9.1 Introduction

Social-ecological systems (SES) are those that include social (human) and ecological (biophysical) sub-systems in two-way feedback interactions. The term refers to intertwined people-environment systems and to emphasize the interdependent and co-evolutionary nature of these “coupled” interactions (Berkes and Folke 1998). One of the most relevant contributions of this book is its social-ecological approach, and that it seeks to cross-disciplinary barriers and boundaries, and integrate various branches of biology and veterinary medicine with archaeological and anthropological information. Such an approach provides a holistic view of guanaco conservation and use as a complex, multidimensional, and multi-scale process that is strongly impacted by the historical, political, and social context.

The social-historical, economic, and environmental processes that took place in Patagonia over millennia shaped the relationship between human communities and guanaco populations. This relationship was originally in the form of a dependency of the original peoples on this species (Chap. 2), sometimes expressed as a two-way or reciprocal relationship. But after the Conquest of the “Desert”,Footnote 1 the bonds between the animals and people were broken. This led to a “decoupling” of the social subsystem from the ecological subsystem SES,Footnote 2 and the loss of stewardship traditions that maintained the relationship.

The disarticulation of the indigenous way of life at the end of the nineteenth century was the turning point in human-guanaco-environment interaction in Patagonia (Chaps. 2 and 6). As mentioned in previous chapters, local inhabitants were killed and replaced by European settlers, and their knowledge was also “replaced” by that of new settlers that had a different rationale and approach for exploiting the environment. Traditional management gave way to European farming, and native species were replaced by imported domestic species. The policies of appropriation and re-distribution of land, added to the unwise application of a productive model designed for wetter ecosystems that did not include the use of native species (nor local knowledge), contributed along the years to desertification and thus to increase the conflict between producers and guanacos (Coronato 2010; Chap. 6).

The eradication process, which was also suffered by predators (Chap. 5), resulted in a population decrease of guanacos to 26% of their original range (Baldi et al. 2016). This reduction was so severe that it required national as well as international conservation efforts (such as export bans on guanaco pelts by CITES), and the elaboration of specific regulations for guanaco conservation (Chaps. 6 and 7). Meanwhile, desertification increased and became probably the most important social, economic, and ecological problem in Patagonia (Chap. 2). The climate crisis, in addition to poor livestock practices and overstocking for decades, led to the degradation of grasslands, which, combined with the crisis of the sheep wool market and the eruption of the Hudson volcano, resulted in a progressive abandonment of ranches particularly in Santa Cruz and Chubut provinces (Andrade 2003). This in turn benefited puma and guanaco populations, reigniting the conflict with remaining sheep ranchers (Chaps. 5 and 6).

In spite of public and private efforts to establish guanaco sustainable use projects and the solid science behind them (Chap. 7), there is a growing conflict between sheep ranching and guanaco conservation in most of Patagonia. Ranchers of Santa Cruz and Chubut provinces in Argentina, and Chilean Patagonia, are concerned about the recovery of some guanaco populations, which are perceived as uncontrolled and over the carrying capacity, leading to competition for forage resources with livestock and causing overgrazing and habitat deterioration, and decreasing rangelands’ receptivity (Chaps. 3 and 8). Lobbying by large-scale ranchers from Santa Cruz province resulted in permits to harvest 6000 guanacos and the update of the Guanaco National Management Plan. This non-participatory process was led by livestock sectors without knowledge about wildlife ecology and management (Chaps. 6 and 7).

However, the role of guanacos in the desertification process is debatable. Schroeder et al. in their review (Chap. 3) found no ecological evidence to support the idea that guanaco reduces forage availability for livestock through competition, nor that guanaco populations threaten rangeland integrity and livestock production through overgrazing. Furthermore, they documented a systematic underestimation of the environmental carrying capacity for guanacos when estimated by methods used for livestock, which impacts directly on the overgrazing risk assessment and calculation of harvest quotas.

This chapter summarizes some of the findings with policy impact mentioned in this book and draws lessons and opportunities for the conservation and sustainable use of the guanacos in Patagonia.

9.2 Lessons Learned and Opportunities for Guanaco Conservation and Sustainable Use

9.2.1 Nature Conservation Is a Highly Political Process

Nature conservation entails power struggles between the actors that participate in the definition and implementation of policies and power asymmetries. The perceptions and values of local communities and rural inhabitants are usually silenced in favour of influential actors such as ranchers and interest groups as illustrated in Chap. 6. The concentration of decision-making power in distant cities alienates local people from their natural resources. It is important to acknowledge the different agendas, and multiplicity of interests and values involved in decision-making.

9.2.2 Guanaco Conservation Requires Integrating Scientific Information from Disparate Disciplines as well as Local Traditional Knowledge into Decision-Making and Strengthening Participatory Processes

Guanaco conservation and management requires an integrated approach that includes research across a wide range of academic and applied disciplines for decision-making. Furthermore, management plans cannot rely only on “expert knowledge”. Problem definitions are contextual and should be drawn from both local and scientific knowledge (Wilkinson et al. 2007). As mentioned in Chap. 3, planning, design, and implementation of management schemes affecting guanaco populations require strengthening participatory processes involving all relevant stakeholders (i.e., ranchers, pastoralists, indigenous peoples, scientists, conservationists, and policymakers). Such schemes should have an adaptive management (learning-by-doing) approach and knowledge co-production (combining different kinds of knowledge for problem-solving) (Berkes 2017). They should include transparent co-participation in the follow-up, monitoring, and evaluation of processes, as well as the horizontal transmission of management results among stakeholders. Failed programs and policies (such as the Pilot Programme to harvest guanacos in Santa Cruz, Chap. 6) should be terminated but lessons should be extracted and disseminated.

Government agencies should promote cooperation through programmes that strengthen the institutional capacities of wildlife and livestock managers as well as local participation. As may be observed along these pages, there is ample solid research tradition in Argentina and Chile, on different technical aspects of guanaco conservation and sustainable use. There are also on-going local experiences on collective guanaco management (Lichtenstein and Carmanchahi 2012) and some local indigenous knowledge on the relationship between guanacos and people that survived the colonization and dispossession process. As well, there are ancestral practices that need to be revitalized (Chap. 2, Dreidemie 2018). This book illustrates how the lack of participation of the academic sector, indigenous and local communities, and most provincial wildlife agencies in the updating of the guanaco management plan led to a mismatch between on-going development projects, local needs, scientific findings, and the regulations that were approved (Chap. 6).

9.2.3 The Implementation of Animal Welfare Protocols Based on Sound Science Is Crucial to Achieve Guanaco Sustainable Use

In the last 20 years, diverse aspects of the effects of live shearing guanacos have been studied. The response of wild guanacos to capture and shearing on physiological, behavioural, and population parameters was widely examined (Chap. 7). The outcomes of this research were incorporated into animal welfare protocols such as the IUCN SSC GECS (Carmanchahi and Marull 2017). The implementation of animal welfare protocols reduced the mortality and stress associated with shearing and thus the impact of live-shearing activities on population structure and fitness. Society’s views on animal welfare have evolved over the past decades. Care for animal welfare criteria and good practices throughout the guanaco value chain are fundamental on ethical grounds and in the face of the growing pressure from international markets, animal rights campaigners, and NGOs. The challenge is to make sure that Animal Welfare Protocols are widely and properly applied in all shearing experiences. The fibre obtained from live animals following strict animal welfare protocols has the potential to be certified in a way that increases its sale value. On the other hand, fibre obtained from slaughtered individuals should not enter the market for the following reasons: (1) it is unfair competition for the on-going live shearing experiences; (2) difficulties in traceability might result in “laundering” illegal fibre, and (3) public concern on animal welfare might result in closing international markets for guanaco fibre (as it already occurred when the Patagonia firm stopped buying OVIS 21 wool).

9.2.4 A Transparent Market for Guanaco Fibre Should Be Established and Added Value at the Local Level Should Be Promoted

The rationale behind guanaco sustainable use experiences is that by allowing the commercial utilization of fibre obtained from live-shorn individuals, the development of positive local attitudes towards conservation would be encouraged. In turn, this should result in some or all of the following: a decrease in poaching; the replacement of introduced livestock with guanacos; an increase in tolerance for guanacos on private lands; better management of total grazing pressure; reduced land degradation; improving vegetation and biodiversity outcomes; and greater support for conservation measures (Lichtenstein 2013).

Although guanaco fibre has been exported for a long time to Europe, it is not as well-known as vicuña fibre. A lower international demand, the lack of an established and transparent market, and low market prices have all discouraged producers. In many areas, this results in poaching instead of legal use. Guanaco fibre has minimal differences from vicuña fibre, both are of excellent quality. However, guanaco fibre is not as recognized internationally (Kasterine and Lichtenstein 2018). Therefore, for the species to benefit in terms of conservation, guanaco fibre must be marketed as such. For this, it is necessary to establish marketing strategies that generate a demand for this product and ensure that this material comes from legal sources, certifying its traceability.

In addition, it is important to add value locally, avoiding the export of raw fibre for processing abroad. The use of ancestral practices for spinning and weaving guanaco fibre can re-invigorate local traditional knowledge and conserve cultural heritage while providing local economic benefits (Dreidemie 2018). Each of the fibre processing stages that is carried out locally not only increases the value of the final product, but also generates jobs and income for local communities, strengthening the links between people and the species, promoting recoupling.

9.2.5 Harvesting Guanacos for Meat Requires Filling Information Gaps

In various chapters of this book, it has been clearly shown that there are still large information gaps in relation to the production and marketing of guanaco meat (Chaps. 4 and 8). From the population point of view, the current harvest models are highly criticized by the scientific sector and require revision. From a regulatory point of view, it is important to establish control protocols and traceability of meat. From a health point of view, the high incidence of sarcocystosis is a problem that must be studied to establish whether it is feasible to market this product (Chaps. 4 and 7). On the other hand, the market for the products obtained by the consumptive use of the species needs to be made transparent in order to determine costs, profit margins, the destination of these products and their potential consumers. As in the case of kangaroo management in Australia, harvesting programs should be based on well-designed harvesting models and marketing, promoting sustainable population management. This should include selective harvesting based on sex, size, and age class (Finalyson et al. 2021), and this is very different from the untargeted culling/killing practices actually in place in Argentina.

9.2.6 The Uncertainty Regarding Resource Rights Over Guanacos and the Unequal Distribution of Usufruct Rights Reduces the Likelihood of Producers Becoming Interested in Joining the Activity and Instead Promotes Poaching

Guanacos share with other common pool resources (commons) that they are natural goods characterized by the difficulty of excluding actors from using them and the fact that their use by one individual or group means that less is available for others, known as the exclusion problem and the subtractability problem, respectively (Ostrom 1990; Ostrom et al. 1999).

Commons scholars have shown how, by shaping the incentives of users and managers, variations in forms of property rights make a difference in resource management outcomes (Agrawal 2003). In the case of guanaco management, there is a tension given that the resource is de jure (by law) state-owned, but exists as de facto (in practice) private property (Chap. 6). This results in ranch owners managing guanacos almost as private property. Public ownership of a resource that is scattered either in protected areas or on private properties across an area the size of Patagonia creates open access conditions that result in poaching instead of sustainable use. The uncertainty regarding resource rights over guanacos, and the top-down approach followed during the development and implementation of Management Plans should be re-visited in order to increase participation. There is a need to revise management strategies and create cross-scale interactions and partnerships as well as local-level common property institutions to decentralize the governance of this resource. Guanaco management provides an opportunity to target usufruct rights towards indigenous and local communities.

9.2.7 Need for Governmental Support at Different Levels

Producers venture into guanaco fibre production at their own risk. National and provincial governments provide limited investment or technical support. The design of local institutions for resource management has not been promoted. Ironically, there are more support schemes for sheep ranching (despite the desertification that results from overstocking) than for guanaco. Guanaco Management should be implemented not only by the Federal Biodiversity Agency (FBA). Strong participation of the State is still necessary, both in the control of the productive processes and in the development and marketing of products. In this sense, the participation of different official agencies related to the promotion of micro-enterprises through accessible credits, support in social organization and training, the promotion of internal and external trade, the generation of markets and the development of standards of market-driven production quality. Policies and regulations that facilitate (and do not inhibit) the access of indigenous people and cooperatives to guanaco management and the market should be encouraged.

9.2.8 Need for Work on Policies at a Regional Scale

Guanaco movements transcend political and administrative boundaries and therefore their use and management requires cross-boundary cooperation and coordination. Policies should result from agreements at different levels, cutting across the jurisdictional scale (vertically) and linking decision-makers at the same level (horizontally) (Berkes 2017). In the case of the international level, guanaco conservation would benefit from the existence of a Convention (such as the Vicuña Convention) where countries in its area of distribution can discuss and agree on conservation measures, share failed and successful experiences, technical knowledge and information.

9.3 Recoupling the Social and the Biological Systems

Wildlife management on a landscape scale is often complex, particularly where different land use practices co-occur (Finlayson et al. 2021). It often results in conflicts between the needs of wildlife and human needs, which are the main source of threats to biological diversity in much of the world. Human pressure on the environment is leading to processes of extinction of wild species and degradation of native habitats. In arid Patagonia, more than 95% of the land is private property and was converted mainly to sheep farming, under a poorly planned scheme, with fixed livestock loads and without considering interannual fluctuations in primary (plant) productivity, which led to a process of severe habitat desertification and the decline of wild species, such as the guanaco (Chaps. 3 and 7). As mentioned, desertification is the main environmental problem in the arid zones of Patagonia, causing important impacts on the quality of life and economy of the people who live there.

The degradation of the productive system due to desertification generates permanent migratory flows of rural inhabitants towards urban centres. These migrations break down rural families, generate important cultural losses and, at the same time, increase poverty in urban centres. In this context, the use of guanacos may have a fundamental role in mitigating the desertification process of arid ecosystems, providing an economic alternative for local producers, and increasing the profitability of the land due to its aptitude for complementary or alternative uses (Lichtenstein and Carmanchahi 2012). The use of guanaco fibre could become an important complement to regional economies, transforming this activity into an engine for local socio-economic development, playing an important role in the conservation of the species.

The paradigm shift that favours the coexistence between the conservation of wild species and the productive activities of local communities is slowly taking root in society. This is because the value of biodiversity is being recognized on moral, ethical, and aesthetic grounds, as well as for recreational and economic reasons. Therefore, considering activities for the sustainable use of wildlife, which minimize environmental impacts and favour coexistence between production and conservation, will have positive consequences for ecosystems and biodiversity. Cultural and biological diversity and abundance of options, on the other hand, will increase the resilience of the social-ecological system and its ability to buffer or adapt to change (Berkes 2017).

We suggest that guanaco sustainable use is a way to recouple social-ecological systems in Patagonia to restore the cultural heritage of stewardship traditions, and to achieve habitat and species conservation. The on-going re-articulation process, contributing to revitalization, and updating of indigenous cultural references, identity affirmation, and rediscovery of local and community practices taking place in Argentina and Chile might contribute to this end (e.g. Pilquiman et al. 2020; Lichtenstein and Cowan Ross 2021) along with continuous work with ranchers.

It is time for policy-makers to start envisaging natural resource use and management holistically in terms of linked social-ecological systems, and to embrace transdisciplinary perspectives. This would hopefully be supported by reforms in university education fostering non-reductionist approaches to science (Schoon and Van der Leeuw 2015). A broader outlook should include the active participation of indigenous and local low-income communities that have been historically neglected in favour of large-scale producers. Such policy changes would create a more even “playing field” for guanacos and people.