December 20th, 2024

Quimilero Project: Integrating scientific research with communities and participatory conservation in the Argentine Chaco

By Giuliana Pernazza, Camila Haene, Andrea Neme, Hugo Correa, Sara Cortez, Licindo Tebez, Mariana Altrichter and Micaela Camino

Link to the JSE December 2024 CECR Special Issue Table of Contents

Pernazza et al JSE Dec 2024 CECR Issue PDF

Abstract:  Protected areas are essential for biodiversity conservation. However, the creation of protected areas often excludes Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC), who are seen as a threat to biodiversity, and therefore their access to natural resources becomes restricted. This approach is known as fortress conservation and it is a colonialist approach towards conservation because IPLCs are excluded from decision making and often from their own lands and banned from using natural resources in the areas to be conserved, while only governments and professionals have agency to decide the future of these lands. Approaches to decolonize conservation that attempt to integrate IPLCs´ worldviews, local ecological knowledge (LEK) and practices may be highly efficient in biodiversity conservation as well as local development. In the Argentine Dry Chaco region, Quimilero Project frames its conservation efforts in this inclusive framework, aiming to conserve cultural and biological diversity and seeing both as interconnected. This project involves multiple approaches, based on the principles of horizontality, IPLCs´ empowerment and the co-creation of knowledge and conservation initiatives based both on scientific and on LEK. In this paper we explain our work approach in the Argentine Chaco from a decolonizing perspective. We describe two of our programs, community-based wildlife and hunting monitoring and environmental education, to demonstrate what a decolonial approach to conservation can look like in practice.

Keywords: Chaco Region, participatory wildlife monitoring, community-based conservation, community led conservation, decolonization of conservation, local ecological knowledge

Introduction

A Paradigm Change in Biological Conservation

Setting natural areas aside and protecting them from humans is often considered one of the most efficient forms of biodiversity conservation (Durand, 2010). Many protected areas were initially created under a paradigm of exclusion of the people who inhabited those areas (Tauli-Corpuz et al., 2020). Furthermore, in many cases, the creation of protected areas has resulted in the displacement or relocation of the people who lived there (Dawson et al., 2021; Ferrero, 2014; Montgomery et al., 2024). After the creation of protected areas, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC) may further be affected by the prohibited access to these environments and their natural goods, losing access to water, firewood or game, among others (Rivas, 2006; Sánchez, 2011). This conservation approach is known as fortress conservation (Washington et al., 2024), where original inhabitants are seen as threats to the ecological equilibrium of the area, even though IPLCs may have inhabited the region for hundreds of years (Langton, Ma Rhea & Palmer, 2005).

Fortress conservation is a western-based approach that sees nature conservation and human societies as incompatible (Montgomery et al., 2024). The idea of pristine uninhabited nature spread in the twentieth century as an ideological framing of wilderness and is still prevalent today (Adams & Hutton, 2007). This approach excludes the cultural elements that have been part of or affected nature, modifying many of the characteristics of places today considered as pristine (Hirsch et al., 2011). IPLCs´ capacity to use natural resources, adapt, and respond to changes in local conditions is taken away from them and replaced by a positivist approach where the government and or scientists are considered the only ones to have the expertise to make decisions (Dawson et al., 2021; Montgomery et al., 2024).

Fortress conservation can be seen as a form of colonialism because it includes the controlling of the use and access to natural environments and goods by governments, appropriation of land, and control of IPLCs (Adams & Hutton, 2007; Collard et al., 2015; Leach & Scoones, 2015; Oliva & Frapolli 2024). Not only can these measures affect IPLC but they also tend to be less effective as conservation measures in the long run, as they often lack support from locals who have been excluded from the process and negatively affected (Adams & Hutton, 2007; Dawson et al., 2021; Jones et al., 2023; Pelletier et al., 2019; Zafra-Calvo et al., 2019). Similarly, these approaches and decisions made based on research that does not consider the particularities of each culture-nature relationship can exacerbate poverty, exclusion, land, and food insecurity, thus foment social injustice (Adams & Hutton, 2007; Dawson et al., 2021).

Currently, over one-half of the natural ecosystems worldwide have been severely affected primarily due to human activities like industrialized agriculture and urbanization, that lead to habitat destruction, pollution, overexploitation of resources, climate change, and the introduction of invasive species, among others (Díaz et al., 2019). Of the remaining natural ecosystems in the world, about 40% are in Indigenous peoples’ lands (Garnett et al., 2018). Indigenous peoples´ lands also hold over 36% of the last best-conserved ecosystems of the world, being crucial for biodiversity conservation (Fa et al., 2020). These ecosystems are often maintained through local ecological knowledge (LEK), which encompasses generations of sustainable land management practices. Therefore, LEK may help find innovative solutions for the global environmental crisis (Diaz et al., 2019).

New decolonial approaches to conservation started in the mid 80’s, trying to be inclusive, incorporate LEK and practices, and recognize that local development is key to support conservation (Montgomery et al., 2024). Working alongside IPLC to identify sustainable use of natural resources has become an important focus in conservation (Montgomery et al., 2024; Toledo & Barrera-Bassols, 2008). Research showed that often, lands that are managed by Indigenous people may be better conserved than those protected and managed by governments (Baragwanath & Bayi, 2020; Bonilla-Mejia & Higuera-Mendieta, 2019; Dawson et al., 2021, among others), and may even outperform strict Protected Areas in forest conservation (Begotti & Peres, 2020; Bonilla-Mejía & Higuera-Mendieta, 2019). This is the case in the Chaco region, where Indigenous territories that have secured land rights are acting as barriers to deforestation (Camino et al., 2023).

Decolonizing conservation implies a different relationship between scientists and IPLC, and the incorporation of socially just, ethic, placed-based, plural, and inclusive methods of research and implementation (Büscher & Fletcher, 2020; Dawson et al., 2021; Tauli-Corpuz et al., 2020; West & Aini, 2018). This approach involves the devolution of that capacity that has been taken away from IPLC; the capacity and power to examine their relationship with nature, their use of natural goods and lands, and of making decisions to change, adjust, or adapt toward sustainability, in culturally and locally appropriate ways. In this paper, we describe our integrative, interdisciplinary, and co-participatory research and conservation project in the Argentine Dry Chaco as an example of how this type of approach can look in practice, presenting concrete examples of two of our programs, participatory wildlife/hunting monitoring and environmental education programs.

Argentine Dry Chaco

The Dry Chaco is a region in South America that covers about 787,000 km2 (Olson et al., 2001) in portions of Argentina, Bolivia, and Paraguay (Figure 1), and it is the largest tropical/subtropical dry forest of the world (Kuemmerle et al., 2017). Rainfalls range from 550 to 800 mm and the most abundant type of vegetation is a thorny shrubland mixed with deciduous forest and grasslands (Morello et al., 2012). Despite its arid conditions, the region has high biodiversity, with many endemic and endangered species (Nori et al., 2016; Redford et al., 1990). Research suggests that the present landscape was largely shaped by the hunting practices that Indigenous peoples had in the past (Morello et al., 2012).

Figure 1: Quimilero Project work area in the Dry Chaco ecoregion of South America.

The Argentine Dry Chaco has one of the highest levels of poverty (INDEC, 2016), isolation and underdevelopment in the country (Camino et al., 2016). The region’s traditional inhabitants, Indigenous and criollo (campesino) communities, live in small communities spread through the forest and have subsistence economies based on hunting, gathering, and small-scale livestock ranching (Braunstein, 2005; Camino et al., 2018; Noss et al., 2004). Many of these people have land tenure insecurity as they have never been able to obtain titles to land (Camino et al., 2023). Locals remain excluded from national productive systems and from environmental decision-making and management, even though they depend directly on their environment for their survival (Goldfarb & van der Haar, 2017). Due to these conditions, the fragile socio-ecological balance is increasingly at risk under external pressures and environmental exploitation.

In the last decade, international agribusiness corporations are transforming native forests of the Dry Chaco into intensive, industrialized, crop and livestock productive systems. Consequently, deforestation rates in this region are among the highest in the world, and its biodiversity and local cultures are threatened (de la Sacha et. al., 2021; Kuemmerle et al., 2017). This large-scale deforestation and industrial agriculture is performed by foreign companies that take advantage of the land-tenure insecurity of IPLC (Cáceres, 2015; le Polain de Waroux et al., 2018; Vallejos et al., 2020). A recent study titled “Indigenous Lands with secure land-tenure can reduce forest-loss in deforestation hotspots” found that most of the residual forest in good ecological conditions is inhabited by local criollos and Indigenous people, and if they can remain in the area under secure land titles, they will continue managing the environment in a sustainable way (Camino et al., 2023). Thus, capacity building and co-creating the research agenda with IPLC is of uttermost importance to accomplish culture and biodiversity conservation. This is the area where we focused our efforts, through “Quimilero Project.”

Methods and Research Design

Before the creation of the group Quimilero Project, we had been working in the Dry Argentine Chaco for 12 years (since 2001). In the beginning, we conducted ecological and biological research focused on the ecology of large and medium-sized mammals and on their interaction with IPLC (Information published elsewhere in 20+ articles). Our mixed methods to collect information included sharing a significant amount of time with IPLC as we used participant observation, interviews, and participatory research (Altrichter, 2005, 2006; Altrichter & Boaglio, 2004). These initial years of research, spending time interacting with IPLC, allowed us to get a better understanding of the interrelationship between them and the environment, their degree of dependence on the direct use of natural goods, and their vulnerability to external pressures.

In 2013, as deforestation and land grabbing by foreign agribusiness became prevalent, we realized that we needed to create change our approach and work with IPLC to tackle this complex social-ecological problem. Due to power relations, working with IPLC can be difficult, and requires time to build rapport. For this reason, we held numerous meetings and workshops with IPLC from different areas within the Dry Chaco to exchange knowledge, co-identify local needs, research priorities and future directions (Camino et al., 2016, 2018, 2020). These meetings helped to build dialogue, trust, and mutual respect. As an additional way to mitigate power relations, we formed Quimilero Project, a team of scientists and locals (one of whom is co-author of this paper), in which we equally share decision making power.

Quimilero is the Spanish name of the Chacoan peccary (Catagonus wagneri), a species classified as endangered by the IUCN Red List because of serious population declines and reduction of its distribution (IUCN 2016). The Chacoan peccary is endemic to the Chaco, with unique adaptations to this hostile dry climate in which it lives. We focus on this species as an “umbrella” species because it depends on well conserved habitat and needs large extensions of native forest to survive (Camino et al., 2022) and thus, its conservation will encompass the conservation of the overall biodiversity in the region. We also considered it as a “flagship” species, because it has a “Provincial monument” designation, helping to represent the need to conserve the local ecosystems and raise public support. Our objective is to work towards long-term participatory conservation of the Dry Argentine Chaco while improving IPLCs ́ well-being. We place a strong emphasis on the active and horizontal participation of IPLC, engaging them from the beginning phases of information gathering with the objective of planning conservation. The main initiatives of the Quimilero Project have been increasing local capacities in conservation and organization, empowering people to know their rights, and being able to defend themselves from the advance of industrial agribusiness. By protecting themselves and being able to remain in their homes, while revising together with us different methods to monitor wildlife and traditional practices´ sustainability and adapt to current environmental challenges, e.g. climate change, they can help conserve the environment, the biodiversity, and the culture of this region. Together, we are co-creating research and conservation initiatives, including participatory, community-based wildlife and hunting monitoring, as well as educational programs that value traditional ecological knowledge.

Participatory Wildlife and Hunting Monitoring

Conservation measures are more likely to succeed when they consider the perceptions and opinions of the IPLC who are in contact with the intended targets of protection (Camino et al., 2020). One way to account for local perceptions is to include locals in the design, implementation, results, discussion and conclusion of research and monitoring.

Through our research, we identified that wildlife is an important source of food for IPLC (Altrichter, 2006; Camino et al., 2017, 2018), and that there was a lack of information on wildlife distribution and abundance (Camino et al., 2017). IPLC also expressed their need to have information on wildlife to manage their subsistence hunting. After much conversation and meetings with the locals, we designed and implemented the first community-based wildlife monitoring (Camino et al., 2017, 2020). The design of the program was participatory, done together with the IPLC through many meetings and deliberation. Together we decided on goals and methods of data collection. Because of the cultural differences among criollos and Indigenous peoples, each group created their own data sheet to collect information, using their own names and classification of species (Image 1). We conducted monitoring programs between 2011 and 2016 and between 2022 and 2024 (Camino et al., 2017, 2020; Neme et al. in prep).

Image 1. Top left, preparation of data collection sheets by the Wichi Community. Bottom left, practicing data collection. Right, wildlife and hunting monitoring sheet used by Wichi participants.

For locals to collect information, they needed to be trained in the use of technology, such as camera traps, laptops, GPS units, and systematic data collection (Image 2). Members of our project spent four weeks meeting with small groups of people teaching them how to use technology. Once they had learned, we worked with larger groups and did several practice outings to adjust methodology and reach uniformity in data collection. Simultaneously, because this is not a top-down initiative, locals trained the scientific and technical team in their understanding of the landscape and hunting areas, and on wildlife ecology.

Once people started collecting data during their daily walks through the forest, members of our team visited them regularly. Throughout the implementation of the program, we had monthly meetings with all the participants from each community to present and discuss the data that was gathered and to address and solve problems in methodology, such as refining data collection techniques, identifying species, and use of technology (Camino et al., 2017, 2020).

Image 2. Wildlife monitoring training in data collection, use of GPS and computers.

Environmental Education and Sharing Knowledge

Together with IPLC we co-created an environmental education program that includes education in schools and the creation of educational material. First, we met with IPLC several times to identify educational needs, discuss, and agree on what they wanted to be presented in the educational material and how. Locals identified lack of educational material in general, lack of bilingual resources, and lack of knowledge among teachers about the local culture and environment as the most important issues to address through a co-designed program.

After identifying needs, we held several meetings with small groups of locals to design educational material and activities, which were later presented to the whole community for approval. The educational material included books, flyers, posters, stickers, murals, and videos. Activities included talks in schools, and activities for family engagement such as puppet shows, games, and handicrafts. For the sake of brevity, we will only expand on the creation of some of these materials.

Peccaries of the Chaco book and videos. We recognize that LEK is valuable for decision-making in conservation. Members of our team interviewed local subsistence hunters (one of them is co-author of this paper) with whom we had developed rapport and who were particularly knowledgeable about peccaries. We recorded the conversations and transcribed the information. To create the book, we organized the information provided by the hunters, added images, and formatted it, but we made sure to maintain their style of communication rather than re-writing it in an academic format, only making small modifications for clarity and organization. The three subsistence hunters who provided the information were named as the authors of the book (Image 3). In this book, they share their ecological knowledge and their views of the current deforestation crisis as well as their vision for their future. The book presents incredibly detailed information about the biology and ecology of the species, beyond what was known by scientists. In addition to the book, we made several short videos (Image 4) where the same hunters talk about the use of natural resources and the general ecology of the region. These videos were made available on YouTube. The authors also received training to present the book in the form of educational talks. One of them, Licindo, has given many talks in rural schools, presented their knowledge at scientific conferences, and was an invited professor at the University of the Northwest and at the University of Buenos Aires, for undergraduate and master students respectively. We distributed hundreds of books for free to rural schools, local libraries, government offices, local protected areas, and NGOs.

Image 3: Top left, Licindo Tebez and Genaro Tebez; top right Claudio Montes, all three authors of the book “The peccaries of the Chaco Forest.” Bottom, Licindo presenting his book to the Park Rangers of a local Protected Area.

 

Image 4: Production of short videos with local subsistence hunters.

Bilingual educational material. Other educational material (posters, flyers) that was co-created was written in Spanish and Wichi languages. To make these materials, we followed similar procedures as with the previous book. We had meetings where locals shared what message they wanted to communicate. We would then make the material and bring it back for their review and approval. After consensus was reached, we printed copies of each material to be used in schools and public events (Image 5).

Bilingual Children’s book. The local schools that serve Wichi Indigenous students have scarce access to bilingual educational materials. We partnered with a group of pedagogical professionals to write a children’s book that could be used in schools to meet age-appropriate educational standards. We used the Chacoan Peccary as the main character of the story, covering ecological information as well as the threats to the region, the potential community-based solutions, and the hopes for the future (Image 5). While making this material, we helped train some indigenous young people in translating so that they can have the set of skills necessary to continue translating information.

Image 5: Bilingual educational material. Top left, members of the community planning an educational poster. Top right, bilingual poster. Bottom left, poster and flyers. Bottom right, bilingual children’s book.

Results and Discussion

Participatory Wildlife and Hunting Monitoring

Monitoring biodiversity in the Dry Chaco is essential due to the region’s high deforestation rates, habitat fragmentation, and declining wildlife abundance, affecting IPLC’s food security. This is particularly important in areas where environmental changes are happening rapidly, such as in the Dry Chaco. The community-based wildlife and hunting monitoring we implemented is allowing IPLC to evaluate wildlife abundance and hunting pressure, information that they can use to create appropriate management actions within their territories. A wealth of important information is coming out of this monitoring that is essential for conservation measures, such as records of the presence of the Chacoan peccary in areas that were unknown to host the species, as well as a better understanding of the species habitat use (Camino et al., 2017; Camino et al., 2020). Furthermore, information gathered and provided by locals is effective for understanding wildlife and habitat conservation at landscape levels, contributing to the creation of conservation strategies at different levels (Altrichter, 2016; Camino & Torres, 2019; Camino et al., 2022, 2023).

Wildlife and hunting monitoring does not only provide biological data but also information about the cultural relationship of people with the environment. For example, one of the many results obtained was the identification of culturally important hunting grounds for the Wichi Indigenous people. Using the hunting locations collected, we elaborated a map that shows that the traditionally used territory extends beyond their officially recognized land and overlaps with a recently created National Park. This has opened a new line of research where we are collaborating with anthropologists to revise the legally recognized territory and to recover some of the ancestral lands which had not been included and provide important natural resources (Camino et al., in press).

Environmental Education and Sharing Knowledge

The educational program that we co-created has been highly effective in raising conservation awareness, improving local communication, raising self-worth and leadership capacities of these local impoverished and marginalized communities. Our project has challenged the conventional view of education and of authorship, and the separation between IPLC (mostly illiterate) and scientists. Local subsistence hunters are the authors of the publication of their knowledge, rather than just being acknowledged. The writing doesn’t follow conventional grammar and language rules. They have taken charge of local environmental education, visiting schools and giving talks using their own communication style. Consequently, locals, especially youth and school children, have become extremely interested in learning more about the deforestation crisis, and are becoming active in fighting environmental destruction. This program has also helped to promote activism, for example, some local people are joining protests to stop illegal deforestation. Currently, IPLC are more aware of their situation, which allows them to advocate for themselves to the regional authorities, defending their land rights. Longer term effects of these program will require additional assessment.

Conclusions

Conservation results can take a long time to materialize, especially in a region that is the focus of powerful economic interests, with a history of oppression and displacement of the local people. Our approach to conservation includes seeing ourselves as supporting IPLC, fighting against a capitalist economy that seeks to exploit the land for economic purposes, displacing local cultures and peoples, and destroying biodiversity. We recognize the interconnectedness of cultural and biodiversity conservation, and how what impacts the environment also impacts people and vice versa. Thus, when we implement a method such as community-based wildlife monitoring, we think of it not only as a tool for collecting data but also as a tool for social integration. The method allows people normally excluded from the system to participate, consider their perceptions, and strengthen their capacities. Our efforts align with the objectives proposed by the United Nations to alleviate poverty (UNDP, 2016). We do not seek to promote policy to forbid or regulate hunting, but we help IPLC to be empowered by knowledge and tools to make their own decisions about the management of their natural resources. Through an inclusive, horizontal and transparent approach to designing and implementing actions and research, conservation projects that would normally encounter resistance or lack of local support can become effective.

From a conservation perspective, when locals are included, better conservation results can be achieved in comparison with conventional, top-down conservation measures, such as the creation of protected areas. The community-based wildlife monitoring has led to increased understanding and awareness about wildlife abundance and trends; information that IPLC are using to design locally based hunting management that will avoid overexploitation, as they are invested in the conservation of the resource. Similarly, co-designed environmental educational programs help to motivate IPLC to take actions because these are based on their own perspectives and knowledge. The probabilities of future success, whether in conservation or locally based sustainable development, also increase because people have developed skills, and have gained experience in organization and leadership. Furthermore, locals can participate in research and are aware of their capacity and the value of their participation.

We at the Quimilero Project, as a small, locally based group of people, are trying to do the best we can from our position, while recognizing the complicated origins of the current situation and the perpetual struggles of the people we work with. Although we acknowledge our limitations and the fact that we don’t have the capacity to apply a truly decolonial frame, we hope that by sharing what we do we can provide some insights to help promote a more empathetic, inclusive approach to conservation and research.

References

Adams, W. M., & Hutton, J. (2007). People, parks and poverty: political ecology and biodiversity conservation. Conservation and society, 5 (2), 147-183.

Altrichter, M. (2006). Wildlife in the life of local people of the semi-arid Argentine Chaco. Biodiversity and Conservation, 15, 2719-2736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-0307-5

Altrichter, M. (2005). The sustainability of subsistence hunting of peccaries in the Argentine Chaco. Biological Conservation, 126, 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.06.024

Altrichter, M., & Boaglio, G. I. (2004). Distribution and relative abundance of peccaries in the Argentine Chaco: associations with human factors. Biological Conservation, 116 (2), 217-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00192-7

Baragwanath, K., & Bayi, E. (2020). Collective property rights reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117 (34), 20495-20502. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917874117

Begotti, R. A., & Peres, C. A. (2020). Rapidly escalating threats to the biodiversity and ethnocultural capital of Brazilian Indigenous Lands. Land Use Policy, 96, 104694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104694

Bonilla-Mejía, L., & Higuera-Mendieta, I. (2019). Protected areas under weak institutions: Evidence from Colombia. World Development, 122, 585-596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.019

Braunstein, J. (2005). Los pueblos indígenas del Gran Chaco. Mundo de Antes, 4, 127-137.

Buscher, B., & Fletcher, R. (2020). The conservation revolution: radical ideas for saving nature beyond the Anthropocene. Verso Books.

Caceres, D. M. (2015). Rural technology and agribusiness in Argentina. The rationale underpinning the dominant technological model. Mundo Agrario, 16 (31).

Camino, M., Cortez S., Cerezo, A., & Altrichter, M. (2016). Wildlife conservation, perceptions of different co-existing cultures. International journal of conservation science, 7, 109–122.

Camino, M., Cortez, S., Matteucci, S. D., & Altrichter, M. (2017). Locally based monitoring of wildlife in the Dry Argentine Chaco. Mastozoología Neotropical, 24 (1), 31-46.

Camino, M., Cortez, S., Altrichter, M., & Matteucci, S. D. (2018). Relations with wildlife of Wichi and Criollo people of the Dry Chaco, a conservation perspective. Ethnobiology and Conservation, 7, 11. doi:10.15451/ec 2018-08-7.11-1-21

Camino, M. & Torres, R. M. (2019). Parachoerus wagneri. En: SAyDS–SAREM (eds.) Categorización 2019 de los mamíferos de Argentina según su riesgo de extinción. Lista Roja de mamíferos de Argentina. Versión digital: http://cma.sarem.org.ar.

Camino, M., Thompson, J., Andrade, L., Cortez, S., Matteucci, S. D., & Altrichter, M. (2020). Using local ecological knowledge to improve large terrestrial mammal surveys, build local capacity and increase conservation opportunities. Biological Conservation. 244, 108450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108450

Camino, M., Thompson, J., Arriaga Velasco Aceves, P., Cirignoli, S., Tiddi, R., Cortez, S., Matteucci, S.D., & Altrichter, M. (2022). Less than six generations to save the Chacoan peccary. Biodiversity and Conservation, 31 (2), 413-432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02337-x

Camino, M., Velasco-Aceves, P. A., Álvarez, A., Chianetta, P., de la Cruz, L. M., Alonzo, K., Vallejos, M., Zamora, L., Neme, A., Altrichter, M. & Cortez, S. (2023). Indigenous Lands with secure land-tenure can reduce forest-loss in deforestation hotspots. Global Environmental Change, 81, 102678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102678

Collard, R. C., Dempsey, J., & Sundberg, J. (2015). A manifesto for abundant futures. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105 (2), 322-330.

Dawson, N. M., Coolsaet, B., Sterling, E. J., Loveridge, R., Gross-Camp, N. D., Wongbusarakum, S., Sangha, K. K., Scherl, L. M., Phuong Phan, H., Zafra-Calvo, N., Lavey, W. G., Byakagaba, P., Idrobo, C. J., Chenet, A., Bennett, N. J., Mansourian, S., & Rosado-May, F. J. (2021). The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. Ecology and Society, 26 (3):19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12625-260319

De la Sacha, N., Boyle, S. A., McIntyre, N. E., Brooks, D. M., Yanosky, A., Cuellar-Soto, E., Mereles, F., Camino, M., & Stevens, R. D. (2021). The disappearing Dry Chaco, one of the last dry forest systems on earth. Landscape Ecology, 36, 2997-3012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01291-x

Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E.S., Ngo, H. T., Agard, J., Arneth, A., Balvanera, P., Brauman, K. A., Butchart, S. H. M., Chan, K. M. A., Garibaldi , L. A., Ichii , K., Liu , J., Subramanian , S. M., Midgley , G. F., Miloslavich, P., Molnár, Z., Obura , D., Pfaff , A., …, & Zayas, C.N. (2019). Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science, 366 (6471). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax3100

Durand, L. & Jiménez, J. (2010). Sobre áreas naturales protegidas y la construcción de no-lugares. Notas para México. Revista Lider, 12 (16). 59-72.

Fa, J. E., Watson, J. E., Leiper, I., Potapov, P., Evans, T. D., Burgess, N. D., Molnár, Z., Fernández-Llamazares, A., Duncan, T., Wang, S., Austin, B. J., Jonas, H., Robinson, C. J., Malmer, P., Zander, K. K., Jackson, M. V., Ellis, E., Brondizio, E. S., & Garnett, S. T. (2020). Importance of Indigenous Peoples’ lands for the conservation of Intact Forest Landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 18 (3), 135–140

Ferrero, B. G. (2014). Conservación y comunidades: una introducción. Avá, (24).

Garnett, S. T., Burgess, N. D., Fa, J. E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár, Z., Robinson, C. J., Watson, J. E. M., Zander, K. K., Austin, B., Brondizio, E. S., Collier, N. F., Duncan, T., Ellis, E., Geyle, H., Jackson, M. V., Jonas, H., Malmer, P., McGowan, B., Sivongxay, A., & Leiper, I., (2018). A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability, 1 (7), 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6

Goldfarb, L., & van der Haar, G. (2017). The moving frontiers of genetically modified soy production: shifts in land control in the Argentinian Chaco. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 43(2), 562-582. DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2015.1041107.

Hirsch, P. D., Adams, W.M., Brosius, J. P., Zia, A., Bariola, N., & Dammert, J. L. (2011). Acknowledging conservation trade‐offs and embracing complexity. Conservation Biology, 25 (2), 259-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01608.x

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos – I.N.D.E.C. La medición de la pobreza y la indigencia en la Argentina. – 1a ed . – Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos – INDEC. (2016).

IUCN. International Union for Conservation of Nature. (2016). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. https://www.iucnredlist.org.

Jones, R. F., Kam, H., & Potter, C. (2023). Are landholders willing to collaborate under ELMs? Promoting collaborative conservation on a landscape scale in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies, 103, 103109.

Kuemmerle, T., Altrichter, M., Baldi, G., Cabido, M., Camino, M., Cuellar, E., Cuellar, R. L., Decarre, J., Díaz, S., Gasparri, I., Gavier-Pizarro, G., Ginzburg, R., Giordano, A. J., Grau, H. R., Jobbágy, E., Leynaud, G., Macchi, L., Mastrangelo, M., Matteucci, S. D., & … Zak, M. (2017). Forest conservation: remember Gran Chaco. Science, 355, 465-465. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal3020

Langton, M., Ma Rhea, Z., & Palmer, L. (2005). Community-oriented protected areas for indigenous peoples and local communities. Political Ecology, 12, 23-50.

Leach, M., & Scoones, I. (2015). Carbon conflicts and forest landscapes in Africa. London: Routledge. ISBN: 978-1-138-82482-9

Le Polain de Waroux, Y., Baumann, M., Gasparri, N. I., Gavier-Pizarro, G., Godar, J., Kuemmerle, T., Müller, R., Vázquez, F., Volante , J. N., & Meyfroidt, P. (2018). Rents, actors, and the expansion of commodity frontiers in the Gran Chaco. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 108(1), 204-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1360761

Montgomery, R. A., Kabra, A., Kepe, T., Garnett, S., & Merino, R. (2024). Re-centering social justice in conservation science: Progressive policies, methods, and practices. Biological Conservation, 294, 110600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110600.

Morello, J., Matteucci, S. D., Rodríguez, A. F., & Silva, M. (2012). Ecorregions and ecosystem complexes of Argentina. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Orientación Gráfica Editora.

Nori, J., Torres, R., Lescano, J. N., Cordier, J. M., Periago, M. E., & Baldo, D. (2016). Protected areas and spatial conservation priorities for endemic vertebrates of the Gran Chaco, one of the most threatened ecoregions of the world. Diversity and Distributions, 22 (12). 1212-1219. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12497

Noss, A. J., Cuéllar, E., & Cuéllar, R. L. (2004). An evaluation of hunter self-monitoring in the Bolivian Chaco. Human Ecology, 32 (6), 685-702.

Oliva, M. & Frapolli, E. G. (2024). Conservation backfire: Local effects of international protected area policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 153, 103676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103676.

Olson, D. M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E. D., Burgess, N. D., Powell, G.V., Underwood, E. C., D’amico, J. A., Itoua, I., Strand, H. E., Morrison, J. C., Loucks, C. J., Allnutt, T. F., Ricketts, T. H., Kura, Y., Lamoreux, J. F., Wettengel, W. W., Hedao, P., Kassem, K. R., & Kassem, K.R. (2001). Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth: A new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. BioScience, 51 (11), 933-938.

Pelletier, J., Gélinas, N., & Potvin, C. (2019). Indigenous perspective to inform rights-based conservation in a protected area of Panama. Land use policy, 83, 297-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.01.027

Redford, K. H., Taber, A., & Simonetti, J. A. (1990). There is more to biodiversity than the tropical rain forests. Conservation Biology, 328-330.

Rivas, A., López, A., Mosquera, G. & Granizo, T. (2006). Participación Social en el Manejo de las Áreas Protegidas. Distribución de beneficios generados por la Conservación de las Áreas Naturales Protegidas. Una sistematización de las reflexiones en el Taller Regional. The Nature Conservancy, 90 p.

Sánchez-Cortez, J. L. (2011). Geoparques y Áreas Naturales Protegidas: Una visión desde la conservación, identidad y participación social. Investigación Ambiental. Ciencia y Política Pública, 3, 44-51.

Tauli-Corpuz, V., Alcorn, J., Molnar, A., Healy, C., & Barrow, E. (2020). Cornered by PAs: Adopting rights-based approaches to enable cost-effective conservation and climate action. World Development, 130, 104923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104923

Toledo, V. M., & Barrera-Bassols, N. (2008). La memoria biocultural. La importancia ecológica de las sabidurías tradicionales. Ciencias, (96), 76-76.

UNDP. United Nations Development Programme. (2016). The Sustainable Development Goals Report. United Nations publication issued by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). ISSN: 2518-3958.

Vallejos, M., Aguiar, S., Baldi, G., Mastrangelo, M. E., Gallego, F., Pacheco-Romero, M., Alcaraz-Segura, D., & Paruelo, J. M. (2020). Social-ecological functional types: connecting people and ecosystems in the Argentine Chaco. Ecosystems, 23, 471-484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-019-00415-4

Washington, H., Piccolo, J. J., Kopnina, H., & O’Leary Simpson, F. (2024). Ecological and social justice should proceed hand-in-hand in conservation. Biological Conservation, 290. ISSN 0006-3207

West, P., & Aini, J. (2018). Critical Approaches to Dispossession in the Melanesian Pacific: Conservation, Voice, and Collaboration. In Keynote Lecture. Political Ecology Network Biennial Conference, 19–22.

Zafra-Calvo, N., Garmendia, E., Pascual, U., Palomo, I., Gross-Camp, N., Brockington, D., Cortes-Vazquez, J. A., Coolsaet, B., & Burgess, N. D. (2019). Progress toward equitably managed protected areas in Aichi target 11: a global survey. BioScience, 69(3), 191-197. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy143.

| | PRINT: print




Leave a Reply