Article Indigenous Peoples’ lands are threatened by industrial development; conversion risk assessment reveals need to support Indigenous stewardship Graphical abstract Authors Christina M. Kennedy, Brandie Fariss, James R. Oakleaf, ..., Julia E. Fa, Sharon Baruch-Mordo, Joseph Kiesecker Correspondence ckennedy@tnc.org In brief Indigenous Peoples’ lands are important for conservation and socio-ecological well-being. Industrial development threatens these lands, but the magnitude and risk remain unclear. Here we employ a global index comprised of rights, representation, and capital indicators to assess conversion vulnerability and explore possible solutions. We find that almost 60% of Indigenous Peoples’ lands are threatened, and among the 37 countries with the highest threat, there are multiple vulnerabilities that increase Highlights the risk of conversion. To avoid or d Industrial development threatens nearly 60% of Indigenous mitigate risk to both people and nature, it Peoples’ lands in 64 countries will be crucial to support Indigenous Peoples’ self-determination, rights, and d 37 countries have highly threatened lands that are vulnerable leadership. to conversion d Vulnerabilities in rights, representation, and capital increase the risk of conversion d Support of Indigenous governance and stewardship can reduce conversion risk Kennedy et al., 2023, One Earth 6, 1032–1049 August 18, 2023 ª 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.07.006 ll ll OPEN ACCESS Article Indigenous Peoples’ lands are threatened by industrial development; conversion risk assessment reveals need to support Indigenous stewardship Christina M. Kennedy,1,10,11,* Brandie Fariss,2,3,10 James R. Oakleaf,2 Stephen T. Garnett,4 Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares,5,6 Julia E. Fa,7,8 Sharon Baruch-Mordo,9 and Joseph Kiesecker2 1Global Science, The Nature Conservancy, Fort Collins, CO 80524, USA 2Global Protect Oceans, Lands, and Waters Program, The Nature Conservancy, Fort Collins, CO 80524, USA 3Global Conservation in Partnership with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Program, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA 22203, USA 4Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, NT 0909, Australia 5Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS), Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland 6Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA-UAB) and Department of Animal Biology, Plant Biology, and Ecology (BABVE), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain 7Department of Natural Sciences, School of Science and the Environment, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK 8CIFOR Headquarters, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia 9TRAFFIC, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, UK 10These authors contributed equally 11Lead contact *Correspondence: ckennedy@tnc.org https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.07.006 SCIENCE FOR SOCIETY Indigenous Peoples are critical to the success of global conservation. However, their stewardship is challenged by the expansion of industrial development and national contexts that un- dermine their capacity to govern and sustainably manage their lands. The variation in industrial develop- ment pressure confronted by Indigenous Peoples and the vulnerability of their lands to conversion remains underexplored. We mapped where industrial development pressure intersects with Indigenous Peoples’ lands worldwide and explored how socio-economic and political contexts might impact the outcome. We found that a substantial proportion of Indigenous Peoples’ lands are threatened by the potential expan- sion of industrial development and that underlying vulnerabilities increase the risk of conversion. Our find- ings underscore the need for actions that foster Indigenous Peoples’ self-determination and center their rights and leadership in global efforts to address biodiversity loss and climate change. SUMMARY Indigenous Peoples are custodians of many of the world’s least-exploited natural areas. These places of local and global socio-ecological importance face significant threats from industrial development expansion, but the risk of conversion of these lands remains unclear. Here we combine global datasets of Indigenous Peoples’ lands, their current ecological condition, and future industrial development pressure to assess conversion threats. To assess vulnerability and risk of conversion, we create an index based on indicators of the strength and security of Indigenous Peoples’ rights to their territories and resources, their representation and engagement in decisions impacting them, and the capital available to support conservation and sustainable development. We find that nearly 60% of Indigenous Peoples’ lands (22.7 million km2) are threatened in 64 countries. Among the 37 countries with the highest threat, socio-economic and political vulnerabilities increase conversion risk, particu- larly the limited recognition and protection of territorial rights. We suggest strategies and actions to bolster Indig- enous Peoples’ self-determination, rights, and leadership to reduce this risk and foster socio-ecological well-being. 1032 One Earth 6, 1032–1049, August 18, 2023 ª 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). ll Article OPEN ACCESS INTRODUCTION RESULTS Despite accounting for only 6.2% of the global population,1 Methods summary Indigenous Peoples formally or customarily govern at least a Building from established risk assessment processes and frame- quarter of the world’s terrestrial surface.2 Their stewardship, works,23–25 we assess conversion risk to Indigenous Peoples’ which is deeply rooted in their practices, worldviews, knowledge lands based on a combination of three components: hazard systems, and connections to place, plays a crucial role in (potentially destructive activity), exposure (location and value contributing to biodiversity conservation,3,4 climate change miti- of assets), and vulnerability (likelihood that assets could be gation,5 and provision of ecosystem services.3,6 However, Indig- affected by a hazard) (Figure S1). We define conversion threat enous Peoples face mounting pressure from extractive and to Indigenous Peoples’ lands by the intersection of hazard and industrial activities associated with commercial agriculture, min- exposure so that a high conversion threat exists where high in- ing, energy, and infrastructure projects.7–9 These challenges dustrial development pressure (hazard) and good ecological pose significant threats to their ways of life and to the environ- condition (exposure) intersect (see Table S1 for definitions of ita- ments they inhabit and protect.6,8,10,11 licized words). Expansion of industrial development can have detrimental While we acknowledge that there are many ways in which Indig- impacts on ecosystems and exacerbate climate change and enous Peoples value their lands, we focus on ecological condition biodiversity loss.12 It can also lead to social conflicts10 and as an exposure and conservation value, which we proxy using perpetuate injustices, such as dispossession,12 marginaliza- current human modification17 (Note S1). We consider ecosystem tion, and denial of Indigenous Peoples’ rights and self-determi- condition given its broad relevance and association with nation.13 Moreover, the contexts in which this occurs can other conservation values (e.g., biodiversity, carbon storage, greatly influence Indigenous Peoples’ ability to respond.7,8 ecosystem function)26,27 and its association with provisioning ser- Except for some recent studies of the environmental justice vices, traditional livelihoods, and the distinctive relationship that struggles of Indigenous communities14 and the intersection of Indigenous Peoples have with their territories and resources, mining with ‘‘land-connected peoples,’’15,16 industrial develop- which has been described by Indigenous Peoples as a corner- ment threats to Indigenous Peoples’ lands worldwide remain stone of the full application of their international human rights underexplored. Equally underexplored is how national contexts and cultural self-determination.3,6,28 We characterize industrial might influence the vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples’ lands to development pressure from future energy, mining, agricultural, conversion and increase the risk of development proceeding and urban expansion18 as a hazard because numerous case without their consent and in ways that undermine their values studies illustrate their adverse impacts, which are often mis- and visions for the future. aligned with Indigenous Peoples’ values.6,8,10,11 Even when Indig- Here we address this knowledge gap by conducting a global enous communities are receptive to these types of development, conversion risk assessment that utilizes published datasets rep- they can and have been disempowered from influencing deci- resenting Indigenous Peoples’ lands,2 their current ecological sions that generate benefits and avoid negative impacts.29,30 condition,17 and future industrial development pressure from We define conversion risk by the intersection of conversion commercial agriculture, mining, oil and gas, renewable energy, threat and vulnerability so that a high conversion risk exists and urbanization.18 We also create a global composite index where conversion threats occur in national contexts that in- from readily available socio-economic and political indicators crease vulnerability to conversion. Although we recognize that to evaluate the vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples’ lands to con- Indigenous Peoples have unique contexts and their own per- version from industrial development. We use this composite in- spectives on vulnerability and risk,31–33 for our analysis, we dex to provide a relative assessment of vulnerability to conver- represent vulnerability with a global composite index comprised sion given the variable contexts of different nations and to of indicators that measure the strength and security of Indige- identify global challenges and opportunities to reduce potential nous Peoples’ rights to their territories and resources (R), their conversion risk to Indigenous Peoples and their lands. representation and engagement in the decisions impacting Our results show that close to 60% of Indigenous Peoples’ them (R), and the capital available to support conservation and lands are moderately to highly threatened by industrial devel- sustainable development (C). We use the inverse of the RRC in- opment expansion globally. When considering national con- dex to proxy for conversion vulnerability. The specific indicators texts in which these threats are embedded, we further find selected for each dimension of the index and our rationale for that 37 countries are highly threatened and have an increased their inclusion are shown in Table 1. conversion risk from vulnerabilities related to the rights and rep- National indicators have been widely employed to assess resentation of Indigenous Peoples in decisions impacting their disaster and climate-related vulnerability,24,25 food insecurity,48 territories and resources and the capital available to support food system sustainability,49 commodity supply chains,50 mining them. Our results highlight the urgent need to foreground Indig- conflicts,15,16,51 conservation priorities,52,53 and enabling condi- enous Peoples’ rights, leadership, and agency in implementa- tions for community-based conservation.38,54 The RRC index tion of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Frame- was informed by these assessments, along with several work19,20 and to uphold commitments made through national community-based conservation and sustainable development and international legislation and policy instruments, like Inter- frameworks55–57 that identify tenure security,34,35 strong institu- national Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 169 and the tions and leadership,42 effective forums for multistakeholder United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples engagement,58 and sustainable economic opportunities38,59 as (UNDRIP).21,22 key enabling conditions for Indigenous Peoples and local One Earth 6, 1032–1049, August 18, 2023 1033 ll OPEN ACCESS Article Table 1. Information on the national indicators that comprise the RRC index Index domain: Indicator name Description and rationale for inclusion Supporting evidence Rights: legal security of Indigenous An indicator of the strength and security of d Land tenure security has been linked to sus- Peoples’ lands index (ILS) Indigenous Peoples’ rights to their territories and tainable community-based natural resource resources derived from LandMark’s index of the management and positive human well-being legal security of Indigenous Peoples’ lands.117 and environmental outcomes.34–37 This index was reflected so that higher values d This indicator has been identified as important indicate the presence of national laws (not for predicting the success of community- necessarily their enforcement) related to based conservation.38 recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ rights to land and natural resources (e.g., water, trees), and their capacity to enforce them (e.g., right to consent for land acquisition). Rights: political stability An indicator that modifies the strength and d Political instability has been associated with index (POL) security of Indigenous Peoples’ rights to dispossession and re-appropriation of the their territories and resources derived from territories and resources of Indigenous Peo- the World Bank’s political stability index.118 ples, resulting in negative impacts to people Higher values indicate greater stability in and nature.39 national governance structures and less active d This indicator has been identified as important conflict (e.g., civil unrest, armed conflict, ethnic for predicting the success of community- tensions), which creates a context more based conservation and is positively corre- favorable for consistent recognition and lated with localized human well-being and enforcement of the rights established in environmental outcomes.38 national laws. Representation: control of An indicator of the opportunities for d Corruption and elite capture are frequently corruption index (COR) representation and engagement of Indigenous cited as challenges to the design, implemen- Peoples in decisions impacting their territories tation, and success of community-based and resources derived from the World Bank’s conservation projects.40 control of corruption index.118 Higher values d This indicator has been linked to improved indicate that problems related to private national-level environmental outcomes.41 interests and elite capture are better addressed, which creates a context more favorable for inclusion of local rightsholders and stakeholders in development decisions. Representation: environmental An indicator of the opportunities for d This indicator has been identified as important democracy index representation and engagement of Indigenous for predicting the success of community- (EDI) Peoples in decisions impacting their territories based conservation and is positively corre- and resources derived from the World lated with localized human well-being and Resources Institute’s environmental democracy environmental outcomes.38 index.119 Higher values indicate the presence of laws and regulations that increase access to information, participation in decision-making, regulation of extractive industry, and justice in environmental matters. Capital: human development An indicator of the intrinsic capital available to d Capacity-building and strong human, social, index (HDI) support conservation and sustainable institutional, and financial capital have been development as measured by life expectancy, identified as important for predicting the suc- level of education, and standard of living; cess of community-based conservation and derived from the UN Development Program’s are positively correlated with human well-be- human development index.120 Higher values ing and environmental outcomes.38,42–44 suggest a relatively stronger foundation of d Wealthier countries with higher human devel- health, education, and economic well-being in opment indices have been linked to improved support of conservation and sustainable national-level environmental outcomes.41 development. Capital: sustainable An indicator of the financial capital made d Greater financial investments in conservation development goal (SDG) available to a country in support of conservation and sustainable development have been investments and sustainable development, as derived from linked to quantifiable biodiversity and human AIDData.45 Higher values indicate greater well-being benefits.46,47 investments in one or more of the UN’s 17 different SDGs. The RRC index is a global composite index representing the socio-economic and political contexts that support Indigenous governance and steward- ship, the inverse of which is used as a proxy for the vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples’ lands to conversion from industrial development. 1034 One Earth 6, 1032–1049, August 18, 2023 ll Article OPEN ACCESS communities to effectively govern and steward their territories Other dominant drivers of industrial development include oil and resources. and gas (18%, 1.6 million km2), commercial agriculture for crops Finally, we note that composite indices are frequently con- and biofuels (14%, 1.2 million km2), or multiple sectors combined structed to represent various dimensions of a complex phenom- (13%, 1.1 million km2). The potential expansion of oil and gas enon.60 Accordingly, we represent conversion vulnerability using infrastructure is concentrated largely in six countries (Russia, indicators reflective of RRC based on their theoretical and empir- Norway, Ecuador, Guatemala, Paraguay, and New Zealand), ical support, which include legal security of Indigenous Peoples’ while the potential expansion of commercial agriculture is more lands, political stability, control of corruption, environmental de- widely dispersed in 14 countries (Democratic Republic of the mocracy, human development, and investments in sustainable Congo, India, Indonesia, Morocco, Myanmar, Ivory Coast, development goals (Table 1; see RRC index). Malaysia, Vietnam, Nepal, Guyana, Nicaragua, Belize, Sri Lanka, Our conversion risk assessment helps to identify places where and Burundi). These developments have uncertain outcomes. strategic actions and investments might be needed to support Palm oil production, for example, has negatively impacted Indig- equitable governance20 and Indigenous stewardship and to help enous Peoples in Indonesia and Malaysia, with evidence of land Indigenous Peoples safeguard their rights and future.7,10 We conflicts and poor living conditions despite modest improve- view this effort as a compliment to emerging place-based vulner- ments in employment and income.70 ability and risk assessments grounded in Indigenous knowledge32 Mining for coal and metallic and non-metallic resources is a and Indigenous Peoples’ perspectives (Notes S2 and S3).33,61,62 dominant driver of industrial development on 9% (0.8 million Based on our findings, we suggest several high-level strategies km2) of Indigenous Peoples’ lands, and its potential expansion and actions that could be leveraged by Indigenous communities, can impose significant negative impacts.11,71 For example, conservation and development organizations, governments, small- and large-scale mining in the Brazilian Amazon has companies, funders, and multilateral organizations (Table 2). caused substantial deforestation, exposing Indigenous Peoples Most importantly, we advocate for transformative and rights- to increased rural violence, toxic pollutants, and contagious dis- based approaches that correct the injustices and crimes brought eases71 and threatening the existence of isolated Indigenous so- about by various forms of colonialism,63,64 including a need for cieties.72 These intersections occur primarily in 12 countries: increased sensitivity to how Indigenous Peoples’ lands are recog- Peru, Greenland, Sweden, Lao People’s Democratic Republic nized, affirmed, and valued.19 (PDR), Finland, the Philippines, Panama, Honduras, New Cale- donia, El Salvador, Taiwan (Republic of China), and Costa Rica. Industrial development pressure Last, urbanization is a dominant driver on 4% (0.3 million km2) We find that the majority of Indigenous Peoples’ lands (92%, of Indigenous Peoples’ lands globally. The potential expansion 35.4 million km2) are only marginally modified by human activities of urban areas is concentrated primarily in The Gambia and and remain in moderate to good ecological condition (Figure 1A). Rwanda and also in Nigeria, Pakistan, Burkina Faso, Senegal, These lands are critical for biodiversity, carbon sequestration, Niger, Indonesia, Mali, China, Democratic Republic of the provisioning, and other cultural ecosystem services.2,6,66,67 At Congo, India, Ethiopia, and Argentina. Urbanization can radically the same time, Indigenous Peoples’ lands confront substantial transform Indigenous Peoples’ cultures and lead to intergenera- pressure from future industrial development. Based on an over- tional erosion of language, identity, traditional practices, and lay of land suitability maps of the potential for expansion by com- knowledge systems.73,74 As evidence, national resettlement mercial agriculture, mining, oil and gas, renewable energy, and and urbanization programs have led to direct negative impacts urbanization,18 we show that nearly a quarter of all Indigenous for Indigenous Peoples, including dispossession, displacement, Peoples’ lands have high industrial development pressure from and landlessness.75 one or more of these sectors (Figure 1B). Conversion threat Drivers of high industrial development pressure When considering the intersection of values and pressure, we Renewable energy is a dominant driver of development pressure find that almost 60% of Indigenous Peoples’ lands are either on 42% of Indigenous Peoples’ lands (3.6 million km2), driven by highly threatened (8.6 million km2) or moderately threatened solar power (81%), wind power, (13%), hydropower (1%) or mul- (14.1 million km2) by industrial development expansion. By sum- tiple sectors combined (5%). The potential expansion of renew- marizing mean conversion threat at the national level, we find able energy infrastructure is widely distributed and dominates in that 64 countries across all inhabited continents are at least Australia and parts of China, central Africa, Argentina, the United moderately threatened (Figure 1C). States, and Pakistan (Figure 1D). This finding is notable, given growing commitments to a renewable energy transition and Vulnerability and conversion risk low-carbon economy.68 Though there are obvious environ- Low RRC index scores suggest national contexts that challenge mental benefits and opportunities to help Indigenous commu- Indigenous governance and stewardship and increase the nities overcome barriers to energy justice, positive outcomes vulnerability of their lands to conversion. Conversion risk in- are far from certain. Like with conventional oil and gas develop- creases where high conversion threat and high conversion ment,7 Indigenous Peoples have experienced incremental vulnerability intersect. Vulnerability can be high where Indige- encroachment and wholesale land grabbing associated with nous Peoples’ rights and tenure security are undermined, their renewable energy siting and mining of energy transition mate- representation and engagement in decision-making are chal- rials,15,16 leading to injustices, conflicts, and associated environ- lenged, and the capital to support conservation and sustainable mental and socio-cultural impacts.51,69 development is inadequate. When considering national context One Earth 6, 1032–1049, August 18, 2023 1035 ll OPEN ACCESS Article Table 2. Strategies and example actions to address conversion vulnerability and risk Rights vulnerability Aspects of FPIC supported65 Strategy: strengthen and secure Indigenous Peoples’ rights to their territories and Recognition of the inherent rights of Indigenous resources Peoples to their lands and resources Community-focused action: (consistent with the UNDRIP); clarification of d Clarify customary rights through participatory mapping and other relevant who should be involved in decision-making; means of demarcation authority to decide d Formalize rights through registration and land titling work d Strengthen community capacity for enforcement of their rights Supracommunity-focused action: d Collaborate with Indigenous organizations to identify effective ways to promote rights recognition by governments and private industry d Promote organizational and governmental awareness and commitments to strengthening Indigenous Peoples’ rights (e.g., ICCA consortium report, lobbying for land reform, developing treaties on development decision-making) d Develop community-based conservation frameworks, guidance, and practi- tioner-focused tools for rights-based approaches in conservation and for increasing tenure security Representation vulnerability Aspects of FPIC supported Strategy: increase Indigenous Peoples’ engagement and representation in the Self-determination; support for communities to decisions impacting their territories and resources engage in and inform decision-making forums Community-focused action and processes; policy changes that reduce d Where needed, create/strengthen Indigenous Peoples organizations and barriers to engagement and promote equitable institutions for governance representation of Indigenous rights-holders d Raise awareness and build the capacity of Indigenous Peoples organizations and leaders to participate and navigate existing decision-making processes (e.g., training and technical support in negotiation, conflict resolution, and financial management) Supracommunity-focused action d Enforce existing frameworks that call for equity and inclusion of vulnerable groups and marginalized voices in decision-making bodies (e.g., UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Article 15; and International Labor Organization’s Convention 107 and 169) d Develop and adopt corporate social responsibility standards and best practices in engagement d Negotiate trade agreements that respect Indigenous Peoples’ lands, resource knowledge, and cultural heritage to provide for inclusion, equity, and protection of Indigenous Peoples’ rights d Encourage process changes that remove barriers to Indigenous Peoples’ participation and elevate Indigenous knowledge systems and institutions in consultation, planning, and co-development activities d Develop operational procedures and build multistakeholder platforms to facilitate representation of Indigenous Peoples’ interests in local-, regional-, and national-level planning and decision-making processes Capital vulnerability Aspects of FPIC supported Strategy: provide additional capital to support Indigenous-led conservation and Commitments and investments in activities that sustainable development support community-based conservation and Community-focused action: sustainable development driven by and d Provide technical capacity for proactive and inclusive land use and sustainable consistent with self-determined values, visions, development planning reflective of community values and visions (e.g., healthy and priorities country planning, development by design) d Support the creation of sustainable place-based economic opportunities that compensate for Indigenous Peoples’ stewardship (e.g., PES) Supracommunity-focused action: d Enforce adherence to existing social and environmental impact mitigation and land use planning frameworks and processes d Strengthen existing lending standards, licensing processes, and safeguards to ensure an adequate and ongoing FPIC process d Help drive multilateral partnerships and investments that support Indigenous stewardship (e.g., recent multilateral investment in securing Indigenous Peoples’ rights to tropical forests). (Continued on next page) 1036 One Earth 6, 1032–1049, August 18, 2023 ll Article OPEN ACCESS Table 2. Continued Capital vulnerability Aspects of FPIC supported d Investment oversight by Indigenous Peoples with emphasis on equity and realization of tangible, community-level benefits. Vulnerabilities identified from interpretation of relative RRC subindex scores (Figure 4B) can be used to suggest potential strategies and actions that might be taken to support Indigenous governance and stewardship and reduce conversion vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples’ lands. These strategies are interconnected and should be mutually reinforcing of Indigenous Peoples’ rights and their free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). alone, we find that 11 countries have very low RRC index scores high in Finland and moderate in all other countries; additionally, (ranging from 0.13–0.31 on a 0–1 scale), and all are in Africa and there was moderate capital vulnerability in Chile. Central/Southeast Asia (Figure 2). When intersecting mean con- version threat (Figure 3A) with RRC index scores (Figure 3B), we DISCUSSION found 47 countries to have a high conversion risk (Figures 3C and S2), predominately in Africa (n = 30, 64%), followed by Central/ In line with previous assessments,2 we find that as much as 39% South America (n = 10, 21%), South/Southeast Asia (n = 4, of the world’s most ecologically intact lands are governed by 9%), and the Middle East (n = 3, 6%). Indigenous Peoples (Note S4). The current ecological condition Vulnerability can be assessed for any country with Indigenous of these lands reflects a long history of Indigenous stewardship Peoples’ lands and industrial development pressure using the compatible with biodiversity conservation and the provision of RRC index. To illustrate, we focused on 37 countries with high con- ecosystem services.3,6 Alarmingly, we find that almost 60% of version threat (Figures 3A and 4A) and found that 12 countries had all Indigenous Peoples’ lands have a moderate to high conver- relatively high vulnerability (>1 median absolute deviation [MAD] sion threat from potential expansion of industrial development. below the global median), 16 countries had relatively moderate Increasing demands on these lands from commodity-based, vulnerability (within 1 MAD of the global median), and 6 countries extractive activities are frequently accompanied by negative im- had relatively low vulnerability (>1 MAD above the global median) pacts,30 including injustices and violence against Indigenous (Figures 4A and 4B). The 12 countries with high conversion threat communities10 that endanger lives and the continuation of Indig- and relatively high vulnerability are primarily in Africa, representing enous Peoples’ cultures and ways of life.8,74,76 The conversion 5.4 million km2 of Indigenous Peoples’ lands globally, of which threat to Indigenous Peoples’ lands is particularly high in 37 28% (1.5 million km2) confronts high development pressure largely countries across Africa; North, Central, and South America; Eu- driven by the potential expansion of renewable energy infrastruc- rope; the Middle East; and Oceania. Considering the context in ture. Given the influence of global demand and the conversion which these threats occur can point broadly to places where vulnerability suggested by our index, Indigenous Peoples con- Indigenous Peoples might be especially challenged by the real- fronting development proposals in those countries are likely to ities they may confront. Such information can be used to proac- face substantial challenges. Among these are weak or insecure tively support their ability to respond and to encourage equitable rights to territories and resources (n = 11, 92% high rights vulner- and effective engagement of Indigenous Peoples in the free, ability), inadequate opportunities for representation and engage- prior, and informed consent (FPIC) process.65 ment in decision-making (n = 7, 58% high representation vulnera- bility), and insufficient capital to support conservation and Rights issues are the most pervasive global challenge sustainable development (n = 7, 58% high capital vulnerability). Across all countries with high conversion threat, we found that The 16 countries with high conversion threat and relatively challenges to the strength and security of Indigenous Peoples’ moderate vulnerability are exclusively in Africa and South Amer- rights were common (Figure 4B). FPIC is critical to self-determi- ica. Of the total area of Indigenous Peoples’ lands encompassed nation but precluded when Indigenous Peoples’ rights are inse- by these countries (3.7 million km2), 31% confront high develop- cure and their authority is not fully recognized.77 Where Indige- ment pressure, the majority due to the potential expansion of re- nous Peoples’ rights to their territories and resources are weak, newables followed by agriculture, oil and gas, and urban sectors. a range of community- and supracommunity-focused actions Among these countries, rights vulnerability was high in Egypt, might be offered when sought by Indigenous communities (Ta- Argentina, and Algeria (n = 3, 19%) and still moderate in the ble 2). For example, community-focused actions might include rest (n = 13, 81%). Representation and capital vulnerabilities clarifying customary or de facto rights through participatory map- were mostly moderate for all but Peru and Ecuador, which had ping and other means of demarcation,78 formalizing rights low capital vulnerability (n = 15, 94%). through registration and titling, or strengthening community ca- The 6 countries with high conversion threat but relatively low pacity to enforce those rights. Such actions underpin many com- vulnerability are Australia, Chile, Norway, Sweden, and the munity-based conservation frameworks56,57 and are undertaken United States. This includes 5.3 million km2 of the total of Indig- to support Indigenous Peoples’ sovereignty3 and their capacity enous Peoples’ lands globally, 29% of which confront high to govern.79 Numerous examples have shown that these actions development pressure from renewables, mining, and oil and have prevented land grabs associated with commodity-driven gas. Although these countries were assessed as having socio- development ranging from biofuel production80 to livestock rear- economic and political contexts that made Indigenous Peoples’ ing, mining, and large-scale agrobusiness.81 In particular, partic- lands less vulnerable to conversion than other countries globally, ipatory mapping tools82 and counter-mapping approaches83 are challenges certainly exist. For instance, rights vulnerability was increasingly used to strengthen Indigenous Peoples’ claims to One Earth 6, 1032–1049, August 18, 2023 1037 ll OPEN ACCESS Article Figure 1. Conversion threat to Indigenous Peoples’ lands (A–D) Intersection of Indigenous Peoples’ lands2 with (A) ecological condition proxied by human modification (HM) of terrestrial lands;17 (B) industrial development pressure derived from development pressure indices mapping the suitability of land for commercial agriculture, mining, fossil fuels, renewables, and urbani- zation;18 (C) conversion threat based on the multiplication of the maps in (A) and (B); and (D) drivers of high industrial development pressure. their territories and resources and to deter corporate land grab- nous Peoples in decision-making fora, many countries present bing, as illustrated by examples from sub-Saharan Africa84 and supralocal challenges, as reflected by the indicators of our global Central Kalimantan, Indonesia.85 In the Peruvian Amazon, formal- composite index. Where representation vulnerability is high, vari- ization of customary rights through titling has reduced deforesta- ously scaled actions may be needed to create or increase oppor- tion and disturbance associated with unsustainable commercial tunities for Indigenous Peoples to engage and be represented in agriculture or ‘‘timber mining.’’36,37 Actions taken beyond the the decisions impacting their territories and resources (Table 2). community might include advocacy for institutional awareness As supracommunity-focused actions, we emphasize the need and governmental commitment to strengthen Indigenous Peo- for broad-scale adoption of standards that call for equity and inclu- ples’ rights;3,86 development and implementation of conservation sion (UNDRIP, Article 15; ILO 107 and 169),1,21,22 development of practitioner guidance to strengthen tenure security and support robust corporate social responsibility standards and engagement Indigenous Peoples’ autonomy, decision-making, and self-deter- practices,89,90 enforcement of trade agreements foregrounded in mination;56,87 and increased partnerships and organizational ca- the protection of Indigenous Peoples’ rights,91 and changes to pacity building in technical expertise to document and formalize development planning that remove barriers to Indigenous Peo- land rights (e.g., Cadasta).88 ples’ participation and elevate Indigenous knowledge and institu- tions into all stages and scales of the process.92,93 Additionally, Representation issues predominate in the southern special provisions should encourage direct participation of Indig- hemisphere enous Peoples in state legislative bodies. Last, multistakeholder Representation vulnerability is commonly observed in countries forums that facilitate networking and representation in the larger with high conversion threat, especially those in Africa and South decision-making sphere are also crucial.58 These supracommun- America. Although community-level capacity building is often ity-focused actions might occur in tandem with community- needed to improve the representation and engagement of Indige- focused action. For example, local actions might include helping 1038 One Earth 6, 1032–1049, August 18, 2023 ll Article OPEN ACCESS Figure 2. The RRC index and vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples’ lands to conversion (A–D) National indicators of rights (A), representation (B), and capital (C) are combined in a global composite index (D) to represent national-level enabling conditions for Indigenous governance and stewardship. The values in each map are displayed by natural groupings using Jenks natural breaks classification. Counts follow in parentheses. A lower RRC index score suggests higher vulnerability to conversion for Indigenous Peoples’ lands where they occur. to create or strengthen community institutions so that Indigenous the potential environmental and socio-cultural impacts of pro- Peoples can meaningfully participate in regional and national plan- posed development projects.97 In addition, the same tools could ning processes or providing training and technical support in be used by communities to explore alternative development sce- negotiation, conflict resolution, and financial management.94 narios and livelihoods, like payment for ecosystem services Such actions have allowed Indigenous communities to hold gov- (PES), which offer the possibility of generating financial capital ernments and companies accountable for making more than a to- from forms of development that may be better-aligned with their ken effort to consult them.69,95 Furthermore, efforts to ensure that values and ways of life.98 Strict enforcement and adherence to Indigenous Peoples benefit from the development that occurs on impact mitigation and land use planning processes by com- their lands have prompted the commonplace practice of negoti- panies, governments, lenders, investment groups, and other de- ated agreements ranging from compensation to revenue sharing; velopers can also provide support. Multilateral development employment; trade in infrastructure improvements, health, and bank lending standards are meant to provide safeguards, education services; and co-ownership. Although some instances including the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Standard of co-ownership have allowed realization of direct and local bene- ESS799 and the International Finance Corporation’s Perfor- fits,96 these agreements in particular must be pursued with a clear mance Standard 7 on Indigenous Peoples.100 Environmental view regarding the value proposition and certainty that an equity and social impact assessments are intended to limit the impacts stake accords with the aspirations of Indigenous landowners. of development projects and provide a path toward FPIC. How- ever, it is well documented that lending standards and impact Capital issues persist in Africa assessments have historically failed to deliver necessary protec- Capital vulnerability was also identified, particularly in Africa, tions and will need to be strengthened to ensure that develop- where support for conservation and sustainable development ment planning and impact mitigation meaningfully engage Indig- is needed to ensure that Indigenous Peoples can influence enous Peoples101 and sufficiently manage adverse economic, development trajectories. Human, social, and institutional capi- socio-cultural, health, and environmental impacts.8,102 Such im- tal can be built through various means, such as technical support provements could be realized through emerging participatory or training for community land use planning, or development of knowledge coproduction approaches.8,102 The positive impact decision-support tools that allow Indigenous Peoples to assess of these measures can be increased when paired with One Earth 6, 1032–1049, August 18, 2023 1039 ll OPEN ACCESS Article Figure 3. Conversion risk to Indigenous Peoples’ lands (A–C) Mean conversion threat to Indigenous Peoples’ lands (Figure 1D), (B) vulnerability proxied by the inverse of the RRC index, and (C) conversion risk based on the multiplication of the maps in (A) and (B). The values in each map are displayed by natural groupings using Jenks natural breaks classification. Counts follow in parentheses. 1040 One Earth 6, 1032–1049, August 18, 2023 ll Article OPEN ACCESS Figure 4. Identification of challenges and opportunities to address conversion vulnerability and risk (A and B) Map of the relative vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples’ lands to conversion for countries with a high to very high mean conversion threat (Figure 3A) and (B) tables showing relative rights, representation, and capital (RRC) vulnerabilities for countries grouped by region and sorted alphabetically by ISO code. Vulnerability assessments were made relative to the global median. Countries were assessed as having relatively high vulnerability when their RRC index scores were significantly below the global median (red) and as having relatively low vulnerability when their RRC index scores were significantly above the global median (ivory). Significant differences from the global median were defined as greater than 1 median absolute deviation (MAD). Countries were assessed as having relatively moderate vulnerability when their RRC index scores were within 1 MAD of the global median (pink). Corresponding strategies and example actions to address high vulnerability are featured in Table 2. complementary efforts to address rights and representation vul- ples’ lands; Table S1); thus, by nature, it is incomplete and of var- nerabilities at local and supralocal scales, as demonstrated by a iable precision across nations.2 We compare this layer with alter- recent pledge of $1.7 billion for tropical forest protection coupled native sources of information on the presence of Indigenous with efforts to formalize Indigenous Peoples’ territorial rights.103 Peoples’ lands to explore the implications for our analysis (Notes S3 and S5).117,104 In general, we find relatively good agreement, Caveats, future direction, and ground truthing but acknowledge that Indigenous Peoples’ lands may be We used the best available global datasets of Indigenous Peoples’ excluded in certain regions, such as small islands of Oceania, lands, industrial development pressure, and national socio-eco- Madagascar, or parts of central Asia, or under-represented in nomic and political indicators, but we recognize that each has lim- other regions, such as Canada, where publicly available data itations with respect to spatial accuracy and completeness. Like are limited.2 Therefore, future assessments should be updated all maps, our map of Indigenous Peoples’ lands is based on a as new information becomes publicly available, particularly from particular definition of Indigenous Peoples (see Indigenous Peo- Indigenous-led mapping efforts.78,104 One Earth 6, 1032–1049, August 18, 2023 1041 ll OPEN ACCESS Article We mapped industrial development pressure on Indigenous that the RRC index reflects the general context and place-based Peoples’ lands based on high suitability for expansion by com- realities reported by Indigenous Peoples. In the absence of similar mercial agriculture, mining, oil and gas, renewable energy, and Indigenous data with global coverage, we believe our index pro- urbanization. Suitability was determined by the presence of large vides a good coarse filter to identify places where strategic reserves of unexploited and viable resources with the necessary actions and investments to support Indigenous Peoples in their ef- infrastructure to support their extraction and transportation.18 forts to safeguard their rights and futures might be taken.7 Future Because of the lack of consistent and reliable global data, these directions could take a downscaled approach by engaging Indig- suitability maps do not capture all aspects of feasibility (e.g., enous Peoples in ground truthing or defining their own RRC property type or ownership), nor do they account for production indicators with Indigenous knowledge and context-specific data demands because of uncertainties in predicting them and the (e.g., title, membership in Indigenous federations, presence and ever-changing policies and incentives that affect global supply strength of community institutions, instances of corruption or elite and demand. Therefore, these development pressure indices capture among local or regional leadership, localized investments may not adequately capture frontier expansion made possible in sustainability initiatives or conservation programs, etc.). by incentives or investments in new infrastructure, and they may overestimate near-term expansion by sectors like renew- Conclusion able energy. At the same time, the high development pressures Despite the tremendous public good resulting from their stew- we mapped reflect general patterns of expansion when produc- ardship, many Indigenous communities suffer from poverty tion demands are considered.105 Thus, our results should be in- and lack sustainable development opportunities.107 Pressures terpreted as the potential for expansion by various industrial sec- from the expansion of extractive and commodity-driven devel- tors and not the exact location of development siting or the total opment have often been exploitive, tacitly oppressive, and with land area that will be converted. limited local benefits.7–10 Changing this trajectory requires an un- Our RRC index was constructed of national indicators with hy- derstanding of where industrial development could encroach on pothesized importance to Indigenous governance and steward- Indigenous Peoples’ lands and how the contexts in which these ship and reciprocally to the vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples’ intersections occur might influence the outcome. Our assess- lands to conversion from industrial development (Table 1). The ment underscores that a substantial proportion of Indigenous RRC index does show significant correlation with historic rates Peoples’ lands face threats from industrial development and of land conversion (Figure S3), but despite this justification, we that lands across west and central Africa are at greatest risk of encourage a precautionary approach in the interpretation of conversion because of their vulnerable national contexts. our findings. While there is evidence that national contexts can Business-as-usual approaches have clearly fallen short of equi- mediate local realities and outcomes,38,54,106 we recognize that tably and meaningfully engaging Indigenous Peoples in deter- there are variations in local enabling conditions and governance mining development futures for their lands.77,109 FPIC is a human arrangements, particularly in regions with complex histories, rights imperative, and although it is referenced widely in interna- where highly variable state, provincial, or territorial policies exist, tional law, various conventions and treaties, the domestic laws or rapid shifts in the political climate have occurred.9 Data limita- of a handful of countries,65,77,110 and many corporate social re- tions required that we rely on national indicators that were not al- sponsibility frameworks,89,90,111 its full realization has been ways specific to Indigenous Peoples or developed through limited. While worldwide calls to ‘‘defend the defenders’’ are on Indigenous Peoples’ experiences and perspectives on localized the rise,112 much work remains to prevent continued attacks, conditions. Given that Indigenous communities are frequently intimidation, and harm to the rightful, original, and best stewards among the most marginalized of a nation,107 the RRC index of these lands.7,8 This study underscores that transformative ac- should be considered a best-case estimate. To illustrate, tion is needed to support Indigenous Peoples’ governance and Australia has a very high RRC index score, indicating relatively stewardship in places confronting conversion threat. At levels low conversion vulnerability for Indigenous Peoples’ lands beyond the community, we need more advocacy for structural, compared with other countries. However, Aboriginal Peoples institutional, corporate, and policy change. At the community of Australia still confront severe challenges to their rights, an level, we need tangible actions that strengthen Indigenous Peo- observation supported by recent failed efforts to stop mining ples’ rights to their territories and resources, improve their repre- development on their lands.108 Thus, the RRC index is best sentation and engagement in decisions impacting them, and offer used as a relativized global characterization of the vulnerability adequate capital to support conservation and sustainable devel- of Indigenous Peoples’ lands to conversion, not as an absolute. opment. These actions represent approaches aligned with the Although global composite indices are not easily validated, we movement toward decolonizing conservation10,63,64,79 — ap- find that country rankings from the RRC index were in general proaches that foster self-determination and center Indigenous agreement with those derived from Indigenous-led assess- Peoples rights and leadership in global efforts to address biodiver- ments33 (Note S2). The Indigenous Navigator provides data from sity loss and climate change.19 a limited set of surveys about how Indigenous communities perceive their situation with respect to several key legal frame- works (e.g., the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peo- EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES ples, the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, and the sus- Resource availability tainable development goals). Given the limited number of Lead contact countries with Indigenous Navigator data, the comparison is Further information and requests for resources should be directed to and will cursory but offers some ethnographic grounding and support be fulfilled by the lead contact, Christina M. Kennedy (ckennedy@tnc.org). 1042 One Earth 6, 1032–1049, August 18, 2023 ll Article OPEN ACCESS Materials availability the various definitions of Indigenous Peoples and the implications for mapping Maps and graphics generated in this study will be made available upon their lands (see their supplemental information for further details). As a result, reasonable request. we compared our layer with other existing data sources (Notes S3 and S5) to Data and code availability identify potential gaps in coverage. Although agreement is good, the Indige- The high-resolution map of Indigenous Peoples’ lands2 has not been depos- nous Peoples’ lands map should not be used to identify specific territories ited in a public repository because of its sensitivity. To request access to or legal claims, nor should areas without delineation be interpreted as lacking these data, please contact Stephen Garnett (stephen.garnett@cdu.edu.au). Indigenous Peoples’ presence, claim, or interest. The 1-km2-resolution map of human modification, individual development potential indices, and urban growth projection data are available in Figshare: Ecological condition https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7283087,113 https://doi.org/10.6084/m9. The ecological condition of Indigenous Peoples’ lands is influenced by the figshare.c.4249532,114 and https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.9696218. extent of their modification by human activities known to negatively impact v1.115 Administrative boundaries for countries used in our analysis are publicly ecosystems.27 Thus, we use the global Human Modification (HM) map to proxy available from Global Administrative Areas (GADM),116 as are the indicators for current ecological condition17 (Figure 1A; Note S4). The HM estimates the comprising the rights, representation, and capital (RRC) index, including the intensity of impacts from 13 anthropogenic stressors associated with human legal security of Indigenous Peoples’ legal lands,117 political stability,118 con- settlement (population density, built-up areas), agriculture (cropland, live- trol of corruption,118 environmental democracy,119 human development,120 stock), transportation (major roads, minor roads, two-tracks, and railroads), and investments in sustainable development goals.121 Detailed methods on mining, energy production (oil wells and wind turbines), and electrical infra- the construction of the RRC index are provided in Methods S1. Country-level structure (powerlines and night-time lights). We note that, although the HM data summaries created for this analysis and used to generate maps and fig- captures many human impacts, it does not include timber production or selec- ures have been deposited in Figshare: https://doi.org/10.6084/ m9.figshare. tive logging, pastureland, recreational use, and hunting. The HM produces a 0– 23654292122 and are available at the time of this publication. Any additional in- 1 metric that reflects the proportion that each 1-km2 cell is modified by human formation required to reanalyze the data reported in this paper are available activities based on the median year of 2016. Following published guidance17,27 from the lead contact upon request. and based on the distribution of HM values globally and in protected areas, the modification of each cell was categorized as very low (0.00 % HM % 0.01), low Conversion risk assessment overview (0.01 < HM % 0.10), moderate (0.10 < HM % 0.40), high (0.40 < HM % 0.70), To conduct the conversion risk assessment for Indigenous Peoples’ lands and very high (0.70 < HM % 1.00) (Figure 1A). Low-modified lands represent (Figure S1; Table S1), we used existing spatial datasets at 1-km2-resolution natural or semi-natural areas that are no more than 10% modified and have for (1) the geographical extent of Indigenous Peoples’ lands; (2) ecological fewer than two overlapping human stressors, moderately modified lands are condition, proxied by current human modification of terrestrial lands; and (3) more than 10%–40% modified and have fewer than three overlapping industrial development pressure, derived from individual development pres- stressors, and highly modified lands are human-dominated areas with over sure indices of suitability for commercial agriculture, mining, oil and gas, re- 40% modification with five or more overlapping stressors. Based on these cat- newables, and urbanization (Figures 1A and 1B). From these spatial datasets egories, we created ‘‘ecological condition scores’’ ranging from 1–5, assigning we calculated conversion threat to Indigenous Peoples’ lands by multiplying 5 to the least modified cells (i.e., very low HM, Good condition) and 1 to the current ecological condition (our exposure or conservation value, scaled most modified cells (i.e., very high HM, poor condition). 1–5) and industrial development pressure (our hazard, scaled 1–6) to identify important values within Indigenous Peoples’ lands threatened by potential Industrial development pressure expansion of industrial development. This produced a 1-km2-resolution con- To estimate industrial development pressure on Indigenous Peoples’ lands version threat map with scores ranging from 0–30 (0 = low conversion threat, (Figure 1B), we used published development potential indices (DPIs) for (1) 30 = high conversion threat), which we binned into 6 categories for visualiza- renewable energy (concentrated and photovoltaic solar power, wind power, tion purposes using Jenks natural breaks (e.g., very low, low, moderate, and hydropower), (2) oil and gas (conventional and unconventional), (3) mining high, very high, none). We then calculated a mean conversion threat score (coal and metallic and non-metallic mining), and agriculture (crop and biofuel per country (Figure 3A), which was intersected with the inverse of the RRC in- expansion) sectors18 and created an urban DPI based on global urban growth dex map, our proxy for conversion vulnerability (Figures 2 and 3B; Table 1; projections from 2020–2050123 (Note S6). DPIs are global, spatially explicit, Methods S1). Conversion risk was then calculated by multiplying the normal- 1-km2-resolution maps that depict the suitability of land for potential expan- ized mean conversion threat map with normalized inverse RRC index scores, sion by each of these sectors. Each DPI has standardized 0–1 values indicating resulting in values from 0–1 (0 = low conversion risk, 1 = high conversion risk) low to high suitability based on sector-specific land constraints on develop- (Figure 3C). All geospatial analyses were conducted in the Mollweide projec- ment (e.g., suitable land cover, slope), land suitability for sector expansion tion, an equal-area map projection, using ArcGIS 10.8.1 software with the based on resource availability (sector-specific yields), and siting feasibility of Spatial Analyst extension. We applied a bilinear resampling method for contin- new development (e.g., ability to transport resources or materials, access to uous raster data and nearest-neighbor method for discrete data (vector data demand centers, and proximity of existing development). Where possible, were first projected and then converted to raster datasets). For national-level the DPI maps remove previously developed lands (e.g., current mined areas, analyses, we used country boundaries sourced from the GADM spatial data- wind turbines, oil and gas wells, urban areas), but non-proprietary data base v.2.8.116 Elaboration of the individual elements in the conversion risk locating these features are incomplete across the globe. As a result, the assessment is offered below. DPIs may include some areas already developed, but we minimize this issue by intersecting them with the HM map to isolate areas of future development Indigenous Peoples’ lands expansion. We used the boundaries of Indigenous Peoples’ lands mapped by Garnett For each DPI, we binned the range of values into six categories based on et al.2 for the scope of our analysis, which identifies Indigenous Peoples’ lands standardized Z score ranges to characterize development pressure as very across 87 countries or politically distinct areas. This dataset represents the low (%10th percentile), low (>10th–25th percentile), medium-low (>25th– most comprehensive assessment of terrestrial lands where Indigenous Peo- 50th percentile), medium-high (>50th–75th percentile), high (>75th–90th ples have customary ownership, management, or governance arrangements percentile), and very high (>90th percentile).18 We calculated Z scores by in place, regardless of legal recognition. It is based on 127 publicly available mean-standardizing values per country to capture national-level domestic de- sources, including cadastral records, participatory maps, and census data. mand coupled with global-level demand likely to drive resource extraction to We adopt their definition of Indigenous Peoples as those who identify as hav- occur within each countries’ highest development suitability for that resource. ing ‘‘descended from populations which inhabited a country before the time of Because our urban DPI was derived from urban expansion probabilities based conquest or colonization [and] who retain at least some or all of their own so- on population growth projections that were more restrictive than the DPI cial, economic, cultural and political institutions’’ (Table S1). As discussed in values (e.g., excluded suitable areas like flat land, near roads and existing ur- Garnett et al.,2 we note the practical and ethical challenges associated with ban areas when demand was met), we binned the upper 50th percentile and One Earth 6, 1032–1049, August 18, 2023 1043 ll OPEN ACCESS Article lower 50th percentile of non-zero urban DPI values into high- or very high-pres- mental outcomes that projects were able to achieve.38 In contrast, periodic sure categories, respectively. We then assigned development pressure scores abuse, loss of recognition. lack of enforcement of Indigenous Peoples’ rights, ranging from 1 (very low) to 6 (very high) to each DPI, and created the industrial and (re)appropriation of Indigenous Peoples’ homelands have been docu- development pressure map used in our conversion risk assessment by retain- mented with political instability.39 ing the maximum cell score across all individual DPIs (Figure 1B). All lands without a pressure category were assigned a score of 0. Representation indicators To evaluate sector-specific drivers of industrial development on Indigenous To characterize the opportunities for representation and engagement of Peoples’ lands (Figure 1D), we identified regions of high or very high industrial Indigenous Peoples in decisions regarding their territory and resources, we development pressure and then determined the sector driver based on which used the World Bank’s control of corruption index118 and the World of the sectors (i.e., agriculture, mining, oil and gas, renewable energy, urban) Resource Institute’s environmental democracy index.119 The control of cor- had the highest score for that cell. To illustrate, if a given cell had only one ruption index reflects perceptions of the extent to which governments sector (e.g., agriculture) with a very high-pressure score (score of 6), then address problems with public power exercised for private gain and the po- that sector was identified as the driver. If a given cell had multiple sectors tential for capture by elites and private interests. We expect control of cor- with similar development pressure scores, then we identified it as a having ruption to be positively correlated with the representation and engagement multiple sector drivers. We identified a sector as the majority driver in a country of Indigenous Peoples in larger decision-making processes given contexts when it made up more than 50% of its high development pressure. that discourage power imbalances and favor fairness, equity, and transpar- ency—conditions that have been linked to lower environmental destruction41 RRC index and improved outcomes for conservation and development projects.40 We To provide contextual information on factors influencing conversion vulnera- view environmental democracy as complementary to representation and bility, we constructed a global composite index from a suite of national indica- engagement. The environmental democracy index characterizes the extent tors that characterize the strength and security of Indigenous Peoples’ rights to to which a country’s citizens enjoy access to information, participation, their territories and resources (rights), their representation and engagement in and justice in environmental matters. It consists of indicators that measure decisions impacting them (representation), and the various forms of capital the presence and strength of legislation governing freedom of information, available to support conservation and sustainable development (capital) (Fig- requirements for consultation and environmental impact assessment, and ure 2). Indicators selected for each of these dimensions have broad utilization regulations on extractive industries as well as their efficacy in practice.119 as well as theoretical and empirical support (Table 1). We used published data We expect that greater environmental democracy can improve the represen- from publicly available sources that were global in extent and based on the tation and engagement of Indigenous Peoples in decisions impacting their most up-to-date information (data sources from 2013 [n = 1], 2015 [n = 1], territories and resources given improved access to relevant information, and 2018 [n = 4]). Prior to selecting the final set of indicators, we tested for stricter environmental and industrial regulation, requirements for consulta- scale reliability among the full suite of indicators considered for each dimen- tion, and legal means to enforce and seek compensation for damages—con- sion using Cronbach’s alpha (a). This test provided a measure of internal con- ditions that have been identified as important for predicting the success of sistency and a statistic that allows for evaluation of the suitability of individual community-based conservation.38 indicators as complementary measures of the same dimension. Based on this statistic, internal reliability was considered ‘‘acceptable’’ for rights indicators Capital indicators (a = 0.742) and ‘‘good’’ for representation and capital indicators (a = 0.848 To characterize the various forms of capital available to support conservation and 0.889, respectively) (Methods S1). We initially considered multiple indica- and sustainable development, we used the United Nation’s (UN) human devel- tors for each dimension and, in review of their correlation statistics, pruned opment index (HDI)120 and country-level investments in the UN’s sustainable them to two indicators for each dimension (Figure 2; Methods S1). Correlations development goals (SDGs).121 The HDI is a multidimensional index that de- of the RRC index with its individual indicators and sensitivity of our relative scribes the capital present within the population at large given measures of vulnerability assessment to different index constructions are summarized in life expectancy, education, and standard of living. Higher HDI scores suggest Tables S2 and S3. contexts that allow more latitude in response to industrial development pro- posals, whereas lower HDI scores suggest contexts that increase receptivity Rights indicators given diminished incentives to pursue competing priorities (e.g., biodiversity To characterize the strength and security of Indigenous Peoples’ rights over conservation vs. gross domestic product [GDP]). The importance of capital their territories and resources, we used LandMark’s index of the legal security and capacity building is well documented in community-based conserva- of Indigenous Peoples’ lands117 and World Bank’s political stability index.118 tion.38,42–44 Use of HDI to proxy for the capital that could be used in support The LandMark index scores the presence of national laws that recognize Indig- of conservation and sustainable development of Indigenous Peoples’ lands enous Peoples’ rights to land and natural resources and support their capacity is further reinforced by evidence showing that wealthier countries (those to enforce them.124 Given that this index is derived from the presence of na- with generally higher HDI) exhibit improved environmental conditions.41 In tional laws as opposed to their enforcement, the index may be an overestima- consideration of financial capital specific to conservation and sustainable tion of the legal security experienced in some contexts. development, we also included country-level investments made in support Although the LandMark index captures laws rather than their enforcement, of the UN’s SDGs,45 which totaled nearly $1.52 trillion between 2000 and we assume that greater legal security indicates greater support for Indigenous 2013. Although we are unable to determine the distribution of national invest- Peoples confronting industrial development by increasing the likelihood that ments or to differentiate its beneficiaries, several of the UN’s 17 SDGs are rele- they will have a voice in development decisions, increasing accountability vant to Indigenous Peoples,28 including those that address socio-economic for decisions made, and encouraging sustainable development of their terri- marginalization (SDGs 1, 2, 8, and 9), health and well-being (SDG 3), equality tories and resources; assumptions supported by evidence linking tenure secu- and social inclusiveness (SDGs 4, 5, 10, and 16), and the environment rity to sustainable natural resource management and positive human well-be- (SDGs 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15) (Methods S1). We assume that countries ing and environmental outcomes.34–37,125,126 We view political stability as a with higher SDG investments have greater financial capital to support Indige- modifier of rights. The political stability index considers perceptions of political nous Peoples in succesfully navigating industrial development prosposals, an instability or politically motivated violence in addition to instances of civil un- assumption supported by evidence that greater national-level conservation rest, ethnic and international tension, armed conflict, violent demonstrations, spending can reduce the rate of biodiversity loss46 and that greater foreign and internal/external conflicts.118 We expect political stability to have a posi- direct investments have had a positive influence on SDG achievements in tive and complementary effect given that stable governments tend to uphold African countries.47 their constituents’ rights and can help enforce and mitigate potential conflicts. Moreover, a recent synthesis found that the indicator itself was a significant Constructing the composite index predictor of the success of community-based conservation projects and The RRC index (Equation 1) was constructed as a hierarchical, geometric was positively correlated with the localized human well-being and environ- mean of rights, representation, and capital indicators, according to the formula 1044 One Earth 6, 1032–1049, August 18, 2023 ll Article OPEN ACCESS   RRCi = geomean RightsgeomeanðInd1:2Þ ; RepresentationgeomeanðInd1:2Þ ; CapitalgeomeanðInd1:2Þ (Equation 1) where Ind1 and Ind2 refer to the two indicators used for each dimension. in their field of research. One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies Similar to the construction of other global composite indices,127 we used a as a member of the LGBTQIA+ community. While citing references scientifi- geometric mean given the non-compensatory nature of indicators and do- cally relevant for this work, we also actively worked to promote gender balance mains and to control for any residual correlations across domains. We in our reference list. excluded within-domain indicators that were closely correlated (Methods S1). Further, each dimension and indicator within it were non-weighted Received: August 18, 2022 because of a lack of theoretical or empirical justification for differential weight- Revised: October 26, 2022 ing. This weighting scheme could be revised as new information becomes Accepted: July 18, 2023 available or with new opportunities to integrate Indigenous knowledge, values, Published: August 8, 2023 and priorities. Prior to composite index calculation, we transformed individual indicators with skewed values, reflected their values to ensure consistent REFERENCES valence, and normalized their values from 0–1. Last, an RRC index score was only calculated for countries with all three dimensions represented 1. International Labour Office (ILO) (2019). Implementing the ILO Indigenous (n = 199) (Figure 2; Methods S1). and Tribal Peoples Convention No. 169: Towards an Inclusive, We recognize that individual datasets may contain errors that can be ampli- Sustainable and Just Future (International Labour Organisation). fied when combined. Our global index was comprised of national datasets that 2. Garnett, S.T., Burgess, N.D., Fa, J.E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár, were qualitatively and quantitatively derived and largely lacked associated er- Z., Robinson, C.J., Watson, J.E.M., Zander, K.K., Austin, B., Brondizio, ror metrics. Thus, we were unable to account for errors in our composite index E.S., et al. (2018). A spatial overview of the global importance of but attempted to mitigate them by minimizing the number of indicators used Indigenous lands for conservation. Nat. Sustain. 1, 369–374. https:// and ensuring their internal consistency. Furthermore, we believe there is no doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6. a priori reason for bias other than the possibility of under-estimating the con- version vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples’ lands. Methods S1 contain further 3. Forest Peoples Programme, International Indigenous Forum on details on indicators, pre-processing steps, criteria for inclusion/exclusion, Biodiversity, Indigenous Women’s Biodiversity Network, Centres of and statistics on indicator reliability and inter-correlations. Distinction on Indigenous and Local Knowledge and Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2020). Local Biodiversity Outlooks 2: The Contributions of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities to SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION the Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and to Renewing Nature and Cultures (Forest Peoples Programme). Supplemental information can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j. oneear.2023.07.006. 4. Estrada, A., Garber, P.A., Gouveia, S., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Ascensão, F., Fuentes, A., Garnett, S.T., Shaffer, C., Bicca-Marques, J., Fa, J.E., et al. (2022). Global importance of Indigenous Peoples, their ACKNOWLEDGMENTS lands, and knowledge systems for saving the world’s primates from extinction. Sci. Adv. 8, eabn2927. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv. This work is dedicated to all Indigenous land defenders who are fighting to pro- abn2927. tect their lands and waters from industrial development impacts. We thank Y. Masuda, M. Looker, L. Kehoe, M. Heiner, N. DeMello, R. Cortez, E.M. Madeira, 5. Walker, W.S., Gorelik, S.R., Baccini, A., Aragon-Osejo, J.L., Josse, C., C. Peters, and A. Burgess for helpful comments on this study and manuscript. Meyer, C., Macedo, M.N., Augusto, C., Rios, S., Katan, T., et al. (2020). We also thank C. Corrigan, H. Bingham, J. Van Montfort, and J. Stewart for The role of forest conversion, degradation, and disturbance in the carbon elevating this topic in the policy arena. Funding for this research was provided dynamics of Amazon indigenous territories and protected areas. Proc. in part by The Nature Conservancy (to B.F. and C.M.K.), One Earth (to C.M.K. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117, 3015–3025. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. and J.R.O.), the Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS) (to Á.F- 1913321117. L.), and USAID as part of the Bushmeat Research Initiative of the CGIAR 6. IPBES (2019). Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem research program on Forests, Trees, and Agroforestry (to J.E.F.). Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES secretariat). AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS 7. Gilberthorpe, E., and Hilson, G. (2016). Natural Resource Extraction and Indigenous Livelihoods: Development Challenges in an Era of Conceptualization, data curation, and methodology, B.F., C.M.K., and J.R.O.; Globalization (Routledge). formal analysis, B.F. and J.R.O.; investigation and validation, B.F. and C.M.K.; writing – original draft, B.F. and C.M.K.; writing – review and editing, Á.F.-L., 8. Armstrong, C.G., and Brown, C. (2019). Frontiers are Frontlines: B.F., C.M.K., J.E.F., J.K., J.R.O., S.B.-M., and S.T.G.; visualization, B.F., Ethnobiological Science Against Ongoing Colonialism. J. Ethnobiol. 39, C.M.K., and J.R.O; resources, B.F., C.M.K., J.K., J.R.O., and S.T.G.; supervi- 14–31. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-39.1.14. sion, project administration, and funding acquisition, C.M.K. and J.K. 9. Begotti, R.A., and Peres, C.A. (2019). Brazil’s indigenous lands under threat. Science 363, 592. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw3864. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS 10. Scheidel, A., Del Bene, D., Liu, J., Navas, G., Mingorrı́a, S., Demaria, F., Avila, S., Roy, B., Ertör, I., Temper, L., and Martı́nez-Alier, J. (2020). The authors declare no competing interests. Environmental conflicts and defenders: a global overview. Global Environ. Change 63, 102104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020. INCLUSION AND DIVERSITY 102104. One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as an underrepresented 11. Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Garteizgogeascoa, M., Basu, N., Brondizio, ethnic minority in their field of research or within their geographical location. E.S., Cabeza, M., Martı́nez-Alier, J., McElwee, P., and Reyes-Garcı́a, One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as a gender minority V. (2020). A State-of-the-Art Review of Indigenous Peoples and One Earth 6, 1032–1049, August 18, 2023 1045 ll OPEN ACCESS Article Environmental Pollution. Integrated Environ. Assess. Manag. 16, remaining intact terrestrial ecosystems. Global Change Biol. 26, 4344– 324–341. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4239. 4356. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15109. 12. Farrell, J., Burow, P.B., McConnell, K., Bayham, J., Whyte, K., and Koss, 28. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2021). State G. (2021). Effects of land dispossession and forced migration on of the world’s Indigenous peoples: Rights to lands, territories and re- Indigenous peoples in North America. Science 374, eabe4943. https:// sources. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/ doi.org/10.1126/science.abe4943. wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2021/03/State-of-Worlds-Indigenous- Peoples-Vol-V-Final.pdf. 13. Bebbington, A.J., Humphreys Bebbington, D., Sauls, L.A., Rogan, J., Agrawal, S., Gamboa, C., Imhof, A., Johnson, K., Rosa, H., Royo, A., 29. Dell’Angelo, J., Navas, G., Witteman, M., D’Alisa, G., Scheidel, A., and et al. (2018). Resource extraction and infrastructure threaten forest cover Temper, L. (2021). Commons grabbing and agribusiness: Violence, resis- and community rights. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, 13164–13173. tance and social mobilization. Ecol. Econ. 184, 107004. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1812505115. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107004. 14. Scheidel, A., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Bara, A.H., Del Bene, D., David- 30. Bainton, N. (2020). Mining and Indigenous peoples. In Oxford Research Chavez, D.M., Fanari, E., Garba, I., Hanac ek, K., Liu, J., Martı́nez-Alier, J., Encyclopedia of Anthropology. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/ et al. (2023). Global impacts of extractive and industrial development pro- 9780190854584.013.121. jects on Indigenous Peoples’ lifeways, lands, and rights. Sci. Adv. 9, 31. Lyons, I., Hill, R., Deshong, S., Mooney, G., and Turpin, G. (2019). Putting eade9557. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ade9557. uncertainty under the cultural lens of Traditional Owners from the Great 15. Owen, J.R., Kemp, D., Lechner, A.M., Harris, J., Zhang, R., and Lèbre, É. Barrier Reef Catchments. Reg. Environ. Change 19, 1597–1610. (2022). Energy transition minerals and their intersection with land-con- 32. Buell, M.-C., Ritchie, D., Ryan, K., and Metcalfe, C.D. (2020). Using nected peoples. Nat. Sustain. 6, 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1038/ Indigenous and Western knowledge systems for environmental risk s41893-022-00994-6. assessment. Ecol. Appl. 30, e02146. 16. Owen, J.R., Kemp, D., Harris, J., Lechner, A.M., and Lèbre, É. (2022). 33. Indigenous Navigator (2022). Indigenous Navigator Data. https:// Fast track to failure? Energy transition minerals and the future of consul- indigenousnavigator.org/indigenous-data. tation and consent. Energy Res. Social Sci. 89, 102665. https://doi.org/ 34. Tseng, T.-W.J., Robinson, B.E., Bellemare, M.F., BenYishay, A., 10.1016/j.erss.2022.102665. Blackman, A., Boucher, T., Childress, M., Holland, M.B., Kroeger, T., 17. Kennedy, C.M., Oakleaf, J.R., Theobald, D.M., Baruch-Mordo, S., and Linkow, B., et al. (2020). Influence of land tenure interventions on human Kiesecker, J. (2019). Managing the middle: A shift in conservation prior- well-being and environmental outcomes. Nat. Sustain. 4, 242–251. ities based on the global human modification gradient. Global Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00648-5. Biol. 25, 811–826. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14549. 35. Robinson, B.E., Masuda, Y.J., Kelly, A., Holland, M.B., Bedford, C., 18. Oakleaf, J.R., Kennedy, C.M., Baruch-Mordo, S., Gerber, J.S., West, Childress, M., Fletschner, D., Game, E.T., Ginsburg, C., Hilhorst, T., P.C., Johnson, J.A., and Kiesecker, J. (2019). Mapping global develop- et al. (2018). Incorporating land tenure security into conservation. ment potential for renewable energy, fossil fuels, mining and agriculture Conservation Letters 11, e12383. sectors. Sci. Data 6, 101. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0084-8. 36. Blackman, A., Corral, L., Lima, E.S., and Asner, G.P. (2017). Titling indig- enous communities protects forests in the Peruvian Amazon. Proc. Natl. 19. Reyes-Garcı́a, V., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Acad. Sci. USA 114, 4123–4128. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. Benyei, P., Bussmann, R.W., Diamond, S.K., Garcı́a-del-Amo, D., 1603290114. Guadilla-Sáez, S., Hanazaki, N., Kosoy, N., et al. (2021). Recognizing Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ rights and agency in 37. Baragwanath, K., and Bayi, E. (2020). Collective property rights reduce the post-2020 Biodiversity Agenda. Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/ deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117, s13280-021-01561-7. 20495–20502. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917874117. 20. Franks, P. (2021). Global Biodiversity Framework: equitable governance 38. Fariss, B., DeMello, N., Powlen, K.A., Latimer, C.E., Masuda, Y., and is key. https://pubs.iied.org/20386iied. Kennedy, C.M. (2023). Catalyzing success in community-based conser- vation. Conserv. Biol. 37, e13973. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13973. 21. United Nations (2007). United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. In United Nations General Assembly. 39. Ribot, J.C., Agrawal, A., and Larson, A.M. (2006). Recentralizing while decentralizing: How national governments reappropriate forest re- 22. International Labour Office (ILO) (1989). Indigenous and Tribal Peoples sources. World Dev. 34, 1864–1886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.world- Convention (No. 169). In ILO. dev.2005.11.020. 23. Reisinger, A., Howden, M., Vera, C., Garschagen, M., Hurlbert, M., 40. Gargule, A.A. (2022). Corruption in community-based conservation. In Kreibiehl, S., Mach, K.J., Mintenbeck, K., O’Neill, B., and Pathak, M. U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Center, Chr (Michelsen Institute) https:// (2020). The concept of risk in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report: A sum- www.u4.no/publications/corruption-in-community-based-conservation. mary of cross-working group discussions. Intergovernmental Panel on 41. Venter, O., Sanderson, E.W., Magrach, A., Allan, J.R., Beher, J., Jones, Climate Change 15. K.R., Possingham, H.P., Laurance, W.F., Wood, P., Fekete, B.M., et al. 24. Brinkmann, N. (2006). Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: (2016). Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint Towards Disaster Resilient Societies (United Nations University Press). and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat. Commun. 7, 12558. 25. Summers, J.K., Harwell, L.C., Smith, L.M., and Buck, K.D. (2018). 42. Brooks, J.S. (2017). Design features and project age contribute to joint Measuring community resilience to natural hazards: the natural hazard success in social, ecological, and economic outcomes of community- resilience screening index (NaHRSI)—development and application to based conservation projects. Conservation Letters 10, 23–32. https:// the United States. GeoHealth 2, 372–394. https://doi.org/10.1029/ doi.org/10.1111/conl.12231. 2018GH000160. 43. Moore, S.A., Severn, R.C., and Millar, R. (2006). A conceptual model of 26. Watson, J.E.M., Evans, T., Venter, O., Williams, B., Tulloch, A., Stewart, community capacity for biodiversity conservation outcomes. Geogr. C., Thompson, I., Ray, J.C., Murray, K., Salazar, A., et al. (2018). The Res. 44, 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-5871.2006.00407.x. exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 44. Jones, I.J., MacDonald, A.J., Hopkins, S.R., Lund, A.J., Liu, Z.Y.-C., 599–610. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0490-x. Fawzi, N.I., Purba, M.P., Fankhauser, K., Chamberlin, A.J., Nirmala, M., 27. Riggio, J., Baillie, J.E.M., Brumby, S., Ellis, E., Kennedy, C.M., Oakleaf, et al. (2020). Improving rural health care reduces illegal logging and con- J.R., Tait, A., Tepe, T., Theobald, D.M., Venter, O., et al. (2020). Global serves carbon in a tropical forest. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117, human influence maps reveal clear opportunities in conserving Earth’s 28515–28524. 1046 One Earth 6, 1032–1049, August 18, 2023 ll Article OPEN ACCESS 45. Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., and Fuller, G. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 20, 451–467. https:// (2019). Sustainable Development Report 2019. In Berelsmann Siftung doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2019.1574725. and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) www. 62. Watene, K., and Yap, M. (2015). Culture and sustainable development: sustainabledevelopment.report. indigenous contributions. J. Global Ethics 11, 51–55. https://doi.org/ 46. Waldron, A., Miller, D.C., Redding, D., Mooers, A., Kuhn, T.S., Nibbelink, 10.1080/17449626.2015.1010099. N., Roberts, J.T., Tobias, J.A., and Gittleman, J.L. (2017). Reductions in 63. Tauli-Corpuz, V., Alcorn, J., Molnar, A., Healy, C., and Barrow, E. (2020). global biodiversity loss predicted from conservation spending. Nature Cornered by PAs: Adopting rights-based approaches to enable cost- 551, 364–367. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24295. effective conservation and climate action. World Dev. 130, 104923. 47. Aust, V., Morais, A.I., and Pinto, I. (2020). How does foreign direct invest- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104923. ment contribute to Sustainable Development Goals? Evidence from 64. Domı́nguez, L., and Luoma, C. (2020). Decolonising conservation policy: African countries. J. Clean. Prod. 245, 118823. https://doi.org/10.1016/ How colonial land and conservation ideologies persist and perpetuate j.jclepro.2019.118823. indigenous injustices at the expense of the environment. Land 9, 65. 48. USAID (2022). Famine Early Warning Systems Network. https://fews. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9030065. net/. 65. Cariño, J. (2005). Indigenous peoples’ right to free, prior, informed con- 49. Béné, C., Prager, S.D., Achicanoy, H.A.E., Toro, P.A., Lamotte, L., sent: reflections on concepts and practice. Ariz. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 22, 19. Bonilla, C., and Mapes, B.R. (2019). Global map and indicators of food 66. Kennedy, C.M., Oakleaf, J.R., Baruch-Mordo, S., Theobald, D.M., and system sustainability. Sci. Data 6, 279. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597- Kiesecker, J. (2020). Finding middle ground: Extending conservation 019-0301-5. beyond wilderness areas. Global Change Biol. 26, 333–336. https://doi. 50. Lèbre, É., Owen, J.R., Corder, G.D., Kemp, D., Stringer, M., and Valenta, org/10.1111/gcb.14900. R.K. (2019). Source Risks As Constraints to Future Metal Supply. Environ. 67. Chaplin-Kramer, R., Neugarten, R.A., Sharp, R.P., Collins, P.M., Polasky, Sci. Technol. 53, 10571–10579. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est. S., Hole, D., Schuster, R., Strimas-Mackey, M., Mulligan, M., Brandon, 9b02808. C., et al. (2023). Mapping the planet’s critical natural assets. Nat. Ecol. 51. Lèbre, É., Stringer, M., Svobodova, K., Owen, J.R., Kemp, D., Côte, C., Evol. 7, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01934-5. Arratia-Solar, A., and Valenta, R.K. (2020). The social and environmental 68. International Renewable Energy Agency (2020). Global Renewables complexities of extracting energy transition metals. Nat. Commun. 11, Outlook: Energy Transformation 2050 (IRENA). 4823. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18661-9. 69. Zárate-Toledo, E., Patiño, R., and Fraga, J. (2019). Justice, social exclu- 52. Lindsey, P.A., Chapron, G., Petracca, L.S., Burnham, D., Hayward, M.W., sion and indigenous opposition: A case study of wind energy develop- Henschel, P., Hinks, A.E., Garnett, S.T., Macdonald, D.W., Macdonald, ment on the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Mexico. Energy Res. Social Sci. E.A., et al. (2017). Relative efforts of countries to conserve world’s mega- 54, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.03.004. fauna. Global Ecology and Conservation 10, 243–252. https://doi.org/10. 70. Ayompe, L.M., Schaafsma, M., and Egoh, B.N. (2021). Towards sustain- 1016/j.gecco.2017.03.003. able palm oil production: The positive and negative impacts on 53. Garnett, S.T., Joseph, L.N., Watson, J.E.M., and Zander, K.K. (2011). ecosystem services and human wellbeing. J. Clean. Prod. 278, Investing in Threatened Species Conservation: Does Corruption 123914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123914. Outweigh Purchasing Power? PLoS One 6, e22749. https://doi.org/10. 71. Rorato, A.C., Camara, G., Escada, M.I.S., Picoli, M.C.A., Moreira, T., and 1371/journal.pone.0022749. Verstegen, J.A. (2020). Brazilian amazon indigenous peoples threatened 54. Brooks, J.S., Waylen, K.A., and Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2012). How na- by mining bill. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 1040a3. https://doi.org/10.1088/ tional context, project design, and local community characteristics influ- 1748-9326/abb428. ence success in community-based conservation projects. Proc. Natl. 72. Villén-Pérez, S., Anaya-Valenzuela, L., Conrado da Cruz, D., and Acad. Sci. USA 109, 21265–21270. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. Fearnside, P.M. (2022). Mining threatens isolated indigenous peoples 1207141110. in the Brazilian Amazon. Global Environ. Change 72, 102398. https:// 55. FAO (2015). FAO Policy on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (Food and doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102398. Agriculture Organization of United Nations). http://www.fao.org/3/a- 73. Shulist, S. (2018). Transforming Indigeneity: Urbanization and Language i4476e.pdf. Revitalization in the Brazilian Amazon (University of Toronto Press). 56. TNC (2017). Strong Voices, Active Choices: TNC’s Practicioner 74. Lyver, P.O.B., Timoti, P., Davis, T., and Tylianakis, J.M. (2019). Framework to Strengthen Outcomes for People and Nature (The Biocultural hysteresis inhibits adaptation to environmental change. Nature Conservancy). https://tncvoicechoiceaction.org/. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 771–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019. 57. Mahajan, S.L., Jagadish, A., Glew, L., Ahmadia, G., Becker, H., Fidler, 04.002. R.Y., Jeha, L., Mills, M., Cox, C., DeMello, N., et al. (2021). A theor- 75. Abu-Saad, I. (2008). Spatial Transformation and Indigenous Resistance: y-based framework for understanding the establishment, persistence, The Urbanization of the Palestinian Bedouin in Southern Israel. Am. and diffusion of community-based conservation. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, Behav. Sci. 51, 1713–1754. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764208318928. e299. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.299. 76. Whyte, K.P. (2013). Justice forward: Tribes, climate adaptation and re- 58. Kusters, K., Buck, L., de Graaf, M., Minang, P., van Oosten, C., and Zagt, sponsibility. Climatic Change 120, 517–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/ R. (2018). Participatory Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation of Multi- s10584-013-0743-2. Stakeholder Platforms in Integrated Landscape Initiatives. Environ. 77. Tomlinson, K. (2019). Indigenous rights and extractive resource projects: Manag. 62, 170–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0847-y. negotiations over the policy and implementation of FPIC. Int. J. Hum. €mpel, N.F., Day, M., 59. Wright, J.H., Hill, N.A.O., Roe, D., Rowcliffe, J.M., Ku Right. 23, 880–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2017.1314648. Booker, F., and Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2016). Reframing the concept of 78. Chapin, M., Lamb, Z., and Threlkeld, B. (2005). Mapping Indigenous alternative livelihoods. Conserv. Biol. 30, 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Lands. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 34, 619–638. https://doi.org/10.1146/an- cobi.12607. nurev.anthro.34.081804.120429. 60. Booysen, F. (2002). An Overview and Evaluation of Composite Indices of 79. Artelle, K.A., Zurba, M., Bhattacharyya, J., Chan, D.E., Brown, K., Development. Soc. Indicat. Res. 59, 115–151. https://doi.org/10.1023/ Housty, J., and Moola, F. (2019). Supporting resurgent Indigenous-led A:1016275505152. governance: A nascent mechanism for just and effective conservation. 61. Yap, M.L.-M., and Watene, K. (2019). The Sustainable Development Biol. Conserv. 240, 108284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019. Goals (SDGs) and Indigenous Peoples: Another Missed Opportunity? 108284. One Earth 6, 1032–1049, August 18, 2023 1047 ll OPEN ACCESS Article 80. Aha, B., and Ayitey, J.Z. (2017). Biofuels and the hazards of land grab- on United States tribal lands. Energy Res. Social Sci. 72, 101874. bing: Tenure (in)security and indigenous farmers’ investment decisions https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101874. in Ghana. Land Use Pol. 60, 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landuse- 97. Heiner, M., Hinchley, D., Fitzsimons, J., Weisenberger, F., Bergmann, W., pol.2016.10.012. McMahon, T., Milgin, J., Nardea, L., Oakleaf, J., Parriman, D., et al. 81. Molebatsi, C. (2019). Land grabbing in Botswana: Modern era disposses- (2019). Moving from reactive to proactive development planning to sion. Town and Regional Planning 75, 44–53. https://doi.org/10.18820/ conserve Indigenous community and biodiversity values. Environ. 2415-0495/trp75i1.6. Impact Assess. Rev. 74, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018. 82. Pearce, M., and Louis, R. (2008). Mapping indigenous depth of place. 09.002. Am. Indian Cult. Res. J. 32, 107–126. 98. Robinson, C.J., James, G., and Whitehead, P.J. (2016). Negotiating 83. Wainwright, J., and Bryan, J. (2009). Cartography, territory, prop- Indigenous benefits from payment for ecosystem service (PES) schemes. erty: postcolonial reflections on indigenous counter-mapping in Global Environ. Change 38, 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha. Nicaragua and Belize. Cult. Geogr. 16, 153–178. https://doi.org/10. 2016.02.004. 1177/1474474008101515. 99. World Bank (2016). World Bank Environmental and Social Framework 84. Paradza, G., Mokwena, L., and Musakwa, W. (2020). Could Mapping (World Bank). https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/837721522762050108/ Initiatives Catalyze the Interpretation of Customary Land Rights in Environmental-and-Social-Framework.pdf. Ways that Secure Women’s Land Rights? Land 9, 344. https://doi.org/ 100. IFC (2012). Performance Standard 7 Indigenous Peoples. International 10.3390/land9100344. Finance Corporation. https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/topics_ 85. Rye, S.A., and Kurniawan, N.I. (2017). Claiming indigenous rights through ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/sustainability-at-ifc/policies- participatory mapping and the making of citizenship. Polit. Geogr. 61, standards/performance-standards/ps7. 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.08.008. 101. Ruwhiu, D., and Carter, L. (2016). Negotiating ‘‘meaningful participation’’ 86. ICCA Consortium (2021). Territories of Life (ICCA Consortium). https:// for Indigenous peoples in the context of mining. Corp. Govern. 16, report.territoriesoflife.org/. 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-10-2015-0138. 87. TNC (2023). Human Rights Guide: The Nature Conservancy’s Human 102. Tallis, H., Kennedy, C.M., Ruckelshaus, M., Goldstein, J., and Kiesecker, Rights Guide for Working with Indigenous Peoples and Local J.M. (2015). Mitigation for one & all: An integrated framework for mitiga- Communities. https://www.tnchumanrightsguide.org/. tion of development impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. 88. Cadasta (2023). Land Matters (Cadasta). https://cadasta.org/. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 55, 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar. 2015.06.005. 89. MacInnes, A., Colchester, M., and Whitmore, A. (2017). Free, prior and informed consent: how to rectify the devastating consequences of 103. Sutherland, L. (2021). $1.7 Billion Pledged in Support of Indigenous and harmful mining for indigenous peoples. Perspectives in Ecology Local Communities’ Land Tenure (Mongabay). https://news.mongabay. and Conservation 15, 152–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2017. com/2021/11/1-7-billion-pledged-in-support-of-indigenous-and-local- 05.007. communities-land-tenure/. 90. Colchester, M., and Chao, S. (2014). Respecting Free, Prior and Informed 104. Native Land Digital (2023). Native Land Digital. https://native-land.ca/. Consent: Practical Guidance for Governments, Companies, NGOs, 105. Johnson, J.A., Kennedy, C.M., Oakleaf, J.R., Baruch-Mordo, S., Polasky, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in Relation to Land S., and Kiesecker, J. (2021). Energy matters: Mitigating the impacts of Acquisition (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations future land expansion will require managing energy and extractive foot- (FAO)). http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/partnerships/docs/ prints. Ecol. Econ. 187, 107106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon. 00000_FPIC_Toolkit_Technical_Guide_FPIC-VGGT-IPs_EN.pdf. 2021.107106. 91. Kehoe, L., dos Reis, T.N., Meyfroidt, P., Bager, S., Seppelt, R., 106. Brooks, N., Neil Adger, W., and Mick Kelly, P. (2005). The determinants of Kuemmerle, T., Berenguer, E., Clark, M., Davis, K.F., zu Ermgassen, vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implica- E.K., et al. (2020). Inclusion, Transparency, and Enforcement: How the tions for adaptation. Global Environ. Change 15, 151–163. https://doi. EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement Fails the Sustainability Test. One Earth org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.006. 3, 268–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.08.013. 107. United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2016). Human 92. Adade Williams, P., Sikutshwa, L., and Shackleton, S. (2020). Development Report 2016: Human Development for Everyone (UNDP). Acknowledging Indigenous and Local Knowledge to Facilitate http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/ Collaboration in Landscape Approaches—Lessons from a Systematic 2016_human_development_report.pdf. Review. Land 9, 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9090331. 108. Scambary, B. (2013). My Country, Mine Country: Indigenous People, 93. Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C.M., Spierenburg, M., Mining and Development Contestation in Remote Australia (CAEPR Danielsen, F., Elmqvist, T., and Folke, C. (2017). Weaving knowledge sys- Monograph 33) (Australia National University Press). https://library. tems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/33543/459939.pdf. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26–27, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.co- sust.2016.12.005. 109. Barelli, M. (2012). Free, prior and informed consent in the aftermath of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: developments and 94. Duncan, T., Villarreal-Rosas, J., Carwardine, J., Garnett, S.T., and challenges ahead. Int. J. Hum. Right. 16, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Robinson, C.J. (2018). Influence of environmental governance regimes 13642987.2011.597746. on the capacity of indigenous peoples to participate in conservation management. PARKS-International Journal of Protected Areas and 110. Buxton, A., and Wilson, E. (2013). FPIC and the Extractive Industries: A Conservation 24, 87–102. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2018. Guide to Applying the Spirit of Free, Prior and Informed Consent in PARKS-24-2TD.en. Industrial Projects (International Institute for Environment and Development). 95. Papillon, M., and Rodon, T. (2017). Proponent-Indigenous agreements and the implementation of the right to free, prior, and informed consent 111. O’Faircheallaigh, C., and Ali, S. (2017). Earth Matters: Indigenous in Canada. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 62, 216–224. https://doi.org/ Peoples, the Extractive Industries and Corporate Social Responsibility 10.1016/j.eiar.2016.06.009. (Routledge). 96. Zimmerman, M.G., and Reames, T.G. (2021). Where the wind blows: 112. Global Witness (2020). Defending Tomorrow: The climate crisis and Exploring barriers and opportunities to renewable energy development threats against land and environmental defenders (Global Witness). 1048 One Earth 6, 1032–1049, August 18, 2023 ll Article OPEN ACCESS 113. Kennedy, C.M., Oakleaf, J.R., Theobald, D.M., Baruch-Mordo, S., and 121. Sethi, T., Custer, S., Turner, J., Sims, J., DiLorenzo, M., and Latourell, R. Kiesecker, J. (2018). Global Human Modification. figshare. https://doi. (2017). AIDData. Realizing Agenda 2030: Will Donor Dollars and Country org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7283087. Priorities Align with Global Goals? (College of William & Mary). 114. Oakleaf, J.R., Kennedy, C.M., Baruch-Mordo, S., Gerber, J.S., West, 122. Fariss, B., and Kennedy, C.M. (2023). National conversion risk assess- P.C., Johnson, J.A., and Kiesecker, J. (2019). Global development poten- ment for Indigenous Peoples’ lands. figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/ tial indices for renewable energy, fossil fuels, mining and agriculture sec- m9.figshare.23654292. tors. figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4249532. 123. Zhou, Y., Varquez, A.C.G., and Kanda, M. (2019). High-resolution global 115. Li, X. and Zhou, Y. (2020). High resolution mapping of global urban urban growth projection based on multiple applications of the SLEUTH extents from 1870 to 2100 by integrating data and model driven urban growth model. Sci. Data 6, 34. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597- approaches. figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare. 019-0048-z. 9696218.v1. 124. Alden Wily, L. (2016). Customary tenure: remaking property for the 21st 116. GADM. GADM maps and data. https://gadm.org/. century. Comparative Property Law: Global Perspect. 458–478. 117. LandMark (2018). Indicators of the Legal Security of Indigenous and 125. Agrawal, A., and Ostrom, E. (2001). Collective action, property rights, and Community Lands. http://www.landmarkmap.org/data/. decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Polit. Soc. 29, 118. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., and Mastruzzi, M. (2010). The Worldwide 485–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329201029004002. Governance Indicators Methodology and Analytical Issues. Policy 126. Cox, M., Arnold, G., and Villamayor Tomás, S. (2010). A review of design Research Working Paper 5430. In The World Bank, Macroeconomics principles for community-based natural resource management. Ecol. and Growth Team (Development Research Group). Soc. 15, 38. 119. Worker, J., and De Silva, L. (2015). The Environmental Democracy Index 127. Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M., and Torrisi, G. (2019). On the Technical Note (World Resources Institute). Methodological Framework of Composite Indices: A Review of the 120. United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2019). Human Development Issues of Weighting, Aggregation, and Robustness. Soc. Indicat. Res. Index. http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi. 141, 61–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1832-9. One Earth 6, 1032–1049, August 18, 2023 1049