The legacy of the impacts of fortress conservation on the right to food

The establishment of protected areas based on the so-called fortress conservation model, which sees people as a threat to the protection of nature, has led to several negative social impacts, as communities that relied previously on these landscapes have had to bear the consequences that come with the separation of people from the resources that sustain them economically, physically and spiritually (Brockington & Igoe, Reference Brockington and Igoe2006; West et al., Reference West, Igoe and Brockington2006). Large-scale displacement (both economic and physical) in the name of conservation has resulted in food insecurity as a loss of access has led to the breakdown of the many ways in which forests and other natural landscapes support food security and nutrition (HLPE, 2017; Sunderland & Vasquez, Reference Sunderland and Vasquez2020). This breakdown of the link between people and nature has also weakened the forest–food nexus as we have narrowed our focus on monoculture agricultural production as the only means by which to ensure food security and nutrition for all (Fouilleux et al., Reference Fouilleux, Bricas and Alpha2017; Bahar et al., Reference Bahar, Lo, Sanjaya, van Vianen, Alexander, Ickowitz and Sunderland2020). Furthermore, conservation policies that disregard the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities and impose restrictions on their livelihoods have been shown to lead to so-called double unsustainability in which both biodiversity conservation and human livelihoods are compromised (Anaya & Espírito-Santo, Reference Anaya and Espírito-Santo2018).

Although there are many ways to conserve biodiversity, there has been a historical bias towards the establishment of protected areas as the most effective conservation strategy. The Half-Earth movement (Ellis & Mehrabi, Reference Ellis and Mehrabi2019) and the 30 × 30 movement, which calls to protect 30% of the surface of the Earth by 2030 (NRDC, 2020), are two examples of contemporary conservation strategies that rely heavily on the protected area narrative, despite mounting evidence that the protected area model at its most stringent devalues the important role that Indigenous Peoples and local communities have played and continue to play in creating and maintaining healthy and diverse ecosystems (Büscher et al., Reference Büscher, Fletcher, Brockington, Sandbrook, Adams and Campbell2017; Garnett et al., Reference Garnett, Burgess, Fa, Fernández-Llamazares, Molnár and Robinson2018; FAO & FILAC, 2021; Fletcher et al., Reference Fletcher, Hamilton, Dressler and Palmer2021). A recent report on forest governance by Indigenous and tribal people highlighted the central role that such groups have played in biodiversity conservation, poverty reduction and improving food security and human health (FAO & FILAC, 2021). In one study cited by the report, Indigenous territories in the Peruvian Amazon were found to be twice as effective at reducing deforestation compared to protected areas under similar ecological conditions (Schleicher et al., Reference Schleicher, Peres, Amano, Llactayo and Leader-Williams2017; FAO & FILAC, 2021). Although these and other studies have shown that protected areas are not always the most effective means by which to conserve biodiversity, conservation still relies heavily on this ingrained paradigm. In an era when the fight for justice and equality has taken centre stage in a multitude of disciplines and contexts, the perspectives that inform conservation policies have remained narrowly focused and slow to change.

Forests, people and food

Achieving food security, defined as when ‘all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’ (FAO et al., 2017, p. 107), remains a major challenge. However, for much of human history, forests and other natural landscapes have supported food security and nutrition by helping to sustain healthy and nutritious diets directly through the provisioning of wildfoods and indirectly through ecosystem services such as pollination, water regulation and soil stabilization (Fig. 1). Forests can also help bolster food security and nutrition by increasing dietary diversity (Roche et al., Reference Roche, Creed-Kanashiro, Tuesta and Kuhnlein2008; Galway et al., Reference Galway, Acharya and Jones2018; Kasimba et al., Reference Kasimba, Motswagole, Covic and Claasen2018; Baudron et al., Reference Baudron, Tomscha, Powell, Groot, Gergel and Sunderland2019) and by acting as safety nets during hardships brought on by external factors such as agricultural loss, droughts and other economic and environmental shocks (Pouliot & Treue, Reference Pouliot and Treue2013; Clements et al., Reference Clements, Suon, Wilkie and Milner-Gulland2014).

Fig. 1

Forests contribute to food security in both direct and indirect ways. The five main ways in which they do this are through ecosystem services, direct provisioning of wild foods, bioenergy, source of income, and health. Adapted from Vasquez & Sunderland (Reference Vasquez and Sunderland2021).

Another fundamental aspect of the forest–food nexus is the crucial role that Indigenous Peoples and local communities have played in the creation of these biodiverse, productive and nutritionally rich landscapes (Gorenflo et al., Reference Gorenflo, Romaine, Mittermeier and Walker-Painemilla2012; Armstrong et al., Reference Armstrong, Miller, McAlvay, Ritchie and Lepofsky2021). In the Pacific Northwest in Canada, for example, forests have long been managed by Indigenous Peoples to create long-lasting forest gardens that have greater plant and functional trait diversity than non-managed forests (Armstrong et al., Reference Armstrong, Miller, McAlvay, Ritchie and Lepofsky2021). These findings contradict the dominant conservation narrative that depicts people as the antithesis to pristine nature and wilderness (Fletcher et al., Reference Fletcher, Hamilton, Dressler and Palmer2021) and has been challenged by Indigenous Peoples globally (van der Merwe et al., Reference van der Merwe, Cloete and van der Hoeven2016; Huambachano, Reference Huambachano2019a,Reference Huambachanob). Western science has only recently begun to recognize what Indigenous Peoples have been proclaiming for decades: that they have been creating, managing and safeguarding high-biodiversity landscapes for millennia (FAO & FILAC, 2021; Fletcher et al., Reference Fletcher, Hamilton, Dressler and Palmer2021). Indigenous governance over ancestral lands has long played a vital role in combating deforestation, poverty, hunger and malnutrition (FAO & FILAC, 2021) despite the continual oppression of Indigenous Peoples and local communities and their rights, knowledge systems and ways of knowing, which has been exacerbated by historical and ongoing colonial practices and land dispossession. A study of land dispossession and forced migration in the USA estimated that Indigenous People have experienced a 93.9% reduction of their historically documented lands, with 42% of tribes experiencing a complete loss of land (Farrell et al., Reference Farrell, McConnell, Burow, Bayham and Whyte2021). Given that the identities of many Indigenous Peoples and local communities are inextricable from their lands, the impact this has had on their cultures, customs, knowledge systems, nutrition and overall well-being is substantial.

The connection between forests and food has also been challenged as diets have undergone changes under increasing industrialization and urbanization (Damman et al., Reference Damman, Eide and Kuhnlein2008). Indigenous Peoples have been found to be at greater risk of developing non-communicable diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease when they transition away from their traditionally diverse and nutritionally dense diets to Western diets that rely on a narrower range of foods that, despite being calorie-dense, are often highly processed and nutritionally poor (Kuhnlein et al., Reference Kuhnlein, Receveur, Soueida and Egeland2004; Damman et al., Reference Damman, Eide and Kuhnlein2008; Lourenço et al., Reference Lourenço, Santos, Orellana and Coimbra2008). This nutrition transition and its adverse impacts on health have been documented in various countries, including Canada (Kenny et al., Reference Kenny, Fillion, Simpkin, Wesche and Chan2018; Farquhar, Reference Farquhar2020), Sri Lanka (Weerasekara et al., Reference Weerasekara, Withanachchi, Ginigaddara and Ploeger2018), Indonesia (Ickowitz et al., Reference Ickowitz, Powell, Salim and Sunderland2016) and Brazil (Lourenço et al., Reference Lourenço, Santos, Orellana and Coimbra2008).

Several recent studies have advocated for increased access to forests and other wildlands as a means to mitigate food insecurity in rural settings, and have highlighted the various mechanisms through which access to forests and natural resources can help not only increase food security but also supply individuals with more nutritious, diverse and culturally supporting diets than those available from agriculture and local markets alone (Rasolofoson et al., Reference Rasolofoson, Ricketts, Jacob, Johnson, Pappinen and Fisher2020; Sunderland & Vasquez, Reference Sunderland and Vasquez2020). However, despite an increased awareness of the interconnected relationships between forests, people and food, there remains a policy disconnect between increased calls for rights-based frameworks and approaches and forest and conservation policies (HLPE, 2017). There is a substantial lag between calls to action, legal frameworks, international agreements and changes on the ground (Tauli-Corpuz et al., Reference Tauli-Corpuz, Alcorn, Molnar, Healy and Barrow2020). Despite the diverse ways in which forests, people and food interact and sustain one another, these linkages remain underutilized in terms of conservation and food-related policies because of the siloed approaches to conservation, agriculture and broader economic development.

Although the forest–food link is becoming more recognized, the right to food is still contested inside protected areas, where conservation objectives can conflict with local livelihoods and, in certain instances, can lead to human rights violations (West et al., Reference West, Igoe and Brockington2006). A recent example of this was the human rights abuse allegations levied against WWF by a 2019 Buzzfeed investigation and the subsequent hearing on 26 October 2021 by the US Subcommittee on Water, Oceans and Wildlife (Survival International, Reference Survival International2021). This unveiled how deeply rooted colonialist ideas of conservation have had far-reaching impacts on the rights, dignity and well-being of local communities. These types of human rights abuses in the name of biodiversity conservation will continue to affect the food security and nutrition of communities that live inside or in close proximity to protected areas.

The right to food

The right to food was first recognized as a universal human right under Article 25 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognized the right to an adequate standard of living, including food (United Nations, Reference United Nations. General Assembly1948; Knuth & Vidar, Reference Knuth and Vidar2011). The right to food was further affirmed in the legally binding 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in which Article 11 guarantees the right to adequate food as well as the right to be free from hunger (FAO, 2019). Although the right to food is legally binding for states that have ratified the relevant treaties, some states have taken a further step by incorporating the right to food into their constitutions or setting out other national legal frameworks that uphold this right (Knuth & Vidar, Reference Knuth and Vidar2011). Countries that have written the right to food into their constitutions include Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, South Africa and Mexico (Knuth & Vidar, Reference Knuth and Vidar2011).

As with all human rights, the right to food is universal, indivisible, interdependent, inalienable and interrelated, and it is supported by well-defined frameworks that set out the obligations of states to respect, protect and fulfil this right (Mechlem, Reference Mechlem2004; FAO, 2019). When implemented as intended, this also gives individuals a platform in which they can hold states and agencies accountable for any violations of rights (Mechlem, Reference Mechlem2004; Witter & Satterfield, Reference Witter and Satterfield2019). The right to food and rights-based approaches, unlike the policy objective of food security, are better suited to addressing hunger and malnutrition because of their ‘basis on human dignity, [their] explicit acknowledgement of existing human rights standards, [their] transparency, accountability, and empowerment dimension, particularly through participation, non-discrimination, and attention to vulnerable groups’ (Mechlem, Reference Mechlem2004, p. 646). Because of this, rights-based approaches to food security and nutrition are better suited to combatting hunger and malnutrition in the context of biodiversity conservation as they acknowledge and respect the a priori rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. These approaches are also more in line with calls for decolonizing conservation in favour of more expansive and holistic visions based on a plurality of perspectives that value and prioritize local ways of knowing, using, interacting and living with nature (Stanton, Reference Stanton2014; Buergin, Reference Buergin2015; Fletcher et al., Reference Fletcher, Hamilton, Dressler and Palmer2021; Guibrunet et al., Reference Guibrunet, Gerritsen, Sierra-Huelsz, Flores-Díaz, García-Frapolli and García-Serrano2021; Kashwan et al., Reference Kashwan, Duffy, Massé, Asiyanbi and Marijnen2021).

One mechanism that has been proposed for integrating rights into conservation policies and practices is the idea of joining together the rights of nature and human rights through the recognition and implementation of biocultural rights (Bavikatte, Reference Bavikatte2011; Chen & Gilmore, Reference Chen and Gilmore2015). These are seen as group rights that aim to protect both the natural and cultural resources of Indigenous People as well the environment and resources they steward (Chen & Gilmore, Reference Chen and Gilmore2015; Sajeva, Reference Sajeva2015). This conceptualization of grouping the rights of nature and people could be more congruent with the holistic worldview of Indigenous communities with respect to people and nature (MacPherson et al., Reference MacPherson, Ventura and Ospina2020). Although biocultural rights are still being delineated, conceptualized and, in some cases, legalized, there remain challenges with regards to their meaning and subsequent implications for who is classified as a rights-holder and duty-bearer (Sajeva, Reference Sajeva2015). Although biocultural rights represent a relatively new concept, with substantive barriers to implementation, they are an example of how governance structures and Western legal systems can be re-envisioned to align better with local ways of knowing and being.

Another means by which to achieve transformative change and environmental justice is to pay more attention to understanding the value systems of local communities, as these value systems underpin how people view and interact with their land (Guibrunet et al., Reference Guibrunet, Gerritsen, Sierra-Huelsz, Flores-Díaz, García-Frapolli and García-Serrano2021). If the local value system is not recognized and understood adequately, we run the risk of carrying on with harmful conservation practices that continue to impose outside perspectives and priorities and dismiss the wealth of knowledge and agency of local communities (Rudd et al., Reference Rudd, Allen, Allred, Biggs, Bright Ross and Dávalos2021). Indigenous and local people who carry generations of place-based knowledge and practices are often best suited to conceptualizing and formulating new conservation strategies that could be more effective and sustainable over time (Bray & Velázquez, Reference Bray and Velázquez2009), whilst not engendering Indigenous and local communities with romanticized ideas of the so-called noble savage (Nikolakis & Hotte, Reference Nikolakis and Hotte2021). An epistemological transformation has also been argued for, in which experiential knowledge is considered equal to scientific knowledge (Guibrunet et al., Reference Guibrunet, Gerritsen, Sierra-Huelsz, Flores-Díaz, García-Frapolli and García-Serrano2021). This is a bold idea in a world where the superiority of scientific knowledge is enshrined in academia. Similarly, an ethical space has been referred to as a means to balance asymmetrical power and engage diverse worldviews in Indigenous–conservation partnerships (Nikolakis & Hotte, Reference Nikolakis and Hotte2021). The Mi'kmaw principle of Two-Eyed Seeing, as described by Elder Albert Marshall, is a way to embrace equitably both Indigenous and Western knowledge systems for the benefit of all (Bartlett et al., Reference Bartlett, Marshall and Marshall2012). These developing ideas could become a means of advocating for rights-based approaches by recognizing and respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to use and protect their own knowledge systems.

Looking more broadly at rights-based legal frameworks that have been adopted successfully, in 2019 the provincial government of British Columbia, Canada, introduced and subsequently passed Bill 41, The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (Chan, Reference Chan2019). This new Bill marked a historical moment: British Columbia has become one of the first jurisdictions in the world to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (Chan, Reference Chan2019). Under this new Bill, British Columbia has an obligation to align all existing laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People; this will be an important step towards reconciliation (Chan, Reference Chan2019). Although progress on the alignment of British Columbia laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People will be slow and uneven in the first few years of its implementation, this new Bill demonstrates that it is possible to acknowledge, respect and integrate Indigenous rights into legal frameworks. It will also increase accountability and transparency and foster robust and reciprocal relationships with Indigenous People (Chan, Reference Chan2019). Although Bill 41 is not focused specifically on the right to food, it can serve as an example of how to implement wider rights-based approaches to land management. Tracking the progress of this new Bill will be a useful means for understanding how to implement similar frameworks elsewhere.

Although rights-based approaches hold considerable promise for bringing about transformative change in the conservation arena, they are not without controversy, ambiguity and inherent tension (Campese et al., Reference Campese, Sunderland, Greiber and Oviedo2009). Although rights are, in theory, discrete and well-defined entities (Mechlem, Reference Mechlem2004), there are still instances in which they are being redefined, contextualized and acted upon in contrasting ways. A review of non-academic publications on rights integration found that conservation organizations were defining and operationalizing rights in ways that best suited their own agendas and were not necessarily in line with the legal rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (Witter & Satterfield, Reference Witter and Satterfield2019). This represents an important gap between how rights are framed and expressed in international laws and how they are realized and expressed by conservation organizations and governmental and non-governmental bodies. Therefore, confusion sometimes remains regarding who is classified as a duty-bearer and who is classified as a rights-holder, which can obfuscate responsibilities and accountability, particularly when it comes to the role of non-state actors such as international conservation organizations and donor agencies (Kashwan, Reference Kashwan2013; Buergin, Reference Buergin2015; Witter & Satterfield, Reference Witter and Satterfield2019). Some scholars are also concerned that formalizing rights as they are understood currently in the Western legal system could undermine customary rights (Corson et al., Reference Corson, Flores-Ganley, Worcester and Rogers2020). Attention therefore needs to be paid to how and for whom rights-based approaches to food security, nutrition and conservation are implemented.

Three fundamental questions to consider as we look at integrating rights-based approaches and the right to food into conservation policies and instruments are: (1) What values and assumptions are embedded in our knowledge systems and ways of thinking that then go on to guide conservation initiatives, management, implementation and monitoring? (2) How are power asymmetries determining what knowledge is being privileged and acted upon? (3) How can we build upon existing practices and knowledge systems rather than importing knowledge systems from the outside in ways that are not contextualized to or respectful of the customary practices, epistemologies or ontologies already present in these landscapes?

Integrated landscape management and food security and nutrition

Despite the many challenges of realizing the right to food within biodiversity conservation, integrated landscape management has the potential to resolve these issues because of its holistic, multi-systems approach to reconciling seemingly competing interests such as social welfare, conservation, sustainability and economic development (Sayer et al., Reference Sayer, Sunderland, Ghazoul, Pfund, Sheil and Meijaard2013). Although integrated land management has evolved over time and encompasses a wide array of frameworks, such approaches have been gaining ground as potential means to address global challenges such as poverty, food insecurity, climate change and biodiversity loss (Reed et al., Reference Reed, van Vianen, Deakin, Barlow and Sunderland2016). Landscape approaches seek to integrate policy and practice for competing land uses whilst acknowledging the inevitable trade-offs that will occur amongst stakeholders. This renders such approaches well-positioned to also tackle the issues surrounding the right to food in the context of biodiversity conservation (Reed et al., Reference Reed, Ros-Tonen, Sunderland, Reed, Sunderland and Ros-Tonen2020b). The iterative and collaborative nature of landscape approaches will also be an important factor in the adaptability of such frameworks across a wide range of contexts, although challenges remain regarding the incorporation of local knowledge in these approaches (Reed et al., Reference Reed, Ickowitz, Chervier, Djoudi, Moombe and Ros-Tonen2020a). Although landscape approaches will not provide a single solution that is applicable in all cases, such initiatives could help to identify entry points and potential synergies for policy development regarding the right to food in biodiversity conservation.

In common with landscape approaches, nutrition-sensitive agriculture or nutrition-sensitive landscapes are other integrated landscape management frameworks that have achieved some success in increasing the focus on nutrition through a holistic approach that concentrates on more than food production and calories alone (Jaenicke & Virchow, Reference Jaenicke and Virchow2013; Alders & Kock, Reference Alders and Kock2018). Nutrition-sensitive agriculture, for example, seeks to optimize the production and consumption of micronutrient-rich food by regarding the food system and the landscape as a single integrated entity (Jaenicke & Virchow, Reference Jaenicke and Virchow2013; Timler et al., Reference Timler, Alvarez, DeClerck, Remans, Raneri and Estrada Carmona2020). From a social and economic standpoint, nutrition-sensitive landscapes can also help contribute to the economy as better-nourished people will be more able to contribute to the development of their communities (Frison et al., Reference Frison, Smith, Johns, Cherfas and Eyzaguirre2006; Padulosi et al., Reference Padulosi, Roy and Rosado-May2019). In Tanzania, one nutrition-sensitive agroecological intervention increased the dietary diversity of children as well as household food security whilst also leading to improvements in sustainable agriculture and the overall empowerment and well-being of women (Santoso et al., Reference Santoso, Bezner Kerr, Kassim, Martin, Mtinda and Njau2021). This holistic, landscape-scale approach to nutrition could be an entry point into promoting the right to food within conservation and lead ultimately to nutrition-sensitive conservation schemes. It has been argued that forest conservation can act as an appropriate nutrition-sensitive intervention: one study found that exposure to forests significantly reduced child stunting, which is a severe form of malnutrition (Rasolofoson et al., Reference Rasolofoson, Ricketts, Jacob, Johnson, Pappinen and Fisher2020). This finding affirms the link between forests, people, food security, nutrition and health and further supports the need for nutrition-sensitive conservation schemes that take a systems approach to food security and nutrition, conservation, sustainability and well-being. Aside from increasing nutrition and dietary diversity, forest conservation is also important for human health as deforestation has been linked to increased incidences of vector-borne and zoonotic diseases (Morand & Lajaunie, Reference Morand and Lajaunie2021) and is likely to lead to greater numbers of pandemics (FAO et al., 2020). The One Health Approach, which recognizes the interconnectedness of animal, human and ecosystem health, is therefore another important approach to consider when thinking of the future of conservation and the right to food (Global Landscapes Forum & Youth in Landscape Initiative, Reference Global Landscapes Forum & Youth in Landscape Initiative2021).

Moving forward

Mounting evidence of the negative impacts of protected areas on livelihoods and, by extension, on food security and nutrition, has highlighted the need for new conservation strategies that recognize the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities as actors with knowledge and agency (Artelle et al., Reference Artelle, Zurba, Bhattacharrya, Chan, Brown, Housty and Moola2019; Kashwan et al., Reference Kashwan, Duffy, Massé, Asiyanbi and Marijnen2021). Biodiversity conservation based on a dichotomous understanding of nature can no longer stand amidst mounting evidence of the interconnectedness of people, nature and land. There also needs to be a concerted effort by the conservation community to diversify conservation strategies to adequately reflect the diversity of knowledge and practices that are already being carried out by Indigenous Peoples and local communities in these landscapes. Protected areas have long been the cornerstone of biodiversity conservation but this approach has typically not considered people. In contrast, Indigenous Peoples and local communities have, through generational and relational knowledge systems, understood and based their interactions with nature on a holistic perspective that lends itself well to harmonious human–nature relationships (Guibrunet et al., Reference Guibrunet, Gerritsen, Sierra-Huelsz, Flores-Díaz, García-Frapolli and García-Serrano2021). Conservation policies based on rights can therefore help to support the human–nature relationships that are integral to healthy and biodiverse landscapes.

The traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local communities has often been overlooked, dismissed, misunderstood and underappreciated in conservation science in favour of Western knowledge systems and policies (Kashwan et al., Reference Kashwan, Duffy, Massé, Asiyanbi and Marijnen2021; Rudd et al., Reference Rudd, Allen, Allred, Biggs, Bright Ross and Dávalos2021). Adherence to a Western perspective has facilitated the disappearance of cultural–linguistic diversity, yet the latter is often correlated with high levels of biological diversity (Gorenflo et al., Reference Gorenflo, Romaine, Mittermeier and Walker-Painemilla2012; Frainer et al., Reference Frainer, Mustonen, Hugu, Andreeva, Arttijeff and Arttijeff2020). This has resulted in asymmetrical power structures that reinforce the status quo by deciding which knowledge systems and practices are considered legitimate and worthy of integration into conservation policies (López-Cubillos et al., Reference López-Cubillos, Muñoz-Ávila, Roberson, Suárez-Castro, Ochoa-Quintero and Crouzeilles2021). Although rights-based approaches alone will not correct power imbalances, they can help to set frameworks by which rights violations and discrimination can be addressed.

In New Zealand, where 25% of children experience food insecurity and the prevalence of obesity is greater amongst Indigenous than non-Indigenous children, a rights- and place-based approach investigated policy options that would safeguard the right to healthy food for tamariki Māori children (McKerchar et al., Reference McKerchar, Lacey, Abel and Signal2021). This study concluded that it would be necessary to mount a comprehensive policy response to secure the right to food, as food insecurity is an expression of a myriad of factors that cannot be addressed simply by increasing food production. It also reflected upon the historical context and structural barriers that have led to present-day health disparities in the community (McKerchar et al., Reference McKerchar, Lacey, Abel and Signal2021). Relying on the voices of both Māori and non-Māori participants illustrated how localized knowledge and experiences can be utilized to guide responses and policies by contextualizing the right to food to reflect the local realities. This case study outlines one approach that can be taken to formulate better place-based conservation strategies that are cognizant of the knowledge, priorities and desires of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Therefore, similar conservation interventions that uphold the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to define their own knowledge systems, cultures and practices can also help to ensure the right to food by supporting and enforcing already-existing customs that are rights- and place-based, and sustainable over time.