• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

INDIGENOUS Communities ARE Better At Preserving Biodiversity, Research Shows (1 Viewer)

Sangahyando

Well-known member
Really? I've yet to see proof of that outside Australia. Also, "indigenous" is not a proper name and there's no need to spell it with a capital I.
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
England
I wonder if the 'hunter, gatherer' lifestyle is the reason?

Farming communities are removing forest at an alarming rate as opposed to the above who depend on the forests to a large degree, to thrive. I'd suggest that the communitiies used in this study, are not farmers, indiginous Brazilian tribes, Eskimos in Canada and Aborigines in Australia, none are farmers to any great degree AFAIK?
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
Really? I've yet to see proof of that outside Australia. Also, "indigenous" is not a proper name and there's no need to spell it with a capital I.

Do you have any research to back up your opinion ?

As far as "Indigenous" goes, not only is it grammatically correct, it's also a sign of respect.



Chosun :gh:
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
I wonder if the 'hunter, gatherer' lifestyle is the reason?

Farming communities are removing forest at an alarming rate as opposed to the above who depend on the forests to a large degree, to thrive. I'd suggest that the communitiies used in this study, are not farmers, indiginous Brazilian tribes, Eskimos in Canada and Aborigines in Australia, none are farmers to any great degree AFAIK?

It has to do with worldview and true spiritual connection. The earth is an integral part of the human 'family' - 'Mother' Earth. As such there is a respect there that has inherent sustainability.

I suggest you might want to read the thread "Dark Emu" https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=364276 , and the links contained therein, or better still the actual book. There the sustainable cultivation and management of the landscapes - the 'creation' of the environment is detailed in all its sophistication. The paradise and asset that the English found (and went on to steal and destroy) was no accident of happenstance of geography and climate - the Aboriginal people were integral to it's health and bounty.

Reading some of the original diaries of colonial explorer's you can see that this sustainably managed landscape was destroyed in as little as a decade from first introduction of the exploitative mindset, foreign hard hooves animals, and European agricultural methods.

With modern 'western' farming (though desertification is just as rife I the 'east' - China for example) , it is not so much the removal of forest (though this is an issue) , as it is the removal of cover, and more importantly soil, and the carbon and moisture this contains. Once the land goes from 'building' (soil, carbon, moisture, environmental health) , to 'eroding' - it is all downhill from there - literally - gravity prevents the natural deposition and accumulation processes - and the land becomes dried with eroded incised channels.

True hunter gatherer lifestyles deep in the Amazon are something different again, though that has only ever been viewed through a western lens, so it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they are doing their own forms of cultivation - virtually another species in the cycle of propagation and regeneration. For example Aboriginal nations in the rainforests had ways of harvesting and managing various fruits (quandongs I think) in symbiosis with Cassowary to disperse the seeds thus producing more.

Even in a supposedly first world country such as Australia, the legislated environmental protection laws are woefully inadequate in practice.





Chosun :gh:
 

Sangahyando

Well-known member
Do you have any research to back up your opinion ?
That's not how the burden of proof works. Your thread (as per the title) makes a very bold claim about the superior land management by "indigenous communities" (no geograhical or temporal context provided), based on a single study about Australia. What about the rest of the world, then? That's my point.


As far as "Indigenous" goes, not only is it grammatically correct, it's also a sign of respect.
Not really, though. "Indigenous" is a descriptor, not an ethnonym in and of itself. Pretty sure most people on this forum are indigenous - to various countries, that is. Given how this is a) an internet forum and b) a disproportionate amount of its users are from Britain, one would logically assume that unspecific terms like "indigenous" or "native" either refer to anyone around the world to whom they apply, or indeed to indigenous British people (particularly given how members of the latter tribe also tend to converse on this forum without using proper geographical designations, rarely bothering to supplement ID thread titles with the name of their country, instead only relying on county or reserve names).


I wonder if the 'hunter, gatherer' lifestyle is the reason?

Farming communities are removing forest at an alarming rate as opposed to the above who depend on the forests to a large degree, to thrive. I'd suggest that the communitiies used in this study, are not farmers, indiginous Brazilian tribes, Eskimos in Canada and Aborigines in Australia, none are farmers to any great degree AFAIK?
IMO it's not as simple as that; hunter gatherers can be really exploitative, too. Especially if they're new to an environment.
I'd say the key issue to remember is that it's an issue of a type of land use (whether hunting/gathering or farming/husbandry) that's been adapted to the specific region over millennia, versus industrial agriculture and agricultural "strip mining". Obviously, "indigenous communities" should have an advantage in knowing what works in the long run and what doesn't - as long as they remember it, that is. Over here, there's plenty of indigenous folks on either side, some being responsible and some just damaging the ecosystem.

A bit off topic, but since you've mentioned native Brazilians - there's archaeological evidence of actual houses (and IIRC other accompanying phenomena related to an agricultural civilization) from the Amazon forest, so at least some of the local natives might have been more technologically advanced at some point in history than they are now. Unfortunately, I haven't researched that particular subject myself, so that's all I can say about it. Just wanted to mention it since it contradicts the image most people will probably have of the native peoples of that region.
 
Last edited:

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
England
No it's not. "Indigenous" is a descriptor, not an ethnonym in and of itself. Pretty sure most people on this forum are indigenous - to various countries, that is. Given how this is a) an internet forum and b) a disproportionate amount of its users are from Britain, one would logically assume that unspecific terms like "indigenous" or "native" either refer to anyone around the world to whom they apply, or indeed to indigenous British people (particularly given how members of the latter tribe also tend to converse on this forum without using proper geographical designations, rarely bothering to supplement ID thread titles with the name of their country, instead only relying on county or reserve names).

You'd do well to remember that though this forum is frequented by people from all over the World, it is a British forum with a British owner.

Regarding posts that don't designate the geographical position to your liking, by Brits, I'd suggest they are very few, Americans use state codes that we're expected to know, what's the difference?
 
Last edited:

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
That's not how the burden of proof works. Your thread (as per the title) makes a very bold claim about the superior land management by "indigenous communities" (no geograhical or temporal context provided), based on a single study about Australia. What about the rest of the world, then? That's my point.

It was in reference to the linked study.
"The study compared land management and species data in three of the largest countries in the world: Canada, Brazil, and Australia. "We looked at three countries with very different climates and species, to see if the pattern held true across these different regions—and it did," said the study's co-author, Ryan Germain.

By comparing species counts from more than 15,621 geographical areas in the three countries, the researchers found that the total numbers of birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles were highest on lands managed or co-managed by Indigenous communities."


3 countries, 15,621 geographical areas obviously requires a degree of drilling down and categorization.

I am not overly familiar with Native American Indian contributions to landscape - but the impacts [such as removal] of the great herds and other grazers movement due to [or lack of natural] hunting, predatory pressures are dire. The change in the environment with the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone has been dramatic.

The crux of their philosophy is the same though - respect and nurturing for the Mother Earth that nutures us.

.... I'd say the key issue to remember is that it's an issue of a type of land use (whether hunting/gathering or farming/husbandry) that's been adapted to the specific region over millennia, versus industrial agriculture and agricultural "strip mining". Obviously, "indigenous communities" should have an advantage in knowing what works in the long run and what doesn't - as long as they remember it, that is....

That's a good way to term it - industrial scale, destroying the asset base (for short term economic 'gain') as opposed to a more sustainable 'harvesting' of the environmental products whilst preserving (and improving) the ongoing asset base ('Mother').

Aboriginal Lore embodied in the culture has proved to be a far more reliable data storage system than paper, tape, floppy discs, etc. It is not subject to moths, silverfish, UV degradation, electromagnetic storms, technological obsolescence over 10's of 1000's of years, and even other unmentionables .....



Chosun :gh:
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
England
It was in reference to the linked study.
"The study compared land management and species data in three of the largest countries in the world: Canada, Brazil, and Australia. "We looked at three countries with very different climates and species, to see if the pattern held true across these different regions—and it did," said the study's co-author, Ryan Germain.

By comparing species counts from more than 15,621 geographical areas in the three countries, the researchers found that the total numbers of birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles were highest on lands managed or co-managed by Indigenous communities."


3 countries, 15,621 geographical areas obviously requires a degree of drilling down and categorization.

I am not overly familiar with Native American Indian contributions to landscape - but the impacts [such as removal] of the great herds and other grazers movement due to [or lack of natural] hunting, predatory pressures are dire. The change in the environment with the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone has been dramatic.

The crux of their philosophy is the same though - respect and nurturing for the Mother Earth that nutures us.



That's a good way to term it - industrial scale, destroying the asset base (for short term economic 'gain') as opposed to a more sustainable 'harvesting' of the environmental products whilst preserving (and improving) the ongoing asset base ('Mother').


Chosun :gh:

It doesn't have to be 'industrial scale', the sheer volume of people will do it, look at places like Java and Sumatra in Indonesia. Loads of poor people who just strip out any forest for subsistence farming.
 

DMW

Well-known member
Do you have any research to back up your opinion ?

As far as "Indigenous" goes, not only is it grammatically correct, it's also a sign of respect.



Chosun :gh:

Do you have any research to back up your claim that indigenous people are better at managing biodiversity? An online opinion piece isn't research, and the abstract from the paper quoted in that opinion piece makes no such claim.
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
It doesn't have to be 'industrial scale', the sheer volume of people will do it, look at places like Java and Sumatra in Indonesia. Loads of poor people who just strip out any forest for subsistence farming.
Yes sheer numbers of people will do it - Jakarta is a city of ~30 million people - what forest could support that ? I was thinking more in terms of the broad scale chemical/industrial agriculture as practiced in places like the US, where the fertility of soils is declining (having started from a very high base) precisely because of those methods (and for profit). I would ask you - is the decimation of primary rainforest in Indonesia for industrial scale Palm Oil plantations really any different?



Chosun :gh:
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
Do you have any research to back up your claim that indigenous people are better at managing biodiversity? An online opinion piece isn't research, and the abstract from the paper quoted in that opinion piece makes no such claim.
I don't have access to the full paper - do you?
This from the abstract:
"We found that Indigenous-managed lands were slightly more vertebrate species rich than existing protected areas in all three countries, and in Brazil and Canada, that they supported more threatened vertebrate species than existing protected areas or randomly selected non-protected areas."

Did you read the linked World Bank or United Nations reports in conjunction?
https://siteresources.worldbank.org...92.296063103.1564837499-1442857251.1564749024
https://www.ipbes.net/news/Media-Re...2.1781403664.1564857805-1876023042.1564857805



Chosun :gh:
 
Last edited:

DMW

Well-known member
I don't have access to the full paper - do you?
This from the abstract:
"We found that Indigenous-managed lands were slightly more vertebrate species rich than existing protected areas in all three countries, and in Brazil and Canada, that they supported more threatened vertebrate species than existing protected areas or randomly selected non-protected areas."

Did you read the linked World Bank or United Nations reports in conjunction?
https://siteresources.worldbank.org...92.296063103.1564837499-1442857251.1564749024
https://www.ipbes.net/news/Media-Re...2.1781403664.1564857805-1876023042.1564857805



Chosun :gh:

No I don't have access. I'm not the one who is claiming something to be supported by research that I haven't read. The burden of proof is on you, not me. Quoting a biased opinion piece misquoting a study hidden behind a pay wall does not constitute evidence.
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
No I don't have access. I'm not the one who is claiming something to be supported by research that I haven't read. The burden of proof is on you, not me. Quoting a biased opinion piece misquoting a study hidden behind a pay wall does not constitute evidence.
If you haven't read the study then how do you know it is misquoted? Biased? The World Bank and UN reports are available in their entirety. I think the conclusions are self evident, and supportive of the abstract sentence I just quoted.




Chosun :gh:
 

Hauksen

Forum member
Hi Chosun,

I don't have access to the full paper - do you?
This from the abstract:
"We found that Indigenous-managed lands were slightly more vertebrate species rich than existing protected areas in all three countries, and in Brazil and Canada, that they supported more threatened vertebrate species than existing protected areas or randomly selected non-protected areas."

I have to admit that I'm wondering if that might be a statistical artifact based on natural reserves usually being defined on the basis of being a coherent set of biotopes, while Indigenous-managed lands would be defined on different criteria, spanning several different biotopes.

Not to say that managing human-populated lands in a way that's about as good with regard to biodiversity as "standard" management of dedicated natural reserves isn't a remarkable accomplishment!

I read "Dark Emu", by the way, and liked it quite well. I'd recommend Charles Mann's "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus" and "1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created" higher though, since they have a lot more detail and background on non-European agrarian cultures. Or read all three to get the full picture, of course ;-)

Regards,

Henning
 

DMW

Well-known member
If you haven't read the study then how do you know it is misquoted? Biased? The World Bank and UN reports are available in their entirety. I think the conclusions are self evident, and supportive of the abstract sentence I just quoted.




Chosun :gh:

"INDIGENOUS Communities ARE Better At Preserving Biodiversity, Research SHOWS". Your statement, yet you cannot show where the research states this, because you haven't read it. As I said, burden is on you to demonstrate that the paper in question arrived at this conclusion.

Let me play the same fallacious game as you: "Indigenous communities are worse at preserving biodiversity, but just happen to live in areas where biodiversity is higher, Research shows."
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
"INDIGENOUS Communities ARE Better At Preserving Biodiversity, Research SHOWS". Your statement, yet you cannot show where the research states this, because you haven't read it. As I said, burden is on you to demonstrate that the paper in question arrived at this conclusion.....

Let's be quite clear about this. It is not "my statement" (regardless of if I agree). The title of the thread is the title of the article I linked.

That article contains links to the paper (only abstract freely available) , links to the press release, and links to the World Bank report, and UN report, among other links. If you've bothered to read through any of those you'll see that there is nothing that disproves this.

This is a direct quote from the Co-Author:
"We looked at three countries with very different climates and species, to see if the pattern held true across these different regions--and it did," said co-author Ryan Germain, a postdoctoral fellow at Cornell University. "From frogs and songbirds right up to large mammals like grizzly bears, jaguars and kangaroos, biodiversity was richest in Indigenous-managed lands."
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_rele...98.296063103.1564837499-1442857251.1564749024

..... Let me play the same fallacious game as you: "Indigenous communities are worse at preserving biodiversity, but just happen to live in areas where biodiversity is higher, Research shows."

I'm not playing a game - let alone a fallacious one. If you want to play a fallacious game - you'll be playing with yourself.

Let me try and put this in terms that I think anyone who genuinely wants to understand, will:- the difference is between:

* Natural Asset consumption and unsustainable environmental harvest (rapidly leading us along the path of the man-made sixth great extinction event)

and,

* Natural Asset preservation and sustainable environmental harvest (respect and affinity for 'Mother' Earth, acknowledging that both of our fates and ongoing quality of life are intertwined).



Chosun :gh:
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
England
"We found that Indigenous-managed lands were slightly more vertebrate species rich than existing protected areas in all three countries, and in Brazil and Canada, that they supported more threatened vertebrate species than existing protected areas or randomly selected non-protected areas."

Chosun :gh:

Did you also consider that the lands being compared, should be absolutley identical, if they're not, the study is invalid. Some habitats are naturally richer in vertebrate species than others, very simple example would be comparing the Arctic with the Amazon.
 
Last edited:

Farnboro John

Well-known member
Let's be quite clear about this. It is not "my statement" (regardless of if I agree). The title of the thread is the title of the article I linked.

That article contains links to the paper (only abstract freely available) , links to the press release, and links to the World Bank report, and UN report, among other links. If you've bothered to read through any of those you'll see that there is nothing that disproves this.

This is a direct quote from the Co-Author:
"We looked at three countries with very different climates and species, to see if the pattern held true across these different regions--and it did," said co-author Ryan Germain, a postdoctoral fellow at Cornell University. "From frogs and songbirds right up to large mammals like grizzly bears, jaguars and kangaroos, biodiversity was richest in Indigenous-managed lands."
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_rele...98.296063103.1564837499-1442857251.1564749024



I'm not playing a game - let alone a fallacious one. If you want to play a fallacious game - you'll be playing with yourself.

Let me try and put this in terms that I think anyone who genuinely wants to understand, will:- the difference is between:

* Natural Asset consumption and unsustainable environmental harvest (rapidly leading us along the path of the man-made sixth great extinction event)

and,

* Natural Asset preservation and sustainable environmental harvest (respect and affinity for 'Mother' Earth, acknowledging that both of our fates and ongoing quality of life are intertwined).



Chosun :gh:

TBH I think the real fallacy comes in the idea that it is the nature of the "management" activity that makes the difference. Its not. Its the number of people drawing on the resources. That comes, ultimately, from Nature, not science, maintaining the low numbers of people: so famine results in deaths, absence of modern medicine results in deaths, enlargement of one tribe results in conflict and direct reduction in numbers by war, etc. Even then the role of e.g. the Australian indigenous population in the extinction of large Australian animals suggests that actually, the intervention of modern humans in any ecosystem will be deleterious at some level.

It is also absurd to advocate the example and suggest the rest of the world (which has followed a path not of mindlessly remaining at the survival level but enlightenment and the pros and cons that flow from that, including the current world human population) should adopt it, without also suggesting the essential corollary which has to be that the current world population must be reduced to a sustainable level (under the model you promote). This is a simple advocation of human massacre in every area not currently individually sustainable under the model. I question the ethicality of that.

John
 

BluePlanet

Sun Sea and Trees. Registered User
Thank you, Chosun, for sharing the link. Much appreciated.
Also for a lot of valuable info over the years.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top