A new commentary piece in the journal Nature has caused an uproar in the conservation world and has prompted scientists to call for rigorous study. According to the authors, the much-cited claim that 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity is protected by Indigenous peoples is not only a “baseless statistic” that is not supported by any real data — it’s wrong. Mentioning the impossibility of quantifying biodiversity and the lack of studies that produced the statistic, the researchers show how multiple peer-reviewed journal articles and media (including this one) cited the figure. “Maintaining accuracy and integrity is crucial for advancing social advocacy. Failing to correct errors, no matter how inconvenient, only serves to perpetuate disinformation,” says Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares, one of the authors. “This runs contrary to the tenets of scientific rigor.” But not all researchers agree with the authors’ conclusions, and many Indigenous activists call the commentary unethical. Although nearly all sources Mongabay spoke to agree the statistic is under-researched, and certain NGOs have long avoided using the figure, some say the Nature commentary itself lacks real evidence. According to scientific principles, they say, it’s still incorrect to point to the 80% stat as wrong without providing proof it’s wrong. This is especially true as many peer-reviewed studies point to Indigenous stewardship of high-value biodiversity areas. “Although the 80% statistic is not well evidenced, it does not mean it’s not true,” says Drea Burbank, CEO of the fair-trade biodiversity credits business Savimbo. Publishing the commentary without proof, Indigenous advocates tell…This article was originally published on Mongabay
Article by:
This story first appeared on Mongabay
South Africa Today – Environment
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and Mongabay, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.
