Far From “Baseless:” Critiquing a Recent Article in Nature
A September 4, 2024 “comment” piece was recently published in Nature titled, “No Basis for Claim that 80% of Biodiversity is Found in Indigenous Territories.”
The authors state, “A baseless statistic could harm the Indigenous Peoples it is meant to support.”
They refer to a widely-cited claim that:
Indigenous Peoples manage 80% of the world’s biodiversity on just 20% of the Earth's landmass.
While the article acknowledges the critical role that Indigenous Peoples play in conservation, its critique could unintentionally undermine this important contribution.
Despite good intentions, I submit that the article risks discounting the significant evidence supporting Indigenous Peoples' essential role in biodiversity protection.
Instead of focusing on debunking this claim, the authors would have done better to explain why the claim, like any statistic referring to unknown numbers of species referred to in bio-diversity reports, is overly simplified and thus not completely accurate but comes close to the reality that Indigenous worldview, where it operates, is crucial for global conservation efforts.
The authors dismiss scholarship that has brought forth recognition of the Indigenous worldview’s importance. They note:
Among the 348 documents that we found to include the 80% claim are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some in BioScience, The Lancet Planetary Health, and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and 19 news articles targeted at a specialist audience, including one in Nature (see Nature https://doi.org/ndqf (2024) and Supplementary information). The claim has been repeated by the Convention on Biological Diversity10 and by NGOs such as the conservation group WWF. One study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, even states that Indigenous Peoples “protect approximately 85% of the world’s biodiversity through stewardship.
Such articles, however, likely presented good research alongside their reference to 80/20 that makes it far from baseless. For example, consider a peer-reviewed article in Environmental Science & Policy. The article “Vertebrate Biodiversity on Indigenous-managed Lands in Australia, Brazil and Canada Equals that in Protected Areas,” does not say how much more diversity a well-managed preserve might have in contrast to nearby cities. However, it makes an important point that the 80/20 represents.
Another peer-reviewed article the authors probably came across was in National Geographic. Authored by Raygorodetsky, the title is “Indigenous Peoples Defend Earth’s Biodiversity- but They’re in Danger.” (The subtitle repeats the 80-20 claim.) This article reports that an estimated one million species live in the New Hampsire-sized Yasuni territory; that one hectare of Yasuni forest may contain up to 600 species of trees and over 100,000 species of insects; and that “the microbial diversity is overwhelming. The author then compares these statistics to the statistic that says 1.5 million inhabit our planet.
Well, If one Indigenous community protects an estimated one million species—nearly two-thirds of the total 1.5 million species identified globally—could this not suggest that Indigenous-managed lands could plausibly contain a significant portion of the world's biodiversity, making the 80% claim far from baseless?
We might also look at some of the conclusions of the largest and most comprehensive study of biodiversity ever, the UN Biodiversity Report released in 2019. Conducted by 450 research scientists from 50 countries, with reference to around 15,000 peer-reviewed papers, the report offers statistics that give some indirect credibility to the 80-20 statement:
More than a third of the world’s land surface and nearly 75% of freshwater resources are now devoted to crop or livestock production.
Three-quarters of the land-based environment and about 66% of the marine environment have been significantly altered by human actions. On average these trends have been less severe or avoided in areas held or managed by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.
At least a quarter of the global land area is traditionally owned, managed, used or occupied by Indigenous Peoples.
Regional and global scenarios currently lack and would benefit from an explicit consideration of the views, perspectives and rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, their knowledge and understanding of large regions and ecosystems, and their desired future development pathways. Recognition of the knowledge, innovations and practices, institutions and values of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities and their inclusion and participation in environmental governance often enhances their quality of life, as well as nature conservation, restoration and sustainable use.
More than a third of the world’s land surface and nearly 75% of freswater resoures are now devoted to crop or livestock production.
75% of teerrestrial environment is severely altered by human actions.
28% of global land area is managed by Indigenous Peoples.
Whether or not the 80 percent of biodiversity is on the nearly quarter of the earth inhabited by Indigenous peoples is accurate, I do appreciate academic scholars who care about supporting Indigenous cultures, as the authors of the Nature article undoubtedly do. I understand why they believe that if they do not call out the lack of more accurate support for 80/20 this could give fodder to dismissing the Indigenous worldview contribution altogether. Their critique of the 80% figure is based on their accurate assumption that biodiversity can be neatly counted and spatially mapped at a global level.
However, I hold that their sensational title and the credibility of the article will backfire. While there are challenges in achieving precise measurements, biodiversity data is inherently complex. Most relevant scientists know we cannot count the number of species there are and do not know how many we have not identified yet. They are labeling the 80% claim as “baseless” risks undermining the understanding of Indigenous contributions to conservation. Such language may embolden policymakers, corporations, or other stakeholders to diminish the influence of Indigenous communities in land stewardship, further marginalizing them. While precision in biodiversity data is important, it should not come at the cost of eroding public confidence in the vital role Indigenous Peoples play in environmental protection.
Instead of discrediting the 80% figure, we should view it as a rallying point for supporting Indigenous land rights and sustainable practices. Many studies have shown that species protection on Indigenous-managed lands often matches or exceeds that of formal protected areas. This reality should be celebrated, not diminished, by critiques that focus narrowly on statistical accuracy. Readers of the Nature article should be cautious about accepting the term “baseless” when describing the 80% figure. While statistical debates will continue, the core truth is clear:
Indigenous Peoples are indispensable to biodiversity conservation. Dismissing this figure risks undermining understanding the importance of Indigenous worldview influence on sustainability.
Of course scholars should attempt to be as accurate as possible with quantititative data. Statistics on such a complex topic as biodiversity will always be subject to scrutinty, and efforts by academics to get published will often address controversial claims. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments that reflects concerns about statistics. However, there is no weak argument here. In this case, probability should be a priority when it comes to the scholarship about the profound impact Indigenous practices have on preserving biodiversity. A better understanding of Indigenous worldview will help support such a probability that the 80-20 statistic may not be that far from the truth and that a more accurate generalizable number would be near impossible to determine. Now is the time to support Indigenous rights, and to ensure that the time-tested and “proven sustainable” approach of traditional Indigenous cultures who, against all odds are still holding on to their nature-based worldview, is recognized in global conservation efforts. Then, by having the rest of the world adopt this worldview, we can start re-indigenizing ourselves to the places we inhabit with the Nature-based kinship worldview that belongs to all of us.
If you found this piece thought provoking, listen to the Proven Sustainable podcast, consisting of talks with Indigenous and Maroon people and their supporters to realize and challenge conscious and unconscious colonized thinking and behaviors influencing the way you perceive sustainability and engage with the world.
We’d love to hear your thoughts below. We’ll respond!
The Proven Sustainable™ Conversation Series is a fiscally sponsored project of the Center for Transformative Action, a 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization.
 | A guest post by
|
Four Arrows - This is a clear and nuanced reply to a disturbing conclusion from the Nature article's authors. I hope this breath of understanding carries far and wide. Gratitude for your ongoing voice in support of so many whose voices have been rendered silent by the academy for far too long.
Thank you for this article. Headlines can mislead -- it is important for information to be accurate, no doubt about that. But it is also important to put information in context of the realities people face and live within. What harms indigenous people, what destroys biodiversity are extractive industries and a worldview that sees life as disposable. The article in Nature could have discussed questions of data from that point-of-view, instead the editors chose to be patronizing. Thanks to Four Arrows to ab excellent and nuanced critique.