S C I E N C E A D VA N C E S | R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E SOCIAL SCIENCES Copyright © 2023 The Authors, some Global impacts of extractive and industrial rights reserved; exclusive licensee development projects on Indigenous Peoples’ lifeways, American Association for the Advancement lands, and rights of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Distributed Arnim Scheidel1, Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares2,1*, Anju Helen Bara3, Daniela Del Bene1, under a Creative Dominique M. David-Chavez4, Eleonora Fanari1, Ibrahim Garba5, Ksenija Hanaˇek1,6, Juan Liu7,1, Commons Attribution Joan Martínez-Alier1, Grettel Navas8, Victoria Reyes-García1,9, Brototi Roy1,10, Leah Temper11, NonCommercial May Aye Thiri1, Dalena Tran1, Mariana Walter1, Kyle Powys Whyte12 License 4.0 (CC BY-NC). To what extent do extractive and industrial development pressures affect Indigenous Peoples’ lifeways, lands, and rights globally? We analyze 3081 environmental conflicts over development projects to quantify Indigenous Peoples’ exposure to 11 reported social-environmental impacts jeopardizing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Peoples are affected in at least 34% of all documented environ- mental conflicts worldwide. More than three-fourths of these conflicts are caused by mining, fossil fuels, dam projects, and the agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and livestock (AFFL) sector. Landscape loss (56% of cases), live- lihood loss (52%), and land dispossession (50%) are reported to occur globally most often and are significantly more frequent in the AFFL sector. The resulting burdens jeopardize Indigenous rights and impede the realiza- Downloaded from https://www.science.org on June 11, 2023 tion of global environmental justice. INTRODUCTION environmental pollution (17, 18), threats to their knowledge Indigenous leaders, scholars, and knowledge holders have long systems (19), racial- and gender-based violence (20–23), as well as highlighted how their stewardship practices offer key solutions to intimidations and assassinations (12, 24). Global reports about In- maintain biodiversity, mitigate climate change, and engender posi- digenous rights violations have provided extensive qualitative evi- tive social change more broadly (1–3). One of the ways in which In- dence about such impacts, for instance, by compiling local digenous Peoples achieve these stewardship roles is by protecting testimonies, oral histories, and in-depth narratives from diverse their territories from extractive and industrial development pres- case studies (25). Except for recent analyses on direct violence sures (3–6). and killings affecting Indigenous Peoples in environmental conflicts Although Indigenous Peoples have contested land encroach- (10, 26), such global studies have left unanswered questions about ment and oppression from the advent of colonialism to the the frequency of occurrence of the social-environmental impacts present (7–9), many continue to be severely affected by develop- that conflictive development projects put on Indigenous Peoples’ ment projects causing environmental conflicts worldwide (10– lifeways, lands, and rights worldwide. 13). Such social conflicts over extractive and industrial projects To address this knowledge gap, we present here the largest quan- and their adverse social-environmental burdens occur despite nu- titative analysis of reported social-environmental burdens that In- merous efforts to recognize and enforce Indigenous rights, includ- digenous Peoples bear in environmental conflicts worldwide. We ing through national legislations and global policy instruments like quantify the extent to which Indigenous groups are affected by con- the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) Convention 169 and flictive extractive and industrial development projects and provide the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples extensive data on their exposure to a range of associated social-en- (UNDRIP) (14, 15). vironmental impacts. Our results provide large-scale evidence of the In environmental conflicts, Indigenous Peoples face severe magnitude of environmental burdens faced by numerous Indige- impacts, such as livelihood loss and land dispossession (16), nous Peoples worldwide and bring into focus the Indigenous rights violations associated with these burdens. Methodologically, we build upon comparative and statistical ap- 1 Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA-UAB), Universitat Autònoma de proaches in political ecology aiming to reveal trends and patterns of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 2Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS), environmental conflict characteristics in a more systematic way (10, Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. 3Department of Development Studies, Central University of South Bihar, 27). Theoretically, our analysis is grounded in scholarship ap- Gaya, India. 4Department of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship, Colorado State proaching environmental justice from the perspectives of Indige- University, Fort Collins, CO, USA. 5Native Nations Institute, University of Arizona, nous communities (28, 29), showing that global environmental Tucson, AZ, USA. 6Faculty of Social Sciences, Global Development Studies, Univer- sity of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. 7College of Humanities and Development injustice is a structural undercurrent for many of the challenges Studies, China Agricultural University, Beijing, PR China. 8Facultad de Gobierno, faced by contemporary Indigenous Peoples (29–32). We share the Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile. 9Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis views from Indigenous intellectual traditions where knowledge is Avançats (ICREA), Barcelona, Spain. 10Department of Environmental Science and Policy, Central European University, Vienna, Austria. 11Department of Natural Re- understood as being fundamentally interwoven with practice and source Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 12School for Environ- ethics (1, 33–35). Largely drawing from these perspectives and fol- ment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. lowing calls for the use of quantitative research approaches to *Corresponding author. Email: alvaro.fernandez-llamazares@helsinki.fi Scheidel et al., Sci. Adv. 9, eade9557 (2023) 7 June 2023 1 of 9 S C I E N C E A D VA N C E S | R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E inform policy concerned with Indigenous issues (36, 37), we discuss dataset thoroughly from the lens of Indigeneity and through the the implications of our results for upholding Indigenous Peoples’ consideration of a wide range of social-ecological impacts beyond rights and enhancing environmental justice, broadly understood direct violence. For this purpose, we identify through an extensive here as the advancement toward the eradication of adverse social- review process the names of the specific Indigenous groups involved environmental burdens compromising peoples’ lifeways, lands, in conflicts (see Supplementary Text) and combine the EJAtlas and rights. dataset with data on the spatial extent of Indigenous Peoples’ Our analysis draws on the most comprehensive dataset available: lands (40) and data on the status of the languages spoken by the af- 3081 environmental conflict cases, documented through the global fected Indigenous groups (41, 42). On this basis, we show the global Environmental Justice Atlas (EJAtlas) (data S1), which we collected overlap of conflictive extractive and industrial development projects through a crowdsourced and collaborative data collection process with Indigenous Peoples’ lands, describe the specific Indigenous (38). Scholars have previously used selected EJAtlas data for groups most frequently affected in our dataset, and identify diverse thematic, sectoral, and country-wide analyses of environ- threats to Indigenous language use. mental conflicts [e.g., (21, 38, 39)] and for global characterizations We assess the reported frequency of 11 adverse impacts globally of environmental conflicts and determinants of the occurrence of and across six sectors and discuss their implications for environ- direct violence (10, 27). This study examines the global EJAtlas mental justice and Indigenous rights as recognized in UNDRIP. Downloaded from https://www.science.org on June 11, 2023 Fig. 1. Map of environmental conflicts involving Indigenous Peoples and other groups (n = 3081), ILO C169 signatory countries, and Indigenous Peoples’ lands. The resolution is by necessity imprecise, as boundaries between Indigenous and other lands are often under dispute. Unmapped areas do not necessarily indicate an absence of Indigenous Peoples or an absence of conflicts, but areas for which an Indigenous connection cannot be inferred on the basis of publicly available geospatial data or no conflict data are available (40). A total of 95% of the environmental conflicts involving Indigenous Peoples began during or after the 1970s, while more than 50% of cases began between 2007 and 2020. Note that social-environmental impacts occurring in environmental conflicts have long-term effects that compromise Indigenous Peoples’ lifeways well beyond the year when the conflict started. ILO C169 signatory countries are provided in table S3. UNDRIP was adopted in 2007 in the General Assembly by a majority of 144 states (table S4). Scheidel et al., Sci. Adv. 9, eade9557 (2023) 7 June 2023 2 of 9 S C I E N C E A D VA N C E S | R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E The assessed impacts include (i) livelihood loss, (ii) land disposses- across sectors (Fig. 3; see Materials and Methods for a discussion sion, (iii) displacement, (iv) traditional knowledge loss, (v) land- of data limitations). Loss of landscape is reported most often in scape loss, (vi) militarization, (vii) impacts on women, (viii) our dataset, with a global frequency of 56% of all cases, jeopardizing deforestation, (ix) biodiversity loss, (x) water degradation, and specifically UNDRIP article 25 on the right to maintain Indigenous (xi) soil degradation. The assessed sectors include (i) mining; (ii) spiritual relations with their traditionally used territories. Liveli- fossil fuels; (iii) dams; (iv) the agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and hood loss and land dispossession are reported globally in 52 and livestock (AFFL) sector; (v) industries and other infrastructures, 50% of all cases, respectively. These impacts raise concerns over and (vi) other sectors (see Materials and Methods and tables S1 the fulfillment of UNDRIP articles 20 and 21, both addressing the and S2 for definitions). rights to maintain, secure, and improve their economic and social We acknowledge that the range of impacts analyzed here is nec- systems and conditions, as well as article 26 on the right to exercise essarily incomplete and that crowdsourced convenience samples, control over their lands, territories, and resources. such as the one analyzed here, have inherent data limitations Other frequently reported impacts include deforestation (43%), arising from potential sample selection and reporting biases (see biodiversity loss (43%), water degradation (40%), and soil degrada- Materials and Methods for a detailed discussion). However, for tion (31%), which severely compromise UNDRIP article 29 on the global social-ecological phenomena for which the total population right to the protection and conservation of their environment and of cases is unknown and where access to information is constrained, the productive capacities of their territories. In addition, displace- the use of such datasets is often the only available alternative to ment (43%) threatens article 10 protecting Indigenous Peoples from advance our understanding of their patterns of occurrence. In this relocation without free, prior, and informed consent. Knowledge context, our study provides the largest global quantitative assess- loss (43%) jeopardizes their right to maintain and protect their tra- ment of reported adverse social-environmental impacts to which ditional knowledge (article 31); militarization (32%) provokes social Indigenous Peoples have been exposed in conflictive development and political concerns over the unrightful presence of armed forces Downloaded from https://www.science.org on June 11, 2023 projects. The findings are relevant to enhance current knowledge in Indigenous territories (article 30); while specific impacts on about the extent to which extractive and industrial development women (20%) compromise the fulfillment of their special needs en- pressures affect Indigenous Peoples’ lifeways, lands, and rights glob- shrined in UNDRIP article 22. ally and can inform current policy efforts to uphold Indigenous Extractive and industrial development also threatens Indigenous Peoples’ rights enshrined in UNDRIP. linguistic diversity (44). While environmental injustice puts stress- ors on all Indigenous languages, groups with smaller speaker pop- ulations are often less resilient to external pressures (44, 45). A total RESULTS of 45.7% of the Indigenous groups affected by environmental con- Indigenous Peoples comprise about 6.2% of the world’s population flicts over development projects speak languages that are critically (43) and steward about a quarter of the world’s terrestrial surface pressured (Fig. 2; see Materials and Methods for data sources and (Fig. 1) (40). According to our dataset, they are involved in at limitations). Threats to Indigenous language use and the different least 34% of documented environmental conflicts over extractive contexts of language awakening are generally concomitant to and industrial development projects (Fig. 2). This finding converges broader cultural pressures that undermine UNDRIP article 13. with evidence derived from other datasets, which shows that Indig- According to our dataset, four sectors account for more than enous Peoples often find themselves on the frontlines of industrial- three-quarters of all environmental conflicts involving Indigenous extractive expansion (11, 26). Most countries where conflicts occur Peoples: mining (24.7%), fossil fuels (20.8%), the AFFL sector endorse UNDRIP (table S4). However, only 24 countries have rat- (17.5%), and dams (15.2%) (Fig. 2). While the mining sector is im- ified the legally binding ILO C169 convention (Fig. 1 and table S3). plicated in the highest number of conflicts involving Indigenous In the 1044 environmental conflicts involving Indigenous Peoples (n = 258), the AFFL sector is associated with an alarmingly Peoples (data S2), we find at least 740 distinct Indigenous groups high frequency of reported impacts (Fig. 3). Specifically, deforesta- affected, representing at least 15% of the approximately 5000 Indig- tion (74% of cases), land dispossession (74%), livelihood loss (69%), enous groups known worldwide. The Quechua (51 conflicts), and biodiversity loss (69%) are reported to occur significantly more Mapuche (31), Gond (30), Aymara (20), Nahua (20), Ijaw (20), frequently in the AFFL sector, compared to other sectors and the Munda (19), Kichwa (19), Guaraní (18), and Karen (18) are the global average (table S5). 10 Indigenous groups more frequently featured in the EJAtlas These impacts produce severe social-environmental burdens on dataset. Substantial data gaps remain, particularly for Central Indigenous communities across all inhabited continents (Fig. 1) Asia, Russia, and the Pacific (data S3). The actual number of affected and pose a major barrier to advancing environmental justice and Indigenous groups is expected to be much higher, particularly when Indigenous rights globally. Our results highlight that efforts considering that some regions have limited data coverage. Further- toward achieving zero tolerance of Indigenous rights violations more, an additional 7% of conflict cases involve other non-Indige- (46) are urgently needed. nous place-based communities with long-term connections to their lands, including most prominently Quilombolas (35 conflicts) and other Afrodescendant communities (29). DISCUSSION The social-environmental impacts faced by many Indigenous Our findings provide quantitative evidence of the breadth and Peoples in conflictive extractive and industrial development pro- depth of environmental injustices that many Indigenous Peoples jects, as well as their long-term effects on livelihoods, lands and face globally. Indigenous Peoples’ lands intersect some of the well-being, undermine the fulfillment of UNDRIP. Our results world’s most unexploited natural areas (40, 47, 48), which have show the frequency of reported impacts at the global level and been a target for extractive and industrial development and a Scheidel et al., Sci. Adv. 9, eade9557 (2023) 7 June 2023 3 of 9 S C I E N C E A D VA N C E S | R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E Downloaded from https://www.science.org on June 11, 2023 Fig. 2. Overview of environmental conflicts involving Indigenous Peoples. (Top) Left: Environmental conflicts involving Indigenous Peoples compared to the share of the Indigenous population of the world population. Right: Most reported Indigenous groups affected by environmental conflicts and their linguistic situation. (Bottom) Sectors causing environmental conflicts with Indigenous Peoples globally. Sectoral definitions and examples are provided in table S1. Population estimates refer to 2019 (43). breeding ground for environmental conflicts from colonialism to play an important role for advancing Indigenous rights. Our results the present (7, 11–13). By showing that Indigenous Peoples’ life- show that current levels of ratification, implementation, and mon- ways, lands, and rights continue to be substantially disrupted by itoring are insufficient to ensure respect for such rights. The ILO the resource demands of the world economy’s metabolism (49), C169 convention is now the only legally binding global instrument this study complements previous Indigenous scholarship highlight- that safeguards the application of the principle of free, prior, and ing the colonial-economic drivers of environmental injustices (29, informed consent, yet most countries with lands under Indigenous 30). The resulting burdens are concomitant with multidimensional stewardship and with environmental conflicts affecting Indigenous patterns of violence (39) and exacerbate legacies of intergeneration- Peoples have not ratified it (Fig. 1). al trauma and land dispossession (50). While most countries endorse UNDRIP, results suggest that sig- Because of methodological limitations in gathering data on en- natory nations are not upholding their commitments to protect In- vironmental conflicts globally, we note that our dataset cannot be digenous rights (Fig. 3). UNDRIP rights violations occur across all considered complete and that potential reporting biases remain. sectors addressed in this study, whereas land dispossession, liveli- The results should therefore be interpreted with caution, particular- hood loss, and environmental degradation are significantly more re- ly regarding the number of Indigenous groups affected and the ported in the AFFL sector. These issues can be addressed by limited number of reported impacts discussed here. Furthermore, strengthening the protection of Indigenous rights over their lands our data do not include information about how reported impacts (53, 54). Furthermore, due diligence of corporations within the are distributed within Indigenous communities and the possible AFFL sector may be enacted if shareholders and consumers differences in opinions among community members regarding demand additional scrutiny, accountability, and action. Last, the desirability of extractive and industrial development projects efforts to advance UNDRIP will require further attention to indus- (51, 52). tries and corporations, causing environmental harm and violating Nevertheless, the findings demonstrate the sheer size of Indige- environmental rights, which now remain insufficiently addressed in nous rights violations associated to industrial ways of life. Interna- the declaration (55). tional instruments like the ILO C169 convention and UNDRIP can Scheidel et al., Sci. Adv. 9, eade9557 (2023) 7 June 2023 4 of 9 S C I E N C E A D VA N C E S | R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E Downloaded from https://www.science.org on June 11, 2023 Fig. 3. Heatmap of reported social-environmental impacts and UNDRIP rights (in parentheses) jeopardized across sectors, causing environmental conflicts with Indigenous Peoples (n = 1044). Confidence intervals (95%) of reported frequencies are shown in bold italics in the figure and in detail in table S5. Additional uncertainty in reported frequencies may result from potential data reporting biases (see Materials and Methods for discussion on data limitations). Impact categories are not mutually exclusive; percentages do not add up to 100% (table S1). Current initiatives aimed at upholding Indigenous rights, and MATERIALS AND METHODS advancing environmental justice may leverage the quantitative evi- Environmental conflict data dence provided in this study. Such initiatives include, for example, Environmental conflicts generally describe a diverse range of con- governmental efforts to develop corporate due diligence policies tentious mobilizations related to environmental issues (56). Here, and trade agreements conditional upon upholding UNDRIP re- we specifically address those types of environmental conflicts that sponsibilities, as well as civil society and Indigenous divestment are documented in the global EJAtlas, an online database that campaigns targeting corporations involved in rights violations. gathers information on conflict cases through a large network of The case data presented here on an aggregate level are openly avail- contributors. In the EJAtlas, an environmental conflict case refers able through the EJAtlas (data S2) and include comprehensive and to the contentious mobilizations of civil society actors in which ex- case-specific data on the specific sectors and entities involved in en- plicit social-environmental claims are made against a specific vironmental conflicts with Indigenous Peoples. These data can be project or economic activity that is pursued by state, corporate, used accordingly to inform due diligence policies, accountability and, sometimes, also illicit actors (e.g., illegal loggers). Only cases initiatives, and divestment campaigns, thereby supporting the that are verifiable through secondary sources previously published transformation of the global economy toward one that respects en- elsewhere are included in the EJAtlas. These sources include schol- vironmental justice and Indigenous Peoples’ rights. arly papers, civil society reports, lawsuits, formal complaints, news Scheidel et al., Sci. Adv. 9, eade9557 (2023) 7 June 2023 5 of 9 S C I E N C E A D VA N C E S | R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E articles, and others. The use of multiple sources enables to cross- obtain at the global level. Thus, the number of groups of Indigenous check and triangulate information, thereby helping to reduce, to Peoples identified here represents a conservative lower boundary of some extent, reporting biases produced by using only a single the minimum of Indigenous Peoples affected by conflictive resource type of source (e.g., media sources and civil society reports) (57). use projects worldwide but does not indicate the actual number of The completeness and quality of all information about conflict affected groups that is unknown. At the country level and for cases are checked by a permanent team of moderators who are co- regions with adequate media coverage, independent academia, authors of this article. Detailed information regarding the origin, and strong civil society, we encourage to contrast our results with conceptual background, methodology, and general characteristics further systematic research, such as systematic screenings (62). of the EJAtlas database can be found in (10), (38), and (58). Second, data gaps on environmental conflicts remain for specific Sample characteristics geographic regions, i.e., Russia and Mongolia, Central Asia, and The sample analyzed in this study includes 3081 environmental the Pacific. This is because of several reasons, including a lack of conflicts, of which 1044 cases involve Indigenous Peoples (see collaborators, or censorship, among other factors (10). Environ- data S1 and S2). This sample only includes extractive and industrial mental conflicts involving Indigenous groups from these areas are development projects that resulted in environmental conflicts, but therefore underrepresented in the sample. Third, information re- not cases of industrial extraction in general. One conflict case in- trieved from secondary data sources, such as formal lawsuits, schol- cludes multiple conflict events and repeated mobilizations over arly papers, or newspaper reports may, in some cases, dismiss the the same project causing the conflict. Each case entry details these involvement of specific Indigenous groups despite their presence, events through coded fields accompanied by qualitative descrip- for example, because of a lack of legal recognition of specific tions. The sample covers conflicts occurring predominantly groups or lack of focus on Indigenous issues, among other during the last decades: 95% of the conflicts began during or after reasons. Thus, the identified percentage of conflicts involving In- the 1970s, while more than 50% of the cases occurred between 2007 digenous Peoples (Fig. 2) represents a conservative and geographi- Downloaded from https://www.science.org on June 11, 2023 and 2020. We chose this large temporal coverage to include the cally biased estimate, while the actual number is possibly higher and widest information available on how often specific social-environ- more ubiquitous. mental impacts are reported across conflicts involving Indigenous Analysis of reported impacts Peoples. Furthermore, the discussed social-environmental impacts The EJAtlas provides information on a range of reported social-en- (e.g., deforestation, land dispossession, and livelihood loss) ramify vironmental impacts, caused by a conflictive project. Information through complex pathways and generate legacies that compromise about these impacts is retrieved from the same secondary sources Indigenous Peoples’ lifeways well beyond the year when the conflict used to create and verify conflict entries, i.e., scholarly papers, began. The consideration of long-lasting impacts is therefore pro- civil society reports, lawsuits, formal complaints, and newspaper ar- foundly relevant to understand the challenges faced by contempo- ticles. The use of such nonacademic knowledge sources (e.g., news- rary Indigenous Peoples. For a detailed documentation of the case paper accounts) has become commonplace in the study of protest selection procedure used here, see Supplementary Text. events (63), and local reports about social-ecological impacts have The analyzed EJAtlas sample is a large convenience sample of become important data sources to complement other scientific documented environmental conflicts over a diverse range of extrac- impact assessments, particularly in the context of limited data avail- tive and industrial projects, whereas the total number of environ- ability (64, 65). Furthermore, reported and perceived impacts are mental conflicts worldwide is unknown. The use of this type of important to consider, because they partake in creating people’s re- sample has become common in environmental conflict research alities and affected communities often act in response to them (10, 26, 27) and is often the only available option to enhance our (17, 66). understanding of global social-environmental phenomena with an The reported impacts assessed in this study include (i) livelihood unknown population and constrained data access (10, 38). For loss, (ii) land dispossession, (iii) displacement, (iv) traditional example, quantitative studies of large-scale land acquisitions and knowledge loss, (v) landscape loss, (vi) militarization, (vii) their social-ecological implications commonly rely on crowd- impacts on women, (viii) deforestation, (ix) biodiversity loss, (x) sourced databases such as the Land Matrix (59–61). Another data- water degradation, and (xi) soil degradation. These impacts were se- base that offers crowdsourced data on environmental conflict events lected on the basis of the criteria of data availability and relevance globally are Global Witness’ annual statistics of killings of environ- for the UNDRIP. Furthermore, given the cross-sectoral and global mental defenders (46), used, for example, in analyses of environ- scope of our analysis, we selected only impacts that apply to a wide mental conflicts involving Indigenous Peoples (26, 27). However, range of projects, while we did not assess more specific impacts this dataset does not provide information on the social-environ- linked to specific project types or sectors (e.g., EJAtlas impact var- mental impacts of the projects provoking the conflicts. The iables “oil spills” or “mine tailings”). All impacts are mutually not EJAtlas database offers the largest global coverage of reported exclusive, i.e., they can occur simultaneously in the same conflict. social-environmental impacts affecting Indigenous Peoples in envi- Table S2 provides definitions of all the impact variables used in ronmental conflicts. It enables us to improve our understanding of this study. the reported frequency of these, at a scale that has not been possible We note that these impacts represent only a selection of impacts so far. to which Indigenous Peoples may be exposed in conflictive extrac- Sample limitations tive and industrial development projects. Furthermore, reported Because of the inherent characteristics of crowdsourced conve- data (e.g., newspaper sources) may be subject to various forms of nience samples, important limitations for data interpretation biases, including selection biases (e.g., impacts considered as apply. First, the data used here are only a sample and not a complete worthy of media coverage), description biases (e.g., accuracy of inventory of environmental conflicts, which is not possible to impact description and framing of the event), and diverging Scheidel et al., Sci. Adv. 9, eade9557 (2023) 7 June 2023 6 of 9 S C I E N C E A D VA N C E S | R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E understanding of their specific causes (63, 67). As a case in point, of the boundaries of Indigenous Peoples’ lands are fiercely disputed, “impacts on women” appear in our dataset less frequently than we present information only as a percentage of land in 100-km2 grid other impacts, which our team has attributed to the fact that cells. We also note that, while data by Garnett et al. (40) report on gender aspects are not considered equally important across all Indigenous Peoples’ lands, the EJAtlas data report on Indigenous regions (68), thus generating a selection bias. Moreover, while we actors involved in environmental conflicts. However, they may report impacts on women as an important aspect of gendered have moved to places where no Indigenous stewardship arrange- impacts, data availability and reporting bias limits the assessment ments are in place. These characteristics and differences of the of other important gendered impacts, such as impacts on people two datasets explain why some conflicts appearing in Fig. 1 are in who self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and areas where no Indigenous Peoples’ lands are identified in (40). In questioning, and two-spirit (LGBTQ2S), among others. More gen- addition, we gathered data on the linguistic status of the languages erally, we note that extractive and industrial development projects spoken by the Indigenous groups in our database, from the may provoke other human rights violations beyond the UNDRIP UNESCO’s Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger (41), and concerns discussed here (69, 70). In addition, our dataset does the Ethnologue (42). See data S3 and Supplementary Text for not include information on intracommunity dynamics vis-à-vis details, as well as limitations about these datasets. conflictive projects, although there is evidence that the burdens and benefits of such projects are frequently unevenly distributed Statistical analysis within communities and that different community members may We used descriptive statistics to quantify and characterize the expo- have different opinions regarding their desirability (51, 52). sure of Indigenous Peoples to reported social-environmental We acknowledge these data limitations and the restricted scope impacts and to assess their frequency of occurrence across extractive of our analysis and note that the absence of data on these and other and industrial sectors. To understand the uncertainty in our obser- issues in our analysis does not imply their absence in environmental vations of reported conflicts involving Indigenous Peoples com- Downloaded from https://www.science.org on June 11, 2023 conflicts over extractive and industrial development projects. While pared to reported conflicts not involving Indigenous Peoples, we potential reporting biases introduce some degree of uncertainty conducted a bootstrap analysis, in which we sampled and summa- over the global frequencies of reported impacts, in addition to the rized, with replacement, 1044 new observations from the original confidence intervals (table S5), we believe that our results are, nev- dataset. This step was repeated for 1000 iterations to approximate ertheless, of high scholarly relevance as they push the boundaries of the distribution of the statistics of conflicts involving Indigenous the knowledge frontier of Indigenous Peoples’ realities vis-à-vis ex- Peoples. The bootstrap results showed a normal distribution, with tractive and industrial development pressures. Our dataset provides a proportion of conflicts involving Indigenous Peoples at 33.8%, a contextually rich yet globally relevant evidence basis to inform with a 95% confidence interval of 32.3 to 35.45%. Confidence inter- current efforts toward achieving zero tolerance of Indigenous vals were then calculated for all assessed impacts (table S5). We used rights violations (46). Pearson’s chi-square tests of independence to examine the associa- Sectoral analysis tions between sectors and impacts affecting Indigenous Peoples We classified environmental conflicts into six mutually exclusive (table S5). Reported P values are two-tailed. The significance level categories according to the main sectors that provoked the conflicts: was set at 5%. (i) AFFL, (ii) dams, (iii) mining, (iv) fossil fuels, (v) industries and other infrastructures, and (vi) other conflicts. To arrive at this clas- Research positionality sification, all environmental conflict cases involving Indigenous We are an epistemically, culturally, and disciplinarily diverse group Peoples were manually screened to identify the main sector of authors, concerned with global environmental injustices. Each of causing the conflict. In cases where several sectors were involved us brought distinct perspectives to this research, on the basis of our in environmental conflicts, the sector highlighted by the case con- personal and professional experiences, including our numerous en- tributor as the main sector, causing the conflict was chosen to clas- gagements with civil society groups, Indigenous Peoples, grassroots sify the case. Table S1 provides definitions and examples of the organizations, and local communities working within the epistemic sectoral categories used in this study. community of environmental justice. This positionality inevitably affects our analysis and interpretation. Four coauthors (A.H.B., Data on Indigenous Peoples’ lands and languages D.M.D.-C., I.G., and K.P.W.) self-identify as Indigenous and The definition of Indigeneity adopted here largely aligns with those bring perspectives from their cultural contexts and communities of the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 1989 (no. to this work (i.e., Oraon, Arawak Taíno, Karai-Karai, and Potawa- 169) article 1 [(14); see Supplementary Text for details]. We used tomi communities, respectively). Although our overall framework is the boundaries of Indigenous lands mapped in (40), who identified heavily influenced by Western epistemic traditions, we strive to Indigenous lands across 87 countries or politically distinct areas. address environmental justice from Indigenous perspectives, as in- This dataset represents the most comprehensive assessment of ter- formed by Indigenous intellectual and scholarly traditions (28–35). restrial lands where Indigenous Peoples have customary ownership, We are aware that Indigenous Peoples are not a homogenous and management, or governance arrangements in place, regardless of generalized group of people but sovereign and unique nations of legal recognition (47, 48). It is based on 127 publicly available peoples and communities with different values and aspirations. sources, including cadastral records, participatory maps, and We understand the collective rights of Indigenous Peoples as a fun- census data. We acknowledge that voids in these maps do not nec- damental human right, and we respect and acknowledge the efforts essarily imply an absence of Indigenous Peoples or their lands but associated with the development and implementation of rather areas for which an Indigenous connection cannot be deter- UNDRIP (15). mined from publicly available geospatial resources. Given that some Scheidel et al., Sci. Adv. 9, eade9557 (2023) 7 June 2023 7 of 9 S C I E N C E A D VA N C E S | R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E Supplementary Materials 23. I. Altamirano-Jiménez, Indigenous women refusing the violence of resource extraction in This PDF file includes: Oaxaca. AlterNative 17, 215–223 (2021). Supplementary Text 24. J. H. Knox, Environmental Human Rights Defenders - A Global Crisis (Universal Rights Tables S1 to S6 Group, 2017). Legends for data S1 to S3 25. J. Martínez-Cobo, Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations (United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 1986). Other Supplementary Material for this 26. N. Butt, F. Lambrick, M. Menton, A. Renwick, The supply chain of violence. Nat. Sustain. 2, manuscript includes the following: 742–747 (2019). Data S1 to S3 27. P. Le Billon, P. Lujala, Environmental and land defenders: Global patterns and determinants of repression. Glob. Environ. Change 65, 102163 (2020). 28. M. K. MacKenzie, S. K. Serrano, K. L. Kaulukukui, Environmental justice for Indigenous Hawaiians: Reclaiming land and resources. Nat. Resour. Environ. 21, 37–42 (2007). REFERENCES AND NOTES 29. D. McGregor, S. Whitaker, M. Sritharan, Indigenous environmental justice and sustain- 1. Umeek (E. Atleo), Principles of Tsawalk. An Indigenous Approach to a Global Crisis (UBC ability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 43, 35–40 (2020). Press, 2011). 30. K. P. Whyte, The Dakota access pipeline, environmental injustice, and U.S. colonialism. Red 2. Forest Peoples Programme, International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, Indigenous Ink 19, 154–169 (2017). Women’s Biodiversity Network, Centres of Distinction on Indigenous and Local Knowledge, 31. K. P. Whyte, Settler colonialism, ecology, and environmental injustice. Environ. Soc. 9, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Local Biodiversity Outlooks 2 (Forest 125–144 (2018). Peoples Programme, 2020). 32. K. P. Whyte, Too late for indigenous climate justice: Ecological and relational tipping 3. ICCA Consortium, Territories of Life Report (ICCA Consortium, 2021). points. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 11, e603 (2020). 4. C. G. Armstrong, C. Brown, Frontiers are frontlines: Ethnobiological science against 33. N. J. Reo, Inawendiwin and relational accountability in Anishnaabeg studies: The crux of ongoing colonialism. J. Ethnobiol. 39, 14–31 (2019). the biscuit. J. Ethnobiol. 39, 65–75 (2019). 5. S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. S. Brodizio, H. T. Ngo, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K. A. Brauman, 34. L. Simpson, E. Manitowabi, Theorizing resurgence from within Nishnaabeg thought, in S. H. M. Butchart, K. M. A. Chan, L. A. Garibaldi, K. Ichii, J. Liu, S. M. Subramanian, Centering Anishinaabeg Studies: Understanding the World through Stories, J. Doerfler, Downloaded from https://www.science.org on June 11, 2023 G. F. Midgley, P. Miloslavich, Z. Molnár, D. Obura, A. Pfaff, S. Polasky, A. Purvis, J. Razzaque, N. J. Sinclair, H. K. Stark, Eds. (Michigan University Press, 2013), pp. 279–294. B. Reyers, R. Roy Chowdhury, Y.-J. Shin, I. Visseren-Hamakers, K. J. Willis, C. N. Zayas, Per- vasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. 35. D. McGregor, J.-P. Restoule, R. Johnston, Indigenous Research: Theories, Practices, and Re- Science 366, eaax3100 (2019). lationships (Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2018). 6. R. Schuster, R. Germain, J. Bennett, N. J. Reo, P. Arcese, Vertebrate biodiversity on indig- 36. M. Walter, Using the ‘power of the data’ within Indigenous research practice. Aust. Ab- enous-managed lands in Australia, Brazil, and Canada equals that in protected areas. original Stud. 2, 27–34 (2005). Environ. Sci. Policy 101, 1–6 (2019). 37. A. Hayward, L. Wodtke, A. Craft, T. Robin Martens, J. Smylie, S. McConkey, A. Nychuk, 7. G. Hill, 500 Years of Indigenous Resistance (PM Press, 2010). C. Healy, L. Star, J. Cidro, Addressing the need for indigenous and decolonized quantitative research methods in Canada. SSM Popul. Health 15, 100899 (2021). 8. L. B. Simpson, As We Have Always Done: Indigenous Freedom Through Radical Resistance (University of Minnesota Press, 2017). 38. L. Temper, F. Demaria, A. Scheidel, D. Del Bene, J. Martínez-Alier, The Global Environmental Justice Atlas (EJAtlas): ecological distribution conflicts as forces for sustainability. Sustain. 9. A. Spice, Fighting invasive infrastructures. Environ. Soc. 9, 40–56 (2018). Sci. 13, 573–584 (2018). 10. A. Scheidel, D. Del Bene, J. Liu, G. Navas, S. Mingorría, F. Demaria, S. Avila, B. Roy, I. Ertör, 39. G. Navas, S. Mingorría, B. Aguilar, Violence in environmental conflicts: The need for a L. Temper, J. Martínez-Alier, Environmental conflicts and defenders: A global overview. multidimensional approach. Sustain. Sci. 13, 649–660 (2018). Glob. Environ. Change 63, 102104 (2020). 40. S. T. Garnett, N. D. Burgess, J. E. Fa, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, Z. Molnár, C. J. Robinson, 11. J. R. Owen, D. Kemp, J. Harris, A. M. Lechner, É. Lèbre, Fast track to failure? Energy transition J. E. M. Watson, K. K. Zander, B. Austin, E. S. Brondizio, N. F. Collier, T. Duncan, E. Ellis, minerals and the future of consultation and consent. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 89, H. Geyle, M. V. Jackson, H. Jonas, P. Malmer, B. McGowan, A. Sivongxay, I. Leiper, A spatial 102665 (2022). overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nat. Sustain. 1, 12. N. Estes, Standing With Standing Rock: Voices From the #NoDAPL Movement (University of 369–374 (2018). Minnesota Press, 2019) 41. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Atlas of the 13. R. Kuokkanen, At the intersection of Arctic indigenous governance and extractive indus- World’s Languages in Danger (United Nations, 2021). tries: A survey of three cases. Extr. Ind. Soc. 6, 15–21 (2019). 42. D. M. Eberhard, G. F. Simons, C. D. Fennig, Ethnologue: Languages of the World (SIL Inter- 14. International Labour Organization (ILO), “Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention” (No. national, 2021). 169, 1989). 43. International Labour Organization (ILO), Implementing the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples 15. United Nations, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Convention No. 169: Towards an Inclusive, Sustainable and Just Future (International Labour Nations General Assembly, 2007). Organization, 2019). 16. J. Dell’Angelo, G. Navas, M. Witteman, G. D’Alisa, A. Scheidel, L. Temper, Commons 44. J. Ferguson, M. Weaselboy, Indigenous sustainable relations: Considering land in language grabbing and agribusiness: Violence, resistance and social mobilization. Ecol. Econ. 184, and language in land. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 43, 1–7 (2020). 107004 (2021). 45. K. L. Rehg, L. Campbell, The Oxford Handbook of Endangered Languages (Oxford Univ. 17. Á. Fernández-Llamazares, M. Garteizgogeascoa, N. Basu, E. S. Brondizio, M. Cabeza, Press, 2018). J. Martínez-Alier, P. McElwee, V. Reyes-García, A state-of-the-art review of indigenous 46. Global Witness, Last Line of Defence: The Industries Causing the Climate Crisis and Attacks peoples and environmental pollution. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 16, 324–341 (2020). Against Land and Environmental Defenders (Global Witness, 2021). 18. M. Liboiron, Pollution Is Colonialism (Duke University Press, 2021) 47. J. E. Fa, J. E. M. Watson, I. Leiper, P. Potapov, T. D. Evans, N. D. Burgess, Z. Molnár, 19. Á. Fernández-Llamazares, D. Lepofsky, K. Lertzman, C. G. Armstrong, E. S. Brondizio, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, T. Duncan, S. Wang, B. J. Austin, H. Jonas, C. J. Robinson, M. C. Gavin, P. O.’. B. Lyver, G. P. Nicholas, P. Pascua, N. J. Reo, V. Reyes-García, N. J. Turner, P. Malmer, K. K. Zander, M. V. Jackson, E. Ellis, E. S. Brondizio, S. T. Garnett, Importance of J. Yletyinen, E. N. Anderson, W. Balée, J. Cariño, D. M. David-Chavez, C. P. Dunn, S. T. Garnett, Indigenous Peoples’ lands for the conservation of Intact Forest Landscapes. Front. Ecol. S. Greening, S. Jackson, H. Kuhnlein, Z. Molnár, G. Odonne, G.-B. Retter, W. J. Ripple, Environ. 18, 135–140 (2020). L. Sáfián, A. S. Bahraman, M. Torrents-Ticó, M. B. Vaughan, Scientists’ warning to humanity 48. A. Estrada, P. A. Garber, S. Gouveia, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, F. Ascensão, A. Fuentes, on threats to indigenous and local knowledge systems. J. Ethnobiol. 41, 144–169 (2021). S. T. Garnett, C. Shaffer, J. Bicca-Marques, J. E. Fa, K. Hockings, S. Shanee, S. Johnson, 20. K. Deonandan, R. Tatham, B. Field, Indigenous women’s anti-mining activism: A gendered G. H. Shepard, N. Shanee, C. D. Golden, A. Cárdenas-Navarrete, D. R. Levey, R. Boonratana, analysis of the El Estor struggle in Guatemala. Gend. Dev. 25, 405–419 (2017). R. Dobrovolski, A. Chaudhary, J. Ratsimbazafy, J. Supriatna, I. Kone, S. Volampeno, Global 21. D. L. Tran, J. Martínez-Alier, G. Navas, S. Mingorría, Gendered geographies of violence: A importance of Indigenous Peoples, their lands, and knowledge systems for saving the multiple case study analysis of murdered women environmental defenders. J. Political Ecol. world’s primates from extinction. Sci. Adv. 8, eabn2927 (2022). 27, 1189–1212 (2020). 49. R. Muradian, M. Walter, J. Martínez-Alier, Hegemonic transitions and global shifts in social 22. R. Kuokkanen, Restructuring Relations. Indigenous Self-Determination, Governance and metabolism: Implications for resource-rich countries. Introduction to the special section. Gender (Oxford Univ. Press, 2019) Glob. Environ. Change 22, 559–567 (2012). Scheidel et al., Sci. Adv. 9, eade9557 (2023) 7 June 2023 8 of 9 S C I E N C E A D VA N C E S | R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E 50. J. Farrell, P. Burow, K. McConnell, J. Bayham, K. P. Whyte, G. Koss, Effects of land dispos- 66. A. A. Granderson, Making sense of climate change risks and responses at the community session and forced migration on Indigenous peoples in North America. Science 374, level: A cultural-political lens. Clim. Risk Manag. 3, 55–64 (2014). eabe4943 (2021). 67. L. Q. Sneyd, A. Legwegoh, E. D. G. Fraser, Food Riots: Media perspectives on the causes of 51. I. Kelman, J. S. Loe, E. W. Rowe, E. Wilson, N. Poussenkova, E. Nikitina, D. B. Fjærtoft, Local food protest in Africa. Food Secur. 5, 485–497 (2013). perceptions of corporate social responsibility for arctic petroleum in the Barents region. 68. D. Tran, Realities beyond reporting: Women environmental defenders in South Africa. Fem. Arct. Rev. Law Politics 7, 152–178 (2016). Media Stud., 10.1080/14680777.2022.2045335 (2022). 52. V. Reyes-García, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, J. Bauchet, R. Godoy, Variety of indigenous 69. J. Burger, Indigenous Peoples, Extractive Industries and Human Rights (European peoples’ opinions of large infrastructure projects: The TIPNIS road in the Bolivian Amazon. Union, 2014). World Dev. 127, 104751 (2020). 70. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), Indigenous Peoples, Afro-Descen- 53. A. Moreton-Robinson, Sovereign Subjects Indigenous Sovereignty Matters (Allen & dent Communities, and Natural Resources: Human Rights Protection in the Context of Ex- Unwin, 2007) traction, Exploitation, and Development Activities (Organization of American States, 2015). 54. I. Watson, Indigenous Peoples as Subjects of International Law (Routledge, 2014). 55. A. Giunta, Looking back to move forward: The status of environmental rights under the UN Acknowledgments: We dedicate this work to all the Indigenous communities defending their Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Int. J. Hum. Rights 23, 149–173 (2019). territories from adverse development pressures. We thank all case contributors to the EJAtlas 56. P. Le Billon, Environmental conflict, in The Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology (Rout- who have made this research possible. We thank S. T. Garnett and colleagues for compiling and ledge, 2015), pp. 598–608. sharing data on Indigenous Peoples’ lands, L. Vadez-Reyes for help in data gathering, S. Álvarez 57. R. Sundberg, E. Melander, Introducing the UCDP georeferenced event dataset. J. Peace Res. Fernández for statistical support, and S. Díaz for constructive feedback on an earlier version of 50, 523–532 (2013). this manuscript. Funding: This work was supported by Balzan Prize Foundation (2020 Balzan 58. L. Temper, D. Del Bene, J. Martinez-Alier, Mapping the frontiers and front lines of global Prize for Environmental Challenges, to J.M.-A.); Ramón y Cajal research grant, Spanish Ministry environmental justice: The EJAtlas. J. Polit. Ecol. 22, 255–278 (2015). of Science (RYC2020-029088-I, to A.S.) and Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (RYC2021-034198-I, to Á.F.-L.); Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS; to Á.F.-L.); 59. C. Liao, K. Nolte, J. A. Sullivan, D. G. Brown, J. Lay, C. Althoff, A. Agrawal, Carbon emissions ERC Consolidator Grant (FP7-771056-LICCI, to V.R.-G.); La Caixa Foundation fellowship (ID 537 from the global land rush and potential mitigation. Nat. Food 2, 15–18 (2021). 100010434, code LCF/BQ/DI19/11730049, to D.T.; ID 100010434, code LCF/BQ/DI19/11730058, 60. M. F. Müller, G. Penny, M. T. Niles, V. Ricciardi, D. D. Chiarelli, K. F. Davis, J. Dell’Angelo, to M.A.T.; code LCF/BQ/DI20/11780015, to E.F.); Fundamental Research Funds for the Central P. D’Odorico, L. Rosa, M. C. Rulli, N. D. Mueller, Impact of transnational land acquisitions on Universities (CAU-2022TC061, to J.L.); María de Maeztu Programme for Units of Excellence of the Downloaded from https://www.science.org on June 11, 2023 local food security and dietary diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (CEX2019-000940-M, to A.S., Á.F.-L., B.R., D.D.B., D.T., e2020535118 (2021). E.F., J.L., J.M.-A., K.H., M.A.T., M.W., and V.R.-G.). Author contributions: Conceptualization: Á.F.-L., 61. L. Rosa, M. C. Rulli, S. Ali, D. D. Chiarelli, J. Dell’Angelo, N. D. Mueller, A. Scheidel, G. Siciliano, A.S., D.M.D.-C., K.P.W., I.G., A.H.B., L.T., and D.D.B. Methodology: D.D.B., L.T., J.M.-A., A.S., Á.F.-L., P. D’Odorico, Energy implications of the 21st century agrarian transition. Nat. Commun. 12, D.M.D.-C., K.P.W., I.G., A.H.B., and V.R.-G. Investigation: A.S., Á.F.L., M.A.T., D.D.B., E.F., K.H., J.L., 2319 (2021). J.M.-A., G.N., V.R.-G., B.R., L.T., D.T., M.W., A.H.B., D.M.D.-C., I.G., and K.P.W. Visualization: A.S., Á.F.- 62. C. Raleigh, A. Linke, H. Hegre, J. Karlsen, Introducing ACLED: An armed conflict location and L., V.R.-G., and D.M.D.-C. Funding acquisition: J.M.-A., L.T., A.S., and Á.F.-L. Project administration: event dataset. J. Peace Res. 47, 651–660 (2010). D.D.B., J.M.-A., L.T., M.W., A.S., and G.N. Supervision: Á.F.-L. and A.S. Writing—original draft: all 63. J. Earl, A. Martin, J. D. McCarthy, S. A. Soule, The use of newspaper data in the study of authors. Writing—review and editing: A.S. and Á.F.-L. Competing interests: The authors collective action. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 30, 65–80 (2004). declare that they have no competing interests. Data and materials availability: All data 64. V. Reyes-García, D. García-del-Amo, P. Benyei, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, K. Gravani, needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper and/or the A. B. Junqueira, V. Labeyrie, X. Li, D. M. S. Matias, A. McAlvay, P. G. Mortyn, A. Porcuna-Ferrer, Supplementary Materials. The data are also available in the Global Atlas of Environmental A. Schlingmann, R. Soleymani-Fard, A collaborative approach to bring insights from local Justice (www.ejatlas.org). observations of climate change impacts into global climate change research. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 39, 1–8 (2019). Submitted 19 September 2022 65. G. D. Blanco, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, G. D. Blanco, J. Baker, M. S. M. Tagliari, Accepted 2 May 2023 M. Albuquerque Hayata, M. L. Campos, N. Hanazaki, The impacts of mining on the food Published 7 June 2023 sovereignty and security of Indigenous Peoples and local communities: A global review. 10.1126/sciadv.ade9557 Sci. Total Environ. 855, 158803 (2023). Scheidel et al., Sci. Adv. 9, eade9557 (2023) 7 June 2023 9 of 9 Global impacts of extractive and industrial development projects on Indigenous Peoples’ lifeways, lands, and rights Arnim Scheidel, lvaro Fernndez-Llamazares, Anju Helen Bara, Daniela Del Bene, Dominique M. David-Chavez, Eleonora Fanari, Ibrahim Garba, Ksenija Hanaek, Juan Liu, Joan Martnez-Alier, Grettel Navas, Victoria Reyes-Garca, Brototi Roy, Leah Temper, May Aye Thiri, Dalena Tran, Mariana Walter, and Kyle Powys Whyte Sci. Adv., 9 (23), eade9557. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.ade9557 Downloaded from https://www.science.org on June 11, 2023 View the article online https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ade9557 Permissions https://www.science.org/help/reprints-and-permissions Use of this article is subject to the Terms of service Science Advances (ISSN ) is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. The title Science Advances is a registered trademark of AAAS. Copyright © 2023 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License 4.0 (CC BY-NC).