The La Campana–Peñuelas Biosphere Reserve (LCPBR) was designated as such in 1984, toward the end of the first wave of the WNBR’s expansion. At first, it encompassed 14,500 ha in two protected areas: the La Campana National Park and Lago Peñuelas National Reserve. In 2009, following the Seville principles, the LCPBR was enlarged to 240,000 ha, incorporating a new core of 1,000 ha (Cerro El Roble Natural Sanctuary), a buffer zone of 40,000 ha, and a transition zone of 186,000 ha into this new zoning scheme.

This vast territory is in the hinterland of the country’s most populated areas: the Santiago Metropolitan Area and the port of Valparaíso, with almost 9 million people living between them (Figure 1). It is important to consider the social–economic dynamics of this metropolitan area to understand the threats and potentials of the biosphere reserve. The LCPBR has a mixture of land uses, from urban, industrial, and agriculture areas to natural areas, including many that have been declared as “high ecological value areas” (HEVA) in a complex urban–rural–natural interface (Moreira-Muñoz et al., 2023). All biosphere reserves have the mandate of balancing three pillars: environmental protection, improved quality of life, and the production of knowledge. In LCPBR, the overall protection of the environment and ecological services has historically been affected by landscape-scale threats like wildfires and urban sprawl, in a conflicting situation at the urban–forest interface. On the other hand, the territory of the LCPBR has also a long history of environmental activism and agency by campesino rural communities, indigenous peoples, scientists, and activists. Recent threats include major energy and railway infrastructure projects, which have prompted mass mobilizations and protests (Paulsen et al., 2019).

The LPBR is in the center of the “Mediterranean Central Chilean” global biodiversity hotspot (Figure 1). Specific assessments regarding its biota and the human–nature relationships are under way within the socioecological system framework, including the assessment of nature’ s contributions to humans (Martinez-Harms et al., 2021) and ecosystem services (Cerda, 2013; Bidegain et al., 2019; Palliwoda et al., 2021).

In its 50 years of existence, the MAB Programme has developed several protocols for assessing the performance of the units (BRs) that comprise the global network. One traditional assessment protocol is the ‘periodic review of biosphere reserves’ (Price et al., 2010; Reed and Egunyu, 2012).

The periodic review is a checklist of actions that has traditionally been used to compare how different units in different regions within a country or between countries cope with the MAB Programme’s statutory mandate. Spain is the country that has one of the largest numbers of BRs, with 53 BRs. Consequently, the national MAB Committee has developed a specific protocol for assessing the performance of the BRs in a way that is comparable over time (Matar and Anthony, 2017; Castaño-Quintero et al., 2019; RERB, 2022).

This now needs to be in tune with the Lima Action Plan 2015–2025. For its part, the LAP must address the sustainable development goals (SDGs) (UNESCO/MAB, 2024). We adjusted this protocol according to the Lima Action Plan (2016–2025), which contains a comprehensive set of actions aimed at ensuring effective implementation of the MAB Strategy 2015–2025. It entails five areas of strategic action accompanied by objectives. There strategic lines are as follows: a) effective models for sustainable development; b) collaboration and networking; c) external partnerships and funding; d) communication, information, and data sharing; and e) effective governance. We crossed these strategic actions with the axes proposed by the Management Plan of LCPBR (Supplementary Tables S1, S2).

We applied a transdisciplinary approach to collaborate with the young participants and representatives of indigenous communities, participating in our ‘Open Academy on Biosphere Reserves’. Open courses were made available for participants and youth activists within the territory, as a Cátedra participativa (Figure 2) (Supplementary Tables S4, S5).

Different versions were held face-to face and online (especially during the pandemic). We were therefore able to adapt the Spanish assessment protocol applied for BRs. The performance was based on seven indicators: i) zoning; ii) institutional support; iii) participation; iv) management plan; v) conservation function; vi) developmental function; and vii) research (Supplementary Table S5).

The second stage consisted of the implementation of the online PGIS forms using the ArcGIS 123 Survey platform, a web-based tool that allows creating collaborative maps (Figure 2). PGIS uses a simple cartographic language that allows territorial information from diverse origins to be shared quickly. PGIS is considered a participatory practice best-suited to engaging people in the discovery of environmental conflicts and improving agency and the protection of ecosystem services in territories such as biosphere reserves (Ioki et al., 2019; Cusens et al., 2022). We also considered the positive aspect of environmental best practices in the territory (Leguia-Cruz et al., 2021; UNESCO/MAB, 2024).

As discussed with young participants in the ‘Open Academy,’ we considered that the request of a ‘periodic review’ is insufficient to cope with the huge challenges that biosphere reserves currently face. In addition, specific current debates in environmental sciences and sustainability need to enter the assessment and actionable knowledge for WNBR’s performance.

Thus, we explicitly searched for ideas and advances that relate to the mandatory framework of the BRs with current transdisciplinary knowledge co-creation approaches (Reed et al., 2023) and insights after the network’s 50 years of existence, as suggested by Barraclough et al. (2023).

A series of indicators and variables were assessed by intersecting the traditional ‘periodic review’ protocol with the guidelines of the Lima Action Plan and the management plan diagnosis (Supplementary Table S1). Results based on face-to face activities and online surveying revealed communities’ poor perception of the BR’s performance. The BR performance assessment is framed according to seven indicators with three variables each, which cover most of the strategic actions established in the Lima Action Plan. The first indicator is zoning, which showed poor performance. An obsolete zoning plan is maintained, which also fails to acknowledge the community’s participation in the process of identifying areas of ecological value. Zoning models that incorporate concepts such as biological corridors to connect core areas with buffer zones have been proposed around the world, which are also interwoven with sustainable production areas in transition zones.

The second indicator assessed is the management body. In the case of LCPBR, the Management Committee is only composed by state departments, does not meet regularly, and does not include citizen participation. This is the point that influences a bad assessment result. Communities are the most accurate source for detecting relevant needs and prioritizing them; they have the most knowledge regarding the lack of resources and the relative urgency of the same and, consequently, are the ones called upon to make decisive contributions to environmental policy in matters that affect their environments and quality of life.

The third indicator is organizational potential, which receives the highest assessment and is the only indicator with positive performance. The local organization of the BR territory is marked by projects with high environmental impact presented in local municipalities. High-impact energy projects like a thermoelectric plant and a high-voltage line mobilized thousands of people in the territory’s defense (Paulsen et al., 2019; Leguia-Cruz et al., 2021).

The fourth indicator assessed is the management plan, which is the document that establishes the objectives for the development of BRs within a 10-year horizon and must be updated and approved by the management committee. In this BR, this document is precisely in the middle of being updated, a process that has not been without problems due to low-community participation, especially among indigenous communities.

The fifth indicator is the conservation function. It was rated with medium performance, with a positive assessment of the National Forestry Service’s (CONAF) work in the BR core areas, although conservation outside the protected areas does not guarantee the connectivity of sites of high ecological value, especially considering that the territory has mountain relief aspects that facilitate this option (Moreira-Muñoz et al., 2016).

The sixth indicator is the development function, which shows poor performance. Private enterprises neither participate in management nor consider the BR in its dissemination activities nor is there a bet on local development through declarations of origin, for example, as happens in European countries, where products are clearly identified with their territories of origin.

The seventh indicator is the logistic support function (environmental education and research), which scores in the medium performance range. This value is entirely attributed to the work done by academia in terms of research on various topics and connections to the community through open courses and training. One particularly important issue is the long-term monitoring of socioecological conditions in biosphere reserves, understanding the importance of academia’s participation, which must be integrated with community interests and, in this way, gain a closer perspective of territorial reality.

By means of collaborative mapping (PGIS), we could detect and plot environmental conflicts in and around the LCPBR; and we could also register environmental best practices in the territory.

Participants and activists created the slogan “ We Are Biosphere Reserve ”, and we detected a deep understanding of the challenge of inhabiting a BR in the context of the climate crisis. We also recovered several co-creation” practices for biocultural diversity and sustainability as a “transdisciplinary, intercultural, and intergenerational community of practice” (Reed et al., 2023); see also Leguia-Cruz et al. (2021).

We cross-referenced our findings and experiences with the principles of transdisciplinary and intergenerational knowledge co-creation (Reed et al., 2023) (Figure 4).

1. Honor self-determination and nationhood

The inhabitants of the LCPBR participating in the ‘Open Academy’ include community collaborators, university students, early career researchers, senior scientists, practitioners, and indigenous people. None of them played a lead role in the lectures, establishing a horizontal relationship and a respectful plurality of perspectives. This allowed “a pathway for non-indigenous and indigenous people to work together in the governance of research and practice” ((Reed et al., 2023) p. 1096).

2. Commit to reciprocal relationships

We encouraged each participant to build formal and informal relationships based on trust, friendship, and mutual respect. Although this is an immaterial aspect that is not easy to share outside the practice group, a simple example is the writing of papers in which researchers share authorship with local practitioners (Leguia-Cruz et al., 2021). This includes an intergenerational practice since “research focused on youth emerges from an understanding that youth are frequently underrepresented in territorial governance systems and often drawn away from their communities for higher education and employment” ((Reed et al., 2023) p. 1098).

3. Co-create the research agenda

The consultation process for elaborating the Reserve’s Management Plan took place as the lectures developed in the middle of the pandemic. We participated in several sessions marked by tensions and contrasting visions but ultimately managed to move forward with the reserve management plan, with online sessions where forging trust is even more difficult. This is in line with transdisciplinary participatory processes occurring now within a decolonial framework across Latin America, recognizing “community-based systems of resource use and governance” (Reed et al., 2023, p. 1098).

4. Generate meaningful benefits for communities

The lectures helped build social capital inspired by Agenda 2030 and the SDGs. Several participants in the lectures were already engaged a posteriori in local policy-making. The economic benefits included a certain amount of capacity building to apply for state financing projects.

5. Approach research positively: embed relational accountability

Alliances were strengthened during lectures, and ongoing NGOs and practitioners’ groups were able to reinforce not only just knowledge but also a joint energy and spirit to continue specific territorial struggles. Furthermore, groups that, at times, hold different political or activist positions were able to bring their positions closer by means of recognition of shared goals. Some of the groups derived from or inspired in the lectures are the municipal environmental committees (Comités Ambientales Comunales, CAC) and the plurinational firefighting committees (Mesa Plurinacional Contra Incendios).

6. Ensure equity, diversity, and inclusion

In various lectures where indigenous peoples participated, sessions would begin or end with greetings in their own language, and all participants listened or participated with respect and affection, with an open-minded attitude of learning dialog among knowledges (Eschenhagen, 2021). The same was the case with participants attending lectures with their children (in the absence of alternative family care) or with their companion animals, such as guide dogs.

7. Emphasize critical reflection and shared learning

Continuous collaborative efforts included the common commitment to address environmental conflicts. In this sense, the environmental activists’ participation in the lectures helped better inform and elaborate reports for formal court battles. These processes began prior to the establishment of the lectures, but during or after this practice, the case against a thermoelectric project was won, and the power lines project escalated to the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled in favor of the local community, emphasizing the values of the biosphere reserve.

When working on the final revision of this manuscript, the worst wildfire in Chilean history affected more than 9,000 ha of the La Campana–Peñuelas Biosphere Reserve. The fire took the lives of 136 people and thousands of organisms that shared this territory. Climate risk becomes a devastating reality, demonstrating that participatory governance is more urgent than ever. On the other hand, on May 14, 2024, the Biosphere Reserve Management Committee has been reactivated and for the first time in decades it includes civil society and indigenous stakeholders in decision-making, inaugurating a new era of participatory governance of the biosphere reserve.