tribes, there are often additional barriers to access—barriers that states and other entities do not face.

Recommendations for the new administration

The Biden-Harris administration has the opportunity to build a new and transformative natural resource policy to help combat the climate and nature crises, expand equitable access to nature, and achieve the 30×30 goal. These goals cannot be achieved without also implementing policies that support sovereignty-affirming tribal co-management and Indigenous-led conservation efforts.

To inform and guide support for tribal co-management and Indigenous-led conservation, the new administration should establish a tribal-led task force to advise the secretary of the interior on tribal priorities for natural resource management and the pursuit of 30×30. The task force could help ensure that tribal sovereignty, government-to-government relations, and adherence to trust and treaty responsibilities are core priorities of the new administration’s 30×30 initiative. This section outlines potential actions that the task force could consider.

Improve and embed consultation in respect for tribal sovereignty

The task force could make recommendations to ensure that land management agencies commit to free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) with tribal nations, particularly regarding new federal land protection designations.45 This type of consultation would engage tribes at the beginning of the decision-making process and allow them to have a real impact on projects. 

Provide tribes with the funds and flexibilities needed to execute their vision

Federal law and treaty obligation require the federal government to provide tribes with sufficient resources to provide for the needs of their people; the sovereignty principle ensures that they have the flexibility to spend those dollars in a manner that makes sense for their communities. The task force could recommend ways to dismantle the barriers that largely lock tribes out of conservation funding opportunities, including the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It could also explore new ways to provide direct funding to tribes to support conservation, such as by recognizing, incorporating, and perpetuating greater use of Indigenous knowledge in land management.

Enable genuine tribal co-management on public lands

The task force could make recommendations on how federal land management agencies can work under existing authorities to expand and strengthen tribal co-management opportunities, building on the co-management principles sought during the Bears Ears National Monument designation.46 This could include issuing clear and enforceable mandates to pursue co-management; developing technical expertise and hiring additional staff to engage with tribal nations in a more meaningful and respectful manner; and installing accountability and dispute resolution mechanisms through which tribes can hold agencies responsible for failures.

Take a co-production of knowledge approach in research engagement

Indigenous-led conservation is most successful when tribes are able to preserve and utilize traditional knowledge without its practice being underplayed, undervalued, or constrained by outside actors. Agencies must reform research engagement to incorporate knowledge held and produced by tribes. At the same time, the government must pursue better and stronger privacy protections for traditional ecological knowledge and tribally generated data so as to prevent abuse, infringement and exploitation by outside actors. In order for Indigenous-led conservation to be successful, tribes must be able to share their knowledge with agencies without the fear that a Freedom of Information Act request or other well-intentioned but contextually misplaced transparency measure will backfire by exposing, for example, the locations of sacred sites that bad actors might desecrate or loot, or age-old medicinal knowledge that corporations might unethically appropriate.

Confidentiality is key, amongst other principles, to honoring sovereignty and enabling effective consultation and co-management. In addition to enabling safe use of traditional knowledge, agencies should also adopt a co-production of knowledge approach in research engagement that gives tribes a genuine seat at the table. Tribal leadership of and active participation in new research projects can serve as a steppingstone to management, as resource plans are often based on the findings of studies conducted on lands and resources that are important to tribes. In its 2020 resolution on the issue, the National Congress of American Indians put forth some principles that could guide meaningful co-production of knowledge.47

Explore new ideas to recognize Indigenous-led conservation

Countries such as Australia and Canada offer promising models of how to honor Indigenous-led conservation efforts.48 Both countries have established new protected areas that are identified and managed by tribes, bringing positive outcomes for the local communities and their economies, as well as advancing biodiversity protection, climate change mitigation, and disaster management. The task force could examine whether applicable lessons or inspiration can be drawn from similar international Indigenous-led conservations efforts, including developing a new Indigenous Protected Area system. Moreover, tribes in the United States are already advocating for legislation to better honor and protect sacred sites.49 The task force could also examine existing self-governance authorities, which contract with tribes to provide services to their own communities. Finally, it could expand self-governance principles to public land management, building on new authority in the 2018 Farm Bill that allows tribes to conduct forestry activities on U.S. Forest Lands adjacent to tribal lands.50 

Prioritize tribal homeland restoration

The U.S. government should prioritize the return of tribal homelands to tribes in order to help restore tribal nations and strengthen their economies. While research shows that lands under tribal management are often highly protected, any effort to return homelands should not presume that lands placed into trust with tribes will be part of conservation efforts. The task force could also examine promising policies in California, whereby tribes have the right of first refusal to purchase lands that power companies are seeking to offload.51


Fixing the federal government’s broken relationship with tribal nations will take an enormous amount of work, as will stemming the nature crisis. Biden’s stated commitment to Indigenous-led conservation and incorporation of tribal co-management into the process of building his 30×30 conservation goal—following the legislative model of Rep. Haaland—are welcome moves in the right direction. Conservation efforts will benefit from trust-honoring, sovereignty-affirming tribal participation and leadership. Land management agencies and green groups must invest in building genuine relationships with sovereign tribal nations, even when their immediate goals are at odds. This is not just a legal and moral imperative, but also a shot at building just, inclusive, and effective conservation policies that restore decision-making power to those who have both the right and the record to wield it.

Sahir Doshi is the research assistant for Public Lands at the Center for American Progress.

The author would like to thank the National Congress of American Indians; Naomi Miguel, staff director of the Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples, House Committee on Natural Resources; Chairman Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) of the House Committee on Natural Resources; and professors Martin Nie and Monte Mills for their guidance and feedback. The author would also like to thank Kate Kelly, Nicole Gentile, Meghan Miller, Irene Koo, Chester Hawkins, Matt Lee-Ashley, Ryan Richards, and Jenny Rowland-Shea for their contributions to this report.


  1. Biden For President, “Biden-Harris Plan for Tribal Nations,” available at (last accessed January 2021).
  2. Kollibri terre Sonnenblume, “A century of theft from Indians by the National Park Service,” The Ecologist, March 29, 2016, available at
  3. National Congress of American Indians, “Urging Federal Agencies to Adopt Policies and Procedures to Ensure Consideration of Federal Trust Responsibility when Permitting May Affect Tribal Lands, Waters or Resources, Resolution #MOH-17-044” (Washington: 2017), available at; National Congress of American Indians, “Fiscal Year 2018 Indian Country Budget Request: Natural Resources” (Washington: 2017), available at
  4. Hunter Oatman-Stanford, “From Yosemite to Bears Ears, Erasing Native Americans From U.S. National Parks,” Collectors Weekly, January 26, 2018, available at
  5. Kaitlin Grable, “Why Indigenous Resistance is More Important than Ever,” Greenpeace, available at (last accessed January 2021).
  6. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, “Treaty Rights: Sustaining a Way of Life. The Role of Treaty Tribes and Intertribal Treaty Commissions in the Great Lakes and Pacific Northwest” (Odanah, WI: 2013), available at
  7. Naveena Sadasivam, “Federal agencies are required to consult with tribes about pipelines. They often don’t.”, Grist, January 2, 2020, available at
  8. Monte Mills and Martin Nie, “Bridges to a New Era: A Report on the Past, Present, and Potential Future of Tribal Co-Management on Federal Public Lands” (Missoula, MT: Margery Hunter Brown Indian Law Clinic and Bolle Center for People and Forests at the University of Montana, 2020), available at
  9. Cody Nelson, “‘Their greed is gonna kill us’: Indian Country fights against more fracking,” The Guardian, June 10, 2020, available at; Debra Utacia Krol, “Arizona tribes fearful after losing court battle over uranium mine near Grand Canyon,” Arizona Republic, June 5, 2020, available at; Ken Rait, “Forest Service Set to Rule on Road Building in Tongass National Forest,” Pew Charitable Trusts, June 9, 2020, available at; Jake Bullinger, “DOI Emails on Bears Ears Prove Trump Ignored Natives,” Outside Magazine, March 19, 2018, available at
  10. Michael Brune, “Pulling Down Our Monuments,” Sierra Club, July 22, 2020, available at
  11. U.S. Department of Interior, “10 Public Lands with Powerful Native American Connections,” available at (last accessed January 2021).
  12. Mills and Nie, “Bridges to a New Era.”
  13. Aliyah Chavez, “’I’ll be fierce for all of us,’” Indian Country Today, December 17, 2020, available at
  14. American Nature Campaign, “The 30×30 Goal,” available at×30 (last accessed January 2021).
  15. Office of Congresswoman Deb Haaland, “Haaland Sets National Goal of Conserving 30% of U.S. Lands and Ocean by 2030,” Press release, February 7, 2020, available at
  16. Biden For President, “The Biden Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice,” available at (last accessed January 2021).
  17. H.Res. 835, 116th Cong., 2nd sess. (February 6, 2020), available at
  18. W. Ron Allen and others, “Tribal leaders: ‘Support the ‘30 by 30 initiative’ to protect 30 percent of US lands and waters,’” Indian Country Today, December 18, 2020, available at
  19. W. Ron Allen and others, “Tribal Leader Statement on 30×30 Policy,” available at (last accessed January 2021).
  20. Richard Schuster and others, “Vertebrate biodiversity on indigenous-managed lands in Australia, Brazil, and Canada equals that in protected areas,” Environmental Science & Policy 101 (2019): 1–6, available at
  21. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, “Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services” (Bonn, Germany: 2019), available at
  22. Caleb Stevens and others, “Securing Rights, Combating Climate Change: How Strengthening Community Forest Rights Mitigates Climate Change” (Washington: World Resources Institute, 2018), available at
  23. Ibid.
  24. Isabelle Gerretsen, “Fight fires with indigenous knowledge, researchers say,” Reuters, August 13, 2018, available at
  25. Pew Charitable Trusts, “Working for Our Country” (Philadelphia: 2015), available at
  26. Matt Lee-Ashley and others, “The Green Squeeze(Washington: Center for American Progress, 2019), available at
  27. Ibid.
  28. H.Res. 835, 116th Cong., 2nd sess. (February 6, 2020), available at
  29. White House Office of the Press Secretary, “Presidential Proclamation — Establishment of the Bears Ears National Monument,” Press release, December 28, 2016, available at
  30. Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, “Proposal to Barack Obama for the Creation of Bears Ears National Monument” (2015), available at
  31. Robin Wall Kimmerer, “Traditional Knowledge and Bears Ears: Renewing Relationship Between Land and Culture,” Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, December 10, 2016, available at
  32. Kathryn Sears Ore, “Form and Substance: The National Historic Preservation Act, Badger-Two Medicine, and Meaningful Consultation,” Public Land and Resources Law Review 38 (2017): 205–240, available at
  33. Sandra Lee Pinel and Jacob Pecos, “Generating Go-Management at Kasha Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument, New Mexico,” Environmental Management 49 (3) (2012): 593–604, available at
  34. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, “Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness: A Case Study” (Pablo, MT: 2005), available at
  35. Martin do Nascimento, “Reclaiming the Klamath,” Earthjustice, available at (last accessed January 2021).
  36. Bill Tripp, “Our land was taken. But we still hold the knowledge of how to stop mega-fires,” The Guardian, September 16, 2020, available at
  37. Jaskiran Dhillon, “What Standing Rock Teaches Us About Environmental Justice,” Social Science Research Council, December 5, 2017, available at
  38. Bernadette Dementieff, “The Call of the Gwich’in Nation to Protect the Arctic Refuge,” Sierra Club, October 11, 2016, available at
  39. Anya Montiel, “The Tohono O’odham and the Border Wall,” American Indian Magazine 18 (2) (2017), available at
  40. National Congress of American Indians, “Support Legislation to Return the Land and Resources of the National Bison Range to Federal Trust for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Resolution #SPO-16-006” (Washington: 2016), available at
  41. Consolidated Appropriations Act 2021, H.R. 133, 116th Cong., 2nd sess. (December 27, 2020), available at
  42. Mills and Nie, “Bridges to a New Era.”
  43. Ibid.
  44. Jim Robbins, “Native Knowledge: What Ecologists Are Learning from Indigenous People,” Yale Environment 360, April 26, 2018, available at
  45. Allen and others, “Tribal leaders.”
  46. White House Office of the Press Secretary, “Presidential Proclamation — Establishment of the Bears Ears National Monument.”
  47. National Congress of American Indians, “Supporting Tribal Communities that Utilize a Co-Production of Knowledge Approach in Research Engagement, Resolution #PDX-20-044” (Washington: 2020), available at
  48. Country Needs People, “About,” available at (last accessed January 2021); Government of Canada, “Indigenous Guardians Pilot,” available at (last accessed January 2021).
  49. National Congress of American Indians, “NCAI Forum: Protecting Tribal Lands and Sacred Places: Current Threats Across Indian Country,” YouTube, June 30, 2020, available at
  50. Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Public Law 115–334, 115th Cong., 2nd sess. (December 20, 2018), available at
  51. California Public Utilities Commission, “Investor-Owned Utility Real Property- Land Disposition – First Right of Refusal for Disposition of Real Property Within the Ancestral Territories of California Native American Tribes,” December 5, 2019, available at

The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. A full list of supporters is available here. American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.


Sahir Doshi

Former Research Assistant

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.