Biological Conservation 286 (2023) 110288 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Even after armed conflict, the environmental quality of Indigenous Peoples' lands in biodiversity hotspots surpasses that of non-Indigenous lands Madeline Beattie a, Julia E. Fa b, c, Ian Leiper d, Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares e, f, Kerstin K. Zander g, Stephen T. Garnett d, * a Conservation International, Arlington, VA 22202, United States b Department of Natural Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK c Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia d Research Institute for the Environment and Sustainable Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Northern Territory 0909, Australia e Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS), Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland f Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA-UAB) and Department of Animal Biology, Plant Biology and Ecology (BABVE), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain g Northern Institute, Charles Darwin University, Northern Territory 0909, Australia A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Keywords: Indigenous Peoples lands cover over a fifth of the world's land surface and support high levels of biodiversity. Armed conflict However, for centuries Indigenous Peoples have suffered from deprivation, often dispossession, and even cultural Biodiversity hotspots genocide, a process continuing today in some regions. Biodiversity hotspots, global areas of high endemicity that Conservation are heavily threatened by habitat loss and other human activities are also affected by conflict. Although covering Indigenous peoples Environmental peacebuilding only 2.4 % of the world's surface, over 80 % of armed conflicts occurred in biodiversity hotspots between 1950 and 2000. Given that many hotspots overlap with Indigenous Peoples' lands, we asked whether the co-occurrence of Indigenous Peoples' lands and high ecological integrity, measured by using Intact Forest Landscapes as units which still contain significant biological diversity, and the Human Footprint as a proxy for anthropogenic im­ pacts, increased the persistence of biodiversity in hotspots where there has been armed conflict. Our results show that, within biodiversity hotspots, armed conflict was more likely to occur on Indigenous Peoples' lands than non- Indigenous lands, yet environmental damage and anthropogenic impacts were both lower. We suggest that Indigenous Peoples have been able to moderate ecosystem degradation processes before, during, and after armed conflict because of their strong ties to their lands and their determination to defend their rights and territories. We argue that recognition and support for the efforts of Indigenous Peoples to protect their lands is not only socially just but also essential for meeting the now pressing global post-2020 conservation targets. 1. Introduction themselves (Hanson et al., 2009). This has often been in addition to environmental impacts resulting from independence struggles and Biodiversity hotspots, areas in which at least 1500 species of vascular agricultural expansion to accommodate expanding populations (Rudel, plant are endemic and which have lost at least 70 % of their primary 2009). vegetation, cover 2.4 % of Earth's land surface (Myers et al., 2000). The Between 1950 and 2000, over two-thirds of biodiversity hotspots 36 identified hotspots occur across six continents and host nearly 43 % experienced substantial discord, with many enduring recurrent in­ of the world's bird, mammal, reptile and amphibian species as endemics stances of armed conflict, sometimes spanning multiple decades (Han­ in addition to their botanical importance (Hoffman et al., 2020). How­ son et al., 2009). In these armed conflicts, not only were combatants and ever, over 90 % of major armed conflicts (for definition see Upsala civilians subjected to attacks and casualties, but the political and social University, 2022) between 1950 and 2000 occurred in countries con­ disruptions caused by the violence also adversely affected the relation­ taining hotspots, with over 80 % of these conflicts affecting the hotspots ship between local communities and their natural environment, often * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: mbeattie@conservation.org (M. Beattie), JFa@mmu.ac.uk (J.E. Fa), alvaro.fernandezllamazares@uab.cat (Á. Fernández-Llamazares), kerstin. zander@cdu.edu.au (K.K. Zander), stephen.garnett@cdu.edu.au (S.T. Garnett). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110288 Received 6 February 2023; Received in revised form 31 August 2023; Accepted 4 September 2023 Available online 20 September 2023 0006-3207/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). M. Beattie et al. Biological Conservation 286 (2023) 110288 leading to degradation of the latter (Austin and Bruch, 2000; Sham­ lands play in the conservation of biodiversity, explore reasons for the baugh et al., 2001). Additional indirect impacts on biodiversity can patterns observed and the potential to facilitate and support such result from the displacement of people away from conflict areas causing contributions. increased deforestation, resource extraction, and changes in settlement patterns (Draulans and Van Krunkelsven, 2002; Hanson, 2018; Douglas 2. Methods and Alie, 2014; Gaynor et al., 2016; Bongaarts, 2019; Mendiratta et al., 2021). We combined the following five spatial layers in this analysis as During the active phase of armed conflicts, biodiversity conservation reflective of the matters we investigated: activities can sometimes persist through continued active engagement by local conservation practitioners, sometimes with ongoing support 1. Biodiversity Hotpots: We obtained the global map of Biodiversity from international non-governmental organizations (Hanson et al., hotspots (Hoffman et al., 2020) then separated terrestrial ‘hotspot 2009; Dudley et al., 2002; Daskin and Pringle, 2018). In cases of severe area’ and marine ‘outer limit’ polygons by the ‘name’ attribute. The armed conflict, however, ongoing conservation action may no longer be resulting layer was then intersected with geospatial data for the feasible, exacerbating adverse effects on habitats and species (Gaynor world's administrative areas (Global Administrative Areas, 2015). et al., 2016; Conteh et al., 2017; Daskin and Pringle, 2018). In some 2. Indigenous Peoples' lands: We used a published map of Indigenous places, environmental damage increases after active fighting has ceased Peoples' lands (Garnett et al., 2018) which had already been inter­ because deforestation and resource extraction are less likely to be dis­ sected with the world's administrative areas. The measures of rupted (McNeely, 2003; Grima and Singh, 2019). Drivers of conflict Indigenous Peoples' lands used here should be considered conser­ often act in concert, amplifying or offsetting its effects on biodiversity vative as many such areas have not been mapped. As a result, areas (Dudley et al., 2002). While armed conflict may temporarily deter not marked as Indigenous Peoples' lands (referred to as ‘other lands’) environmentally destructive activities (e.g., Prem et al., 2020), its do not necessarily indicate an absence of Indigenous Peoples but are overall impact on biodiversity, in both the short and long term, is almost areas where the presence of Indigenous Peoples could not be inferred always negative (Gaynor et al., 2016). from the available data (Garnett et al., 2018). Land management institutions, led by Indigenous Peoples across 3. Conflict Zones: We adopt the definition of armed conflict provided by various regions globally, have demonstrated remarkable persistence and the Upsala Conflict Data Program (Upsala University, 2022): “a resilience, even amid challenging social, economic, and political con­ contested incompatibility that concerns government and/or territory ditions (Ford et al., 2020; Brondízio et al., 2021). Despite facing colonial where the use of armed force between two parties, of which at least domination, state-sanctioned violence, and the rapid expansion of one is the government of a state, results in at least 25 battle-related extractive activities, Indigenous Peoples are connected to approximately deaths”. Conflict zones were determined by combining armed con­ 22 % (38 million km2) of the world's terrestrial land area, spread across flict sites data for 265 conflicts across southern Asia, South America, 87 countries or politically distinct regions (Garnett et al., 2018). Within Africa, southern Europe and the Middle East (1946–1988; Buhaug these lands, Indigenous Peoples often serve as stewards of global and Gates, 2002; 1989–2008; Hallberg, 2012). We created a conflict biodiversity (Brondizio and Tourneau, 2016; Walker et al., 2020), as zone spatial layer by buffering each armed conflict site center point shown by the disproportionate presence of Intact Forest Landscapes (Fa by its ‘Radius’. We constrained each conflict zone to within the et al., 2020; Sze et al., 2022), terrestrial mammals (O'Bryan et al., 2021), extent of the boundaries of the administrative areas (Global and primates (Estrada et al., 2022). The proactive stewardship of their Administrative Areas, 2015) as reported in the ‘Conflict Territory’ lands and waters, coupled with their determination to preserve cultural attribute. The extended period was chosen to capture as many of the and spiritual ties, has often prevented intensive development in Indig­ long term impacts on land use as possible, while recognising that enous Peoples' territories (Balzer, 1999; Sanderson et al., 2002; Gorenflo substantial variability in the data will occur because the effects of et al., 2012). However, conflicts, including armed confrontations, long lasting or older wars are likely to differ from those of short or impose additional pressure on any people living in a region, including recent conflict. While we considered the conflict zone a good rep­ Indigenous communities. Despite the resilience of Indigenous Peoples, resentation of the core area and extent of armed conflicts, we are these armed conflicts can present significant challenges and threats to aware that in our definition and maps of armed conflict (Buhaug and the continuity of their sustainable land management practices and Gates, 2002; Hallberg, 2012; Upsala University, 2022), the perse­ biodiversity stewardship. cution, marginalization, displacement and/or dispossession of The social-ecological factors associated with armed conflicts, such as Indigenous Peoples is not included. Persecution of Indigenous Peo­ poverty, challenging terrain, population size, and governance issues are ples has occurred intermittently both inside and outside hotspots for complex (Fearon and Laitin, 2003). Thus, the impacts of armed conflict centuries (Mamo, 2020; Le Billon and Lujala, 2020). may be affected by the type and duration of the violent engagement, existing governance structures, or whether conflict is active or recently We intersected the spatial data for the armed conflict zones, hotspots, ended (Gaynor et al., 2016; Hanson, 2018; Conteh et al., 2017). Due to and Indigenous Peoples' lands to create a flat spatial layer with four land these complexities, it is challenging to establish causality for any cor­ types: (1) hotspot only; (2) hotspot and conflict zone; (3) hotspot and relation found between Indigenous Peoples' stewardship and the Indigenous Peoples' lands; and (4) hotspot, conflict zone and Indigenous ecological health of their lands within biodiversity hotspots that have Peoples' lands. conflict. Nonetheless, uncovering evidence that Indigenous Peoples' We chose two measures of environmental quality as being likely to lands retain significant biodiversity integrity in conflict-affected areas capture many of the mappable environmental impacts of war, would further support the argument for strengthening their rights and acknowledging that some features, such as of large wildlife that can providing enhanced support for conflict resolution in such regions, suffer from increased hunting during conflict (Gaynor et al., 2016), are considering their global conservation significance. currently unmappable. In this study, we assessed whether biodiversity is more likely to persist on Indigenous Peoples' lands within biodiversity hotspots 1. Intact Forest Landscapes (IFL): IFL are geographical regions defined as compared to areas that are not designated as such, even in the presence containing “ecosystems minimally influenced by human economic of armed conflict. By overlaying spatial data on Indigenous Peoples' activity with an area of at least 500 km2 and at least 10 km wide” lands, biodiversity hotspots, conflict and measures of environmental (Potapov et al., 2017). We used data current in 2016 (IFL, 2020), quality, we have been able to identify patterns across multiple hotspots eight years after the last conflict data, as we considered that this that reinforce the evidence of the critical roles that Indigenous Peoples' allowed enough time for forest loss to become apparent since the 2 M. Beattie et al. Biological Conservation 286 (2023) 110288 most recent conflict considered. Areas affected by low-intensity and historic human influence, such as hunting, scattered small-scale shifting cultivation, horticulture, and preindustrial selective log­ ging may be included in IFL (Watson et al., 2016). In fact, some of the best-conserved and most intact forest landscapes in the world have been actively shaped and managed by Indigenous Peoples over millennia (Gorenflo et al., 2012; Garnett et al., 2018). 2. Human Footprint (HFP): HFP is an index of environmental condition of an area that combines data on major roadways, navigable wa­ terways, railways, crop lands, pasture lands, the built environment, light pollution, and human population density. Values range from 0 to 50, where 0 indicates that none of the human pressures specified were detected (Sanderson et al., 2002). For HFP we used data current in 2009 (Venter et al., 2016) as this is the most recent available. We also used the HFP layer to identify ‘natural land’ defined as land with an HFP of three or less, land with the lowest level of human modi­ fication using the seven metrics and thus likely to support the biodiversity most likely to be impacted by such disturbance (Watson et al., 2016). We converted the spatial layer of the four land types that combined hotspots, conflict zones and Indigenous Peoples' lands from vector to raster format, with a cell size of 1 km by 1 km to align with the HFP and IFL datasets that were also converted to the same cell size and align­ ment. We then intersected the layer of the four land types with the two spatial data sets that described the environmental conditions of the land (IFL and HFP). For each land type we calculated three variables: (i) Fig. 1. Intersections among biodiversity hotspot areas, Indigenous Peoples' mean HFP; (ii) areal extent of ‘natural’ lands (HFP ≤3) and (iii) the areal lands and the conflict zone. Circles and intersections are proportional to area, extent of IFL. All geospatial analyses were conducted in the Mollweide with the largest circle scaled to the total area of biodiversity hotspot areas (25 projection using ArcGIS Pro v2.3.0. million km2). 3. Results regardless of whether armed conflict occurred during the studied time period (Fig. 4). Of the 36 biodiversity hotspots, 31 included documented Indigenous Peoples' lands (86 %) encompassing 5.6 million km2 (22 %) of the total 4. Discussion combined hotspot area of 25.0 million km2 (Table S1). About 4.4 million km2 of the Indigenous Peoples' lands within hotspots had experienced Our study reveals a significant correlation between the presence of armed conflict (79 %; Fig. 1), much higher than on hotspot areas on armed conflict and better proxy scores for environmental health within other lands (51 %). biodiversity hotspots on Indigenous Peoples' lands compared to other The three proxies used to assess environmental condition were all lands. Previous research has acknowledged the prevalence of armed more favourable for Indigenous Peoples' lands than on other lands, conflict in both biodiversity hotspots (Hanson et al., 2009) and Indige­ regardless of conflict. nous Peoples' territories (IWGIA, 2022). However, in our analyses we IFL covered <0.8 million km2 (3 %) of hotspots. Over half (51 %) of demonstrate that, despite the occurrence of armed conflict within hot­ the area of these IFL was within Indigenous Peoples' lands regardless of spots, the negative environmental impacts on Indigenous Peoples' lands whether there had been conflict. IFL covered 7 % of the Indigenous are likely to be less than in other lands. We attribute this finding to two Peoples' lands affected by conflict but 2 % of the other conflict-affected main factors. lands. For areas without conflict, equivalent percentages were 8 % and 2 The first is that the lands remaining with Indigenous Peoples' are % respectively. Of the 23 hotspots with both Indigenous Peoples' lands often those that settlers considered to be of low commercial worth and other lands that also supported IFL, the area of IFL relative to the during colonisation because they are too steep, remote, or infertile, at area of land type within each hotspot was disproportionately higher on least compared to other lands (Leonard et al., 2020). However, given Indigenous Peoples' than on other lands, regardless of whether armed that a greater proportion of the Indigenous Peoples' land within hotspots conflict occurred during the studied time period (Fig. 2). was affected by conflict than was that in other lands, these same features Average HFP for hotspots on Indigenous Peoples' lands affected by may now lend themselves to guerilla warfare against the State. Many of conflict was 7.3 compared to 10.3 for other conflict-affected lands. For the wars of independence and subsequent insurgencies have been within areas without conflict, equivalent scores were 5.0 and 9.0, respectively rainforest (Rudel, 2009) and Indigenous Peoples' lands have been used (Table S2). For 80 % of hotspots within Indigenous Peoples' lands, mean by combatants as hideouts e.g., guerillas in Colombia (Baptiste et al., HFP was lower on Indigenous Peoples' lands than for the full hotspot 2017; Reardon, 2018). Also, under certain circumstances, Indigenous area overall, regardless of whether the area had been affected by conflict peoples themselves are sometimes active combatants against a state (Fig. 3). whose authority they do not recognize. For example, the Karen and Chin Natural lands made up 25 % of hotspot areas on Indigenous Peoples' peoples in Myanmar, who live in the Indo-Burma hotspot- which has the lands affected by conflict compared to 10 % for other conflict-affected largest area of Indigenous Peoples' lands with conflict, have reportedly lands. For areas without conflict, equivalent scores were 47 % and 23 been fighting state forces since Myanmar became independent of the %, respectively (Table S2; Fig. 2b). For hotspots containing both British (Dunford, 2019). Indigenous Peoples' and other lands and HFP data (n = 30), the area of Secondly, the presence of Indigenous Peoples or their active resis­ natural lands relative to the area of land type within each hotspot was tance may have contributed to the preservation and regeneration of disproportionately higher on Indigenous Peoples' than on other lands, 3 M. Beattie et al. Biological Conservation 286 (2023) 110288 Fig. 2. Within biodiversity hotspots, the percentage of each land type and the percentage of Intact Forest Landscapes (IFL) extent that each land type accounts for. The dashed line represents a 1:1 ratio between the percent of hotspot area and percent of IFL; all points to the left of the dashed line indicate land types within a hotspot area that have a higher percentage of IFL extent relative to their area. Data is shown for the 23 biodiversity hotspot areas with IFL and both Indigenous Peoples' lands and non-Indigenous lands. Fig. 3. Comparisons of the mean Human Footprint scores for each hotspot regardless of area with the mean HFP scores for each combination of Indigenous Peoples lands and other land and of land with and without conflict. One hotspot with a Human Footprint score more than double any other is indicated with a arrow. their lands, preventing environmental degradation even though there environment but their actions have nevertheless led to positive out­ are armed hostilities (Zanotti, 2016; Orta-Martínez et al., 2018). In some comes for the environment (Armstrong and Brown, 2019; Scheidel et al., cases, the conflicts in hotspots between Indigenous Peoples actively 2020). resisting either the State or people given legal authority by the State (e.g. Many Indigenous communities defend their territories and liveli­ mining and logging companies) has been explicitly to retain control of hoods against environmental degradation through non-violent grass­ forest resources (Armstrong and Brown, 2019). In such cases, the mo­ roots mobilization (Bruch et al., 2019; Fernández-Llamazares et al., tivations of the Indigenous Peoples may not be explicitly to protect the 2020; Global Witness, 2021). The commitment to the environment 4 M. Beattie et al. Biological Conservation 286 (2023) 110288 Fig. 4. Comparison between the percentage of each land type within a hotspot area and the percentage of natural land extent that each land type accounts for within a hotspot area. The dashed line represents a 1:1 ratio between the percent of hotspot area and percent of natural land extent; all points to the left of the dashed line indicate land types within a hotspot area that have a higher percentage of natural land extent relative to their area. Data is shown for the 30 biodiversity hotspot areas with HFP data and both Indigenous Peoples' lands and non-Indigenous lands. indicated by such activism is increasingly acknowledged in both scien­ we can work towards fulfilling the Convention on Biological Diversity's tific and policy circles (Le Billon and Lujala, 2020; Scheidel et al., 2020, vision of “Living in harmony with nature” by the year 2050. 2023). However, rarely is Indigenous environmental activism rewarded by the State (Bruch et al., 2019; Global Witness, 2021) and there are 5. Conclusion even examples of conservation organizations siding with the State to appropriate lands from Indigenous Peoples in conflict zones (e.g. Our research shows a correlation between various measures of southern Myanmar; Woods and Naimark, 2020). In some such cases, the environmental quality and Indigenous Peoples lands, even in areas with intervention by conservation advocates has been counter-productive, armed conflict. The consistency of our results with other, broader resulting not only in the disempowerment of Indigenous Peoples but studies showing a strong positive relationship between different in­ also pitting them against conservation, to the detriment of the envi­ dicators of environmental quality and Indigenous Peoples' lands sug­ ronment (e.g. Batwa in eastern Congo; Simpson and Geenen, 2021). gests that the place-based linkage to Indigenous Peoples is likely to be Usually, however, fair and inclusive conservation can reduce the risk genuine. However, our evidence is correlative, and we cannot ascribe of conflict while also providing tangible benefits to both ecosystems and cause to the patterns we have observed. Also, the effects of some of the human communities (Conca and Dabelko, 2002; Bruch et al., 2016; older conflicts will have been diluted by subsequent events, and will Ajroud et al., 2017). Better integration of rights-based approaches, Free, certainly have had varying impact within the areas we have considered Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), and inclusive decision-making must affected by conflict depending on both the biophysical and social envi­ be considered non-negotiable components of any socially-just conser­ ronment. We therefore strongly recommend that the broad scale vation efforts aspiring to support Indigenous Peoples in their aspirations correlative results we have uncovered should be followed up by more for ongoing stewardship of their lands (IPBES, 2019; E/C.19/2019/7; detailed research and analysis at local, national and regional scales. The Tauli-Corpuz et al., 2018; although see Mitchell and Wagner, 2023 on diversity of rights, tenures and experiences of Indigeneity, with their the limits of FPIC). respective histories of domination by, and resistance to, settler colonial Understanding how Indigenous Peoples' lands have maintained high powers, in addition to the variations in the types and timing of armed ecological integrity despite armed conflicts is a crucial initial step to­ conflict that has so often affected both Indigenous Peoples and biodi­ wards effective conservation in the biodiversity hotspots under consid­ versity hotspots, makes more detailed analysis with existing data eration. Based on existing knowledge, a key aspect of this process inherently risky. Such research will need to tease out the factors oper­ involves encouraging governments to acknowledge and respect Indige­ ating at a local level in the environment and among the societal groups nous Peoples' enduring connections to their traditional lands by affected by the conflict to determine to what extent the patterns we have ensuring secure land tenure and associated rights. Our research findings observed can be attributed directly to the role Indigenous Peoples play align with those of other studies (Brondizio and Tourneau, 2016; Fa in environmental management and stewardship. et al., 2020; Walker et al., 2020; O'Bryan et al., 2021; Estrada et al., The findings of this paper suggest that Indigenous Peoples could be 2022; Sze et al., 2022), which emphasize the integral connection be­ sometimes providing the last line of defence for some of the world's tween supporting Indigenous Peoples' rights and advancing socially-just biodiversity hotspots. A corollary to this is that our moral imperative to biodiversity conservation (see also Kennedy et al., 2023). By doing so, support Indigenous Peoples in these areas (as enshrined in the United 5 M. Beattie et al. Biological Conservation 286 (2023) 110288 Nation's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) is likely to indigenous and local knowledge, values, and practices for nature. Annu. Rev. Env. Resour. 46, 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-012127. result in positive conservation outcomes. In some places, this may Bruch, C., Muffett, C., Nichols, S.S. (Eds.), 2016. Governance, Natural Resources and involve strengthening Indigenous Peoples' rights to land but in others Post-conflict Peacebuilding. Routledge, London, UK. the support may involve strengthening the local economy and reducing Bruch, C., Jensen, D., Nakayama, M., Unruh, J., 2019. The changing nature of conflict, poverty for multiple stakeholders to reduce the probability of conflicting peacebuilding, and environmental cooperation. Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 49 (2), 10134. recurring – there can be no prescriptive policy response without Buhaug, H., Gates, S., 2002. The geography of civil war. J. Peace Res. 39 (4), 417–433. assessment of local conditions and needs. Nonetheless, at a broader https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343302039004003. policy level, our research strengthens further the need for Indigenous Conca, K., Dabelko, G.D., 2002. Environmental Peacemaking. Woodrow Wilson Center Press, Washington, DC, USA. Peoples to be full partners in global biodiversity conservation initiatives. Conteh, A., Gavin, M.C., McCarter, J., 2017. Assessing the impacts of war on perceived conservation capacity and threats to biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 26 (4), Positionality statement 983–996. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1283-7. Daskin, J.H., Pringle, R.M., 2018. Warfare and wildlife declines in Africa’s protected areas. Nature 553 (7688), 328–332. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25194. The authors of this study acknowledge their standpoint as non- Douglas, L.R., Alie, K., 2014. High-value natural resources: linking wildlife conservation Indigenous scientists from the ‘Global North’. We recognize that our to international conflict, insecurity, and development concerns. Biol. Conserv. 171, 270–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.01.031. understanding of Indigenous issues is partial and situated, and largely Draulans, D., Van Krunkelsven, E., 2002. The impact of war on forest areas in the influenced by our background as conservation scientists. Nonetheless, Democratic Republic of Congo. Oryx 36, 35–40. we see the protection of Indigenous Peoples' rights as a fundamental Dudley, J.P., Ginsberg, J.R., Plumptre, A.J., Hart, J.A., Campos, L.C., 2002. Effects of war and civil strife on wildlife and wildlife habitats. Conserv. Biol. 16 (2), 319–329. moral duty, irrespective of the contributions our research can make in https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00306.x. safeguarding public conservation interests. Dunford, M.R., 2019. Indigeneity, ethnopolitics, and taingyinthar: Myanmar and the global Indigenous Peoples’ movement. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 50 (1), 51–67. Declaration of competing interest Estrada, A., Garber, P.A., Gouveia, S., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Ascensão, F., Fuentes, A., Volampeno, S., 2022. Global importance of Indigenous Peoples, their The authors declare that they have no known competing financial lands, and knowledge systems for saving the world’s primates from extinction. interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Science Advances 8 (31), eabn2927. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abn292. Fa, J.E., Watson, J.E., Leiper, I., Potapov, P., Evans, T.D., Burgess, N.D., Garnett, S.T., the work reported in this paper. 2020. Importance of Indigenous Peoples’ lands for the conservation of Intact Forest Landscapes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 18 (3), 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/ Data availability fee.2148. Fearon, J.D., Laitin, D.D., 2003. Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 97 (01), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055403000534. All data are available online. We have only used data already pub­ Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Garteizgogeascoa, M., Basu, N., Brondizio, E.S., Cabeza, M., lished or openly accessible and referenced. We have provided the links Martínez-Alier, J., Reyes-García, V., 2020. A state-of-the-art review of indigenous peoples and environmental pollution. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 16 (3), to the used datasets. 324–341. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ee9.0000609632.34852.db. Ford, J.D., King, N., Galappaththi, E.K., Pearce, T., McDowell, G., Harper, S.L., 2020. The Acknowledgments resilience of indigenous peoples to environmental change. One Earth 2 (6), 532–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.05.014. Garnett, S.T., Burgess, N.D., Fa, J.E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár, Z., Robinson, C. We dedicate this work to all the Indigenous communities who are J., Leiper, I., 2018. A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands fighting to safeguard the fabric of life in some of the most violent for conservation. Nat. Sustain. 1 (7), 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893- 018-0100-6. frontiers of our planet. Their ongoing labor and all they endure inspired Gaynor, K.M., Fiorella, K.J., Gregory, G.H., Kurz, D.J., Seto, K.L., Withey, L.S., us to carry out this analysis. We thank Joji Cariño for her insightful Brashares, J.S., 2016. War and wildlife: linking armed conflict to conservation. comments on a previous version of our manuscript. JEF was funded by Front. Ecol. Environ. 14 (10), 533–542. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1433. USAID as part of the Bushmeat Research Initiative of the CGIAR research Global Administrative Areas, 2015. Global Administrative Areas (GADM), v2.8. http: //gadm.org/version2 (accessed Nov 2022). program on Forests, Trees, and Agroforestry. AFL was funded by the Global Witness (2021) Last line of defence. https://www.globalwitness.org/en/cam Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS). paigns/environmental-activists/last-line-defence/. (accessed Nov 2022). Gorenflo, L.J., Romaine, S., Mittermeier, R.A., Walker-Painemilla, K., 2012. Co- occurrence of linguistic and biological diversity in biodiversity hotspots and high Appendix A. Supplementary data biodiversity wilderness areas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109 (21), 8032–8037. https:// doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1117511109. Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. Grima, N., Singh, S.J., 2019. How the end of armed conflicts influence forest cover and subsequently ecosystem services provision? An analysis of four case studies in org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110288. biodiversity hotspots. Land Use Policy 81, 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2018.10.056. References Hallberg, D.J., 2012. PRIO conflict site 1989–2008: a geo-referenced dataset on armed conflict. Confl. Manag. Peace Sci. 29 (2), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0738894211433168. Ajroud, B., Al-Zyoud, N., Cardona, L., Edmond, J., Pavitt, D., Woomer, A., 2017. Hanson, T., 2018. Biodiversity conservation and armed conflict: a warfare ecology Environmental Peacebuilding Training Manual. Conservation International, perspective. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1429 (1), 50–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Arlington, VA, U.S.A. nyas.13689. Armstrong, C.G., Brown, C., 2019. Frontiers are frontlines: ethnobiological science Hanson, T., Brooks, T.M., Da Fonseca, G.A., Hoffmann, M., Lamoreux, J.F., Machlis, G., against ongoing colonialism. Journal of Ethnobiology 39 (1), 14. https://doi.org/ Pilgrim, J.D., 2009. Warfare in biodiversity hotspots. Conserv. Biol. 23 (3), 578–587. 10.2993/0278-0771-39.1.14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01166.x. Austin, J.E., Bruch, C.E. (Eds.), 2000. The environmental consequences of war: Legal, Hoffman, M., Koenig, K., Bunting, G., Costanza, J., Williams, K.J., 2020. Biodiversity economic, and scientific perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Hotspots (version 2016.1). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3261807. Balzer, M.M., 1999. The Tenacity of Ethnicity: A Siberian Saga in Global Perspective. Intact Forest Landscapes (IFL). (2020). FL for year 2016. http://www.intactforests. Princeton University Press, Princeton. org/data.ifl.html (accessed Nov 2022). Baptiste, B., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Gutierrez-Velez, V.H., Andrade, G.I., Vieira, P., IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Estupiñán-Suárez, L.M., Lee, T.M., 2017. Greening peace in Colombia. Nature Services), 2019. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of Ecology & Evolution 1 (4), 0102. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0102. the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Bongaarts, J. (2019), IPBES, 2019. Summary for Policymakers of the IPBES Global Services. UN-IPBES, Bonn, Germany. Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of Intergovernmental IWGIA, 2022. IWGIA Annual Report 2022. In: IWGIA Annual Report 2022 - IWGIA - Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. (IPBES Secretariat, International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs. 2019). Doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12283. Kennedy, C.M., Fariss, B., Oakleaf, J.R., Garnett, S.T., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Fa, J.E., Brondizio, E.S., Tourneau, F.-M.L., 2016. Environmental governance for all. Science 352 Baruch-Mordo, S., Kiesecker, J., 2023. Indigenous Peoples’ lands are threatened by (6291), 1272–1273. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf5122. industrial development; conversion risk assessment reveals need to support Brondízio, E.S., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bates, P., Carino, J., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Shrestha, B., 2021. Locally based, regionally manifested, and globally relevant: 6 M. Beattie et al. Biological Conservation 286 (2023) 110288 Indigenous stewardship. One Earth 6 (8), 1032–1049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Sanderson, E.W., Malanding, J., Levy, M.A., Redford, K.H., Wannebo, A.V., Woolmer, G., oneear.2023.07.006. 2002. The human footprint and the last of the wild. BioScience 52 (10), 891–904. Le Billon, P., Lujala, P., 2020. Environmental and land defenders: global patterns and https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0891:THFATL]2.0.CO;2. determinants of repression. Glob. Environ. Chang. 65, 102163 https://doi.org/ Scheidel, A., Del Bene, D., Liu, J., Navas, G., Mingorría, S., Demaria, F., Martínez- 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102163. Alier, J., 2020. Environmental conflicts and defenders: a global overview. Glob. Leonard, B., Parker, D.P., Anderson, T.L., 2020. Land quality, land rights, and indigenous Environ. Chang. 63, 102104 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102104. poverty. J. Dev. Econ. 143, 102435. Scheidel, A., Fernández-Llamazares, A., Bara, A.H., Del Bene, D., David-Chavez, D.M., Mamo, D. (Ed.), 2020. The Indigenous World 2020. The International Work Group for Fanari, E., Garba, I., Hanaček, K., Liu, J., Martínez-Alier, J., Navas, G., Reyes- Indigenous Affairs, Copenhagen, Denmark. García, V., Roy, B., Temper, L., Thiri, M.A., Tran, D., Walter, M., Whyte, K.P., 2023. McNeely, J.A., 2003. Conserving forest biodiversity in times of violent conflict. Oryx 37 Global impacts of extractive and industrial development projects on Indigenous (2), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0030605303000334. Peoples’ lifeways, lands, and rights. Sci. Adv. 9 (23), eade955 https://doi.org/ Mendiratta, U., Osuri, A. M., Shetty, S. J., & Harihar, A. (2021). Mammal and bird 10.1126/sciadv.ade9557. species ranges overlap with armed conflicts and associated conservation threats. Shambaugh, J., Oglethhorpe, J., Ham, R., 2001. The Trampled Grass: Mitigating the Conserv. Lett., 14(5), e12815. Doi:10.111/conl.12815. Impacts of Armed Conflict on the Environment. Biodiversity Support Program, Mitchell, M.I., Wagner, L., 2023. Fpic as peacebuilding tool?: land conflict and the Batwa Washington, DC, USA. in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. International Journal on Minority and Simpson, F.O.L., Geenen, S., 2021. Batwa return to their Eden? Intricacies of violence Group Rights 1 (aop), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718115-bja10107. and resistance eastern DRCongo’s Kahuzi-Biega National Park. J. Peasant Stud. 1-19 Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Da Fonseca, G.A., Kent, J., 2000. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2021.1970539. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403 (6772), 853–858. Sze, J.S., Carrasco, L.R., Childs, D., Edwards, D.P., 2022. Reduced deforestation and https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501. degradation in Indigenous Lands pan-tropically. Nat. Sustain. 5 (2), 123–130. O’Bryan, C.J., Garnett, S.T., Fa, J.E., Leiper, I., Rehbein, J.A., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00815-2. Watson, J.E.M., 2021. The importance of Indigenous Peoples’ lands for the Tauli-Corpuz, V., Alcorn, J., Molnar, A., 2018. Cornered by Protected Areas. https://right conservation of terrestrial mammals. Conserv. Biol. 35 (3), 1002–1008. https://doi. sandresources.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Cornered-by-PAs-Brief_RRI_June org/10.1111/cobi.13620. -2018.pdf. (Accessed November 2022). Orta-Martínez, M., Pellegrini, L., Arsel, M., 2018. “The squeaky wheel gets the grease”? Upsala University Department of Peace and Conflict Research, 2022. https://www.pcr. The conflict imperative and the slow fight against environmental injustice in uu.se/research/ucdp/definitions. (Accessed November 2022). northern Peruvian Amazon. Ecol. Soc. 23 (3), 7. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10098- Venter, O., Sanderson, E.W., Ainhoa, M., Allan, J.R., Beher, J., Jones, K.R., Watson, J.E. 230307. M., 2016. Data from: global terrestrial human footprint maps for 1993 and 2009. Potapov, P., Hansen, M.C., Laestadius, L., Turubanova, S., Yaroshenko, A., Thies, C., Dryad Digital Repository. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.052q5.2. Esipova, E., 2017. The last frontiers of wilderness: tracking loss of intact forest Walker, W.S., Gorelik, S.R., Baccini, A., Aragon-Osejo, J.L., Josse, C., Meyer, C., landscapes from 2000 to 2013. Sci. Adv. 3 (1), e1600821 https://doi.org/10.1126/ Schwartzman, S., 2020. The role of forest conversion, degradation, and disturbance sciadv.1600821. in the carbon dynamics of Amazon indigenous territories and protected areas. Proc. Prem, M., Saavedra, S., & Vargas, J. F. (2020). End-of-conflict deforestation: evidence Natl. Acad. Sci. 117 (6), 3015–3025. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913321117. from Colombia's peace agreement. World Dev., 129, 104852. doi:org/10.1016/j. Watson, J.E.M., Jones, K.R., Fuller, R.A., Marco, M.D., Segan, D.B., Butchart, S.H.M., worlddev.2019.104852. Venter, O., 2016. Persistent disparities between recent rates of habitat conversion Reardon, S., 2018. FARC and the forest: peace is destroying Colombia’s jungle — and and protection and implications for future global conservation targets. Conserv. Lett. opening it to science. Nature 558 (7709), 169–170. https://doi.org/10.1038/ 9 (6), 413–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12295. d41586-018-05397-2. Woods, K.M., Naimark, J., 2020. Conservation as counterinsurgency: a case of ceasefire Rudel, T.K., 2009. How do people transform landscapes? A sociological perspective on in a rebel forest in southeast Myanmar. Polit. Geogr. 83, 102251. suburban sprawl and tropical deforestation. Am. J. Sociol. 115 (1), 129–154. Zanotti, L., 2016. Radical Territories in the Brazilian Amazon. The Kayapó's Fight for Just Livelihoods. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, US. 7