We are facing an unprecedented environmental and climate crisis. A significant portion of the remaining natural ecosystems in the world is located within the territories of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs). However, conservation efforts have historically excluded IPLCs, disregarding their knowledge, wisdom, and the land management practices they have maintained for generations. By focusing on threatened species and ecosystems, conservation has often been reduced to a biological exercise, failing to consider the economic, political, and cultural dynamics that shape the future of ecosystems.
The Indigenous Vision of Nature
Our perception of nature is shaped by culture and worldview. In the Indigenous perspective, culture and nature are not separate. The land—along with its ecosystems and biodiversity—is an integral part of a community’s identity, history, and daily, social, subsistence, and spiritual practices. It is not merely a resource to be exploited but a living space where relationships of reciprocity and respect are woven, recognizing humans as part of an interconnected whole. This knowledge and its associated management practices manifest in diverse ways and are just as threatened as biodiversity and ecosystems themselves.
Throughout history, human societies have interacted with and shaped their environment through cultural practices. Many landscapes we now consider pristine have been, or continue to be, shaped by IPLCs. For example, in the Chaco region, highly threatened native grasslands were historically maintained through Indigenous cultural and subsistence practices. Similarly, the semi-nomadic movements of Indigenous groups influenced the landscape’s dynamics—temporarily settling in areas altered the populations of hunted and gathered species. More importantly, these communities maintained water sources, allowing surface water to persist even after they moved on. In a region with a prolonged dry season, these water sources would otherwise disappear quickly. Thus, landscapes, their dynamics, and their diversity were intrinsically linked to Indigenous practices. Ignoring IPLCs as part of nature when considering conservation is a mistake.
Despite growing evidence of IPLCs’ importance in conservation, dominant perspectives have erased their role and imposed exclusionary models, leading to social conflicts, authoritarian measures, and even human rights violations. Globally, more than a million people have been expelled from their homes to create protected areas. In Argentina, for example, El Impenetrable National Park was established on the lands of the Wichí Nueva Población community. Lacking formal land ownership, the community lost free access to the area and the ability to practice subsistence hunting, worsening food insecurity and eroding their cultural heritage.
This raises important questions: For whom is conservation being practiced? At whose expense? With what authority and based on whose knowledge?
By prioritizing conservation models that exclude IPLCs, we violate rights and perpetuate power concentration and extractivism in these territories. Assuming that the only valid method of knowledge is dominant science disregards ancestral knowledge—an essential ally in addressing the environmental crisis.
Some IPLC practices may be unsustainable, but the solution is not to exclude them or reinforce narratives that contribute to their marginalization. Instead, scientists, governments, decision-makers, NGOs, and other stakeholders must work alongside them as equals, ensuring their participation is real, meaningful, and binding. This does not mean IPLCs should bear sole responsibility for conservation. Using the previous example, the Nueva Población community should not have their practices unilaterally prohibited. Instead, they should take part in data collection and analysis to collaboratively determine the best ways to prevent species extinction.
Conservation with Social Inclusion
Conservation with social inclusion is an approach that recognizes IPLCs as central actors and has been gaining traction in recent decades. For instance, in 2003, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) created a new category of protected areas that allows IPLCs to inhabit or manage them. Today, the success of protected areas is measured not only by their impact on biodiversity but also by their respect for IPLC rights and well-being.
Many organizations are increasingly prioritizing IPLC welfare, including platforms like IPBES, the United Nations, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. In fact, a study found that 86 conservation initiatives led by at least 68 Indigenous groups across 25 countries generated sociocultural, political, and ecological benefits, including improved livelihoods, strengthened governance, and species and habitat recovery. Indigenous peoples have established protected areas autonomously or through partnerships, sometimes with state support.
Despite these advances, inclusive conservation faces significant challenges, such as restrictive laws based on exclusionary paradigms, private interests, corruption, ignorance within government agencies, limited funding, and structural discrimination. Legal reforms and efforts to promote equity in conservation are necessary. IPLCs should not be relegated to subordinate roles such as providing ecotourism services, cooking for tourists, or merely collecting data for scientists. They are the rightful stewards of vast territories where the last remaining natural ecosystems persist. Their knowledge is unique, and working with them could be the key to addressing the environmental crisis.
Conclusions
Beyond the environmental crisis, humanity faces new challenges, such as global leaders and political sectors that deny this crisis and scientific evidence, as well as setbacks in the rights of women, immigrants, and diverse communities. In this context, conservation must urgently shift toward a model based on integration, respect, science, and also IPLC knowledge. Otherwise, we risk reinforcing an exclusionary paradigm that is gaining ground worldwide.
Conservation cannot be defined solely by the scientific community, NGOs, or governments—it must be built collectively, with environmental justice and territorial rights as core principles. In this framework, IPLCs must be recognized as legitimate protagonists in managing their lands. Conservation science and practice must embrace the complexity of socio-ecological systems, understanding that sustainability is not just about ecosystem management but also political, social, cultural, and economic factors.
Thus, adopting an ethical framework for conservation is crucial—one where IPLCs are integrated from the start and treated as equals. Their knowledge, practices, and rights are essential for biodiversity protection. Ecosystem integrity cannot be ensured without considering the people who inhabit and depend on these environments. Conservation must also be about empathy, cultural diversity, and human rights.
To ensure our survival, we must rethink our relationship with the environment and recognize that biological and cultural diversity are interdependent. In the end, each of us is also part of nature.
*Machine translation proofread by Janaína da Silva.
Autor
PhD in biological sciences, CONICET researcher and director of the Quimilero Project, she works in conservation, integrating nature and the well-being of indigenous peoples and local communities. She has received awards such as the Whitley Award.
