Transformative governance based on local ecological knowledge is impossible without genuine inclusion of indigenous peoples and local communities in NW Patagonia

Abstract

In addressing the question, “Does local, national, and international governance have a primary role in shaping the resilience of local ecological knowledge (LEK)?”, I first emphasize the importance of ethnobiology in highlighting effective local biodiversity governance practices employed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs). The sustainable management of these territories, showcases the deep connection between communities and their Local ecological knowledge (LEK), which has been vital in adapting to socio-environmental challenges and fostering sustainable practices. Case studies from Northern Patagonia, Argentina, illustrate how these communities have largely adapted to new circumstances on their own, despite ongoing challenges. However, despite its importance for multi-level governance, the integration of IPLCs into the decision-making processes of national and international institutions, especially those responsible for policy, remains inadequate. For example, national governments have often played a marginal or even counterproductive role in strengthening LEK resilience. This is partly due to a failure to foster social cohesion after a long history of societal whitening, which hinders empathy towards Indigenous Peoples. I propose a more inclusive approach to knowledge co-production, grounded in robust ethnobiological evidence. While this is not a complete solution, it can contribute to greater appreciation and empathy for IPLCs. This would foster collaborative efforts, uniting IPLCs, scientists and policymakers to achieve transformative governance where LEK is genuinely valued and integrated into decision-making processes at all levels.

Ethnobiology and its role in visibilizing socio-environmental governance

Ethnobiological research has long provided qualitative, quantitative, and contextual evidence of the contributions made by IPLCs’ knowledge systems to biodiversity conservation in different parts of the world [1, 2]. The knowledge systems of IPLCs are crucial for achieving the United Nations sustainable development goals (SDGs), which encompass the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development [3]. For instance, a recent study by Arrivabene et al. [4] shows that ethnobiology has played a significant role in highlighting the essential role of LEK in: understanding biodiversity (SDG 15, life on land), ensuring food security for communities (SDG 2, zero hunger), promoting well-being (SDG 3, good health and well-being), achieving prosperity (SDG 1, no poverty).

Fortunately, the discourse emphasizing the importance of LEK in nature conservation has been increasingly adopted by IPLCs in their interactions with international and national organizations [2]. However, the effective inclusion of IPLCs in national policy institutions remains marginal or ineffective, and in some cases, even counterproductive [4,5,6]. This is partly due to a failure of national policy to foster genuine social cohesion, often exacerbated by a long history of societal whitening that hinders empathy and understanding towards Indigenous Peoples. For instance, Varela et al. [7] highlight how positive inclusion policies in Latin America, while intended to benefit historically discriminated or excluded ethnic groups like Indigenous and Afro-descendant populations, have often triggered negative reactions rooted in racist prejudices. This demonstrates that inclusion policies alone cannot guarantee social cohesion. Instead, public policies must also actively promote recognition, sense of belonging, and foster reciprocity and solidarity among diverse individuals and groups.

Governance encompasses the articulation of formal and informal, public and private institutions across various actor networks at multiple levels. It seeks to promote active participation and collaboration among these actors in decision-making and the management of natural resources [8]. Although governance is traditionally associated with governments and political institutions, the concept has evolved to encompass a variety of actors and sectors (governments, IPLCs, civil society organizations, businesses, and academia). In recent years, a transformative governance perspective has emerged, aiming to engage actors with diverse perspectives on desirable societal values and goals, questioning the need and desirability of transformation, and exploring who should be included in decision-making processes to transform current institutional systems, particularly in light of vested interests that often oppose such actions [9].

Multilateral organizations (CBD, IPBES, IPCC, IUCN, etc.) have long emphasized the importance of IPLCs’ LEKs in finding solutions to combat the threats posed by the current socio-environmental crisis and fostering transformative governance [10, 11]. These valuable contributions are particularly important for fostering synergies across different knowledge systems, such as between local knowledge systems and scientific knowledge systems [12].

However, ethnobiological research highlighting successful local governance practices based on LEK has not yet gained significant traction in policy decision-making or scientific literature focused on sustainability [13]. While various reasons have been proposed to explain this situation [1, 4], I argue that the following three factors are most significant:

• Lack of understanding and appreciation: despite calls for integrated approaches, a lack of understanding and appreciation for the multidimensional perspectives offered by ethnobiology persists among scientists from natural sciences, environmental decision-makers, and policymakers. This hinders the incorporation of ethnobiological knowledge into decision-making processes. Even more critically, the actions of IPLCs are rendered invisible.

• Power asymmetries and marginalization: power imbalances often marginalize the voices of IPLCs. Ethnobiological and social science research frequently documents and highlights the struggles of these communities against top-down governance models that clash with their traditional practices of land use and care.

• Discomfort with westernized sustainability discourses: many ethnobiologists are hesitant to embrace mainstream sustainability discourses, as these concepts originate from a Western worldview that may not resonate with the values and perspectives of IPLCs.

Addressing these challenges requires a concerted effort to bridge knowledge systems, foster equitable partnerships, and especially facilitate interpretive agreements between different worldviews [14]. By doing so, we can unlock the full potential of ethnobiology to contribute to transformative governance that respects and empowers local communities.

Governance in the global south: challenges and opportunities in the light of socio-environmental resilience paradigm

The socio-environmental resilience paradigm emphasizes local ecological knowledge (LEK) as a crucial tool for sustainable governance [15]. Resilience, defined as a system’s capacity to adapt to change while maintaining its identity and becoming a learning system, has been a key concept in this context [16]. Some ethnobiologists, myself included, have integrated these ideas into our work to create bridges of interpretation and understanding in natural resource management and use [17, 18].

The concept of resilience has served as a heuristic framework for characterizing LEK systems. Its non-linear, recursive, and integrative dialectic aligns, to some extent, with the perspectives of IPLCs [15]. However, it is a concept that must be used with caution. The notion that IPLCs should simply cope with and adapt to difficult circumstances imposed by others (e.g., national states), often without prior consultation or consent, is controversial. As philosopher Claire Marin [19] states, “Liberalism requires heroes willing to adapt to everything.”

In this sense, following Atallah [20], I advocate for the term “resilience processes” rather than “capacity.” Focusing solely on capacity can be misleading. Flexibility within an LEK system depends not only on inherent capabilities but also on contextual factors, both structural and functional, that may hinder an effective local governance response. Furthermore, we must be vigilant that these well-received notions of resilience do not imply a covert subjugation of societies to situations that could otherwise be challenged and questioned. Therefore, it is crucial to maintain a decolonizing perspective, as proposed by McAlvay et al. [21].

Indigenous peoples and local communities of NW Patagonia (Argentina): their governance in food and health systems

Environmental governance in any given location is inherently intertwined with the historical, social, and ecological context of that place, a context constantly influenced by political struggles, environmental shifts, and the values its inhabitants attribute to nature [22]. In the Global South, particularly in countries like Argentina with a history of colonization, dispossession of Indigenous lands, and a military dictatorship [23], environmental governance is especially complex [24, 25]. Deeply entrenched class disparities, a legacy of colonialism in Argentina, create significant barriers to sustainable development for most IPLCs. Poverty, marginalization, and inequality are key factors hindering their progress.

In recent years, the possibility of national-level governance articulated with the governance of IPLCs has been shaped by extremely dynamic political and economic processes. At times, policies have aligned with the recognition of IPLCs and their LEKs, albeit with limited progress in effectively legitimizing their territorial rights [26]. However, the far-right government that took power in December 2023 appears to have solidified the resurgence of racist positions and hate speech that were already growing within society, with clear opposition to the demands of these Indigenous communities [27]. Simultaneously, a dismantling of science and technology agencies is underway [28], jeopardizing the continuity of research and development lines along with lPLCs [29].

Northern Western Patagonia (Argentina) encompasses a multicultural region (with Mapuche and Mapuche Tehuelche communities, creoles, European descendants, national and international immigrants) located in a vast territory rich in natural resources. The resilience of LEK, particularly of IPLCs, regarding mainly wild plants and animals, and/or local breeds and/or varieties, has long been linked to the ability to cope with socio-political and environmental changes, and to continue functioning without losing its ability to learn and adapt [30].

It is important to note that these Patagonian communities, like other Indigenous Peoples worldwide, engage with natural resources from a perspective of interconnectedness and interdependence, but primarily reciprocity [31]. Nature plays a vital role in the perpetuation of their cultural identity and livelihoods, a perspective often contrasting with the extractive approach to natural resources typically advocated by national governments and large corporations [32]. In alignment with other IPLCs in Latin America, they propose a grassroots model of environmental governance that demands a transformation or even dismantling of the hegemonic capitalist model, which is viewed as the root cause of environmental degradation and injustice [26, 32].

In the adaptability processes of Patagonian LEK, national or international governance has played a minor or null role in achieving, for instance, the diversification of local food or health products, and/or increasing livelihood opportunities through the use of plants, animals, and plants, implementation of agroforestry systems or co-management of natural resources, etc.

National policy institutions have often been the primary drivers of changes detrimental to the preservation of LEK. Formal education has played a substantial role in the loss of Indigenous Patagonian languages [33], while official medicine has persecuted practitioners and their healing practices of Indigenous medical systems, deeming them illegal [34]. Additionally, culinary oppression and diet homogenization [35] have threatened the use of wild edible and medicinal plants, among many other processes that have contributed to the deactivation of knowledge in numerous communities [36].

Furthermore, a growing challenge for IPLCs stems from extractive and polluting policies implemented by national governments [25]. To defend their lands and biocultural heritage, these communities predominantly fight alone, but they also seek support from NGOs, universities, private institutions, and, to a lesser extent, international organizations [32, 37]. These collaborative efforts primarily involve technical and legal advice, and monitoring the impact of public policies.

Despite the challenges faced by IPLCs in Patagonia, our research highlights that rural communities exhibit resilience processes [38]. Drawing upon resilience principles [39], we can identify key components that should guide transformative governance:

• Diversity of edible and medicinal species: maintaining a diverse array of species within these systems is essential [30].

• Hybridization of knowledge: Patagonian LEK systems demonstrate the ability to hybridize knowledge, incorporating exotic plants introduced by colonizers and enriching themselves with diverse influences [40].

• Utilitarian redundancy of plants: the presence of multiple plant species with similar functions within a given territory is crucial, allowing for species replacement in case of local extinctions [41, 42].

• Versatility of plant uses: the existence of multipurpose plants provides robustness and security to LEK systems [42].

• Connectivity for knowledge exchange and reciprocity: the exchange of knowledge and reciprocal relationships among communities foster resilient LEK responses [43].

• Strategic disconnection for protection: in some cases, communities may choose to disconnect to protect and isolate themselves, utilizing local health systems as exemplified by Mapuche communities during the COVID-19 pandemic [44].

These principles illuminate the resilience of LEK of Patagonian communities. Despite facing diverse, often negative, influences from national institutions, these communities, almost alone persist, adapt, or transform their knowledge systems.

Unlike robustness, which characterizes fixed and unchanging systems [45], Patagonian LEK exhibits dynamism. The vitality of LEK demonstrates non-linear behavior, where even small changes can trigger significant and unexpected consequences that may later be adjusted over time. This characteristic response reflects the resilience of the system. Further research employing empirical data is urgently needed to deepen our understanding of LEK resilience processes. Such research would eluciate how adaptive cycles at various scales and temporal dimensions (including local, national, international levels) interact with each other [46]. To fully understand the long-term impact of international or national institutions on the governance of LEK in IPLCs is of paramount importance. The actual influence of policies from these types of institutions requires in-depth study due to the potentially slow and sometimes immeasurable nature of their effects.

Concluding remarks

Recognition of IPLCs´ LEK and its role in local governance remains largely absent at higher levels, particularly at the national level in Latin American countries like Argentina with significant Indigenous and Afro-descendant populations. Despite encouraging international discourse on LEK inclusion, concrete actions are often insufficient: weak, slow, limited in scope, sporadic, and even contradictory within national government institutions. Moreover, many IPLCs, as evidenced in the Patagonian case studies, who uphold LEK-based socio-environmental governance, lack access to fundamental human rights such as land tenure and self-determination, an aspect that jeopardizes the sustainability of their way of life [1, 2]. This critical situation must be rectified, as territory is essential for future management and the space where IPLCs exercise their power to mitigate environmental degradation and fulfill their needs and aspirations. Therefore, strengthening the representation of IPLCs within political and governmental structures is crucial. This empowers them to actively participate in decision-making processes and secure funding for their initiatives [47].

However, the world, including Argentina, faces a challenging moment with the rise of anti-science, anti-climate, and anti-diversity movements, coupled with the dominance of materialism and extractivism. These trends hinder inclusive projects and the legitimization of LEK's cultural legacy. Local development strategies grounded in LEK, risk being undermined or exploited materially, failing to benefit local communities and nations.

Despite their importance, ethnobiological science and related approaches that characterize and value LEK have had limited impact within the scientific and political arenas of most countries in Latin America and globally. These approaches may even be at risk due to the aforementioned socio-political movements. In this context, I propose a more inclusive approach to knowledge co-production, grounded in robust ethnobiological evidence. While not a complete solution, this can foster greater appreciation and empathy for IPLCs–a critical yet often overlooked foundation for effective socio-environmental governance. This approach would encourage collaborative efforts, uniting IPLCs, scientists and policymakers to achieve transformative governance where LEK is genuinely valued and integrated into decision-making processes at all levels. Promising examples already exist: Levis et al. [48] highlight cases of successful local governance interwoven with science in Brazil, illustrating ongoing efforts to make this knowledge visible. Levis refers to these as “social-ecological hope spots,” advocating for an optimistic perspective and recognizing the value of local community LEK.

Transforming governance of biodiversity towards sustainability demands a deep understanding of the complex human-nature relationship. We must learn more from IPLCs about navigating global socio-environmental change, developing co-production procedures with relevant stakeholders, and creating lasting collaborative programs [see 49, 50]. Additionally, we must increase our commitment to identifying and characterizing “hope spots” within each country, contributing to a path toward sustainability with social and environmental justice.