For over two decades, a widely accepted claim has circulated through scientific and public discourse: that 80% of the world’s biodiversity is found on Indigenous lands. While this figure has been quoted extensively in various reports and scientific journals, recent research reveals that it is inaccurate. But does this undermine the important role of Indigenous Peoples in biodiversity conservation?
Absolutely not. In fact, their contribution to protecting the natural environment is undeniable, but relying on an unsupported figure could do more harm than good.
In this article, we’ll explore why this popular statistic is misleading, how it came to dominate conservation discussions, and why it’s crucial to correct the record while continuing to champion the irreplaceable role of Indigenous Peoples in preserving Earth’s ecosystems.
The Origins of the 80% Biodiversity Claim
The notion that 80% of global biodiversity resides on Indigenous lands has been referenced in major documents, including reports from the United Nations and the World Bank. This statistic has been used to highlight the role of Indigenous communities as guardians of nature, often implying that their territories are the last bastions of Earth’s biodiversity. The earliest known reference to this figure dates back to 2002, with subsequent attributions linking it to a 2008 World Bank report.
On the surface, this statistic serves a noble purpose. It draws attention to the need for Indigenous Peoples to have access to and control over their lands, ensuring their ability to continue their conservation practices. However, the accuracy of this figure has come under scrutiny.
Why the 80% Figure is Inaccurate
While the intention behind this statistic may have been well-meaning, it is problematic for several reasons. First and foremost, biodiversity cannot be reduced to a simple percentage. The widely accepted definition of biodiversity encompasses everything from genetic variation to entire ecosystems, making it difficult—if not impossible—to quantify in such broad terms.
Additionally, when this figure first surfaced, the geographical boundaries of Indigenous lands had not been fully mapped. Therefore, it was impossible to precisely calculate what portion of global biodiversity these territories contained. Compounding this issue is the fact that many species remain undiscovered or undescribed by science. Estimating biodiversity, when we don’t even know the full extent of it, leads to figures that are more speculative than factual.
Furthermore, the sources originally cited to support this statistic were either misquotes or inaccurate summaries of prior research. Inaccurate data weakens the argument for Indigenous conservation and risks discrediting the communities that rely on this flawed number in their advocacy.
The Real Role of Indigenous Peoples in Biodiversity Conservation
While the 80% figure may be flawed, there’s no denying the essential role Indigenous Peoples play in biodiversity conservation. Indigenous territories often overlap with some of the most biodiverse regions on the planet, from tropical rainforests to coastal ecosystems. This overlap is no coincidence. Indigenous Peoples have stewarded these lands for generations, employing traditional ecological knowledge and sustainable practices that promote ecosystem health.
Instead of focusing on a misleading number, it’s far more valuable to recognize and support the intricate relationship Indigenous communities have with nature. Their holistic approach to land management—often based on spiritual, cultural, and historical connections to the environment—has proven successful in preserving biodiversity in ways that modern conservation efforts can struggle to match.
Why It’s Important to Correct the Record
At first glance, you might wonder why it’s necessary to challenge a figure that has been used to support a good cause. After all, the ultimate goal is to emphasize the importance of Indigenous stewardship. However, there are several compelling reasons why this figure should not be perpetuated.
Firstly, continuing to use the 80% statistic undermines the credibility of both Indigenous communities and their advocates. Once an inaccurate figure is exposed, it can lead skeptics to dismiss other valid claims regarding Indigenous land management and conservation efforts. Maintaining scientific accuracy strengthens the overall argument for Indigenous rights.
Secondly, reducing Indigenous contributions to a mere number fails to capture the complexity of their relationship with nature. Their stewardship is rooted in values, knowledge systems, and cultural practices that go beyond a simple percentage of biodiversity. By focusing solely on a figure, we risk overshadowing the deeper, more meaningful aspects of Indigenous environmental management.
Finally, leaving this myth unchallenged could hinder ongoing efforts to document biodiversity in Indigenous territories. It could also give rise to questions about why, if they manage such a large percentage of biodiversity, certain species continue to face extinction or decline. As new species are discovered and described, the conversation around biodiversity should evolve to reflect these new realities.
The Potential Harm of the 80% Statistic
While the 80% figure may have helped raise awareness about Indigenous contributions to conservation, it could also inadvertently cause harm. At one international meeting, for example, the figure was used to challenge the effectiveness of Indigenous stewardship. Critics argued that if Indigenous communities were responsible for protecting such a significant portion of global biodiversity, why were many species still in decline?
Such arguments can damage the credibility of Indigenous environmental advocacy, especially in scientific and policy circles where accuracy is paramount. Misusing figures, even in support of a just cause, can backfire and be used against the very people it aims to help.
Additionally, the use of this number risks patronizing Indigenous communities by implying that their value lies solely in the biodiversity found on their lands, rather than recognizing their cultural and spiritual connection to nature.
Moving Beyond the Myth: Emphasizing Indigenous Knowledge
The real takeaway here is that Indigenous Peoples should be recognized and supported for their invaluable contributions to biodiversity conservation—not because of a number, but because of their deep, holistic understanding of the ecosystems they live in. Their traditional knowledge and sustainable practices have safeguarded biodiversity for centuries, often in ways that modern science is only beginning to understand.
As we move forward, it’s crucial to focus on collaboration with Indigenous communities, ensuring they have the autonomy to manage their lands as they see fit. Indigenous knowledge systems offer profound insights into conservation that go far beyond what can be captured in data alone.
Conclusion
The claim that 80% of global biodiversity is found on Indigenous lands may have been used with good intentions, but it is ultimately misleading. While the number itself may be inaccurate, the undeniable truth remains: Indigenous Peoples are among the most important stewards of our planet’s biodiversity. Their knowledge, traditions, and sustainable land management practices are vital to the health of ecosystems worldwide.
Instead of relying on a flawed statistic, let’s continue to advocate for Indigenous rights by emphasizing the full scope of their contributions to biodiversity. Doing so not only respects their cultural values but also strengthens global conservation efforts in a meaningful and lasting way.
