Controversies and Common Ground in Wild and Domestic Fine Fiber Production in Argentina

Abstract

This work analyzes possible obstacles to developing new products or old merchandise using an innovative method. It will look into stakeholders of fine fiber and meat products from three distinctive socioecological systems. Through three case studies, we explore how natural resources management is connected to interests, values, and knowledge by stakeholders, which include government, the scientific community, and people with rural livelihoods. The government vertex is the national and provincial authorities involved with decision-makers at the national and provincial level. The Scientific-Technological vertex includes researchers from INTA, CONICET, and Universities. Rural livelihoods include livestock keepers, farmers, and local people with traditional knowledge. We will address the goods and services provided by two species of wild camelids and domestic livestock. The three cases have both similarities and differences in their focus and common ground of controversial spaces. They create complex networks of relationships and bonds leading to diverse outcomes. Top-down or bottom-up experiences hold distinct epistemology and research consequences, they affect rural livelihoods in various ways. For the three rural livelihoods, meaningful regulations should be endogenous social constructions. However, there are no longitudinal studies on the trajectories of these case studies. Long-term multispecies grazing opportunities are available for the three case studies. It depends on how stakeholders identify flexibility in their common ground to enable resilience to catastrophic events.

Commentary: Controversies and Common Ground in Wild and Domestic Fine Fiber Production in Argentina

“…Initially, VICAM researchers developed a top-down experience. The project emphasized teaching adequate procedures to private producers of the Puna, belonging to an Association Cieneguillas (2003)(2004)(2005) and Santa Catalina Cooperative (2012, 2014) (Bonacic and Gimpel, 2003;Vilá et al, 2010). Initially the project and later reports showed that the conceptual framework was conceived as a top-down experience.…”

“…com/watch?v=L_A_rnEgHzo&t=86s) (2014) presented. Detailed descriptions of these experiences have been published (Vilá et al, 2010(Vilá et al, , 2020aArzamendia et al, 2014;Vilá and Arzamendia, 2020).…”

Red de gobernanza para el aprovechamiento turístico del socio ecosistema de Ibagué y su zona rural

“…1-27 2015; Horning, Bauer, & Cohen, 2016). De manera complementaria, algunos trabajos centrados en el estudio de los SES aplican el concepto de red desde una visión cualitativa o como metáfora de una estructura reticular, pero no emplean el ARS y su base matemática (Lavorel et.al., 2019;Von Thungen, Martin & Lanari, 2021).…”

Ecosystem services and disservices associated with pastoral systems from Patagonia, Argentina – A review

“…This bias also resulted in pastoral system being seen as a threat to environmental sustainability, especially when analysed with the methods and assumptions used to assess intensive or industrial livestock systems (e.g., Lebacq et al, 2013). There is evidence to suggest that pastoral systems generate both ecosystem services and disservices, hence the trade-offs between them need to be embraced to inform development strategies and policies (e.g., Von Thungen et al, 2021).…”