Researchers have responded to criticism about their paper discussing the percentage of biodiversity found in territories managed by Indigenous Peoples (IPs).

While acknowledging the critical role of Indigenous communities in biodiversity conservation, the authors stressed the need for evidence-based claims, in a response seen by Carbon Pulse.

Their response followed debate on a paper titled “No basis for claim that 80% of biodiversity is found in Indigenous territories”, published on Sep. 4 by Nature journal.

Commentators suggested the paper could be misused to undermine IPs’ contributions to biodiversity conservation.

They expressed concerns about the potential for misinterpretation, with some accusing the journal of bias, and said the findings may be used to discredit IP rights.

“While the 80% statistic may sound compelling, it lacks the empirical support needed to stand up to scrutiny,” said the response co-written by three of the paper authors – Alvaro Fernandez-Llamazares, senior researcher from the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Julia E. Fa, professor at Manchester Metropolitan University, and Stephen Garnett, professor at Charles Darwin University in Australia.

“Relying on such unverified figures can have unintended consequences, including fostering scepticism among policymakers, diminishing the credibility of environmental advocacy, and overshadowing the … perspectives that IPs contribute to biodiversity conservation,” they said.

The debate on the statistic is important for biodiversity markets as it taps into the urgent issue of whether projects should engage with IPs and local communities.

Carbon Pulse coverage on the topic this year has included Indigenous-led biodiversity units gaining traction, an IP panel publishing recommendations, and a think tank advising IPs to reject biodiversity credit proposals.

THE RESPONSE

In an almost 900-word statement, the three researchers responded to parts of the online debate triggered by their article.

“We would like to emphasise, as we have in our paper, that we did all we could not to undermine the role of IPs in biodiversity conservation,” they said.

“We were concerned that, sooner or later, someone much less sympathetic to the interests of IPs would attempt to debunk the 80% figure – something that, as many comments have pointed out, has already generated significant scepticism.”

The deficiencies of the statistic could be used to dismiss all claims from IPs on biodiversity, undermining their position in global discussions, they argued.

The paper’s approach has been appreciated by most correspondents since publication, they said.

“One common sentiment has been relief that they no longer feel pressure to quote a figure in which they do not believe.”

“We hope that this conversation will foster more nuanced and respectful discourse that honours the vital role of IPs in conservation, while also upholding the highest standards of scientific rigour.”

Three of the 13 authors of the paper identify as IPs.

THE CRITICISM

Critics approached the paper from several angles, centred around concern on its impact on IPs.

The article’s title “can be easily used out of context to discredit the incredible value of biodiversity in Indigenous territories, and possibly discredit IP themselves, no matter how high or low the biodiversity value of these areas is”, said Sven von Vitorelli, global nature and biodiversity lead at German consultancy AFRY, in a post on LinkedIn.

He stressed he was not proposing the article was false.

“I’m publicly calling out Nature Magazine for bias,” said Drea Burbank, CEO of biodiversity credit methodology designer Savimbo. “They intentionally chose to cast doubt on Indigenous biodiversity when they could have provided clarity. You will see this headline widely used to discredit Indigenous Peoples globally in the coming months.”

“This headline is biased because it leads the reader to conclude there is no factual basis behind the estimate, instead of that the estimate is ballparked and not based on primary evidence,” she said on LinkedIn.

Some readers commended the paper. The research is a valuable effort to try to bring more clarity to the topic, said Jessica Smith, nature lead at UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative.

However, she also hoped no one “misuses the new paper as an argument not to prioritise supporting Indigenous rights and (further) marginalise the importance of the incredible global values that they provide – often at enormous risks and costs to their communities”.

THE PAPER

The Nature paper argued that claims about the biodiversity stewardship of IPs must be rooted in evidence.

“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, despite important advances in measuring biodiversity,” it argued.

The earliest source researchers found for the 80% statistic was in the 2001 edition of the Encyclopaedia of Biodiversity. However, the encyclopedia had said “nearly 80% of the terrestrial ecoregions are inhabited by one or more IPs”.

Attempts to assign a numerical value to biodiversity on IPs territories “fails to represent Indigenous values and world views in a meaningful way”, the Nature paper said.

“The global conservation community must abandon the unsupported 80% claim, and instead acknowledge more comprehensively the crucial roles of IPs in biodiversity conservation, restoration, and stewardship.”

The paper authors stressed that they did not aim to detract from the crucial part that IPs play in the conservation of the planet’s biodiversity.

By Thomas Cox – t.cox@carbon-pulse.com

*** Click here to sign up to our twice-weekly biodiversity newsletter ***