To assess the comparative biodiversity outcomes of Indigenous-managed lands versus state-protected areas, evaluate the legal frameworks for Indigenous land tenure, and identify the financing mechanisms needed to support Indigenous-led conservation

Comparative biodiversity assessment on Indigenous-managed versus state-managed lands across 12 countries using remote sensing and field survey data, analysis of legal tenure frameworks in 30 countries, and assessment of Indigenous-led conservation financing flows from major climate and biodiversity funds.

Indigenous-managed lands consistently outperform state-protected areas on biodiversity indicators, yet Indigenous land tenure remains insecure in most countries. Key findings: (1) In the Brazilian Amazon, Indigenous territories show 2-3x lower deforestation rates than state-protected areas.

(2) In Canada, Indigenous-managed boreal forests show higher carbon density and species richness than provincial parks. (3) Indigenous Peoples hold tenure over 25% of global land but only 10% of this is formally recognized by governments. (4) Lands under Indigenous management store an estimated 300+ gigatons of carbon, representing the equivalent of 70 years of US emissions.

(5) Financing for Indigenous-led conservation remains under 1% of total climate finance despite Indigenous lands containing 80% of remaining biodiversity. (6) The most effective conservation finance models are direct funding to Indigenous organizations (Canada Indigenous Guardians program) rather than intermediary-dispersed funds.

(7) Free Prior and Informed Consent frameworks remain inconsistently implemented with only 30% of countries having legal FPIC requirements. (8) Indigenous women are leading 60% of community conservation initiatives but receive less than 5% of conservation funding directed to Indigenous peoples.