Goat herding in Malargüe is not just shaped by biophysical conditions, but by embedded knowledge systems that respond to climatic unpredictability and socio- political marginalization. This marginalisation is expressed by pastoralist families as follows: “No one comes here, we are not important… the government does not care much about thepuesteros, we live quite isolated…” (Interview, 2022). Families manage herds through a combination of selective breeding, seasonal adaptation, and infrastructure tailored to withstand environmental stressors. Goats are particularly suited to this context due to their drought resistance and ability to graze on diverse, sparse vegetation. Despite the marginalisation they mention, their daily practices are forms of profound agroecological productivity and resilience.

Productive cycles follow the ecological calendar. Mating is scheduled for May so that births occur in early spring, aligning lactation with pasture regeneration. Rather than seeking to maximize output, herders emphasize sufficiency-maintaining herd health, avoiding overgrazing, and preserving the reproductive integrity of both animals and landscapes. Communal infrastructure such as watering points and corrals are often built and maintained through cooperative labor. Families observe pasture conditions closely, adjusting herd movement and feeding practices in real time. When drought or snow reduce pasture availability, mobility strategies and informal support networks enable continuity. These practices embody a form of “ecological intelligence” (Goleman, 2009) grounded in agroecological productivity, foresight, and shared experience. In this context, resilience is anticipatory rather than reactive. It is built into the spatial, temporal, and social organization of pastoral life. This peasant ecological governance contrasts sharply with extractive and input-intensive models offering instead a vision of sustainability based on reciprocity, flexibility, and the ethical use of common goods.

This contrast was evident in the opposition of nomadic families to the neo-extractivism of oil extraction through the franking system, promoted by the provincial government (Soto, 2023; Wagner, 2021). To summarize then, transhumant pastoralism in Malargüe unfolds within a context of deep uncertainty-ecological, economic, and political. This uncertainty is not simply a lack of information or a temporary disruption; it is structural and enduring. It arises from climate variability, market volatility, weak institutional support, and the pressures of extractive development. Yet, rather than paralyzing pastoral communities, uncertainty is met with adaptive strategies and territorial resilience. Let us return then to examining this territorial resilience in more detail.

Resilience, as framed by dominant development discourses, is often depoliticized—reduced to technical adaptation or recovery in response to external shocks (Scoones, 2024; Welsh, 2014). However, in transhumant settings, resilience takes on a different meaning. It is a practical implementation of another way of doing politics—more decentralised, collective and creative (Ross, 2024). It reflects a form of territorial persistence: an embodied and collective practice of survival that resists the imposition of external development models. We refer to this as the persistence of transhumant survival practices (Soto, 2024; 2021). Drawing from peasant epistemologies and critical political ecology, this article conceptualizes resilience as a form of infra-political resistance (Scott, 1977; 1990).

Transhumant families engage in subtle, persistent acts of mobility, and resource-sharing that defy dominant territorial logics (Wagner, 2021; Svampa and Viale, 2014; Soto, 2023). Their resilience is not reactive; it is anticipatory and rooted in a worldview that values mobility, reciprocity, and autonomy in agroecological production. This is what a shepherd from Malargüe said: “We produce what we eat with our goats, we use the milk and the skins of the animals. You do not need much to live here. The problem is that we are getting older, and that worries many of us” (Interview, 2022).

This alternative understanding of resilience in agro-ecological production aligns with a territorial ontology of movement. Seasonal mobility is a vernacular governance system based on kinship, ecological knowledge, and customary rights. It challenges state-centric visions of control and modernization, offering instead a politics of cohabitation and sufficiency. Two cases of state-centric modernization that fail to recognize the vernacular governance are illustrative. First the Goat Law No. 26,141, which was initially conceived with the aim of developing family goat production but the majority of whose funds were allocated to address climate and environmental emergencies (Michel and Easdale, 2024). The second state-centric control oriented legislation is Law No. 6,086, which pertains to the promotion and settlement of ranchers in non-irrigated areas. However, in the process the legislation has not effectively addressed the ensuing issue of evictions affecting transhumant families (Soto, 2021).

From the standpoint of Latin American political ecology, territory is inherently dynamic. It is constituted through movement, memory, and affect—not fixed borders or cadastral maps (Haesbaert, 2011; Escobar, 2014). Transhumance, in this light, represents a mobile territoriality that contests hegemonic spatial regimes. Unlike the sedentary and extractivista paradigms that dominate land- use planning, transhumant territorialities operate through fluid seasonal routes, intergenerational transmission of knowledge, and shared access to ecological goods. One needs only to contrast this transhumance with hydrocarbon extractivism. Vaca Muerta, located in the provinces of Neuquén, Mendoza and Río Negro (Wyczykier and Acacio, 2023), is a significant site of metal mega-mining in a mountain range (Wagner, 2021).

This knowledge of transhumant work in the maintenance of their goats occurs in contexts of vulnerability faced by local rural producers undergoing major environmental transitions (Mussetta and Barrientos, 2015). These practices destabilize conventional notions of property, zoning, and state authority. As Zibechi (2012) suggests, such forms of territoriality are not simply oppositional—they enact alternative ways of world-making. The movement of herds across altitudinal zones is not chaotic or informal; it is a sophisticated form of socio-ecological governance. Transhumant families manage landscapes through flexibility, reciprocity, and intimate ecological knowledge, resisting state efforts to normalize or regularize their mobility through rigid tenure systems. A specific example in our study area of the latter is the extractivist Malargue Western Mining District project and its threat to local pastoralism (Samson, 2023; Mannino, 2019).

Decades work on non-equilibrium ecologies and uncertainty (Scoones and Stirling, 2020; Stirling, 2010; Krätli, 2015) challenges the assumption that variability is a problem to be solved. In pastoralist settings, uncertainty is not an anomaly but a constitutive feature of the environment. Transhumant practices are grounded in the capacity to live with and off of uncertainty—not to eliminate it. Flexibility, redundancy, and adaptive mobility are not signs of precarity but evidence of socio-ecological intelligence. These are forms of vernacular governance that contrast with the rigidity of state planning and conservation bureaucracies, for example, the alienation of their lands in favour of “sustainable tourism projects” (Soto and Ramires, 2022). Rather than aiming to restore an idealized equilibrium, transhumant communities embrace change as a normal condition. Their ability to adjust routes, modify grazing rhythms, and negotiate access illustrates a governance system adapted to dynamic landscapes. A notable case has been the territorial negotiations of Iindigenous nomads in the area who opposed the Portezuelo del Viento hydroelectric dam (La, 2017) and recent legal claims for access to land and transhumance trails (Ser y Hacer de Malargüe, 2020).

Despite their contribution to food production and ecological conservation, transhumant systems are often viewed through a deficit lens—as informal, unproductive, or incompatible with modern development As Lanari et al. (2019) note, while Argentina hosts approximately 220,000 family farms, many of which engage in extensive livestock systems, public policies frequently fail to recognize the ecological value and territorial knowledge embedded in such practices. Transhumance, in this sense, becomes a practice of situated autonomy that resists standardization. Herders’ reflections illustrate this existential precarity: “We have good years and bad ones… When the land is poor, grazing is harder. Lack of water is a big challenge” (Interview, 2023). Uncertainty is not a disturbance to be managed, but the everyday condition of life and production. This understanding aligns with Stirling’s (2010) argument that effective governance under uncertainty must move beyond risk management and embrace plural, flexible responses.

Recognition of these practices calls for a shift in how development and sustainability are conceptualized. Rather than impose fixed solutions, policies must support the autonomy and adaptive capacity of pastoralist systems. As Scoones and Nori (2023) emphasize, pastoral mobility must not be constrained by narrow corridors or administrative timeframes. Effective intervention requires embracing the messiness and complexity of pastoral life. The stakes are high. Without secure access to land and flexible governance frameworks, the viability of transhumant livelihoods is threatened. As one herder put it: “If we do not have land, livestock will disappear from Malargüe. Land is like the roof over our heads. It’s fundamental—not just for us, but for our children and grandchildren” (Interview 4).

Transhumance thus emerges as a frontline in the struggle for environmental justice. In this space, a persistent defence of their respective ways of life can be observed. —by continuing to live, move, and care for the land under adverse conditions. In this sense, pastoral mobility constitutes a living socio-ecological infrastructure -flexible, relational, and grounded in uncertainty- that challenges static models of land governance and calls for recognition of pastoralist systems as vital to sustainable futures (Roe, 2020).

The case of transhumance in Malargüe challenges dominant understandings of socio-ecological transition, particularly those based on linear, technocratic, or Northern-driven paradigms. Rather than viewing transition as a managed shift toward pre-defined sustainability goals, this case suggests a more grounded, plural, and contested process rooted in everyday practices, territorial care, and historical continuity.

Transhumant pastoralism embodies a form of transition from below. It is not driven by policy design, innovation hubs, or technological fixes, but by embedded strategies of survival and relational knowledge. Seasonal mobility, ecological observation, and kin- based cooperation form the foundation of a resilient way of life that does not seek to, overcome uncertainty but to live with and within it. Their adaptive capacity and the ability of their systems to adjust to potential damage, take advantage of opportunities, or respond to consequences, links this experience to that of farmers in Mexico (Bocco, et al., 2019) and communities affected by climate variability and territorial vulnerability (Rodríguez-Díaz et al., 2025; Oyarzo et al., 2024).

These findings from the Argentine Andes resonate with pastoralist experiences in African and Asian drylands, where uncertainty is similarly understood as a structural condition rather than an exception (Scoones, 2019; Krätli and Schareika, 2010). As in the Sahel, the Horn of Africa, or Mongolia, pastoral communities in Malargüe display a form of “intelligent mobility” (Krätli, 2015) rooted in deep ecological knowledge and adaptive responses to variability. Across these geographies, transhumance operates not as a residual practice but as a contemporary and relational mode of socio-ecological governance which promotes a type of agroecological productivity, sustaining transhumance (Nori, 2019; Köhler-Rollefson, 2023).

Situating the Argentine case within this global framework underscores the relevance of Latin American political ecology in dialogues historically dominated by African or Asian examples, while reinforcing the need for regionally grounded yet translocal understandings of pastoral futures. Supporting such transitions requires more than technical policy instruments. It demands a shift in epistemology and governance: from control to coexistence, from economic productivity to sufficiency, and from regulation to recognition. Transhumant pastoralism reveals that sustainable futures are already being enacted—not through rupture, but through the continuity of practices long marginalized by modernity. In sum, transhumance in Malargüe offers both a critique of dominant transition models and a grounded alternative. Pastoral mobility can be understood not merely as a livelihood strategy, but as a form of living socio-ecological infrastructure.

As Roe (2020) argues, pastoralists should be seen as “reliability professionals” who ensure system functionality under conditions of uncertainty, while pastoral systems themselves function as dynamic infrastructures that sustain ecological balance, food security, and social cohesion. In the case of Malargüe, seasonal mobility, flexible land use, and intergenerational knowledge transmission constitute an infrastructure that is not fixed or material, but relational, adaptive, and co-produced by humans, animals, and landscapes. The findings of this study suggest that effective rangeland governance in transhumant contexts requires a paradigm shift away from fixed models of land tenure, economic productivity, and sedentary planning. Policies that prioritize enclosure, formal or standardized land-use frameworks are often misaligned with the territorial logics and mobility practices of pastoralist communities (Michel and Easdale, 2024; Soto, 2021). Instead, governance frameworks should recognize and support the fluid, seasonal, and collective nature of transhumant land use. This entails ensuring flexible access to pastures, protecting traditional mobility corridors, and incorporating local ecological knowledge into decision-making processes. Community-based monitoring systems, recognition of customary rights, and co-management arrangements with state institutions may offer viable paths forward (Peréz Centeno et al., 2024). Moreover, the undervaluation of transhumant pastoralism in national development agendas must be addressed (Peréz Centeno, 2001; Peréz Centeno, 2007). Public policies should not only safeguard the environmental contributions of these systems—such as biodiversity conservation and climate resilience—but also invest in basic infrastructure, veterinary services, and educational access adapted to mobile livelihoods.