Unpacking the interface of modernization, development and sustainability in Indigenous Guna communities of Panama

1. This study elicits the main development challenges for the indigenous social-ecological system (SES) of the Guna people in Panama, which is characterized by rapid change and a unique governance system. 2. We elicit the key challenges in the region through a combination of expert interviews with key actors in Gunayala's development and surveys with local communities. 3. Current development centred on tourism and government support provide new livelihood opportunities, access to better education and healthcare. However, the shift from a subsistence-based economy characterized by strong


| INTRODUC TI ON
Many Indigenous communities around the world have experienced rapid modernization and associated socioeconomic change in the last decades (Hoehn & Thapa, 2009;Jacquelin-Andersen, 2018;Sotomayor et al., 2019). Such processes have catalysed shifts from traditional livelihoods, lifestyles and social interactions to lifestyles characterized by capital accumulation and consumerism (D'Ambrosio & Puri, 2016;Karst & Nepal, 2019;Rosnon et al., 2019;Sotomayor et al., 2019). The drivers of livelihood shifts in indigenous settings are very diverse and context specific, and have included among others tourism development (Leu, 2019;Movono et al., 2018) and community relocation (Zen et al., 2020).
Modernization-driven shifts from traditional (and often subsistence-based) livelihoods to formal economic activities have intersected strongly with the loss of customary laws and weakening of local institutions, in favour of unsustainable management practices that prioritize rapid economic growth (Karst & Nepal, 2019). Depending on the context rapid modernization can either drive change in local institutions and culture (e.g. modernization gradually erodes traditional institutions and worldviews) (Jacquelin-Andersen, 2018;Karst & Nepal, 2019) or an outcome (e.g. eroded institutions and local culture allow modernization processes unchecked) (Gascón & Martínez Mauri, 2017;Sotomayor et al., 2019). In any case these processes can reinforce each other, and more often than not have major ramifications (usually detrimental) on traditionally managed indigenous landscapes and seascapes that are rich in biodiversity and natural resources (Etchart, 2017). Such phenomena are often concurrent with an increasing reliance on subsidies and government-led social programmes, having a compounding negative effect on the traditional social structures, norms and institutions related to ecosystem management that are the foundations of indigenous culture and idiosyncrasy (Karst & Nepal, 2019). Collectively all these mechanisms can reduce appreciably the resilience of Indigenous communities to environmental and socioeconomic shocks (Vaccaro et al., 2009).
However, studies have suggested that strong Indigenous institutions and self-determination can act as a strong barrier against the negative effects of unchecked modernization (Patankar et al., 2016;Tang & Tang, 2010).
At the same time there have been rather divergent expectations over development outcomes between Indigenous groups and modernized societies (Buergin, 2015;Walsh-Dilley, 2013). Indigenous groups often seek to reap the benefits of modernization to improve their livelihoods, while preserving their autonomy, cultural integrity and freedom to self-determination (Newman, 2016;Walsh-Dilley, 2013). Many Indigenous groups want to develop their communities 'under their own terms' by balancing their traditional way of living while gaining access to new markets, rather than solely pursuing economic prosperity (Walsh-Dilley, 2013). This cautious attitude towards modernization and development initiatives, which are usually pushed by central governments and the private sector, has sometimes branded Indigenous groups as a barrier to development rather than a willing partner (Newman, 2016;Partridge, 2016). It has been suggested that strong Indigenous institutions can help achieve this notion of development under the own agenda of Indigenous communities (Patankar et al., 2016;Tang & Tang, 2010).
However, due to the unequal balance of power embedded in development and modernization processes, it is not uncommon to force development initiatives upon Indigenous groups, 'coercing' them in a way to modernize (Newman, 2016, Partridge, 2016. However, there is a widespread recognition of the importance to integrate indigenous needs and viewpoints during development and modernization processes (Zaidan, 2019). Many such attempts have failed because the perspective of Indigenous groups has been overlooked, leading to uneven development outcomes, increasing inequalities, social injustices and an overall marginalization (Partridge, 2016). It has been argued that in order to deliver effective development outcomes, Indigenous communities need to become active partners in development processes (Castillo, 2005;Opperman, 2013). It is in this context that strong Indigenous institutions can indeed address development challenges in a way that reflects the needs and sensibilities of Indigenous communities in a sustainable way by preserving their social-ecological systems (SES).
They are one of the eight recognized Indigenous groups in Panama with settlements along the northeastern region of the country (Davis, 2014;Martínez Mauri, 2008). Their traditional way of life includes a governance system at local and regional level with institutions, structures and roles 1 led by traditional authorities and leaders known as Saglas (Apgar et al., 2015;Carlos Arenas, 2016) (see Section 2.2). Their socio-political system has a high degree of autonomy and self-organization through nested institutions that strongly reflect Guna values and is considered to be one of the best organized among Indigenous peoples globally (and a model for neighbouring Indigenous groups) (Orbach, 2004;Velásquez Runk et al., 2011).
The Gunas have been experiencing rapid development transitions. There are signs that some of the core Guna' cultural values have been eroding due to exposure to western values and worldviews through tourism, the introduction of modern education and the different development aspirations of young Gunas after migrating in cities (Martínez Mauri, 2019;Orbach, 2004;Rawluk & Godber, 2011;Swiderska et al., 2009). Furthermore, traditional livelihood activities in Gunayala such as subsistence farming and fishing have been gradually replaced by formal economic activities related to tourism (Carlos Arenas, 2016;De León Smith Inawinapi, 2016;Gascón & Martínez Mauri, 2017;Martínez Mauri, 2018;Pereiro, 2016). While the Guna's worldview, customary laws, traditional knowledges (TKs) and beliefs situate them as caretakers of nature adopting a lifestyle that preserves their SES, younger generations have started losing these traditional values (Alvarado, 1995;Chapin, 1994;Denniston, 1994;Rawluk & Godber, 2011;Swiderska et al., 2009). This disconnect has translated into the loss of customary laws for managing the SES, and especially managing natural resources, leading to their overexploitation and the degradation of ecosystem services (Alvarado, 1995;Orbach, 2004;Swiderska et al., 2009).
Yet, the actual outcomes of these development pathways seem to have been rather poor so far, with the Gunas registering among the highest multi-dimensional poverty index (MPI) levels and lowest human development index (HDI) levels in the country (UNDP, 2015).
Despite the strong Guna institutions and representation in Panama's legislative branch, there seem to be rather poor development outcomes due to the combined effect of the lack of nuanced attention to Gunayala's needs (demonstrated by the predetermined type of support), remote geography, misunderstood worldview, frictions with the national government over resource access and insufficient funding (Castillo, 2001;Orbach, 2004;Rivera Rosales, 2007).
Furthermore, the cultural 2 erosion from the loss of TK, practices and values has put further pressures in Gunayala's SES. 3 Despite these rapid changes, there is very little literature studying Guna challenges in view of modernization processes and development trends (De León Smith Inawinapi, 2016;Gascón & Martínez Mauri, 2017). More broadly, although the inclusion of Indigenous peoples' perspectives and TK has received ample attention in the current academic discourse (Apgar et al., 2015;Rawluk & Godber, 2011) including in the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (Díaz et al., 2016;Pascual et al., 2017), there is still a lack of robust research that seeks to understand what are the development concerns and aspirations from the Indigenous communities' viewpoint (Jacquelin-Andersen, 2018;Rawluk & Godber, 2011

| Research approach
This study builds upon the Institutional Analysis Framework (IAD), which has been used to elucidate across different contexts the institutional and governance aspects of common pool resources (Blomquist & DeLeon, 2011;McGinnis & Ostrom, 2014;Ostrom, 2011). Some relevant applications include the study of Indigenous peoples' management strategies and conservation efforts for common pool resources (Ayers et al., 2017;Mehring et al., 2011;Sanches et al., 2020).
A central element of the IAD framework is the concept of 'action situations' that denote the social space where actors interact to identify and tackle common problems. In this social space, contextual factors (in the broadest sense) influence the actions of multiple actors, and give rise to diverse outcomes, with the interactions between actors mediating these transformations and outcomes (McGinnis & Ostrom, 2014;Nigussie et al., 2018;Ostrom & Cox, 2010). Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework underpinning this study. In this framework we identify three development processes (i.e. action situation) unfolding in Gunayala, namely social, environmental and governance processes. Each of these processes are outlined in Section 3.3 after eliciting information from experts and local communities (see Section 3.3 for synthesis, and Sections 2.3 and 2.4 for Methodology). These processes are influenced by a series of factors such as stakeholder interactions, livelihood transition, SES changes and traditional knowledges and practices erosion (see Section 3.2), and give rise to a series of perceived development challenges (i.e. outcomes) (Section 3.1).
The key development challenges (i.e. outcomes) that are perceived as priorities during development processes (i.e. the action situation) are elicited through expert interviews with the main local, regional and national stakeholders involved in development processes in Gunayala (Section 2.3). The development challenges are explained in more detail in Section 3.1. The exogenous contextual factors were initially identified through literature review and were subsequently confirmed by the expert interviews' outcomes.
The study followed the ethical guidelines stipulated by the author's affiliated academic institution and recognized the free, prior and informed consent rights for Indigenous peoples. In particular given the high degree of autonomy in Gunayala (see Section 2.2), the permission to conduct research, the information allowed to be collected, and how this information was to be collected was approved by Guna institutions in accordance with local beliefs and ethics (e.g. not interview underage children, ask permission to take photographs inside private property). To obtain this permission, the research and all its related methodological aspects were explained to the Guna Cultural Congress (one of the highest regional Guna institutions) that is the body responsible for overseeing such activities.
Permission was granted through multiple rounds of explanation and deliberation, which lasted for approximately 1 year. Without undertaking this iterative process to comply with local sensibilities when conducting research, it is not possible to receive the final permission document to enter Gunayala for research purposes. 5 Subsequently for community entry in the three study islands, communication and in person, and explained to each interviewee and surveyed participant in this study. Finally, verbal consents were obtained from participants before starting interviews and surveys to ensure they understood the research purpose, how the collected information will be handle and their rights to stop and opt-out of the study at any time during the expert interviews or household surveys. The verbal consent was purposely chose as part of gaining the community trust (see Section 2.4) and to ensure participants from all literacy levels fully comprehends their role and rights in the study.

| Study sites
The Gunas account for 19% of the total Indigenous peoples in Panamá and 2% of the total national population (Velásquez Runk et al., 2011).
Gunayala consist of 51 communities scattered mainly among the islands located in the San Blas archipelago. Of these 51 communities, two are communities of afro-descendants and are settled in the mainland, while the remaining 49 are Guna communities (38 settled in islands and 11 settled in the mainland). Gunayala is broadly divided into three districts (Dubwala, Agligandi and Nargana), each containing two leaders known as 'Sagladummagan'. Land access to Gunayala is limited to a mountainous road that is only accessible with four-wheel drive cars. The road was opened in the 1970s as a dirt road, with paving starting since the early 2000s. Access to the island communities is done through motorboats and other vessels.
The Gunas have been able to maintain strong institutions and a high degree of autonomy within Panama (Orbach, 2004;Velásquez Runk et al., 2011), and are identified as such compared to other Indigenous groups in the America (Dahl et al., 2020). Table 1 and has its own Local Congress governed by community chiefs (known as 'Saglas') that guide and administer matters pertaining to their island and its nearby resources (Davis, 2014;Orbach, 2004). The Cultural Congress and the Administrative Congress are higher level regional institutions governed by the 'Sagladummagans'. The Administrative   The primary livelihood sources in Gunayala are tourism, agriculture and fishing (Orbach, 2004;Rivera Rosales, 2007;Velásquez Runk et al., 2011). The region is characterized by lower development compared to the rest of the country. For example, while in 2014 the national Human Development Index (HDI) was estimated as 'High', it was estimated as 'Low' for Gunayala, with each dimension (i.e. life expectancy, education, and income) being among the lowest in the country (UNDP, 2015). The national multi-dimensional poverty index (MPI) stands at 14% ('Low Poverty'), while for Gunayala stands at 82% ('Highly Poor') (UNDP, 2015). The highly disproportional HDI and MPI levels are further aggravated by the loss of capable workforce, as emigration has increase by 36% between 2000 and 2010, mostly young males above 25 years searching for better income opportunities in cities (Quintero, 2004;UNDP, 2015). As a result, Guna's population in Gunayala decreased by 3%, while it increased by 62% outside their territories (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censo (INEC), 2010, Davis, 2014).
The focus of this study is three islands namely Gardi Sugdub, Nargana and Soledad Miria ( Figure 3, Table 2). The three islands have roughly the same population but are at different levels of development, and erosion of cultural values and TK (Table 2).

| Expert interviews
We conducted 31 expert interviews with national-and local-level stakeholders between February and March 2018. The expert interviews were selected through a stakeholder analysis that identified   Each interview lasted on average 1 h. All interviews were conducted in Spanish, apart from two interviews that were conducted in gunagaya (Guna language). During these two interviews an interpreter familiar with the research provided simultaneous translation (see Section 2.4 for more details). All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed to facilitate the coding for the content analysis (see below). Codes were defined based on responses and framed to achieve a balance between a general understanding of the issue (e.g. education challenges) and avoiding a granularity level where no patterns exit. To ensure consistency the coding was conducted manually solely by the corresponding author using programing custom functions and macros in Excel to keep track of similar references between interviews.
The outcomes of the content analysis identified the individual development challenges in Gunayala and the trend of each challenge (see below and Section 3.1). Subsequently the major development challenges were critically identified after grouping and aggregating individual challenges across categories based on similarity, and are represented in a dendrogram. In this sense the individual and major challenges were elicited through the coding and critical analysis of the expert interviews, and did not reflect any preconceived notions from the side of the research team or the adopted conceptual framework.
The trends of these challenges were captured in each expert interview according to the perspective of the respective expert interviewee through a 5-level Likert scale (1 = degrading, 2 = somewhat degrading, 3 = same, 4 = somewhat improving and 5 = improving).
The consensus between respondents was estimated through a consensus value, denoting the level of agreement over these trends between interviewees, ranging from a value of one ('1') representing full consensus to a value of zero ('0') representing complete disagreement and denotes a dispersion among respondent's answers (Tastle & Wierman, 2007).
The interactions between stakeholders (Section 3.2.1) were mapped to identify possible bottleneck and sources of delays/conflicts between Gunas and other institutions. In particular we map three types of interactions between stakeholders, namely (a) funding flows (i.e. money that were either provided directly to the insti-

| Household survey
We conducted household surveys in the three Gunayala islands Overall, 232 household surveys were conducted, capturing on average 14% of the target population in each island (see Table 2). We targeted four distinct study groups divided across sex and age (see Table S2). This is because we expect that distinct values and value changes are linked to both age and gender. To ensure the random sampling of each group, we use satellite images of each community. Each household was assigned a unique number using QGIS version 3.4.4 that allowed us to run a random function in Excel to select both the household to visit and which of the four groups to survey (see Figure S1). In each household respondents were selected following a protocol to avoid any subjective decision from the local enumerator (i.e. what to do in case of multiple possible viable interviewees). The surveys were conducted between March and April 2019 through local enumerators from each island.
The enumerators were hired and trained at each island to mitigate concern regarding research motivations and generate trust among respondents and local authorities.
The overall trend for each group for each value is calculated as the average of responses between all survey participants.
The comparisons between age groups (Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.4) were conducted through inferential statistics using SPSS version 23.
The Mann-Whitney test was used for the age group comparison, and Kruskal-Wallis test for the four-group comparison. Complementary comparisons between islands are provided to outline TK and value degradation. However, they are not the focus of the study, and are therefore not discussed extensively in the text (Table S4).

| Engagement with Indigenous authorities and community entry
As mentioned in the previous sections the data collection was overwhelmingly based on information from Gunas, whether experts (Section 2.3.1) or island residents with different demographic characteristics (Section 2.3.2). Considering the strong degree of autonomy in Gunayala, we followed a series of steps to gain access to (and the trust of) Gunas expert interviewees and local communities.
We first developed a relationship with the Indigenous People Office of the University of Panama (OPINUP), whose mission is to bridge the gap between the needs of Indigenous Peoples and the Cultural Congress general secretary, community chiefs).
Through the above processes we also gained entry in the study communities to conduct the household surveys. Overall, the household surveys were designed using insights from the expert interviews in order to reflect the needs and concerns of the Gunas. We followed four steps to ensure that the questions within the household survey made sense, and were phrased appropriately to be understandable to the local communities. The first two steps were conducted before the fieldwork, and the last two steps were performed during the fieldwork.

| Study limitations
Despite its comprehensive lens and robust design, this study has Regarding the former, it has been suggested that self-reported perceptions for ecosystem services might not reflect well the actual change, especially for services that cannot be observed easily such as some regulating and supporting services (Boerema et al., 2017;Larson et al., 2019). However, given the strong connection of the Gunas with their SES, we believe that perception questions can be rather accurate in this context. In any case, it would be advisable for future studies to validate these results through a more comprehensive ecosystem service assessment for Gunayala.
Second, in order to compensate for the limited number of studies sites we selected islands that represented a comprehensive gradient of development versus tradition (Section 2.2). This allowed us to achieve a rather comprehensive cross-section of islands for our study. Finally, we believe that the number of expert respondents was sufficient for this type of analysis, as the saturation analysis we conducted suggested that halfway the interview process over 95% of the challenges were identified ( Figure S7).
Third, although the corresponding author is Panamanian, none of the authors are Guna or from another Indigenous group. This raises the possibility of cultural biases or a lack of reflexivity (Kwame, 2017), leading to research questions or outputs that might not represent Gunas' reality. To minimize possible biases the study relies on a robust mixed-method research approach, where each step of the study is informed by evidence gathered from the previous steps, with Gunas being the main sources of information. For example, household surveys were designed based on multiple interviews with experts, most of which were Gunas that understood well local views and context (Table S1). Moreover, comprehensive research protocols were put in place to ensure that the research tools were sensitive to the local context, and able to reflect the needs of (and be understood by) local communities. The main such actions as outlined in Section 2.5 included: (a) pretesting household surveys and iteratively confirming relevant terms, content and phrasing with Gunas enumerators and assistants; (b) conducting the expert interviews in the presence of Guna collaborators and conducting the household surveys with local enumerators; and (c) positioning ourselves at multiple roles (through a reflexivity process), as outsiders, fellow citizen and researchers to become recipients of knowledge from these perspectives (Kwame, 2017).
Fourth, and partly relevant to the previous point, we acknowledge that a significant fraction of the literature focusing on change in Indigenous SES comes from Indigenous studies. Here, we opted to follow instead a data-driven approach that emphasized on the gradual elicitation of empirical information through a robust mixedmethod approach. We believe that although there is some likelihood of cultural bias as outlined above, it has been minimized to the extent possible. That said we believe that the findings of this study are well informed and elicited in a robust manner, and can thus provide much needed information for the challenges facing the Gunas (a rather understudied Indigenous group), as well as contribute to the much needed interdisciplinarity to approach the study of Indigenous SES.

| Development challenges
Interviewees collectively identified 55 different development challenges, aggregated in four main areas of concern, namely development impacts, environmental impacts, governance constraints and social impacts (Figure 4) Figure 6 shows the flows between the different actors involved in Gunayala's development. Despite the extensive service interactions (e.g. through consultancies, education/health programmes, capacity-building), there are few interactions related to funding between stakeholders engaged in Gunayala's development ( Figure 6).

F I G U R E 5
Main development challenges by theme. 'n' denotes the number of different issues reported in the interviews; 'frequency' represents how many times those issues were reported by interviewees.   Figure 6 between the different actors.
The matrix conveys how receiving actors ('To' column) perceived the interaction from the providing actor ('From' column). Despite the multiple interactions between national government institutions and both regional and local Guna groups, there is a lack of interaction between national government institutions to address issues in Gunayala through comprehensive programmes across cross-cutting issues (Figure 7). This lack of interaction and coordination between stakeholders is described by

| Livelihood transitions
When looking at the main livelihood activities captured from the household survey, results suggest that adults have a significantly higher income from government social programmes compared to younger Gunas, largely due to a development programme targeting retired citizens (over 65 years) ( Table 3). According to experts this programme has generated both positive and negative outcomes, with some pointing Overall males tend to be more engaged in traditional activities directly related to ecosystem services from the SES such agriculture and fishing, while women are largely involved in household activities (Table 3). Younger Guna males are predominately involved in tourism activities and paid jobs (e.g. banks and other services), compared to adults ( involved in tourism activities through the production of art and craft, albeit to a much smaller extent than young males (Table 3).

| 13
People and Nature DAM LAM and GASPARATOS with different values (Tables S5 and S6). Yet is important to note that many of the elements also provide cultural ecosystem services, further suggesting the strong linkage of Guna culture with the SES.
When looking at the values associated with these SES elements results were consistent between sampling groups. Overall, there is a strong sense of relational value attached to cultural SES components including their homeland and sacred places (galus) for both young and adult Gunas (Table S5). These sacred places often serve as customary protected zones for key marine species and forest products with traditional medicine resources 'we have sacred resources, we called it galu, they should not be use, they must be protected […] we can think of galus as a very special ecosystem, with a unique  Transport Industry 2 (2%) 4 (3%) 0 (0%) 2 (4%) 0 (0%) 4 (7%) 6 (3%) Note: For details by island see Table S4.

| Loss of traditional knowledges and practices
Overall younger Gunas have a lower knowledge and engagement in traditional practices and a higher exposure to non-Guna worldviews (

| Social action situation arena
The current social change amidst the recent economic development is of growing concern to Guna communities and other stakeholders.  (Table 3).
At the same time the social protection plans and stipends provided to older community members have become disincentives to engage with traditional livelihood activities (see Section 3.2.2).

F I G U R E 8
Perceived ecosystem services, availability and trends for key elements of the social-ecological system.
Collectively these processes have altered traditional livelihoods based on subsistence agriculture, contributing to certain negative outcomes to the local food system exemplified by the decline of local food production, loss of regional staple food and diet changes to western products. As mentioned above subsistence agriculture has declined as many young and old Gunas, as the former prefer to engage in the more lucrative tourism sector, while the latter have fewer incentives to engage in hard agrarian work due to the monthly stipends received through social protection plans.
This has major multiplier effects for Guna's society, including TK transmission, social cohesion, higher dependence on imported food, increased risk of noncommunicable diseases and waste generation (i.e. cans, plastic bottles) ( Figures S2 and S5). 8 Furthermore, alongside such value changes there is the concurrent emergence of social problems associated with the individualistic lifestyle, such as intra-household conflicts, petty theft and drug abuse (Figure 4; Figure S5).

| Environmental action situation arena
The population growth in the confined space of the small islands inhabited by the Gunas has started putting substantial pressure on the SES, especially through the unsustainable extraction of natural resources (Figure 8; Figure S3). For example, tourism has become the main source of pressure for important local resources such as lobsters (see also Hoehn & Thapa, 2009, Rawluk & Godber, 2011 for further information). While the attempts to regulate lobster harvest during the mating season have been mostly successful The increasing frequency and duration of storms means that local communities are cut off more frequently and for longer periods from the mainland, and essentially from their food supplies (see Dam Lam et al., 2023 for a more detailed explanation of the underlying mechanisms).

TA B L E 4
Cultural practices at community level. Abbreviations: AM, adult men; AW, adult women; YM, young men; YW, young women.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. † Variables captured through a 5-level Likert scale (see Table S3). ‡ Orgun is a central figure in Guna belief that shaped the Guna people, and is the closest proxy definition to Guna religion.

| Governance action situation
Even though the current governance system is strong and gives large autonomy to the Gunas (Sections 1 and Table 1).
The extensive consultations process and the lax pace of introducing new interventions is highly regarded among Gunas since it allows every opinion to be accounted for (and ponder the impact of interventions carefully), but it also limits the ability to respond quickly to rapidly evolving issues ( Figure S4). Moreover, there is a lack of technical capacity among Guna leadership to respond effectively to the emerging undesirable social and environmental impacts of development, which is gradually becoming a real concern to the local Guna communities ( Figure S2). Even though there is a new generation of trained Guna professionals capable of managing Gunayala's natural resources, they prefer to migrate to cities and seek out higher paid job, which creates a local technical capacity vacuum.
The above issues are compounded by broader chronic governance challenges such as bureaucracy, limited capacity and funding constraints that further complicate Gunas' ability to respond to the current change caused by modernization processes and emerging development priorities (Section 3.1).

| Navigating the interface of modernization, development and sustainability in Indigenous contexts
Indigenous peoples face a myriad of challenges in their development journey (Apgar et al., 2015; Jacquelin-Andersen, 2018). Similar to other Indigenous settings, the Gunas are currently seeking to navigate the tricky waters of modernization, development and sustainability. Despite the rather unique characteristics of Gunayala outlined throughout this study, and especially considering their strong institutions (Section 2.2), some parallels can be drawn with other Indigenous contexts, especially where tourism has become the primary mechanism for socioeconomic transformation.
Similar to the Gunas the tourism industry has diversified income and livelihoods in many indigenous settings (Leu, 2019;Sotomayor et al., 2019), but also caused unintended cultural and social erosion (Section 3.3.1). The transition from subsistence to formal economic activities (Section 3.2.2) has had in many areas replaced traditional practices, skills, knowledge and governance systems (see also Movono et al., 2018;Sotomayor et al., 2019). However, similar to the Gunas (Section 3.2.3) despite such changes several Indigenous groups have managed to preserve their sense of belonging and connection with their surroundings (Zen et al., 2020). system, as has also been witnessed elsewhere (Alvarado, 1995;Castillo, 2005;Saito et al., 2020) (see Dam Lam et al., 2023 for more details).
Our study clearly shows how shift from subsistence farming towards the tourism industry has prompted cascading lifestyle changes for many community members. This has created an interesting situation. On the one hand there is still a strong connection with their ancestral land and natural resources across all group ages (see Table S5), largely due to the strong Indigenous institutions. On the other hand there is still an ongoing development trend that is at odd to the Guna values, but is still appealing to different segments of the Guna society that have been evolving along the development journey through shifts from predominately subsistence-based and community-oriented livelihoods to more individualistic and formal economic activities. Such cascading effects have been witnessed in many different indigenous settings around the world (Orbach, 2004;Sotomayor et al., 2019;Swiderska et al., 2009), as well as similar development problems are documented as offshoots of socioeconomic change (Castillo, 2005;Quintero, 2004).

| Emergent dysfunctionalities in the context of strong Indigenous institutions
The dysfunctionalities and challenges mentioned above might come as a surprise, considering that the Gunas have been identified as a model for other Indigenous communities considering their strong institutions and large autonomy, which are usually perceived to be strong barriers to the negative aspects of unchecked modernization processes (Apgar et al., 2015;Karst & Nepal, 2019) (see also Section 1). In this growing call and concerted efforts for the better self-determination for Indigenous communities in many parts of Latin America (Jacquelin-Andersen, 2018;Tockman et al., 2015) and beyond (Patankar et al., 2016;Tang & Tang, 2010) it is useful to identify some of the more critical factors to prevent of mitigate similar challenges.
Arguably, in our opinion, the dysfunctional situation outlined above essentially emerges from the conflicting expectations be-

| Implications and recommendations
Methodologically, we argue that it is necessary to adopt systems thinking approaches such as the one used in this study in Indigenous  (Patankar et al., 2016;Tang & Tang, 2010).
Third, our study shows the pivotal role that strong Indigenous institutions can play in identifying the development aspirations of their communities through exhaustive and iterative consultation processes. The current consultation processes between Guna institutions (Figure 2), beyond achieving the good representation of development aspirations at different spatial levels (i.e. local to regional), they also help achieve a unified voice that is difficult to be exploited In this changing context, the local chiefs are struggling to balance a development agenda and maintain the SES, but there is a perceived leadership decline in local and regional institutions as being protectors of Guna identity. The local chiefs are expected to lead community projects that strengthen social cohesion and preserve important traditional ceremonies, while regional chiefs are expected to steer Gunayala's development during this transition period and preserve their worldview and beliefs. However, there is an emerging perception that the traditional institutions currently lack the capacity to respond to these challenges proactively and in a timely manner. The absence of stable funding independent to the national government, and the shortage of trained Gunas able to secure and implement programmes sponsored by international agencies are among the challenges that the current governance structure has to overcome.
Currently there is no clear blueprint to accomplish the develop- Stanley and Blas Lopez for their invaluable contribution. We also thank the local communities for receiving and the experts for their time.

CO N FLI C T O F I NTE R E S T S TATE M E NT
Alexandros Gasparatos is an Associate Editor for People and Nature, but was not involved with the peer review and decision-making process.

DATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T
The data used on this study consist primarily of expert interviews following the free, prior and informed consent rights for Indigenous peoples. Providing the full transcript from the interviews will compromise the confidentiality of respondent and violate the agreements given to the Guna authorities.

E N D N OTE S
1 Traditional roles in Gunayala includes ritual specialist, traditional healers, spiritual leaders with skill and knowledge to conduct therapeutic chants and use of medicinal plants (Apgar et al., 2015). 2 The Gunas defines culture as the blend of their values, institutions, history, language, practices, traditions and spirituality that conform their Guna identity and are embodied through their beliefs, art, sociopolitical structure developed throughout the centuries (Congreso General Guna, 2013).
3 Social-ecological systems are integrated system of humans and environment. They are complex adaptive systems in which social and ecological subsystem are interdependent of each other through a series of feedback relationships. These systems may include linkages through knowledge systems such as Indigenous knowledges or scientific knowledge (Berkes, 2017).
4 This paper is part of a bigger study that explores different aspects of social-ecological system change and sustainability in Gunayala. The present study focuses on identifying the major development challenges in Gunayala. A follow-up study unpacks how one development challenge, namely dietary change, intersects with socialecological system change (see more information at Dam Lam et al., 2023). 5 This document must be presented at Gunayala borders controls.
Failure to provide it can result in decline to enter Gunayala or eviction if found to conduct research without it in Gunayala. 6 The community (usually an island) is the main social unit for the Gunas (Davis, 2014).
7 Service-related projects (e.g. healthcare, agricultural production and sanitation) at community level are considered to be minor projects. Thus Local Congresses can conduct community-level consultation processes without the need for approval from the Guna General Congress (Administrative Congress ex-General secretary, personal communication, 12 March 2018). 8 The interested reader is diverted elsewhere for a more detailed explanation of how diet change intersects with these social impacts (Dam Lam et al., 2023). 9 Localizing the SDGs refers to the process of "taking into account subnational contexts in the achievement of the 2030 Agenda, from the setting of goals and targets, to determining the means of implementation and using indicators to measure and monitor progress. Localization relates both to how the SDGs can provide a framework for local development policy and to how local and regional governments can support the achievement of the SDGs through action from the bottom up and to how the SDGs can provide a framework for local development policy" (UN-Habitat, UNDP, UCLG, 2016: p. 6).

S U PP O RTI N G I N FO R M ATI O N
Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article.