Indigenous Peoples are crucially important to protecting biodiversity, but the claim that 80% of biodiversity is found on Indigenous lands is not based on science
Indigenous Peoples are crucially important to protecting biodiversity, but the claim that 80% of biodiversity is found on Indigenous lands is not based on science
Make that “at least 1/3” as referenced from your article…”They note that studies have shown that more than one-third of the world’s intact forest landscapes are on Indigenous Peoples’ lands. “In the past five years,” they write, “the essential roles of Indigenous Peoples in global biodiversity conservation have been recognized in numerous landmark reports”.
The source given in the Nature magazine paper for the statement that "more than one-third of the world's intact forest landscapes are on Indigenous People's lands" is the following:
Julia E Fa et al, "Importance of Indigenous Peoples’ lands for the conservation of Intact Forest Landscapes", Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Volume 18, Issue 3, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2148
"The proportion of IFLs is higher on Indigenous Peoples’ lands than on other lands, and our comparisons by country, biome, and biogeographic realms reveal that over one-third of the world's remaining IFLs are located on Indigenous Peoples’ lands. The true figure may indeed be considerably higher because we used a conservative map layer (notably in Canada) in our analysis."
And the sources given for "the essential roles of Indigenous Peoples in global biodiversity conservation" are the following:
IPBES. Global Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds Brondízio, E. S., Settele, J., Díaz, S. & Ngo, T. H.) (IPBES, 2019).
Forest Peoples Programme. Local Biodiversity Outlooks 2: The Contributions of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities to the Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and to Renewing Nature and Cultures (Forest Peoples Programme, 2020).
Thanks. I’ve worked with Indigenous communities in California, Arizona, Mexico and Alaska and find this to hold true where land management rights still exist. What might be called “benign neglect”, as in failure to develop is as effective at protecting biodiversity as anything, although external threats are generally resisted. Industry efforts to undermine are not without consequence, especially in Alaska where the corporate model has been legislatively imposed.
Thanks for this, John, but I don't think this is a question of "who can/should we trust?"
It's worth reading the paper that this post is based on (it's not behind a paywall). The paper is about the specific claim that 80% of biodiversity is protected by Indigenous Peoples. The authors dig through the sources and find that the claim is not based on any scientific research - or any research at all, in fact. Nevertheless, the claim had been repeated so often over the years that it became accepted as true in the discourse about biodiversity conservation.
That was my point. People have been uncritically passing this misinformation along, but most of us don't have the time (or maybe the ability?) to fact-check everything we read. I suspect the 80% figure is seductive to those who also believe the 'noble savage' myth, a viewpoint that ironically completely strips Indigenous peoples of their humanity. Sigh.
Having worked with Indigenous Peoples for much of my career, I heartily welcome this respectful correction! It perhaps inadvertently garnered attention to the invaluable Indigenous role in protecting land and biodiversity, but absolutely time to get the facts right. Can you confirm that “roughly 37% of the worlds remaining intact wildlands are stewarded by Indigenous Peoples however biodiversity is complex and cannot be quantified” is a reasonably correct statement?
Here's an important paragraph from the Nature study:
"The 80% claim seems to stem from misinterpretations of previously published statements. As advocates for Indigenous Peoples (three of us identify as Indigenous), we have had discussions about this figure over several years with Indigenous leaders at policy forums, on field visits and in research projects. To track its origins and assess how frequently it has been cited in the literature and in what contexts, we searched for combinations of the words ‘Indigenous’, ‘80%’ and ‘biodiversity’, as well as for combinations of their variants, such as ‘eighty’, ‘percent’ and ‘biological diversity’. We conducted our search using Google Scholar and Clarivate’s Web of Science, and included literature published up to 1 August this year."
Make that “at least 1/3” as referenced from your article…”They note that studies have shown that more than one-third of the world’s intact forest landscapes are on Indigenous Peoples’ lands. “In the past five years,” they write, “the essential roles of Indigenous Peoples in global biodiversity conservation have been recognized in numerous landmark reports”.
The source given in the Nature magazine paper for the statement that "more than one-third of the world's intact forest landscapes are on Indigenous People's lands" is the following:
Julia E Fa et al, "Importance of Indigenous Peoples’ lands for the conservation of Intact Forest Landscapes", Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Volume 18, Issue 3, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2148
"The proportion of IFLs is higher on Indigenous Peoples’ lands than on other lands, and our comparisons by country, biome, and biogeographic realms reveal that over one-third of the world's remaining IFLs are located on Indigenous Peoples’ lands. The true figure may indeed be considerably higher because we used a conservative map layer (notably in Canada) in our analysis."
And the sources given for "the essential roles of Indigenous Peoples in global biodiversity conservation" are the following:
IPBES. Global Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds Brondízio, E. S., Settele, J., Díaz, S. & Ngo, T. H.) (IPBES, 2019).
Forest Peoples Programme. Local Biodiversity Outlooks 2: The Contributions of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities to the Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and to Renewing Nature and Cultures (Forest Peoples Programme, 2020).
Thanks for the link to the paper. I looked but didn’t find.
I will reference this…”We determined that at least 36% of IFLs are within Indigenous Peoples’ lands”
Scroll down to the subheading "Discussion". The two sentences that I quoted from are in the paragraph following that subheading. Here's a screenshot: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/88thbf0qnlc8z51pun8wc/2024-09-17-235031_1920x1051_scrot.png?rlkey=5xlza50i22ryx7sd78ny8zsw7&st=g7qeqahb&dl=0
Thanks. I’ve worked with Indigenous communities in California, Arizona, Mexico and Alaska and find this to hold true where land management rights still exist. What might be called “benign neglect”, as in failure to develop is as effective at protecting biodiversity as anything, although external threats are generally resisted. Industry efforts to undermine are not without consequence, especially in Alaska where the corporate model has been legislatively imposed.
The 'best' way to make enemies is to spread, even if unknowingly, mis/disinformation. The conundrum, of course, is who can/should we trust?
Thanks for this, John, but I don't think this is a question of "who can/should we trust?"
It's worth reading the paper that this post is based on (it's not behind a paywall). The paper is about the specific claim that 80% of biodiversity is protected by Indigenous Peoples. The authors dig through the sources and find that the claim is not based on any scientific research - or any research at all, in fact. Nevertheless, the claim had been repeated so often over the years that it became accepted as true in the discourse about biodiversity conservation.
That was my point. People have been uncritically passing this misinformation along, but most of us don't have the time (or maybe the ability?) to fact-check everything we read. I suspect the 80% figure is seductive to those who also believe the 'noble savage' myth, a viewpoint that ironically completely strips Indigenous peoples of their humanity. Sigh.
No one.
Well, I'm gonna just 'trust my (somewhat educated) gut.'
Wise decision.
Having worked with Indigenous Peoples for much of my career, I heartily welcome this respectful correction! It perhaps inadvertently garnered attention to the invaluable Indigenous role in protecting land and biodiversity, but absolutely time to get the facts right. Can you confirm that “roughly 37% of the worlds remaining intact wildlands are stewarded by Indigenous Peoples however biodiversity is complex and cannot be quantified” is a reasonably correct statement?
Here's an important paragraph from the Nature study:
"The 80% claim seems to stem from misinterpretations of previously published statements. As advocates for Indigenous Peoples (three of us identify as Indigenous), we have had discussions about this figure over several years with Indigenous leaders at policy forums, on field visits and in research projects. To track its origins and assess how frequently it has been cited in the literature and in what contexts, we searched for combinations of the words ‘Indigenous’, ‘80%’ and ‘biodiversity’, as well as for combinations of their variants, such as ‘eighty’, ‘percent’ and ‘biological diversity’. We conducted our search using Google Scholar and Clarivate’s Web of Science, and included literature published up to 1 August this year."