RESUMO
Indigenous Peoples' lands (IPL) cover at least 38 million km2 (28.1%) of Earth's 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 inside and outside PAs by quantifying tree cover loss from 2000 to 2019 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 mapped IPL, tree cover loss in KBAs outside PAs was lower inside IPL than outside IPL. By contrast, tree cover loss in KBAs inside PAs was lower outside IPL than inside IPL (although the difference was far smaller). National rates of tree cover loss in KBAs varied greatly in relation to their IPL and PA status. In one 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 intercountry variation could illuminate the importance of IPL in meeting the Convention on Biological Diversity'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.
Tasas de pérdida de la cobertura arbórea en áreas clave de biodiversidad en suelo indígena Resumen Las tierras de los pueblos indígenas (TPI) cubren al menos 38 millones de km2 (28.1%) de la superficie del planeta. Estas tierras pueden ser importantes para la conservación de la biodiversidad. Un 20.7% de las TPI se intersecan con áreas protegidas (AP) por el gobierno. Muchos sitos con importancia para la biodiversidad dentro de las TPI podrían contribuir de forma sustancial, pero todavía sin cuantificar, a los objetivos globales de conservación in situ. Las áreas clave para la biodiversidad (ACB) representan la mayor red mundial de sitios con identificación sistemática de gran valor para la biodiversidad. Evaluamos la efectividad de las TPI en la reducción de la pérdida de la biodiversidad dentro y fuera de las AP mediante la cuantificación de la pérdida de la cobertura arbórea entre el 2000 y 2019 en las ACB a niveles nacional e internacional. También comparamos esta efectividad con las pérdidas en sitios equivalentes fuera de las TPI mapeadas. Con base en una muestra emparejada de celdas de 1-km2 en ACB dentro y fuera de las TPI mapeadas, la pérdida de la cobertura arbórea en las ACB ubicadas fuera de las AP fue menor dentro de las TPI que fuera de ellas. Al contrario, la pérdida en las ACB ubicadas dentro de las AP fue menor afuera de las TPI que adentro de ellas (aunque la diferencia fue por mucho menor). Las tasas nacionales de pérdida de la cobertura arbórea en las ACB variaron sobremanera en relación con su estado en las TPI y en las AP. En la mitad de los 44 países que analizamos individualmente no hubo una diferencia significativa en la tasa de pérdida de la cobertura arbórea en las ACB dentro y fuera de las TPI mapeadas. Las razones detrás de esta variación entre los países podrían aclarar la importancia que tienen las TPI para cumplir con la meta del Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica de conservar el 30% del suelo para el 2030. La acción coordenada de los gobiernos será crítica para fortalecer y hacer cumplir los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, asegurar su sistema colectivo de tenencia y gobierno, y reconocer sus objetivos para sus tierras y el futuro.
RESUMO
We aspired to set conservation priorities in ways that lead to direct conservation actions. Very large-scale strategic mapping leads to familiar conservation priorities exemplified by biodiversity hotspots. In contrast, tactical conservation actions unfold on much smaller geographical extents and they need to reflect the habitat loss and fragmentation that have sharply restricted where species now live. Our aspirations for direct, practical actions were demanding. First, we identified the global, strategic conservation priorities and then downscaled to practical local actions within the selected priorities. In doing this, we recognized the limitations of incomplete information. We started such a process in Colombia and used the results presented here to implement reforestation of degraded land to prevent the isolation of a large area of cloud forest. We used existing range maps of 171 bird species to identify priority conservation areas that would conserve the greatest number of species at risk in Colombia. By at risk species, we mean those that are endemic and have small ranges. The Western Andes had the highest concentrations of such species-100 in total-but the lowest densities of national parks. We then adjusted the priorities for this region by refining these species ranges by selecting only areas of suitable elevation and remaining habitat. The estimated ranges of these species shrank by 18-100% after accounting for habitat and suitable elevation. Setting conservation priorities on the basis of currently available range maps excluded priority areas in the Western Andes and, by extension, likely elsewhere and for other taxa. By incorporating detailed maps of remaining natural habitats, we made practical recommendations for conservation actions. One recommendation was to restore forest connections to a patch of cloud forest about to become isolated from the main Andes.