Research, part of a special feature on Beyond the Assessment on the Diverse Values of Nature: Hidden gems, Biases, Frontiers, Challenges, and Insights

INTRODUCTION

There is considerable evidence that recognizing and respecting the traditional knowledge, worldviews, and values of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IP and LCs) is vital for addressing the nature crisis and delivering more effective and just conservation (IPBES 2022, IPBES 2024). Studies have shown that biodiversity is generally declining least rapidly on lands owned or managed by Indigenous Peoples (IPBES 2019) and that traditional farmers, pastoralists, fishers, hunters and gatherers typically conserve biodiversity through adaptative management, often using strong protocols and prohibitions against overharvesting, rooted in cultural values and beliefs (Berkes et al. 2000, Kuhnlein et al. 2009, Natcher 2009). Many lands characterized as “natural,” “intact,” or “wild” have long histories of human use, and areas under Indigenous Peoples’ management and traditional low-intensity use are some of the most biodiverse remaining on the planet (Ellis et al. 2021). The IPBES Values Assessment found that some IP and LCs conceive good quality of life as living in harmony with Mother Earth or Buen Vivir (good living; IPBES 2022). Such ancestral well-being concepts can provide sustainable and equitable alternatives to destructive economic models and unjust conservation and offer solutions for addressing the nature, climate, and food crises (FAO 2021, Swiderska et al. 2022).

Although Indigenous and traditional cultures and knowledge systems are diverse, research has shown that Indigenous farming communities across continents often have similar core values of reciprocity, sharing, balance, collectiveness, solidarity, and duality (i.e., everything has a complementary opposite) that apply to relationships with nature and in society (Swiderska et al. 2009, 2018, Walshe and Argumedo 2016). These values are often enshrined in ancestral holistic well-being concepts. For example, the Quechua concept of Sumaq Kausay (Buen Vivir) requires balance and reciprocity between the human, wild, and sacred realms to achieve well-being (Sayre et al. 2017). Similarly, the African Ubuntu concept, popularly described as “I am because we are,” stresses the value of collectiveness, compassion, relatedness, and intra-community relations where ancestors, future generations, and (by extension) nature are part of the community (van Norren 2022).

The importance of traditional knowledge and cultural practices has been recognized for many years. The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity requires countries to “respect, preserve and maintain knowledge innovations and practices of Indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles” and to “protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices” (articles 8(j) and 10(c)). However, traditional knowledge and values of IP and LCs remain marginalized in policy making for conservation and development and are fast disappearing (IPBES 2019, 2022). It is estimated that 50–90% of all languages will be lost by 2100, most of which are Indigenous languages (Harrison 2007). The loss of languages and values they encode results in a dual and mutually reinforcing diversity crisis of nature and culture loss in social-ecological systems (Anderson et al. 2022). Yet, many state protected areas continue to restrict access to IP and LCs, and are not effectively or equitably managed, leading to negative outcomes for both nature and people (IPBES 2019). Despite strong evidence that equitable governance and secure IP and LC rights to land and resources are crucial for effective conservation, this remains contested (IPBES 2019, Dawson et al. 2024). Furthermore, most conservation action still assumes that local people degrade biodiversity because they are poor and focuses on generating cash income, marginalizing the diverse nature related values of IP and LCs (Carmenta et al. 2025).

In this paper we aim to shed further light on the role of IP and LC values and lifeways in nature conservation and equity. We address a key knowledge gap identified by the IPBES Values Assessment that limits opportunities to embed nature’s diverse values in decision making: lack of understanding and evidence of notions of “value” for IP and LCs, in different contexts and for different sociodemographic groups (IPBES 2022). The paper explores how the values, worldviews, and well-being concepts and traditional governance and livelihoods systems of different IP and LCs promote or hinder nature conservation and equity, their recognition by different community actors (different generations, genders, etc.), and the drivers of cultural change. It provides the findings of case studies conducted with less studied communities in the Peruvian Andes, coastal Kenya, northeast India, and southwest China. The case studies also aimed to contribute directly to processes to establish self-governed biocultural heritage territories to enhance recognition of diverse values within communities and externally, inspired by the successful Potato Park in Peru. The Peru case study in Lares (Cusco region) contributed to chapter 3 of the IPBES Values Assessment (Anderson et al. 2022), which assessed a wide range of disciplinary and traditional methods used to assess the value of nature and human-nature relations, including practices and rituals undertaken by IP and LCs.

The concept of biocultural heritage, also known as biocultural heritage systems, recognizes the interlinkages and interdependence between traditional knowledge, biodiversity, landscapes, cultural and spiritual values, and customary laws, and reflects the holistic worldviews of IP and LCs. Biocultural heritage has been defined as “Knowledge, innovations and practices of IP and LCs which are often collectively held and are inextricably linked to traditional resources and territories, including the diversity of genes, varieties, species and ecosystems, cultural and spiritual values and customary laws shaped within the social-ecological context of communities” (Swiderska et al. 2022). Biocultural heritage territories have been defined as “Land use mosaics encompassing Indigenous and traditional land tenure, production and exchange systems, cultural identity, community organisation and simultaneous goals of endogenous development and biodiversity conservation” (Swiderska et al. 2020).

METHODOLOGY

The four case studies were conducted by the authors in 2019–2021 as part of the project “Indigenous biocultural heritage for sustainable development” funded by the British Academy. They entailed research with: four Quechua communities in the Chalakuy (Barter) Park in Lares district, Calca Province, Cusco region, Peru; 10 Mijikenda villages in Rabai sub-county, Kilifi County, coastal Kenya; 11 Lepcha and Limbu hamlets in Lingsey and Lingseykha, Kalimpong District, West Bengal, India; and two Naxi and two Moso villages along the Yangtze river in the Three Parallel Rivers of Yunnan Protected Areas, northwest Yunnan, China.

The case studies used a decolonizing action-research approach and a biocultural systems framework. Decolonizing action-research seeks to revitalize traditional knowledge, address the threats and structural inequalities that underlie its loss, and generate strategies to leverage change (Lemke and Delormier 2017). It is shaped by Indigenous Peoples’ struggles to resist the assault on their culture; targets local phenomena instead of using theory from the west; and creates locally relevant concepts, methods, and theories derived from local experiences and knowledge (Chilisa 2011). Decolonizing action-research aims to promote self-determination and traditional values and beliefs as a way of resisting dominant discourses (Argumedo 2012). It begins with critiques of colonial relations in past research involving Indigenous Peoples and aims to ensure that research is more respectful, ethical, sympathetic, and useful (Smith 1999). To implement this approach, each case study was designed with Indigenous co-researchers from the study villages, the research questions were adapted to the local context integrating traditional knowledge and concepts, and decolonial principles and Indigenous methods were complemented with participatory action-research methods.

A biocultural systems framework was used to contribute directly to community efforts to establish and strengthen biocultural territories. The five specific research questions (Box 1), on ethnicity, worldviews and values, governance, agroecosystem context, and livelihoods, explored the key components of biocultural systems or territories in each landscape (Fig. 1), which are interlinked. For example, the agroecosystem context determines the type of livelihood; ethnicity and history shape worldviews; and worldviews and values shape landscape governance. The key components of biocultural systems reflect those of social-ecological systems: people, environment, economy, ideology/values, and social structure. We focus in particular on research question 2, but also include findings on the other research questions.

The methodology was guided by the experience of the Potato Park biocultural territory in Peru that emerged out of a 20-year decolonizing action research process (Swiderska et al. 2020). This process has resulted in strong local organization, capacity, and agency, enabling Quechua communities to defend their territorial rights, influence policies, revitalize ancestral knowledge and agrobiodiversity, and enhance food security, climate resilience and incomes (ANDES 2016, Sayer et al. 2017, Swiderska et al. 2020). Since 2012, efforts have been underway to scale-out and adapt the Potato Park approach to the case study regions, through collaborative research and horizontal learning (Fig. 2). The research partners and community representatives from each region visited the Potato Park and were inspired to establish similar biocultural territories.

The overall process, time line, and methodological design is presented in Figure 2. The present case studies build on earlier research on traditional knowledge protection and customary laws (2005–2009), which explored core values of reciprocity, equilibrium, and duality in the Potato Park (Peru) and the case study regions in Kenya, China, and India (Swiderska et al. 2009); and on how cultural values affect biocultural innovation, which explored reciprocity, solidarity, equilibrium, and collectiveness in the four case study communities (Swiderska et al. 2018). In both projects, these cultural values were initially identified in the Andean region, where cultural values are still relatively strong. The case studies presented here further explore the role of reciprocity, solidarity, equilibrium, and collectiveness in nature conservation and equity but include different communities that are less studied and a focus on well-being concepts, and how these are recognized by different actors.

The overall methodological design for the present case studies was guided in particular by the needs and logic of IP and LCs in line with the decolonizing action-research approach. The ultimate goal of the project was to support the emergence of biocultural territories as self-sustaining social movements. This requires community leadership and a flexible and decentralized approach to methodological design. The first step in the research process was an international workshop in January 2019 involving research partners from each country, including Asociación ANDES (Peru), the Indigenous NGO that supported the establishment of the Potato Park. Workshop participants developed a common methodological framework for the case studies, building on the Potato Park approach. They revised the initial research questions in the project proposal and re-organized them to reflect the key components of biocultural territories. The Principal Investigator (PI) then participated in a methodology workshop in Cusco, Peru, in early June 2019, where Asociación ANDES, the Potato Park and Chalakuy Park communities presented their decolonizing action-research methodology, which promotes intergenerational knowledge transmission, and prioritizes Indigenous methods and tools (Swiderska and Stenner 2020). The PI then visited the other case study sites from June to November 2019 to share the Andean decolonizing methodology with local research partners and communities to inform local methodology design (Fig. 2).

The key elements of the decolonising methodology which underpins the Potato Park’s success were each applied in the local contexts in Peru, Kenya, India and China (Box 2).

Training and co-design workshops were held from July to December 2019, and most of the research was conducted from January to December 2020. The research was facilitated by local technical experts from the communities to strengthen capacity and confidence and shift power. The questions were addressed through a combination of methods that aimed to center traditional knowledge, including semi-structured interviews and focus groups with different actors (spiritual leaders, elders, traditional farmers, youth, and women), storytelling and oral histories with elders, and community-wide meetings to share, validate, and co-analyze the findings (Fig. 2). The research was guided by local Indigenous well-being concepts, such as Ayllu and Sumaq Kausay in Peru and Mudzini in Kenya, to reaffirm them through the process. In the Chalakuy Park (Peru), focus groups were held as part of biocultural Farmer Field School (FFS) meetings that focus on Sumaq Kausay, i.e., the human, wild, and sacred realms rather than just farming, and are held monthly by each community. Open-ended questions were used to address the research questions as well as Andean tools such as Yupana (matrix ranking) along with conceptual graphics of the Andean worldview to privilege Indigenous knowledge. In all four cases, participatory mapping and/or transect walks involving elders and youth were also used to explore biocultural systems in landscapes and identify important components of biocultural territories, to promote intergenerational knowledge transmission. The findings were co-analyzed with different actors using Indigenous concepts. For example in Peru, thematic, holistic, and relational analysis was conducted using Ayllu (community), Sumaq Kausay (holistic well-being), and Ayni (reciprocity) concepts.

Locally available literature was also reviewed to explore the core cultural values and well-being concepts of the studied ethnic groups and complement the field research because cultural values and well-being concepts have become weak in many communities. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in February 2020 and resulting lock-down delayed and constrained the research, but brought additional insights on the role of Indigenous food systems and cultural values in food security and resilience. Further details of the methods used for each case study can be found in the individual unpublished case study reports: Peru (Argumedo et al. 2021), India (Lepcha et al. 2021), Kenya (Wekesa et al. 2021), and China (Song et al. 2021; see https://biocultural.iied.org/).

This paper provides comparative analysis of the case study findings, exploring similarities and differences between the worldviews, values, and well-being concepts of IP and LCs in Peru, Kenya, India, and China, their status and trends and drivers of change. The results are analyzed in light of the IPBES Values Assessment findings and categorization of nature-related values. The paper assesses whether the Potato Park’s decolonizing methodology and biocultural systems framework can be scaled out to different contexts to enhance recognition of the diverse values of nature.

RESULTS

Quechua Peoples, Chalakuy (Barter) Park, Lares, Peru

Ethnicity, worldview, and well-being concepts

The people of the high mountain district of Lares are descended from an ancient matriarchal society, the “Laris,” a sub-group of the Quechua. They still preserve strong matriarchal traditions in community governance, reverence to Pacha Mama (Mother Earth) and female mountain deities. Their strong relationship with the land has nurtured a holistic worldview, where everything and everyone is related, a connectedness reinforced by spiritual values, and customary law and institutions. Their identity comes from connection with the mountains and belief that Pacha Mama is sacred.

The Quechua and Lares peoples’ worldview and understanding of well-being includes the well-being of nature and promotes equity in society, rather than accumulation of wealth. It is encapsulated in the notion of the Ayllu; or community, a traditional landscape organization concept that seeks to balance the needs of three communities in order to achieve harmony and the holistic well-being of all three, or Sumaq Kausay (Fig. 3):

• Runa Ayllu: the human and domesticated realm (plants, animals, etc.);

• Sallka Ayllu: wild animals, plants, lakes, streams, etc. (all elements outside human control);

• Auki Ayllu: the sacred and ancestors (e.g., mountain gods, sacred places).

Balance between the three Ayllus is achieved through Ayni (sacred reciprocity), which expresses the deep connections and interdependence of the three communities, where humans are not the most important. This highlights Quechua peoples’ deep respect for nature, and promotes community- and solidarity-centered forms of production, accumulation, and redistribution in harmony with nature, within a framework of equality and justice. All species and entities living on Mother Earth (including humans, plants, animals) have spirits and must live well with the earth and other spirits. This fosters collaboration amongst them and recognizes the rights of nature as well as people. Sumaq Kausay does not consider growth as necessary, but focuses on sustainably meeting individual, family, and community needs, and the needs of the other “children” of Pacha Mama, i.e., plants and animals.

Cultural values

The oral customary law principles that govern Quechua people and their relationship with the land, duality, reciprocity, and equilibrium, promote nature conservation and equity. These values are evident in their daily lives and arise from the Ayllu system. They are at the core of traditional Andean cosmovision and guide the equitable distribution of benefits from the Ayllus among community members. Building on research in the Potato Park (Walshe and Argumedo 2016), the following principles were further explored through focus group discussions in the four Chalakuy Park communities:

• Yanantin (duality): the cosmos is divided into two opposite but complementary halves. This can be seen in the division of labor between men and women, which does not denote superiority or subservience, but mutual interdependence; and in the perception toward rights and obligations, where both are necessary to achieve harmony and maintain equilibrium.
• Ayninakuy (reciprocity): what is received must be given back in equal measure. All the elements of nature including humans give and receive, contributing to the common good and harmony among people and nature. Reciprocity can be seen in the exchange of seeds, distribution of agricultural fields and labor, and offerings to Pacha Mama and the Apus (mountain deities).
• Chaninchay (equilibrium): proportion and harmony within communities and with nature, and the spiritual world. This means equitable distribution of benefits and contributions according to needs, abilities, responsibilities, and effort.

The study found that these values continue to guide the daily lives and identity of the Chalakuy Park people. For example, people still practice Ayni (reciprocity) through labor, barter, and seed exchange.

Traditional governance system

The Chalakuy Park people have a community-based governance system that emphasizes participation and deliberation, operates in service to the collective, and is often led by women. All three Ayllus play a role in governance, not just humans. Mountain gods play a key role in governance, and the wildlife they sustain (e.g., flowers, birds), provide signs to guide farming (biocultural indicators to indicate when to sow, harvest, etc., and for weather forecasting). There are sacred male and female Apus and lakes and special wild areas near these that are protected as sacred sites. “It is very important to work with the three Ayllus and observe the indicators because they show us changes in climate and help in local governance” (Valentina Avilés Tapara, Local Expert, Pampacorral, participatory mapping during PI visit, June 2019). Ccachin community has two snowy mountain gods that “nurture us — we blow coca leaves there for our animals and for the harvest. We sometimes give food to bears as they eat livestock. We have a red sacred lake where animals and people disappear, so we don’t go near it much. The Apus communicate with each other and meet, and all their wild animals are sacred” (Juan Victor Oblitas Chasin, Local Expert, Ccachin).

Agroecosystems, biocultural system, and livelihoods

The communities still practice a ritualistic farming tradition, where prayers are offered to mountain gods and Pacha Mama before each activity. Livelihoods are mainly subsistence oriented, are deeply connected to Sumaq Kausay and cultural values, and reinforce interlinked biocultural heritage systems.

Traditional knowledge of the mountain ecosystem is central to all productive activities. Quechua traditional knowledge in the Lares Valley represents a unique body of landscape-ecological knowledge, including a system of classification of 5 altitude zones that mirror the agro-climatic map of Peru; knowledge about agroecological practices (e.g., mixed cropping, crop rotation, long fallows), sustainable resource management (water, soil, pasture), and agrobiodiversity and wild foods; and weather forecasting knowledge using astronomy and nature-based signs. They also have Machu, which is pre-Inca traditional knowledge relating to the land.

Barter markets governed largely by women are the main form of economic exchange, central for food and nutrition. The ancestral barter markets of Lares are part of a sophisticated Andean agri-food system and social-ecological system linking communities from 1000 to 5500 masl. They ensure sufficient food and nutrition including for the poorest people through exchange of vitamin-rich fruits and vegetables from the lowlands, carbohydrates (corn and grains) from the midlands, and protein (tubers and animal products) from the highlands. They also maintain Quechua language, knowledge systems, agrobiodiversity, cosmovision, and values. Social reciprocity is built into bartering, where all parties decide on a fair exchange based on multiple values, including solidarity with family and friends, increasing seed diversity, improving diets, and maintaining social relations.

Recognition of traditional culture and drivers of change

Andean cosmovision and values are still strong in the Peruvian Andes, particularly in more remote areas like Lares but are increasingly threatened. Core values embodied in Sumaq Kausay are still transmitted orally through cultural traditions and practiced by most Lares people, including different generations, genders, and social classes. Despite children attending school full time, intergenerational transfer of traditional knowledge continues as children participate in farming activities after school and during holidays. However, even in Lares, Western values and religion are starting to influence Indigenous culture and cosmovision. Not everyone believes in both one God (Christianity) and the Apus (mountain gods), river and animal spirits. Fewer people want to farm because cheap food like rice and noodles can now be bought in Lares, but are less nutritious and undermine barter markets. Government policies promote cheap industrialized foods, but do not support barter markets in Lares.

Customary law principles are still used for the management of scarce community resources, e.g., by water allocation committees to promote equity and balance. But nowadays farmers are more interested in their private Chacras (farms) than in managing communal resources, so these principles are getting weaker. National policies and programs largely promote neoliberal agendas that favor extractive industries. This can provide jobs and income but is weakening traditional values and worldviews as people (e.g., young men) leave their communities and traditional occupations for extended periods. Quechua traditional knowledge and practices in Lares are also threatened by dramatic changes in climate that are forcing farmers to change cropping patterns.

Naxi-Moso Peoples, Northwest Yunnan, China

Ethnicity, worldviews, values, and well-being concepts

Indigenous groups in the study region have managed the mountain landscapes sustainably for centuries to maintain resources such as water. The Naxi and related Moso groups originally migrated toward the Yangtze riverbanks over 1300 years ago from Nepal and Tibet, respectively. Although the Naxi study villages (Stone and Wumu) and Moso villages (Youmi and Labo) speak different languages, the four villages share similar traditional worldviews, core values, and well-being concepts that promote nature conservation and equity in society. To achieve well-being, the human, wild, and spiritual worlds should be in balance.

The Naxi peoples’ ancient Dongba religion belongs to so-called “primitive polytheism,” with ancestor, ghost, and nature worship as its basic content. In Dongba mythology, “Nature” and “Man” are half-brothers, having different mothers. Harmonious relations between people and nature, respect for nature and opposing the wanton destruction of nature are core Naxi-Moso values, as per their sayings “our culture is grown up from the landscape” and “our livelihood is closely connected and depending on nature.” They believe every living being has a spirit. They worship sacred mountains, water sources, forest and seed gods. They perform many different farming rituals, e.g., thanksgiving ceremonies for worshipping nature and ancestors during the harvest to pray for a good harvest, offering traditional crops and sacrificing a cockerel. Through rituals and dances, the Dongbas educate children and young people to conserve natural resources. They interact with nature and share elements of nature amongst communities through customary laws. Their attitude toward nature is clearly illustrated by the story of He Shun, a Dongba priest who forbade his three sons to cut down more trees than they personally needed, as this would anger the gods and bring misfortune to his family.

The main aspects of the Naxi-Moso worldview are the spiritual world, wild ecosystems, and human communities. Balance between these three elements is important for well-being, continuity, and adaptation. These three key elements can be seen in a painting representing Naxi cultural values in the form of a mountain. “Each part has its own soul — the mountain tops are sacred so people can’t go there; the middle part is wild and has souls, it is full of wild animals, rivers, trees’ souls/ghosts; and the lower part has human souls/ghosts because people are buried in farmland” (He Jixian, Wumu Dongba; Fig. 4). Reciprocity helps to achieve balance, “if people borrow resources from nature and don’t give back, nature will have a disaster — so the Dongba has to coordinate the conflicts/relationship to promote harmony between people and nature” (He Jixian).

The Naxi-Moso worldview and spiritual connection to nature provides values that guide interaction with nature and with other communities. Their core values and beliefs include balance, harmony, sharing and reciprocity with nature and in society. In Wumu, they have a holy tree and the water source is holy, logging is forbidden around the water source; and they use sticky rice and waxy maize for rituals. As explained by He Jixian (Dongba, Wumu), “in Tibetan culture, each mountain has a mountain god and name. In Naxi culture we only have a few mountain gods.” According to the Daba in Labo, the Moso have a traditional mountain walking festival in August, some mountains have a name in Moso culture, and their iconography includes several animals, reflecting their strong connection with them.

Traditional governance system

The traditional governance system of the Naxi-Moso villages is connected to religion, landscape, and kinship with customary laws that promote sustainable and equitable resource use. In Youmi, nine Dongba are the governing body of the whole village through three big families’ kinship ties, for more than 15 generations. The other three villages have similar Dongba religion and customary laws, e.g., for water management, biodiversity and forest conservation, and labor sharing. Customary water management systems in the Stone Village and Wumu Village ensure water availability and equity, and have proved vital for coping with recurring spring droughts in the last decade. Under Dongba traditional regulations, only one person per household is permitted to do logging to promote sustainability and fairness. Mr. He from Stone Village explained: “there is a special area in the mountain where you can’t log, must conserve that special area of forest. We have a guardian to guard that forest and protect it.” The Moso Daba religion is very similar, as a Daba from Labo explained, “we have the god of trees and water sources, the Dabas tell farmers to protect them — if people destroy them they will get disease.”

Recognition of traditional culture and drivers of change

The spiritual beliefs and livelihoods of the Moso villages are more connected to landscapes and nature than those of the Naxi villages, which are closer to cities and have been more impacted by industrialization, outmigration, and promotion of Han Chinese culture. The latter also appears to have influenced gender equality.

Naxi values are becoming weaker among young men in particular, because of outmigration for education and work. The Stone Village and Wumu are closer to Lijiang city so people can migrate more easily. Naxi cultural erosion started several decades ago driven by political and education systems. Dongba culture and rituals were forbidden in 1949 until the 1980s. “Previously the whole Stone Village lived a spiritual life, but the cultural atmosphere has disappeared. Kids migrate and oral history and stories disappear. And with modern education people believe in science. After 1949, the Communist Party built a lot of schools that taught Han culture, and ethnic people were encouraged to integrate to modern life. Parents in rural areas want to educate kids so they can leave the village, so the kids have no connection to nature” (He Jixian).

Dongba religion is one of the key reasons for the survival of the four villages’ customary water management. But with increasing Han influence, this tradition is slowly fading along with other customary laws for natural resource management, to different degrees in the four villages. For example, Youmi’s Indigenous food system and biocultural heritage are more complete than those of the Stone Village. The Indigenous governance bodies of the four villages are also influenced by the formal administrative system to differing degrees. “In Wumu Village, customary laws are still working but they face challenges, for example, the local government is promoting tobacco plantations to reduce poverty, which is encouraging logging” (He Jixian). “However, today Naxi rituals are still performed even in the Stone Village and are being revived” (Mr. He). “In the past when we harvested rice we put it in the shape of a mountain and asked Dongba to do ritual, but we no longer grow rice.” Rice cultivation has greatly reduced in the Stone Village because of reduced rainfall.

Dongba culture does not always promote gender equality. A women from Stone Village explained, “Dongba are only men, and women are not allowed to participate in most rituals. If we change this the gods and ancestors will be angry.” This may reflect the influence of Han Chinese culture, which is most evident in the Stone Village that does not have a Dongba. In traditional Naxi culture, the spiritual “owner” of the water source is female. Moso is traditionally a matriarchal society, but has been influenced by Chinese and Tibetan culture, and is no longer matriarchal (except around Moso Lake). As a woman farmer in Labo explained, “Women can perform all the rituals but can’t be a Daba. Women host rituals at home three times a day for the ancestors.”

Agroecosystem, biocultural system and livelihoods

Naxi traditional concepts and values play an important role in maintaining agroecosystems and agrobiodiversity for food and nutrition security and resilience to shocks. Agriculture and food systems are increasingly influenced by modernization, but the four villages have realized that monocropping and chemical inputs have damaged land and polluted water, and that processed foods have resulted in increased malnutrition, heart disease, and high blood pressure. So they have decided to revive agrobiodiversity, agroecology, and healthy Indigenous food systems and establish community seed banks. The COVID-19 crisis has shown that these approaches rooted in biocultural heritage systems are essential for supporting people in times of crisis, that working with nature can help people cope with and recover from health crises and growing climate change impacts. When the COVID-19 outbreak occurred, the main transport links and markets were closed, but with their own governance systems and seeds, they managed to continue cultivating nutritious food.

Lepcha and Limbu Peoples, Kalimpong District, Northeast India

Ethnicity, worldviews, and well-being concepts

Lingsey and Lingseykha communities are in the ancestral homeland of the Lepchas who were hunter gatherers. In the early 1800s the Lepchas settled there and the Limbus migrated from Nepal. The Lepcha and Limbu identities, worldviews, and beliefs in the spiritual/ancestors’ world are closely tied to their deep relationship with the Khangchendzonga Mountain range. They do not consider themselves as the owners of nature or the earth, but as integral to other elements of God’s creation. They emphasize the well-being of the natural, spiritual, and human worlds.

The Lepcha believe that the earth was created by a supreme Goddess who created Mount Khangchendzonga, a sacred mountain, as her first son and the Lepcha as her second child. They call themselves the “Beloved Children of Snowy Peak.” The Khangchendzonga Mountain is their eldest brother and father figure; it gives them faith and meaning to life itself. It is the place from where the river flows, where they collect food, such as fish and other creatures; it gives rain for crops and forests that provide fruits, roots, creepers, and animal foods. Thus, in all stages of life, the mountain is worshipped and revered. They believe that biodiversity originates from a sacred hidden valley in the Khangchendzonga Mountain. The Limbus associate the creation of the human race and many significant events in their myths and legends with Mount Phoktanglungma in particular, now known as Kumbhkarna (or Jannu), a huge mountain in eastern Nepal in the western Khangchendzonga range. They believe that their original forefathers were crafted out of bamboo ash, bird droppings, rainwater, and resin from the lower hills. According to Limbu mythology, Phoktanglungma’s summit is the place where God and deities meet.

The Lepcha and Limbu believe in spiritual deities that dwell around nature’s significant aspects, which they consider sacred. They worship and protect several sacred places to this day. All elements in the landscape are connected to their ancestors whose spirits have settled there eternally. The Lepchas practice shamanism and their priests and priestesses mediate between the human, supernatural, and natural worlds. Similarly, in Limbu faith, Yuma Samyu religion, the priest mediates their relationships with nature.

Lepcha and Limbu worldviews identify the natural, cultural, and spiritual realms as integral in human life, emphasizing wholism and the well-being of all these elements. Human actions are accountable to a much larger subset of the society including the natural world and the ancestors and spirits. All plants, animals, and rocks have spirits and some are sacred, for example, in sacred mountains and forests. They also have deep-seated values of equity and sharing of resources in the community. Meeting food security and promoting health and well-being are not separate goals but are integrated and linked to nature in their holistic worldviews.

The notion of well-being of both Lepcha and Limbu are related to the influence of good and evil spirits. The Lepcha priests, Bongthing (mainly male) and Mun (male or female), mediate with good and evil spirits for the well-being of the individual, family, community, and landscape (including plants and animals). They perform different rituals and ceremonies such as “thanksgiving to mountains,” “worshipping water sources,” and “worshipping in the cave.” The Lepchas also pray for the well-being of animals, insects, and plants in ceremonies that emphasize their usefulness and value and the need to protect them. The Limbu Shamanistic priests invoke the ancestors and spirits for welfare and prosperity of the individual and the village, including lords of Mother Earth. Many Limbu festivities and religious ceremonies are intimately connected to nature.

Cultural values

Although Lepchas and Limbus have their own deities, rituals, and institutions, they share similar values and natural sacred sites (e.g., rivers and high-altitude lakes) and hold most ceremonies and rituals jointly. They have core values of reciprocity, collectiveness, solidarity, and equilibrium in society and with nature:

• Reciprocity and equilibrium with nature are expressed by planting trees, releasing fingerlings (baby fish) in the river, and offering traditional cereal crops to respective deities in different seasons, which provides food to migrating birds, animals, and fish and spreads seeds. Whenever the Lepcha and Limbu intend to use natural resources, they first offer prayers and commit to reciprocating to nature.
• Solidarity and reciprocity in society are expressed through sharing and exchanging seeds within and between villages, a long-standing practice in the mountains, e.g., potato seed from higher villages is exchanged for maize from lower altitudes.
• Solidarity with nature and the sacred world are expressed through various harvest rituals offering food to deities of crops, rivers, forests, trees, mountains, water sources, houses, well-being (human health) for thanksgiving.
• Collectiveness is evident in practices of labor sharing for farming and supporting families affected by calamities.

Nature is respected as a gift created by their supreme God, guarded and monitored by their respective deities, and passed on by ancestors. Most mountain tribes perform rituals to show their gratitude to deities relating to nature (mountains, rivers, crops) and offer promises to protect them for the next generation. The Limbus, Lepchas, and Rais (a smaller Indigenous group living in the communities) perform rituals along rivers and streams, based on changes in weather conditions and migration of animals, fish, and birds. Priests offer cereals, fermented millet, flowers, eggs, fish, etc. to their respective deities and pray for protection, well-being and good weather for production. The study found no evidence of Indigenous values or practices that hinder nature conservation or equity.

Traditional governance and customary norms

To maintain equilibrium in ecosystems the Lepchas and Limbus regulate when, how, and how much to harvest or collect. Sustainable Lepcha practices generally practiced by all mountain tribes, include planting trees in the rainy season; leaving some branches while collecting fodder from trees; dropping spores by tapping the stems of wild mushrooms while harvesting; avoiding hunting and fishing at breeding times; and optimum collection of fruits and vegetables from the wild. The practice of maintaining wild plants in home gardens is not only for food but for plant conservation; they are proud of maintaining different plants. The Limbus had a sophisticated Kipat system of sustainable management of communal land, forests, rivers and streams. Although today they do not have control over forest conservation, they still protect common property resources like water sources, streams, and sacred places through customary norms and village societies. The Lepcha used to follow the Bukchung system of regulation for forest conservation, which required people to plant eight tree saplings in exchange for cutting one tree and to always leave part of the yam roots behind to encourage regeneration.

Traditional knowledge and livelihoods

The Lepcha and Limbu communities have accumulated a large body of knowledge of flora and fauna over generations. They observe the arrival and chirping of different migratory birds, to know when to clear fields, sow seeds, weed and harvest, and collect forest products, and to predict the start and end of the rainy season. Lepcha have unparalleled knowledge about the region’s landscapes and natural resources. Their traditional livelihoods are highly dependent on sustainable use of forests for shifting cultivation and cattle rearing. Not a single case of COVID-19 was reported in the study communities. They attributed this to consumption of nutritious traditional foods and medicinal plants, which they believe boosted their immunity, and to local food production, which ensured food security during lockdown.

Recognition of culture and drivers of change

Cultural values are becoming weaker because of several factors, although less so in more remote hamlets. Outmigration of children and youth (particularly men) for education and employment means many aspire to Western lifestyles. Severe restriction of customary forest use has undermined livelihoods and led to a decline in forest conservation and erosion of culture, particularly since the wildlife conservation act of 1972, because of the creation of Pangolakha Sanctuary (in bordering Sikkim) and Neora Valley National Park in Lepcha ancestral forest. Mainstream development schemes and a lack of functioning participatory governance (village panchayats) in the area have also contributed to erosion of traditional knowledge and values. Agricultural schemes and subsidies are promoting a shift to commercial agriculture, particularly amongst youth. The steady influx of communities into the area since the 1970s, such as caste Hindu migrants from Nepal, has led to gradual erosion of authority of Lepcha and Limbu institutions that maintain cultural values.

Lepcha spiritual beliefs and values have been weakened by Buddhism and in particular by more exclusivist Christianity (Church of England), although most Lepcha in the region practice dual religions. Limbu beliefs remained relatively strong because they resisted religious suppression after a leader in 1734 revived the Limbu script and faith. In general, Indigenous households in more remote hamlets at higher elevations (particularly elders and women) have maintained stronger traditional knowledge and values than those in lower hamlets closer to roads and markets. Kitchen gardens still play a key role in sustaining agrobiodiversity and orchid diversity (used in rituals) in Lepcha and Limbu households, protected by their respective deities, but people are generally investing less in these.

Mijikenda Peoples, Rabai, Kilifi County, Coastal Kenya

Ethnicity, worldviews, and well-being concepts

The Rabai community is one of nine Bantu-speaking Mijikenda sub-tribes, which settled in fortified hill villages called Kayas in the 1600s, having migrated from southern Somalia. The cultural and spiritual significance of forests, rivers, hills, seeds, and individual tree or animal species has led to their veneration and conservation for generations.

Protection of Rabai’s four sacred Kaya forests and associated landscapes and interaction with Mother Nature is traditionally guided by the Rabai concept of Mudzini, meaning “holistic well-being,” which emphasizes the harmonious relationship between humans and nature. It recognizes sacred elements and symbols representing spirits, wild plants, and domesticated plants and animals and humans, and their interactions within the landscape. Kaya elders believe that the elements of the Mudzini concept should be balanced to promote holistic well-being. This concept is to some extent similar to the Ubuntu concept (I am because we are).

Cultural values

Four core values were found to promote harmonious co-existence with nature and among community members, including equity:

• Reciprocity (Kufaana): harmonious exchange or mutual cooperation amongst people (e.g., seed and food exchange); and between people and nature, for example, protecting Kaya forests containing wild food and medicine, and cultivating wild plants on farm, which reduces pressure on Kaya forests.
• Equilibrium (Soyosoyo): a state of balance between people and nature; for example, it prohibits inorganic fertilizers, and promotes contouring to prevent soil erosion and maintain soil fertility and growing of diverse traditional crops that tolerate drought and pests, enhancing climate resilience. It also applies to balance and equity between people (e.g., equitable benefit-sharing).
• Solidarity (Umwenga): togetherness or unity among people with a common interest, e.g., sharing information to safeguard community health during traditional ceremonies; supporting poor people.
• Collectiveness (Kushirikiana/Kuumbana Bumba): the state of togetherness among members of the community, for example, women’s collective activities and seed exchange.

These values and related customary laws promote good morals, including responsibility toward protecting and conserving the landscape from degradation; and equity in accessing and sharing the benefits emanating from the landscape. Values of solidarity and collectiveness promoted through traditional ceremonies also reaffirm relationships with nature and spiritual beliefs relating to forests and agrobiodiversity. Kaya elders conduct rituals and prayers for rains, peace, thanksgiving after a bounty harvest, health and success in life, and against diseases and pests. Rainmaking ceremonies are performed in Kaya forests involving prayers and livestock sacrifices. Forests, hills, and rivers provide sacred sites for rituals, prayers, and traditional ceremonies. Hills are rich in medicinal plants and commonly used for conducting healing rituals to treat chronic illnesses. Rituals and ceremonies also provide mechanisms for intergenerational transfer of cultural values and practices.

Equity was not found to be a cultural value as such but is encapsulated in the values of equilibrium and solidarity. However, only men are allowed to inherit land, which prevents active participation of women in decisions regarding farming and land management, even though they carry out many farming activities. This promotes cultivation of modern varieties often preferred by men as opposed to more diverse and resilient traditional varieties.

Traditional governance and customary norms

The Kaya Elders’ Council protects sacred Kaya forests and natural resources through a system of taboos, rules, and sanctions. Sacred sites (Mizimu) in Kaya forests are preserved through beliefs and customary laws that restrict access; only Kaya elders are permitted to access these areas. Sacred areas outside Kaya forests (Vichuguu and Vichaka vya Bahasi) also restrict access to Kaya elders and traditional healers. Coconut trees are traditionally revered as sacred and viewed as living beings; cutting a tree is equated to killing a member of the community. They provide multiple benefits such as palm wine used in traditional ceremonies and rituals, and palm leaves (Makuti) used to construct traditional houses for healing and cleansing rituals and appeasing of ancestors in sacred sites. Prohibiting cutting of coconut trees ensures continued availability of these products. Coconut trees are managed under collective custodianship rather than private ownership. Use of firewood from the tree for cooking is forbidden. Customary laws also require use of Indigenous grains in conducting rituals, promoting conservation of traditional crops. Ancestral land is traditionally considered sacred and cannot be sold to non-Mijikendas, safeguarding it from unsustainable use.

Recognition of cultural values and drivers of change

Traditional knowledge and values are rapidly being eroded. Only 15% of youth and 30% of middle-aged people interviewed recognize their importance, compared to 85% of elders. A key reason is education, which does not integrate traditional knowledge and language. Children spend most of their time in school and have limited interaction with elders. Adoption of mainstream religions (e.g., Christianity) and out-migration to urban areas has also eroded traditional values. Many youths associate traditional knowledge with witchcraft, leading to disagreements over inheritance of land and killing of Kaya elders. Elites (urbanized), the rich, and the majority of youth in Rabai perceive traditional values and customary laws as old fashioned. Their recognition is low in villages close to urban centers because of influence from non-Mijikenda communities, and relatively high in villages close to Kaya forests.

SYNTHESIS

Table 1 provides a synthesis of the findings from the four case studies in relation to the main components of biocultural systems and highlights key similarities and differences. The findings clearly show that Indigenous worldviews, values, and well-being concepts contribute strongly to nature conservation and equity, and have strong similarities across different cultures, but are significantly eroded in many communities particularly amongst youth (except in Peru). Some practices in China and Kenya marginalize women but this may due to the influence of external patriarchal societies.

In all cases:

• Identity is closely linked to nature (e.g., mountains, forests), and nature is regarded as kin (e.g., mother, brother, father);
• Well-being is not only about humans, but requires balance between humans, nature, and the sacred worlds and includes community well-being;
• Core values include balance/equilibrium and reciprocity with nature and in society; and equity is promoted as part of equilibrium and values of collectiveness, solidarity, and sharing.
• Nature-related deities are worshipped, sacred natural sites are strictly protected, and customary laws promote sustainable management and conservation of communal resources.
• Traditional livelihood systems are collective, agroecological, agrobiodiverse, and resilient to shocks.

DISCUSSION

In this paper we show that nature conservation and equity are deeply embedded in the traditional values, worldviews, identities, religious beliefs, and governance and livelihood systems of different Indigenous cultures in Peru, Kenya, India, and China. It shows that Indigenous notions of nature’s value center on intrinsic, relational, and instrumental values and do not prioritize human needs, and that Indigenous notions of well-being are holistic and include the well-being of nature, as other studies have also shown (IPBES 2022). We also provide new insights on Indigenous well-being concepts, showing that less studied communities in Africa and Asia have similar holistic concepts as Andean communities, and uncovering the mudzini well-being concept of the Rabai (Mijikenda) in Kenya. In all 4 cases (6 ethnic groups), the worldviews identify 3 key elements, humans, nature, and the sacred/spiritual realm, which have to be in balance to achieve the well-being of all elements. The study shows that the Quechua (Andean) and Naxi (Himalayan) understanding of well-being is strikingly similar, both identifying the sacred realm at the top, the wild as the middle level, and the human at the lower level (Fig. 4). However, Indigenous values are significantly eroding in many communities (except in Lares, Peru), particularly amongst youth, giving way to more market-based instrumental values (except in Lares, Peru). This is driven by a wider context where Indigenous values are not recognized and are undermined by dominant religions and policies across sectors including education, conservation, agriculture, food, trade, and economic development.

All the communities studied have pluricentric worldviews focusing on the relationship between humans and non-humans including nature; and cosmocentric worldviews by living in harmony with all forms of existence that are considered alive and are connected by reciprocal and interdependent relationships (Anderson et al. 2022). The Lares (Quechua) worldview not only recognizes the rights of nature, but also the role and agency of sacred male and female mountains (Apus) in governance, including holding meetings and giving signs (biocultural indications) to farmers. The Himalayan Lepcha and Limbu also observe wildlife signs and believe sacred mountains hold meetings. Studies with the Quechua Potato Park (Pisaq) and Q’eros communities (Vilcanota) have found that the Apus have different roles in governance and are the highest authority that determine customary laws that humans must follow (Swiderska and INMIP 2017, Przytomska-La Civita 2019). The communities studied believe that all living beings (including plants and animals) have spirits or souls, and some are sacred, including mountains, lakes, rivers, forests, particular trees that are vital for livelihoods (e.g., coconut palms in Rabai) and “very wild” lakes (Lares). Relationships with nature are based on kinship: the Naxi and Moso believe man and nature are brothers; Lepcha believe the Khangchendzonga Mountain is their brother, Limbu believe they are descended from the mountain.

These holistic well-being concepts also enshrine values of equity by focusing on communities as a whole rather than individuals. Sumaq Kausay, for example, does not consider economic growth as necessary but focuses on sustainably meeting individual, family, and community needs and those of other children of Mother Earth (plants and animals) and on redistribution of benefits. Similarly, for the Lepcha and Limbu in northeast India, well-being includes the well-being of the family and the community, and nature is protected for future generations; while the Quechua sacred Ayllu includes the ancestors, fostering inter-generational equity. Other Indigenous groups such as Australian Aboriginals understand well-being not just as the physical well-being or health of the individual but the social, emotional, and cultural well-being of the whole community (Ganesharajah 2009).

The findings show that less studied communities in the target regions also have broad core values of reciprocity, balance (equilibrium), solidarity, and collectiveness, with nature and in society. These values can be seen in the protection of sacred sites (e.g., mountains, forests, lakes, rivers, caves), sustainable harvesting rules, and equitable distribution of nature’s benefits (e.g., water) including to those in need (e.g., through barter). Reciprocity is seen in thanksgiving rituals, ceremonies, and sacrifices to nature deities, food and seed exchange (all cases), and barter markets (Lares). Collectiveness is linked to collective well-being and connectedness between all beings, the view of nature as ancestral heritage and a gift rather than a commodity (e.g., in India, China, and Peru), and the notion of collective stewardship (e.g., sacred land and coconut trees in Kenya). Although reciprocity is often identified as a core Indigenous value (Anderson et al. 2022, IPBES 2022), for many hunter-gatherers such as the Baka in central Africa, sharing is a core value and not reciprocity (Hoyte and Mangombe 2025).

The way the mountain and coastal peoples studied relate to nature simultaneously encompasses all four categories of the IPBES Values Assessment that reflect the experiences of numerous communities around the world. They see themselves as part of nature (as nature), bound by relational and spiritual values; but also as living in nature given the importance of sacred places in their landscapes; with nature, which has rights (e.g., in Lares) and is conserved; and from nature given their dependence on nature. Based on this study, we propose a fifth category “under nature” to denote nature having a dominant role in the governance of humans. This innovative finding and approach to governance, inspired by Indigenous knowledge, recognizes nature’s inherent supremacy and wisdom, in contrast to the dominant Euro-Western capitalist view of human supremacy that has driven the nature crisis. The Q’eros of Vilcanota believe mountains guard and protect people and rule wild animals and minerals (Przytomska-La Civita 2019). According to Przytomska-La Civita (2019), the Quechua and Q’eros relationship with the Apus is fundamentally based on reciprocity (ayni), expressed as mutual feeding (humans provide sacrificial rituals), forming a collective community of humans and non-humans. The supremacy of nature is also evident in the Lepcha and Limbu belief that humans are accountable to nature, the ancestors, and the spirits.

Worldviews, beliefs, and broad values give rise to more specific customary norms relating to conservation and sustainable use (e.g., of forests, lakes, rivers, agrobiodiversity, and agroecosystems), and to equity in the management and distribution of natural resources. Indigenous beliefs and values also underpin the maintenance of traditional ecological knowledge and customary laws (e.g., in China the Dongba religion is a key reason for the survival of customary water management systems); and are reaffirmed through nature and farming rituals (all cases) and transmitted through customary use (e.g., barter in Lares). Other studies have also highlighted indigenous knowledge-belief-practice linkages (Berkes et al. 2000) and the role of customary use in transmitting cultural values (Natcher 2009).

The findings highlight the linkages and interdependencies between the elements of biocultural heritage systems including traditional knowledge, biodiversity, landscapes, cultural and spiritual values, and customary laws and languages that encode and transmit values and worldviews. For example, Quechua language expresses the concepts of Ayllu and Pacha Mama, which reflect the deep interconnectedness between nature, culture, and spirituality, and lacks separate words for “nature” and “culture.” The IPBES Values Assessment found that languages play a key role in storing and transmitting Indigenous values, beliefs, ethical principles, and knowledge relating to nature; and are inseparable parts of people’s identities and values connected to non-humans, places, rivers, mountains, territories, sacred sites, and landscapes (Anderson et al. 2022). The idea that all life or creation is interconnected and interdependent, existing as kin, was present in a third of articles analyzed on philosophies of good living (Anderson et al. 2022).

Across the four case studies, the value of balance with nature promotes agrobiodiversity-rich, agroecological, and resilient farming systems. This, along with solidarity, self-reliance in seed systems, and use of medicinal plants and wild foods, ensured food security, nutrition, and health during COVID-19 in all study communities, while also promoting resilience to climate change. In Lares, where ancestral well-being concepts and values are still strong, these shape non-monetary solidarity economies, notably barter, which ensures food security and nutrition for the poorest people and nature conservation, as previous studies have also found (Argumedo and Pimbert 2010). This suggest that non-monetary and mixed biocultural economies based on Indigenous well-being concepts such as Sumaq Kawsay and Ubuntu can not only be effective in achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 (end hunger) and other SDGs (van Norren 2022), but can also provide more effective and just strategies for conservation than the dominant focus on generating cash income that obfuscates local notions of well-being and severs people-nature cultural fabrics (Argumedo and Pimbert 2010, Carmenta et al. 2025).

The case studies did not find evidence of cultural values that hinder nature conservation or equity. However, two practices appear not to promote gender equity: exclusion of women from many rituals in the Naxi Stone Village (China) and from inheritance of land in Rabai (Kenya). Of all the study communities, the Stone Village and Rabai have been most influenced by industrialization and external interference, and hence may have been more influenced by patriarchal values of Han Chinese and British colonial rule, just as the Moso in China who are traditionally matriarchal have been influenced by Chinese and Tibetan culture. Similarly, the Lares people are matriarchal and the principal characteristics of Andean and Inca religion are gender parallelism and complementarity, but a patriarchal model was promoted by Spanish colonists. Colonial patriarchy has also further marginalized women in pastoralist communities (Guyo 2017).

Traditional knowledge and values are eroding in all the study communities, but to differing extents. There has been relatively little erosion in the Andean communities in Lares, whereas in Rabai (Kenya), which is just 19 km from Mombasa, traditional knowledge is only respected by 15% of youth and 30% of middle-aged people. Differences are also evident within the case study regions, e.g., traditional culture is stronger in the very remote Youmi Village than in the Stone Village closer to Lijiang city, in the higher villages in Lingsey-Linseykha (India), and in villages closest to Kaya forests in Rabai. This suggests that geography and proximity to cities is a key factor in cultural erosion, as previous studies have also found (Mander and Tauli-Corpuz 2008). Linked to that is out-migration for education and work, leading to changing aspirations of youth, along with influence of globalization and the media. Legal rights and autonomy also appear to be important factors. These are strong in Lares where land rights are reinforced by local government; whereas in northeast India the government has severely restricted customary forest rights (leading to reduced forest quality), and in coastal Kenya communities have weak rights and government presence at community level. This and previous studies have found that the influx of cheap processed foods is undermining traditional farming systems that provide nutritious and healthy foods in all studied regions (Swiderska et al. 2022). These factors align with the drivers of change identified through a review of social-ecological production systems in 13 countries: economic globalization (e.g., neoliberalism, commercialization), demographic and socio-cultural (outmigration and urbanization), and legal rights and autonomy (Gu and Subramanian 2014). Religion is also a key driver of traditional knowledge and culture loss identified in the case studies, particularly exclusivist religion (e.g., Christianity in Rabai and Northeast India), and declining spiritual leaders (Dongbas in China and Kaya elders in Rabai).

Conserving and restoring placed-based biocultural conservation approaches is a key strategy for transformative change for global sustainability (IPBES 2024, Carmenta et al. 2025). Establishing biocultural territories can enhance recognition of Indigenous nature-related values in decision making within communities and externally by reaffirming these values, enhancing their visibility, and strengthening community organization and capacity to influence policy making. The process to establish the Potato Park in Peru reversed the 70:30 ratio of Catholic to Andean ceremonies (Asociación ANDES 2016) and formalized Andean values as normative governance principles for five communities in a 9200 ha territory. Advocacy by the Potato Park Association and the NGO ANDES, resulted in the introduction of two regional laws in Cusco that reflect Andean values: a law banning GMOs and a law against biopiracy. Other regions then introduced similar laws banning GMOs and this became a national ban (Kajumba et al. 2023). The Potato Park has also developed a number of policy-relevant innovations that are rooted in Andean values and can serve as models, such as an agreement for crop repatriation with the International Potato Centre (CIP), an intercommunity agreement (biocultural protocol), and a biocultural approach for registering Agrobiodiversity Zones under Peruvian law (Swiderska and Argumedo 2022).

The study’s decolonizing action-research approach and biocultural systems framework, ensured it contributed directly to revitalizing biocultural heritage and to establishing biocultural territories. In all cases, the decolonizing and participatory process to explore Indigenous values, worldviews, and well-being concepts, contributed to their revitalization and intergenerational transmission, and rekindled cultural pride and recognition of rituals and ceremonies, while providing inputs for establishing collective governance systems. The active role of community researchers from different villages fostered local ownership, while strengthening inter-village bonds and capacity for collective action. For example, in India, the process established an informal network amongst the 10 participating hamlets and helped strengthen their voice at gram panchayat level. In China, the process awoke self-confidence for cultural revitalization and collective action, and led the four communities to establish a Biocultural Heritage Network that aims to turn their collective experience into policy recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The study aimed to ascertain whether the values and well-being concepts of IP and LCs promote or hinder nature conservation and equity, and whether and how biocultural territories can be scaled out to enhance recognition of diverse values. It reaffirmed that the core values and beliefs of IP and LCs contain strong ethics that require nature conservation and equity, including strictly protected sacred sites and sustainable and equitable resource management. Broad core values of equilibrium, reciprocity, solidarity, and collectiveness with nature and in society are evident in the diverse Indigenous cultures studied. These values also promote agroecology and agrobiodiversity that enhance resilience to climate change and health shocks (COVID-19) and solidarity economies that ensure food security and nutrition. Relationships with nature encompass all four categories of the IPBES Values Assessment (as nature, in nature, with nature, and from nature), and this research identified “under nature” as a fifth innovative concept, inspired by Indigenous wisdom, where people are governed by nature.

However, women are excluded from many rituals in the Stone Village and from inheritance of land in Rabai, possibly due to external patriarchal influences. Furthermore, Indigenous values are becoming weaker, especially in less remote communities and amongst youth (most acutely in Rabai, coastal Kenya). Outmigration for education and work, external religion, influx of cheap foods, and globalization are key drivers of change in all cases, along with erosion of legal rights and autonomy (less so in Peru).

The findings suggest that the diverse nature-centered values and holistic well-being concepts of IP and LCs and related self-governance approaches can provide more effective and just strategies for conservation and meeting the SDGs than Western conservation and development paradigms that separate people and nature, but urgent action is needed to enhance their recognition and prevent their loss. Decolonizing action-research and establishing biocultural territories can make these values more visible externally while revitalizing them, and reducing power disparities that hinder recognition in policy making (IPBES 2022). The studies suggest that the successful Potato Park biocultural territory model can be scaled-out and adapted to different contexts, using a decolonizing action-research approach and biocultural systems framework. However, this requires flexible and decentralized research approaches that shift decision-making power to IP and LCs to develop locally relevant concepts, methods, and tools, rather than fixed methodological frameworks. Scaling out this approach requires more funding for decolonial and indigenous-led research, and a commitment amongst donors and all research partners to share power and support genuine community leaderships.

LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, C. B., S. Athayde, C. M. Raymond, A. Vatn, P. Arias, R. K. Gould, J. Kenter, B. Muraca, S. Sachdeva, A. Samakov, E. Zent, D. Lenzi, R. Murali, A. Amin, and M. Cantú-Fernández. 2022. Conceptualizing the diverse values of nature and their contributions to people. Chapter 2 in P. Balvanera, U. Pascual, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, and D. González-Jiménez, editors. Methodological assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6493134

ANDES (Peru), the Potato Park communities and International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). 2011. Community biocultural protocols: building mechanisms for access and benefit-sharing among the communities of the Potato Park based on customary Quechua norms (summary report). International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK. https://www.iied.org/g03168

Argumedo, A. 2012. Decolonising action-research: the Potato Park biocultural protocol for benefit-sharing. Pages 91-100 in K. Swiderska, K. Kohli, H. Jonas, H. Shrumm, W. Hiemstra, and M. J. Oliva, editors. Biodiversity and culture: exploring community protocols, rights and consent. Participatory Learning and Action 65. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.

Argumedo, A. and M. Pimbert. 2010. Bypassing globalisation: barter markets as new indigenous economy in Peru. Development 53(3):343-349. https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2010.43

Asociación ANDES. 2016. Resilient farming systems in times of uncertainty. Biocultural innovations in the Potato Park, Peru. IIED country report. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10:1251-1262. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;2

Burnette, C. E., and S. Sanders. 2014. Trust development in research with Indigenous communities in the United States. Qualitative Report 19(22):1-19. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1223

Carmenta, R., M. G. Bastos Lima, S. A. B. Choiruzzad, N. Dawson, N. Estrada-Carmona, C. Hicks, G. Kallis, E. Nana, E. Killick, A. Lees, A. Martin, U. Pascual, N. Pettorelli, J. Reed, E. Turnhout, B. Vira, J. G. Zaehringer, and J. Barlow. 2025. Unveiling pervasive assumptions: moving beyond the poverty-biodiversity loss association in conservation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 74:101537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2025.101537

Chilisa, B. 2011. Indigenous research methodologies. First edition. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Dawon, N. M., B. Coolsaet, A. Bhardwaj, F. Booker, D. Brown, B. Lliso, J. Loos, A. Martin, M. Oliva, U. Pascual, P. Sherpa, and T. Worsdell. 2024. Is it just conservation? A typology of Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ roles in conserving biodiversity. One Earth 7(6):P1007-1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.05.001

Ellis, E. C., N. Gauthier, K. K. Goldewijk, R. B. Bird, N. Boiving, S. Díaz, D. Q. Fuller, J. L. Gill, J. O. Kaplan, N. Kingston, H. Locke, C. N. H. McMichael, D. Ranco, T. C. Rick, M. R. Shaw, L. Stephens, J.-C. Svenning, J. E. M. Watson. 2021. Peoples have shaped most of terrestrial nature for at least 12,000 years. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 118(17):e2023483118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023483118

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2021. The White/Wiphala Paper on Indigenous Peoples’ food systems. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Ganesharajah, C. 2009. Indigenous health and wellbeing. The importance of country. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS), Canberra, Australia.

Gu, H., and S. M. Subramanian. 2014. Drivers of change in socio-ecological production landscapes: implications for better management. Ecology and Society 19(1):41. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06283-190141

Guyo, F. B. 2017. Colonial and post-colonial changes and impact on pastoral women’s roles and status. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice 7:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-017-0076-2

Harrison, K. D. 2007. When languages die: the extinction of the world’s languages and the erosion of human knowledge. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.

Heritage, P., C. Smith, A. Livingston, T. Kuikuro, G. Loudon, G. Fassetta, M. G. Imperiale, L. Sar, K. Ole Riamit, and T. Jesus. 2021. Indigenous research methods: partnerships, engagement and knowledge mobilisation. People’s Palace Project, Queen Mary University of London, UK. https://peoplespalaceprojects.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/PPP_seminario-indigena_arte-high.pdf

Hoyte, S., and F. Mangombe. 2025. No thanks: how an ideology of sharing, not reciprocating, ensures abundance in the forests of south-eastern Cameroon. People and Nature 7(5):1041-1055. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10734

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio, H. T. Ngo, M. Guèze, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K. A. Brauman, S. H. M. Butchart, K. M. A. Chan, L. A. Garibaldi, K. Ichii, J. Liu, S. M. Subramanian, G. F. Midgley, P. Miloslavich, Z. Molnár, D. Obura, A. Pfaff, S. Polasky, A. Purvis, J. Razzaque, B. Reyers, R. Roy Chowdhury, Y. J. Shin, I. J. Visseren-Hamakers, K. J. Willis, and C. N. Zayas, editors. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3553579

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2022. Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. U. Pascual, P. Balvanera, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, D. González-Jiménez, C. B. Anderson, S. Athayde, R. Chaplin-Kramer, S. Jacobs, E. Kelemen, R. Kumar, E. Lazos, A. Martin, T. H. Mwampamba, B. Nakangu, P. O'Farrell, C. M. Raymond, S. M. Subramanian, M. Termansen, M. Van Noordwijk, and A. Vatn, editors. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522392

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2024. Summary for policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on the Underlying Causes of Biodiversity Loss and the Determinants of Transformative Change and Options for Achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. K. O’Brien, L. Garibaldi, A. Agrawal, E. Bennett, R. Biggs, R. Calderón Contreras, E. Carr, N. Frantzeskaki, H. Gosnell, J. Gurung, S. Lambertucci, J. Leventon, C. Liao, V. Reyes García, L. Shannon, S. Villasante, F. Wickson, Y. Zinngrebe, and L. Perianin, editors. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11382230

Kajumba, T., A. Argumedo, B. McAteer, C. Shakya, D. Howlett, D. Macqueen, G. Jember Endalew, G. Dolcemascolo, H. McGray, J. Kimani, K. Wong Pérez, K. Swiderska, M. Mardon, M. Williams, P. Mudimu, S. McIvor, S. Patel, and T. Stenner. 2023. Exploring equity in partnerships: lessons from five case studies. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK

Kuhnlein, H., B. Erasmus, and D. Spigelski. 2009. Indigenous Peoples’ food systems: the many dimensions of culture, diversity and environment for nutrition and health. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.

Lemke, S., and T. Delormier. 2017. Indigenous Peoples’ food systems, nutrition and gender: conceptual and methodological considerations. Maternity and Children’s Nutrition 13(Suppl. S3):e12499. https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.12499

Lepcha, E. T., N. Gurung, A. Rastogi, and K. Swiderska. 2021. Safeguarding Lepcha and Limbu cultural values and worldviews for conservation and sustainable development in the Eastern Himalayas. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.

Mander, J., and V. Tauli-Corpuz. 2008. Paradigm wars: Indigenous Peoples’ resistance to globalization. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 35(2):25.

Natcher, D. 2009. Subsistence and the social economy of Canada’s Aboriginal North. Northern Review 30:83-98.

Pereira, L. B. 2006. Comovision, Historia y Politica en los Andes. Producciones CIMA, La Paz, Bolivia.

Przytomska-La Civita, A. 2019. Apus: non-human persons in the ontology of the Q’eros from the Cordillera Vilcanota (Peru). Etnografia. Praktyki, Teorie, Doswiadczenia 5:35-63. https://doi.org/10.26881/etno.2019.5.03

Reid, A. J., L. Eckert, J.-F. Lane, N. Young, S. G. Hinch, C. T. Darimont, S. J. Cooke, N. C. Ban, and A. Marshall. 2021. “Two-Eyed Seeing”: an Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management. Fish and Fisheries 22:243-261. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12516

Sayre, M., T. Stenner, and A. Argumedo. 2017. You can’t grow potatoes in the sky: building resilience in the face of climate change in the Potato Park of Cuzco, Peru. Culture Agriculture Food & Environment 39:100-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/cuag.12100

Smith, L. T. 1999. Decolonising methodologies: research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books, London, UK.

Song, Y., G. Li, Y. Zhang, X. Song, and K. Swiderska. 2021. Indigenous Naxi-Moso cultural values and worldviews for sustainable development: four village biocultural heritage coalition, Yunnan, China. Case study for the project ‘Indigenous biocultural heritage for sustainable development.’ International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.

Swiderska, K., and A. Argumedo. 2022. Indigenous seed systems and biocultural heritage: the Andean Potato Park’s approach to seed governance. Pages 57-77 in Y. Nishikawa and M. Pimbert, editors. Seeds for diversity and inclusion. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89405-4_4

Swiderska, K., A. Argumedo, R. Pant, S. Vedavathy, P. Munyi, D. Mutta, H. Herrera, Y. Song, and J. Li. 2009. Protecting traditional knowledge from the grassroots up. IIED Briefing Paper. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.

Swiderska, K., A. Argumedo, and M. Pimbert. 2020. Biocultural heritage territories: key to halting biodiversity loss. IIED Briefing Paper. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.

Swiderska, K., A. Argumedo, Y. Song, A. Ratogi, N. Gurung, and C. Wekesa. 2018. Biocultural innovation: the key to global food security? IIED Briefing Paper. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.

Swiderska, K., A. Argumedo, C. Wekesa, L. Ndalilo, Y. Song, A. Rastogi, and P. Ryan. 2022. Indigenous Peoples’ food systems and biocultural heritage: addressing Indigenous priorities using decolonial and interdisciplinary research approaches. Sustainability 14:11311. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811311

Swiderska, K., and International Network of Mountain Indigenous Peoples (INMIP). 2017. Resilient biocultural heritage landscapes for sustainable mountain development. Fourth horizontal learning exchange, International Network of Mountain Indigenous Peoples. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.

Swiderska, K., and T. Stenner. 2020. The Maize Park biocultural heritage territory in Lares, Peru. Case Study Guidance on Biocultural Heritage Territories. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.

Van Norren, D. E. 2022. African Ubuntu and Sustainable Development Goals: seeking human mutual relations and service in development. Third World Quarterly 43(12):2791-2810. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2022.2109458

Walshe, R., and A. Argumedo. 2016. Ayni, Ayllu, Yanantin and Chanincha. The cultural values enabling adaptation to climate change in communities of the Potato Park in the Peruvian Andes. GAIA 25/3:166-173. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.25.3.7

Wekesa, C., L. Ndalilo, and K. Swiderska. 2021. Towards a biocultural heritage territory in Rabai Cultural Landscape: exploring Mijikenda cultural values and practices for sustainable development. Case study for the project ‘Indigenous biocultural heritage for sustainable development.’ International Institute for Environment and Development London, UK.