Indigenous societies share territories with at least 19 of the species discussed in the paper by Bolam and colleagues.

Its hard to imagine that they played zero role in conservation.
Its also important to acknowledge that the conservation methods they promote in this article--protected areas, hunting and fishing closures, etc--are methods that have been used over and over to harm Indigenous peoples and dispossess them of their land.

This can't go unsaid
Right now, global biodiversity targets are being re-negotiated. Not centering, or even acknowledging Indigenous people in a paper like this is harmful and negligent on their part because its papers like these that inform policy. That influence who gets a seat at the table.
As an aside, I also have significant concerns about the expert consensus methods that Bolam et al used to reach their findings, and the apparent lack of measures taken to address overconfidence bias, confirmation bias, or faulty, "post hoc ergo propter hoc" reasoning
We chose here to focus on the erasure of Indigenous peoples, however, given the word limit and that this is the most important message to draw out in response to their paper.
My last point is this: if you are doing conservation science and not including or acknowledging the Indigenous people in that area, the contributions they've made for millennia, and the likely harms they've experienced because of western conservation,

you're doing it wrong
You can follow @ConserveChange.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.