How Indigenous people can provide cost-effective climate solutions for biodiversity conservation
Sustainable practices followed by Indigenous people might be better at carbon management and offer significant environmental and health benefits. Yet, Indigenous lands receive minimal funding, and their impact is insufficiently researched. There’s a need for greater investment and inclusion of Indigenous voices in decision-making.
In August 2021, I sat with Agustin, one of the last ancestral leaders of the Kogui community, in Colombia's Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. As descendants of the ancient Tayrona Indigenous civilisation, the Kogui see the world through a lens shaped by centuries of ecosystems’ preservation. For Agustin, development is not progress as we commonly define it - it is a circular journey back to one’s roots. True growth, he explained, lies in respecting the land that sustains us.
The Kogui see non-Indigenous, modern societies as "younger siblings" immersed in a linear model of endless expansion through finite resources without fully understanding how to preserve them. Agustin’s perspective lent a striking contrast – development as harmony and sustainable resource use.
Despite the pressures of modern life, the Kogui have preserved their traditions and language. For centuries, they have dedicated themselves to safeguarding their ecosystem, using methods akin to science - careful observation, interaction, and experimentation with ecosystems.
Spread worldwide, Indigenous communities include nearly 476 million people, managing a quarter of the Earth's surface - an area larger than Africa - across 87 countries (see Figure 1). This land, home to 80% of the planet’s biodiversity, highlights the indispensable guardianship Indigenous people provide. Yet, they only receive about 0.13% of all climate change funding and their rights are protected in just 10% of the land in which they reside.
The role of Indigenous knowledge and guardianship in tackling climate change is often underappreciated and insufficiently researched. COP 16 and COP 29 made small steps toward inclusive conservation with initiatives like the Indigenous-led subsidiary body but fell short in securing sufficient funding and ensuring direct access to climate finance for Indigenous communities. They have also not managed to recognise Indigenous lands as distinct conservation areas, risking rights violations and food insecurity, with Indigenous voices still underrepresented in decision-making.
Figure 1: Global map of lands managed and/or controlled by Indigenous peoples
What indigenous-managed lands are achieving: carbon sequestration, less carbon emissions, and guardianship against deforestation
A study by the World Resources Institute reveals that Indigenous-protected areas in the Amazon excel in carbon management, surpassing government-run and non-Indigenous lands in absorption and emission reduction. These territories, home to 1.5 million Indigenous people from 385 ethnic groups, cover 29% of the Amazon bioregion across nine countries. Nearly half of the land lies in Brazil, where 40% of global tropical deforestation occurs.
Between 2001 and 2021, the forests in these Indigenous territories played an important role in helping the environment by absorbing more carbon than they released. On average, they absorbed 340 million tonnes of CO2, more than they emitted per year. In contrast, forests outside of Indigenous lands lost many trees and became a source of carbon pollution, releasing about 270 million tonnes of CO2 per year (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Carbon emissions and removals in Amazon forests
The success of Indigenous-managed forests lies not just in absorbing more carbon but in releasing far less. Forests in Indigenous territories emit just 0.60 tonnes of CO2 per hectare annually, compared to 3.2 tonnes in non-Indigenous lands. This stark difference reflects the protective stewardship of Indigenous communities, shielding forests from threats like agriculture, ranching, mining, and infrastructure development.
Interestingly, carbon absorption rates are similar—2.2 tonnes per hectare on Indigenous lands versus 2.5 tonnes elsewhere. This highlights that preserving Indigenous-managed forests to reduce emissions is a more effective climate strategy than focusing solely on carbon absorption.
Securing Indigenous forestlands in Bolivia, Brazil, and Colombia for the next 20 years could yield enormous economic and environmental benefits. It is estimated to prevent 42.8 to 59.7 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually from deforestation—equivalent to taking 9–12.6 million cars off the road for a year. This reduction represents USD 21–30 billion in carbon benefits, underscoring the critical role of Indigenous stewardship in combating climate change.
Indigenous environmental stewardship reduces emissions and delivers significant public health benefits. In the Brazilian Amazon, protecting Indigenous lands prevents over 15 million cases of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases annually, saving approximately USD 2 billion in healthcare costs.
The true value of Indigenous-managed forests is often overlooked, as carbon benefits are not reflected in the price of land or timber. This undervaluation leaves forests vulnerable, giving people little incentive to protect or manage them sustainably. Consequently, governments and businesses frequently seize Indigenous-managed lands, clearing trees for agriculture, construction, or urban expansion, driven by economic pressures and profit motives.
How much would it cost governments to secure Indigenous land tenure?
Protecting Indigenous lands is an economical way to prevent deforestation and reduce carbon emissions. The cost ranges from USD 2–4 per tonne of CO2 in Bolivia, USD 9–12 in Brazil, and USD 5–7 in Colombia. In comparison, capturing carbon from coal-fired power plants costs around USD 58 per tonne, and for natural gas plants, it rises to USD 85.
Figure 3: Estimated costs of carbon mitigation
This sharp contrast underscores the economic efficiency of securing Indigenous land tenure as a climate action. Investing in the legal protection of Indigenous lands could allow nations to achieve their climate targets more cost-effectively.
Reforesting degraded lands, a rising alternative, is also less cost-effective than preserving Indigenous land management today. The Great Green Wall (GGW) project in Africa illustrates this. Despite USD 200 million invested by 2020, only 18 million of the targeted 100 million hectares were restored, with up to 80% of trees dying within two months due to poor maintenance. Learning from these setbacks, GGW now emphasises Indigenous farming techniques tailored to local conditions.
A study of the Maya Forest in Guatemala and Mexico, using satellite data from 1988 to 2005, supports this shift. It found that community-managed forests, particularly those led by Indigenous people, are more cost-effective than government-protected areas. These forests not only prevent deforestation but also strengthen local economies.
Investment in Indigenous forest protection and gaps in policy
Despite the crucial role Indigenous peoples play in protecting forests, they receive only 0.13% of all climate change funding. Of the financial support provided in the past decade for Indigenous rights and forest management, only 17% directly involved Indigenous organisations. Even more concerning, from the USD 1.7 billion pledged at COP26 to support Indigenous peoples' Forest Tenure from 2021 to 2025, only 7% has reached Indigenous groups so far.
At COP16, a major point of contention was the pledge for high-income countries to mobilise at least USD 20 billion annually to address a USD 700 billion biodiversity financing gap by 2030. The conference closed without a clear roadmap to achieve this goal, with most high-income nations falling short of their “fair share.”
Indigenous leaders’ proposal to include “traditional knowledge” as a progress indicator in conservation monitoring was also rejected. Recent studies criticise conservation policies from COP15 and COP16 for prioritising “how much land to conserve” over “how to conserve it,” neglecting key aspects like socioeconomic factors, equitable management, and Indigenous knowledge in decision-making.
Indigenous people face numerous additional challenges, including a life expectancy up to 20 years lower than that of non-Indigenous populations. The absence of reliable evidence concerning the territories of Indigenous peoples globally hampers their capacity to safeguard their rights. This situation also impacts the conservation and guardianship of a substantial portion of the world's biodiversity, further exacerbated by limited formal acknowledgement of their land rights and insufficient governmental investment in essential services.
Indigenous peoples protect nearly 38 million km² of land, but their stewardship faces growing pressure from profit-driven exploitation, often at great environmental cost. This raises some important questions: How can policies ensure these lands are used sustainably? What data and impact evaluations are needed to guide these policies? What obstacles are preventing governments and institutions from prioritising this issue?