Vertebrate biodiversity on indigenous-managed lands in Australia, Brazil, and Canada equals that in protected areas
Introduction
Habitat loss and degradation due to human land conversion are key threats to global biodiversity that, to date, have been addressed mainly by expanding protected areas (PAs) globally (Maxwell et al., 2016; Sala et al., 2000). However, this approach has severe limitations because many existing PAs have limited overlap with the geographic ranges of most of the world’s threatened species, as PAs have often been placed in regions with relatively low economic value and biodiversity (Rodrigues et al., 2004; Sánchez-Fernández and Abellán, 2015; Venter et al., 2014). In several regions, PAs overlap the ranges of endemic, high-priority species less often than expected if they had been located randomly (Nori et al., 2015; Sánchez-Fernández and Abellán, 2015). Thus, despite a rapid increase in the global extent of terrestrial PAs to meet the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) target of protecting 17% of global terrestrial area, shortfalls in coverage and implementation suggest that 17% will nevertheless be insufficient to prevent further extinctions or meet other area-based conservation goals (Barnes, 2015; Polak et al., 2016; Watson et al., 2014). This implies that many species are destined to extinction unless they can maintain positive growth rates on land in addition to that set aside as conventional PAs. Indigenous-managed land (defined here as land parcels managed or co-managed by Indigenous communities) may represent one such key addition, as some authors conclude that partnerships with Indigenous communities are essential to conserving 17% of global terrestrial area (Jonas et al., 2014). The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples clearly points to Indigenous Rights to Land and resources, thus providing a framework within which conversations about biodiversity conversation on Indigenous-managed lands can take place. Here, we explore the potential for Indigenous-managed lands to contribute positively to national and global goals for terrestrial biodiversity conservation, complementing a related analysis of the global extent of Indigenous-managed lands (Garnett et al., 2018).
Indigenous land management practices have often been shown to result in higher native and rare species richness (Peres, 1994; Redford and Stearman, 1993; Yibarbuk et al., 2001; Arcese et al., 2014) and less deforestation and land degradation than non-indigenous practices (Nolte et al., 2013; Ceddia et al., 2015; Waller and Reo, 2018). However, despite indications of high biodiversity on Indigenous-managed lands, and a recent demonstration that such lands represent >25% of all land area and intersect with ˜40% of terrestrial PAs and ‘ecologically intact landscapes’ (Garnett et al., 2018), no study has quantified species richness or occurrence on Indigenous lands or compared metrics in and outside of Indigenous-managed lands, conventional PAs, and unprotected areas at national scales. To address this key knowledge gap, we therefore compared vertebrate biodiversity on Indigenous-managed lands to protected areas and non-protected areas in three countries (Australia, Brazil, and Canada) with relatively large total areas owned or managed by Indigenous communities.
To achieve the above goals, we estimated total richness of amphibians, birds, mammals and reptiles using open-sourced species range maps of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). We then compared estimates among three land types: Indigenous-managed lands (hereafter IL), protected areas with no Indigenous co-management (hereafter PA), and non-protected areas of equivalent area (hereafter NPA). We similarly estimated the richness of species at risk (i.e., classified as ‘vulnerable’, ‘endangered’, and ‘critically endangered’ by the International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN]).
If Indigenous-managed lands have the potential to supplement conventional PAs in local, national and/or global efforts to meet conservation targets (Arcese et al., 2014; Garnett et al., 2018; Waller and Reo, 2018), we expect to observe that estimated species occurrence and richness in IL should: 1) meet or exceed levels observed in conventional PAs; and 2) exceed values observed in randomly selected landscapes of similar size.
Section snippets
Data processing
We based our analysis on an initial set of 26,688 spatial data layers consisting of three basic administrative delineations (country boundaries, protected areas and Indigenous lands), and 26,682 vertebrate species distributions, as described below, with total terrestrial land restricted to the country boundaries of Australia, Brazil and Canada.
Basic administrative delineations
National boundaries were derived from the Global Administrative Areas database (http://gadm.org/, accessed 2015-10-10). The data on protected areas was
Results
Indigenous lands as legally recognized by the three national governments, represent 52.1, 13.3, and 6.3% of terrestrial area for Australia, Brazil and Canada, respectively. PAs represent 9.2, 21.1, and 10.7% of terrestrial area for Australia, Brazil and Canada, respectively. In all three countries, Indigenous lands have the highest species richness in all focal taxonomic groups combined, with randomly selected non-protected areas having the lowest species richness (Fig. 2 a,b,c). Indigenous
Discussion
Our results indicate that Indigenous-managed lands represent an important repository of native vertebrate species richness in three of the six largest countries on earth. Moreover, because Indigenous peoples currently manage or have tenure to roughly a quarter of earth’s land area (Garnett et al., 2018), collaborating with Indigenous nations and organizations to support and/or enhance Indigenous land management practices clearly represent one potential route to achieving global targets for
Author contributions
RS, RRG, and PA conceived the study. RS and RRG collected data and conducted analyses. All authors contributed to writing and editing the paper.
Acknowledgments
We thank N. Baron, A. Jacob, H. Locke, M.-C. Loretto, A. Rodewald, D. Secord, and O. Venter for providing comments on the manuscript. RS is supported by a Liber Ero Fellowship, and RRG, JRB, and PA are supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. The authors declare no competing interests. The data reported in this paper are tabulated in the Supplementary Materials. Data, analysis scripts and full results are archived here: https://osf.io/f86wv/
References (55)
- et al.
Are integrated conservation-development projects (ICDPs) sustainable? On the conservation of large mammals in sub-Saharan Africa
World Dev.
(1995) - et al.
Land tenure and agricultural expansion in Latin America: the role of Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ forest rights
Glob. Environ. Chang. Part A
(2015) Herbivory, hunting, and long-term vegetation change in degraded savanna
Biol. Conserv.
(2008)- et al.
Amphibian conservation, land-use changes and protected areas: a global overview
Biol. Conserv.
(2015) - et al.
Using null models to identify under-represented species in protected areas: a case study using European amphibians and reptiles
Biol. Conserv.
(2015) - et al.
Deer density and plant palatability predict shrub cover, richness, diversity and aboriginal food value in a North American archipelago
Divers. Distrib.
(2014) Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database (CAPAD) 2014 [WWW Document]
(2014)Australian Land Tenure 1993 [WWW Document]
(2016)Indigenous Protected Areas - IPAS [WWW Document]
(2016)Aichi targets: protect biodiversity, not just area
Nature
(2015)
Indigenous Partnerships in Protected Area Management in Australia: Three Case Studies
Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management
Ecol. Appl.
The “fire stick farming” hypothesis: Australian Aboriginal foraging strategies, biodiversity, and anthropogenic fire mosaics
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global conservation area targets
Conserv. Lett.
As We Move Ahead Together: Foregrounding Reconciliating and Renewed First Nation/ Non-Aboriginal Relations in Environmental Management and Research (Thesis)
Environmental history of a Garry Oak/Douglas-Fir Woodland on Waldron Island, Washington
NWSC
A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation
Nat. Sustain.
From prairie to forest: three centuries of environmental change at Rocky Point, Vancouver Island, British Columbia
Northwest Sci.
The Indigenous Protected Areas Programme: 2006 Evaluation
Taming the wilderness myth
BioScience
Unlikely alliances: treaty conflicts and environmental cooperation between native american and rural white communities
Am. Indian Cult. Res. J.
Klamath tribes: managing their homeland forests in partnership with the USDA forest service
J for
New steps of change: looking beyond protected areas to consider other effective area-based conservation measures
Parks
Representing traditional knowledge: resource management and Inuit knowledge of barren-ground caribou
Soc. Nat. Resour.
All Our Relations: Native Struggles for Land and Life
Protected areas and effective biodiversity conservation
Science
Defining conservation strategies with historical perspectives: a case study from a degraded oak grassland ecosystem
Conserv. Biol.
Cited by (178)
Biodiversity and human health: A scoping review and examples of underrepresented linkages
2024, Environmental ResearchKeystones for conservation: Diversity, Wellbeing, Coexistence
2024, Biological ConservationIndigenous leadership in creating a protected area: The Akumunan Biodiversity Reserve (Canada)
2023, Global Ecology and ConservationDispossession and governance: The invisible role of indigenous peoples in protected natural areas in Chile
2023, Environmental Science and PolicyRisk assessment of terrestrial protected areas to extreme wind hazards: A case study in Queensland, Australia
2023, Landscape and Urban Planning
- 1
Contributed equally.