Rates of tree cover loss in key biodiversity areas on Indigenous Peoples’ lands

Abstract

Indigenous Peoples’ lands (IPL) cover at least 38 million km2 (28.1%) of the global terrestrial surface. These lands can be important for biodiversity conservation. Around 20.7% of IPL intersect areas protected by government (PAs). Many sites of importance for biodiversity within IPL could make a substantial but hitherto unquantified contribution to Global site‐based conservation targets. Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) represent the largest global network of systematically identified sites of high importance for biodiversity. We assessed the effectiveness of IPL in slowing biodiversity loss, both within and outside PAs, by quantifying tree cover loss in KBAs at international and national levels and comparing it with losses at equivalent sites outside mapped IPL. Based on a matched sample of 1‐km2 cells in KBAs inside and outside of mapped IPL, tree cover loss in KBAs outside of PAs was lower inside IPLs when compared to outside mapped IPLs. By contrast, tree cover loss in KBAs inside of PAs was lower outside mapped IPLs than inside IPLs (although the difference was far smaller). However, national rates of tree cover loss in KBAs varied greatly in relation to their IPL and PA status. In half of the 44 countries we examined individually, there was no significant difference in the rate of tree cover loss in KBAs inside and outside mapped IPL. The reasons for this inter country variation could help understand the importance of IPL in meeting the CBD's ambition of conserving 30% of land by 2030. Critical to this will be coordinated action by governments to strengthen and enforce Indigenous Peoples' rights, secure their collective systems of tenure and governance, and recognize their aspirations for their lands and futures.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

The conflict between Rights of Nature and mining in Ecuador: Implications of the Los Cedros Cloud Forest case for biodiversity conservation

“…Indigenous territories have proven to be highly effective in mitigating deforestation and are recognized as crucial areas for biological conservation, carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation (Simkins et al., 2023; Walker et al., 2014). These territories have maintained remarkable levels of biodiversity where Indigenous lifestyles align more harmoniously with natural ecological processes (Garí, 1999; Garnett et al., 2018; Sze et al., 2022).…”

The global relevance of locally grounded ethnobiology

“…Recent geospatial analyses of mammal diversity across mapped Indigenous Peoples' lands globally have determined that at least 60% of all the terrestrial mammal species for which there is reliable habitat data depend on these territories [92]), and that they account for 30% of the global non-human primate distribution range [93]. Although Indigenous Peoples' lands are by no means immune to biodiversity loss [23], several global studies show that these territories host more species than equivalent protected areas and are at least equally effective in buffering against deforestation [94][95][96]. All these studies have led to increasing appreciation of, and interest towards, the specific practices, efforts, and knowledge systems that underpin the ecological integrity of these territories at the global level [25,90].…”