On 4 September 2024, the scientific journal Nature published a paper with the headline, “No basis for claim that 80% of biodiversity is found in Indigenous territories”. The paper’s authors have now written a response to the discussion generated by their paper.
In their response, they write that,
We believe that the recognition of Indigenous Peoples' fundamental role in supporting planetary sustainability will be stronger and more impactful when it is built on solid, verifiable evidence. We are glad that our approach has been appreciated by most of our correspondents since publication. One common sentiment has been relief that they no longer feel pressure to quote a figure in which they do not believe.
The authors included three Indigenous Peoples, researchers from the the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Australia’s Charles Darwin University, Manchester Metropolitan University, Indiana University Bloomington, and Forest Peoples Programme. They were very careful to make clear that Indigenous Peoples play a crucial role in protecting biodiversity.
In the Nature paper they write that,
“Indigenous Peoples and their territories are indeed key to safeguarding biodiversity for future generations”.
The focus of the paper is on the 80% figure, which despite having been repeated nearly 350 times (186 of which are in peer-reviewed scientific journals) is not based on science. The claim is still available on the Convention on Biological Diversity’s website.
Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares is an ethnobotanist at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and is the lead author of the article. “What we are questioning is: how can it be that this figure has gone unchallenged for so many years?” he tells The Guardian.
In the Nature paper, the authors write that,
Our criticism of the 80% claim should in no way undermine decades of effort by Indigenous Peoples’ organizations and others to influence international biodiversity and climate policy. Nor should it detract from the essential and verifiably considerable part that Indigenous Peoples play in the conservation of the planet’s biodiversity.
“Attention-grabbing clickbait headline”
Despite the careful and respectful approach that the authors took in writing the paper, which they worked on for five years, the paper has generated some heated discussion.
“The feedback here in Mexico is strong . . . is rude. Someone told me this is a call for war,” one of the co-authors, Guadalupe Yesenia H. Márquez, tells The Guardian. “But I think it’s not a problem to promote the paper,” she says. “We know our territories. We know all the biodiversity that we have.”
“I’m publically calling out Nature Magazine for bias,” Drea Burbank writes on LinkedIn. Burbank is the CEO of Savimbo, a company incorporated in 2022 in the tax haven of Delaware, that sells biodiversity credits and carbon credits. “They intentionally chose to case doubt on Indigenous biodiversity when they could have provided clarity,” she writes.
Burbank describes the headline as “attention-grabbing clickbait”.
Jessica Smith, Nature Lead at UNEP Finance Initiative notes that the headline in a version shared by Julia E. Fa, one of the authors, was an improvement. “It's not that the number is false,” Smith writes. “It could be indeed an even higher number if we had complete data.”
In the Nature paper, the authors write that,
“The 80% claim is based on two assumptions: that biodiversity can be divided into countable units, and that these can be mapped spatially at the global level. Neither feat is possible.”
Burbank disagrees. She argues that the 80% figure is a “ballparked number” and that it could be improved with “modern data”. The scientific community has no interest in doing so “because that would be scientifically hard” she writes.
She links to a 2018 paper published in Nature Sustainability titled, “A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation”. Five of the authors of that paper were also authors of the Nature paper.
Burbank writes that Nature recently rejected a paper that she co-wrote. That paper, she writes, provides an “Indigenous proposed unit for exactly how to calculate the biodiversity on their lands.”
Burbank’s unpublished paper (which refers to the 80% figure twice, incidentally) states that,
The nascent biodiversity market is struggling for concordance and interoperability. Formation of a market will not be possible without the implementation of identical units for price discovery.
If you can’t measure biodiversity, you can’t sell biodiversity credits. “Identical units are a prerequisite to the formation and efficient functioning of markets,” Burbank and colleagues write.
Which could perhaps explain why Burbank is so annoyed with the argument in the Nature paper that biodiversity cannot be divided into countable units.
In their response, the authors of the Nature paper write that,
Failing to correct errors, no matter how inconvenient, only serves to perpetuate disinformation, which is fundamentally at odds with the principles of scientific rigor. While the 80% statistic may sound compelling, it lacks the empirical support needed to stand up to scrutiny. Relying on such unverified figures can have unintended consequences, including fostering scepticism among policymakers, diminishing the credibility of environmental advocacy, and overshadowing the invaluable, culturally rooted perspectives that Indigenous Peoples contribute to biodiversity conservation.
And they once again note that Indigenous People’s territories have high levels of biodiversity:
The issue is not whether Indigenous Peoples’ territories harbour significant biodiversity — they undoubtedly do — but about ensuring that the statistics we use to highlight this stewardship are grounded in robust evidence. Transparency in this regard is crucial for maintaining trust and advancing meaningful conservation efforts that truly benefit Indigenous communities.
More sensitivity required?
Sven von Vittorelli is Global Nature and Biodiversity Lead at AFRY, a Swedish engineering, design, and consulting firm. He is critical of the article from a science communications perspective.
He is also critical of the headline and writes on LinkedIn that,
This tagline can, from now on, be easily used out of context to discredit the incredible value of biodiversity in Indigenous territories and possibly discredit Indigenous people themselves, no matter how high or low the biodiversity value of these areas is.
The obvious counter-argument to this is to ask anyone using the headline in this way to read the article, not just the headline.
Von Vittorelli fails to notice that the paper was co-authored by three Indigenous people. He writes that,
While the study authors call for better inclusion and empowerment of Indigenous communities in their last paragraph, they seem to be ignoring their own advice and do not appear to have included Indigenous people in the creation of this study.
And he adds that,
I see that the authors and Nature magazine may require more sensitivity to the rights and needs of and working with Indigenous people. Working with Indigenous communities is a sensitive matter, and any discussion, research, or action that may affect their livelihoods should only be conducted with their explicit consent and inclusion.
Von Vittorelli suggests using “a formal process like the Maori research consultation at New Zealand’s universities”.
The authors of the Nature paper write in their response that,
In response to concerns about the process of our research, we fully agree that Indigenous voices should be at the forefront of any work related to their lands and knowledge systems. That being said, claims that Indigenous Peoples were not involved in this study are false. Three Indigenous authors were involved in our paper, the three of them having an undisputable track record in standing up for the recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. Of course, we recognise that more can always be done to ensure that research processes are inclusive and empowering for Indigenous Peoples. Looking ahead, we support and encourage the adoption of formal consultation processes, similar to those used in Aotearoa (New Zealand), to ensure that Indigenous communities are fully engaged in the research that concerns them, in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Logging industry funding?
Grace Rachmany, who is a decentralised autonomous organisation (DAO) expert and a crypto whitepaper writer, comments that, “This looks like it was 100% supported by the logging industry.”
The authors respond to this comment as follows:
Lastly, we want to address the baseless and frankly absurd claim that our work is funded by the logging industry. This accusation is entirely false and deeply harmful. Our research is independent, driven by a commitment to scientific integrity and biodiversity conservation. We are deeply committed to preserving biodiversity and supporting the rights and roles of Indigenous Peoples in that mission. To suggest that our work is influenced by industry interests is not only untrue but also distracts from the real issues at hand. Our focus remains on advancing honest, evidence-based discussions that benefit the environment and the communities that depend on it.
Wow, that is one complicated Gordian knot! Thank you for untangling the threads.
Efforts to quantify, and thus commodify Nature (the beyond human world) deserve to be questioned. Else our precious 🌍 will be even more exposed to the reckle$$ forces of global market capitalism, the very thing responsible for the tragic loss in biodiversity 😬.