Recognition and engagement of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IP&LCs) and other traditional knowledge (TK) holders in formal biodiversity governance remain limited, despite their significant contribution to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity through their knowledge, innovations, practices, and land stewardship. We conducted the first global assessment of how the 195 countries that ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity self-report on this contribution based on a full content analysis of all of the 2 most recent national reports (NR5 and NR6). The number of countries self-reporting IP&LC and TK roles in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity increased between the 2 reporting periods and exceeded 55% for NR6. The mention of IP&LC and TK contribution to cultivation and domestication was slightly higher; 59% of countries provided evidence of recognition of this contribution in their NR6. Reference to the holders themselves was much lower, even in the case of cultivation and domestication, and explicit evidence of IP&LC involvement in reporting was minimal, particularly in developed countries. Several reports, particularly European submissions, mentioned traditional land use or community-based practices but considered addressing IP&LCs and TK irrelevant due to terminology confusion. Ahead of the next reporting (NR7), due in 2026, and in line with the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which recognizes IP&LCs and TK as integral to its goals, we urge governments to strengthen engagement with IP&LCs and other TK holders, develop and respect partnerships that incorporate their knowledge, practices, and rights, support IP&LC-led conservation, and build on these partnerships in monitoring and reporting on national progress. We aimed to support this process with short-term practical recommendations for upcoming reporting and longer-term strategic guidance and a dataset of illustrative quotes from the analyzed national reports as examples of good practice.

El reconocimiento y la participación de los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales (PICL) y otros poseedores de conocimientos tradicionales (CT) en la gobernanza formal de la biodiversidad siguen siendo limitados, a pesar de su importante contribución a la conservación y el uso sostenible de la biodiversidad a través de sus conocimientos, innovaciones, prácticas y gestión de la tierra. Llevamos a cabo la primera evaluación mundial de cómo los 195 países que ratificaron el Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica informan sobre esta contribución, basándonos en un análisis completo del contenido de los dos informes nacionales más recientes (NR5 y NR6). El número de países que informan sobre el papel de los PICL y los CT en la conservación y el uso sostenible de la biodiversidad aumentó entre los dos períodos de presentación de informes y superó el 55 % en el NR6. La mención de la contribución de los PI y los CL y los KT al cultivo y la domesticación fue ligeramente superior; el 59 % de los países aportaron pruebas del reconocimiento de esta contribución en su NR6. Las referencias a los propios titulares fueron mucho menos frecuentes, incluso en el caso del cultivo y la domesticación, y las pruebas explícitas de la participación de los PI y los CL en la presentación de informes fueron mínimas, especialmente en los países desarrollados. Varios informes, en particular los presentados por Europa, mencionaban el uso tradicional de la tierra o las prácticas comunitarias, pero consideraban irrelevante abordar la PI y los CL y los CT debido a la confusión terminológica. Antes de la próxima presentación de informes (NR7), prevista para 2026, y en consonancia con el Marco Mundial de Kunming-Montreal para la Diversidad Biológica, que reconoce los PI y los PC y los CT como parte integrante de sus objetivos, instamos a los gobiernos a que refuercen su compromiso con los PI y los PC y otros titulares de CT, desarrollen y respeten las asociaciones que incorporan sus conocimientos, prácticas y derechos, apoyen la conservación impulsada por los PI y los PC y se basen en estas asociaciones para supervisar e informar sobre los progresos nacionales. Nuestro objetivo era apoyar este proceso con recomendaciones prácticas a corto plazo para los próximos informes y orientación estratégica a largo plazo, así como con un conjunto de citas ilustrativas extraídas de los informes nacionales analizados como ejemplos de buenas prácticas.

尽管土著人民和当地社区(Indigenous Peoples and local communities, IP&LC)以及其他传统知识(traditional knowledge, TK)持有者可以通过知识、创新、实践和土地管理为生物多样性保护和可持续利用作出重大贡献, 但在正式的生物多样性治理中, 其得到的认可和参与仍很有限。我们基于对最近两份国家报告(NR5和NR6)的完整内容分析, 首次对195个《生物多样性公约》缔约国对此类贡献的自我报告情况进行了全球性评估。在两个报告期之间, 自我报告IP&LC和TK在生物多样性保护和可持续利用中发挥作用的国家数量有所增加, 并在NR6中超过55%。提及IP&LC和TK对栽培及驯化生物贡献的比例略高;59%的国家在NR6中提供了认可这一贡献的证据。即便在栽培及驯化生物的话题下, 提到IP&LC和TK持有者本人的比例也明显更低, 且明确证明IP&LC参与报告过程的证据极为有限, 在发达国家中尤其如此。部分报告(特别是欧洲国家提交的报告)虽提及传统土地利用或基于社区的实践, 但却因术语混淆而认为无需考虑IP&LC与TK的问题。在2026年提交NR7前夕, 同时也为响应将IP&LC和TK纳入核心目标的《昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架》, 我们敦促各国政府加强与IP&LC和TK持有者的合作, 建立并尊重整合了其知识、实践和权利的伙伴关系, 支持由IP&LC主导的保护行动, 并在监测和报告国家进展时进一步发展此类伙伴关系。我们旨在通过为即将开展的报告工作提供短期实用建议、制定长期战略指导, 并从分析的国家报告中摘录示范性引文作为良好实践范例, 来支持这一进程。

1. The pivot towards evidence-based conservation since 2000 has inspired global environmental assessments to gather evidence across multiple knowledge systems, including through co-production with Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Knowledge co-production is highlighted as a strategy for transformative change towards a just future that conserves nature. The multiple evidence base (MEB) approach, one method for co-production developed alongside the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), identifies five tasks in co-production (mobilize, translate, negotiate, synthesize, apply) and centres the roles of diverse actors, their knowledge institutions and collaborative processes. The synthesis task is arguably the most challenging, involving knowledge conflicts, incommensurability, tensions between diversity and consensus, political and power dynamics—yet little guidance exists in literature about how to navigate these challenges.
2. Here, we address this knowledge gap with a state-of-the-art literature review of the synthesis task, iterated with reflections among our co-author team of Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants in three assessments for IPBES. Our analysis uses the MEB categories of actors, institutions and collaborative processes, with a dissonance theoretical perspective to tackle political dimensions.
3. We synthesize practical steps for IPBES and highlight key areas for action to more broadly stimulate evidence synthesis as a means of transformative change: working with diverse actors to address power dynamics and asymmetries for productive conflict; crafting co-governance institutions that embed justice and a rights-based approach together with attention to healing trauma; and encouraging processes that enable productive contestation of ideas using tools such as framing analysis and minority/majority messages. Fostering co-productive reflexivity and learning across epistemic, normative, cognitive and relational domains underpin the development of the political capabilities to navigate dissent. Promoting leadership by Indigenous and local knowledge actors, strengthening and funding opportunities to practice their knowledge for their own purposes as well as for co-production and navigating differences in how time is perceived are vital.
4. Science–policy interfaces that seek transformative, rather than incremental, change will always be characterized by the opposing discourses and narratives that underpin the political dynamics of socially just synthesis across knowledge systems. Implementation of our guidance will assist knowledge co-production efforts to progress transformative change.

A much-cited statistic about how much of the world’s biodiversity is under Indigenous stewardship is unsupported — and could harm the cause it is meant to support.

Intact Forest Landscapes (IFLs) are critical strongholds for the environmental services that they provide, not least for their role in climate protection. On the basis of information about the distributions of IFLs and Indigenous Peoples' lands, we examined the importance of these areas for conserving the world's remaining intact forests. We determined that at least 36% of IFLs are within Indigenous Peoples' lands, making these areas crucial to the mitigation action needed to avoid catastrophic climate change. We also provide evidence that IFL loss rates have been considerably lower on Indigenous Peoples' lands than on other lands, although these forests are still vulnerable to clearing and other threats. World governments must recognize Indigenous Peoples' rights, including land tenure rights, to ensure that Indigenous Peoples play active roles in decision-making processes that affect IFLs on their lands. Such recognition is critical given the urgent need to reduce deforestation rates in the face of escalating climate change and global biodiversity loss.

Working with indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) is vital for inclusive assessments of nature and nature's linkages with people. Indigenous peoples' concepts about what constitutes sustainability, for example, differ markedly from dominant sustainability discourses. The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services (IPBES) is promoting dialogue across different knowledge systems globally. In 2017, member states of IPBES adopted an ILK Approach including: procedures for assessments of nature and nature's linkages with people; a participatory mechanism; and institutional arrangements for including indigenous peoples and local communities. We present this Approach and analyse how it supports ILK in IPBES assessments through: respecting rights; supporting care and mutuality; strengthening communities and their knowledge systems; and supporting knowledge exchange. Customary institutions that ensure the integrity of ILK, effective empowering dialogues, and shared governance are among critical capacities that enable inclusion of diverse conceptualizations of sustainability in assessments.

Understanding the scale, location and nature conservation values of the lands over which Indigenous Peoples exercise traditional rights is central to implementation of several global conservation and climate agreements. However, spatial information on Indigenous lands has never been aggregated globally. Here, using publicly available geospatial resources, we show that Indigenous Peoples manage or have tenure rights over at least similar to 38 million km(2) in 87 countries or politically distinct areas on all inhabited continents. This represents over a quarter of the world's land surface, and intersects about 40% of all terrestrial protected areas and ecologically intact landscapes (for example, boreal and tropical primary forests, savannas and marshes). Our results add to growing evidence that recognizing Indigenous Peoples' rights to land, benefit sharing and institutions is essential to meeting local and global conservation goals. The geospatial analysis presented here indicates that collaborative partnerships involving conservation practitioners, Indigenous Peoples and governments would yield significant benefits for conservation of ecologically valuable landscapes, ecosystems and genes for future generations.

Indigenous peoples and local communities live in, manage and own vast areas often rich in biodiversity and critical for ecosystem services. Bridging indigenous and local knowledge systems with scientific knowledge systems is vital to enhance knowledge, practice, and ethics to move towards sustainability at multiple scales. We focus on international science-policy processes and present a framework for evidence-based guidance on how tasks to mobilise, translate, negotiate, synthesise and apply multiple forms of evidence can bridge knowledge systems. Effective engagement of actors, institutions and knowledge-sharing processes is crucial in each of these tasks. We use examples from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to illustrate and discuss our framework.

Indigenous and local knowledge systems as well as practitioners' knowledge can provide valid and useful knowledge to enhance our understanding of governance of biodiversity and ecosystems for human well-being. There is, therefore, a great need within emerging global assessment programs, such as the IPBES and other international efforts, to develop functioning mechanisms for legitimate, transparent, and constructive ways of creating synergies across knowledge systems. We present the multiple evidence base (MEB) as an approach that proposes parallels whereby indigenous, local and scientific knowledge systems are viewed to generate different manifestations of knowledge, which can generate new insights and innovations through complementarities. MEB emphasizes that evaluation of knowledge occurs primarily within rather than across knowledge systems. MEB on a particular issue creates an enriched picture of understanding, for triangulation and joint assessment of knowledge, and a starting point for further knowledge generation.