ECUADOR - Land Tenure and Property Rights Portal

ECUADORINDIGENOUS TERRITORIALRIGHTS IN ECUADORRAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF CAIMAN ANDSOUTHERN BORDERS INTEGRATION PROGRAMMARCH 2008This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency forInternational Development. It was prepared by ARD, Inc.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe impact assessment team would like to acknowledge the leadership and commitment of all entitiesconnected to this assessment that are working for the preservation of natural resources and theterritorial and cultural empowerment of Ecuador’s Indigenous Nationalities. In particular, we recognizeUSAID/Ecuador, CARE, Chemonics, International, ECOLEX, FEINCE, and FICSH whose guidance,support, and insight were instrumental to this assessment. We wish to extend our sincerest gratitude toMs. Monica Zuquilanda and Mr. Thomas Rhodes of USAID/Ecuador. The team also extends itsappreciation to ARD, Inc. for its commitment to land tenure and property rights (LTPR) and theopportunity to field test the LTPR assessment tool.The team has benefited from the generous contributions of individuals in both Ecuador to the UnitedStates. In Quito, we are grateful to Jorge Alvear, Jeanneth Rodriguez, Joao Stacishin de Queiroz, andMario Añazco. In Lago Agrio, thanks goes to Emeregildo Criollo, Luis Narvaez, and Elisa Omenda. InMacas, we recognize Patricia Rivadeneira and José Acachu. Finally, in the US, we would like toacknowledge Anna Knox, Roxana Blanco, and Jessica Jackson.The evaluation was enormously enriched by the nearly 200 participants who took part in the interviewsand workshops. Our understanding of LTPR in Ecuador was also significantly enhanced by the analysisand vision of those representing the public sector (the Ministry of the Environment and the NationalInstitute of Agrarian Development), nongovernmental organizations, and donor organizations.Finally, the team would like to thank the Cofán communities of Dureno and Duvuno, the Shuarcommunity of Angel Rouby, and the Aja Shuar women in the Guadalupe community. It was an honor forthe team to be invited into these areas and to learn from the communities about their territory realitiesof defending their territory and their visions for its protection and conservation.Prepared by:Ramon Balestino (Team Leader), Independent ConsultantPaula Bilinsky, Independent ConsultantDwight Ordoñez, Independent ConsultantAmy Regas, Independent ConsultantPrepared for the United States Agency for International Development, USAID Contract Number PCE-1-00-99-00001-00, Task Order: 13, Lessons Learned: Property Rights and Natural Resource Management(GLT 2), under the Rural and Agricultural Incomes with a Sustainable Environment (RAISE) IndefiniteQuantity Contract (IQC).Implemented by:ARD, Inc.P.O. Box 1397Burlington, VT 05402COVER PHOTOS:FRONT: Indigenous Cofan elders in the Duvuno community discuss territorial encroachment during a rapid appraisal workshopwith the impact assessment team. Photo by Ramon Balestino, March 11, 2008.BACK: Timber processing on the outskirts of the Duvuno. Logging was cited as a major threat faced by the community in theirefforts to defend their territorial rights and protect the ecosystem. Photo by Dwight Ordoñez, March 11, 2008.

INDIGENOUS TERRITORIALRIGHTS IN ECUADORRAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF CAIMAN ANDSOUTHERN BORDERS INTEGRATION PROGRAMMARCH 2008DISCLAIMERThe author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of theUnited States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

CONTENTSACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... iEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ iii1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT.................................................................... 12.0 ASSESSMENT DESIGN...................................................................................................... 32.1 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................... 32.2 RESEARCH SAMPLE................................................................................................................................... 42.3 LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................................................. 53.0 CONCEPTUAL MAPS: INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOMES OF INTEREST ........ 73.1 CAIMAN PROJECT ................................................................................................................................. 73.2 SOUTHERN BORDERS PROGRAM............................................................................................................ 84.0 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................ 94.1 CAIMAN: EXPECTED OUTCOMES OF INTEREST.................................................................................. 94.1.1 Expected Outcome 1: Effectively Interacting with External Actors RegardingTerritorial Rights (MO-7)........................................................................................................ 94.1.2 Expected Outcome 2: Indigenous Groups with Adequate Legal Rights (HO-1)..........104.1.3 Expected Outcome 3: Territorial Rights of Indigenous Communities Respected(HO-2).......................................................................................................................................114.1.4 Expected Outcome 4: Indigenous Communities Honor Legal Obligations (HO-3).124.1.5 Expected Outcome 5: Biodiversity Conservation (SO-1)..............................................134.2 CAIMAN: INTERVENTIONS..................................................................................................................144.2.1 LTPR Intervention 1: Legal and Policy Dialogue...............................................................144.2.2 LTPR Intervention 2: Community Land Titling.................................................................144.2.3 LTPR Intervention 3: Conflict Mitigation/Resolution ......................................................154.2.4 LTPR Intervention 4: Co-management Agreements .......................................................154.2.5 LTPR Intervention 5: Delimiting and Demarcating Boundaries ....................................164.2.6 LTPR Intervention 6: Patrolling Boarders..........................................................................164.2.7 LTPR Intervention 7: Institutional Strengthening .............................................................174.3 SUR: EXPECTED OUTCOMES OF INTEREST .........................................................................................17INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENTi

4.3.1 Expected Outcome 1: Tenure Security (MO-1.1) ...........................................................174.3.2 Expected Outcome 2: Increased Capacity to Manage Resources Sustainably(HO-2).......................................................................................................................................184.4 PSUR: INTERVENTIONS.........................................................................................................................194.4.1 LTPR Intervention 1: Policy and Legal Issues (Titling).....................................................194.4.2 LTPR Intervention 2: Community Forestry Management ..............................................204.4.3 LTPR Intervention 3: Protected Area Management ........................................................205.0 INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING .......................................................................... 215.1 CAIMAN: FEINCE...............................................................................................................................215.2 PSUR: FISCH ........................................................................................................................................216.0 SUSTAINABILITY OF LTPR AND NRM ACHIEVEMENTS....................................... 237.0 LESSONS LEARNED AND CONCLUSION.................................................................. 257.1 LTPR PROGRAMMING CONSIDERATIONS FOR INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS.......................257.2 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................................................27ANNEX A: LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED..................................................................... A-1ANNEX B: LIST OF KEY INFORMANTS ................................................................................. B-1ANNEX C: CAIMAN CONCEPTUAL MAP FOR TERRITORIAL CONSOLIDATION ANDINSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING ........................................................................ C-1ANNEX D: PSUR CONCEPTUAL MAP FOR NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.. D-1ANNEX E: CAIMAN OUTCOME INDICATORS AND CONTRIBUTING FACTORS........E-1ANNEX F: CAIMAN INTERVENTIONS AND RELATED OUTCOMES...............................F-1ANNEX G: PARK GUARD MONITORING DOCUMENTS.................................................... G-1ANNEX H: RAPID APPRAISAL WORKSHOP PROTOCOL.................................................H-1ANNEX I: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE ...........................................................................................I-1iiINDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT

ACRONYMS ANDABBREVIATIONSCAIMANFSCFEINCEFICSHFundación CofánGTZHIHOINDALTPRLILOMIMOMOENGONRMPSURSOSOIUSAIDWCSConservation in Areas Managed by Indigenous Groups ProjectCofán Survival FoundationFederacion Indigena de la Nacionalidad Cofán del Ecuador (Indigenous Federation for theCofán Nationality in Ecuador)Inter-provincial Federation of Shuar CommunitiesFundación para la Sobrevivencia del Pueblo CofánGerman Technical CooperationHigh-level Indicators according to PSUR/CAIMAN Conceptual MapsHigh-level Outcomes according to PSUR/CAIMAN Conceptual MapsNational Institute of Agrarian DevelopmentLand Tenure and Property RightsLow-level output indicators according to PSUR/CAIMAN Conceptual MapsLow-level outcomes (outputs) according to PSUR/CAIMAN Conceptual MapsMid-level Indicators according to PSUR or CAIMAN Conceptual MapsMid-level Outcome according to PSUR or CAIMAN Conceptual MapsMinistry of EnvironmentNongovernmental OrganizationNatural Resource ManagementSouthern Borders ProgramStrategic objective according to PSUR/CAIMAN Conceptual MapsStrategic objective indicator according to PSUR/CAIMAN Conceptual MapsUS Agency for International DevelopmentWorld Conservation FundINDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENTi

PREFACEThere is a continuing need to understand and communicate 1) how property rights issues change aseconomies move through various stages of economic growth, democratization, and in some cases from warto peace, and 2) how these changes require different property rights reform strategies and sequencing tofoster further economic growth, sound resource use, and political stability. The lack of secure and negotiableproperty rights is one of the most critical limiting factors to achieving economic growth and democraticgovernance throughout the developing world. Insecure or weak property rights have negative impacts on:• Economic investment and growth;• Governance and the rule of law;• Environment and sustainable resource use, including parks and park land, mineral resources, and forestryand water resources; and• Biodiversity and sustainable resource exploitation.At the same time, robust and secure rights (along with other economic factors) can promote economicgrowth, good governance, and sustainable use of land, forests, water, and other natural resources.USAID is making a strategic commitment to developing a stronger, more robust policy for addressingproperty rights reform in countries where it operates. “Property rights” refers to the rights that individuals,communities, families, firms, and other corporate/community structures hold in land, pastures, water, forests,minerals, and fisheries. Property rights range from private or semi-private to leasehold, community, group,shareholder, or types of corporate rights. As land is a main factor for economic production in most USAIDpresencecountries, it is the main focus of this Lessons Learned: Property Rights and Natural ResourcesManagement Task Order under the Rural and Agricultural Incomes with a Sustainable EnvironmentIndefinite Quantity Contract.The objectives of this task order include:1. Transferring lessons learned in property rights and natural resource management to date to USAIDmanagement, Missions, and partners;2. Developing curricula and offering courses on land tenure and property rights issues (including bestmethodologies and sequencing of reform steps) for staff in USAID’s geographical regions and operatingunits in Washington;3. Conducting studies on the environmental, economic, or political impacts of land privatization or reformin USAID’s geographical regions;4. Developing and testing analytical and impact measurement tools for property rights reform in support ofprograms developed or implemented by USAID; and5. Providing USAID Missions and operating units with specific evaluation, design, and support of propertyrights reform activities.The task order is managed by ARD, Inc., on behalf of USAID. It is a mechanism of the USAID/EconomicGrowth, Agriculture, and Trade Division/Natural Resources Management/Land Resources ManagementTeam. Its period of performance is August 2004 through May 2008. Dr. Gregory Myers is the task order’soperating Cognizant Technical Officer.INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENTiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYUnder the US Agency for International Development (USAID) Lesson Learned: Property Rights and NaturalResource Management (GLT2) Task Order, ARD, Inc. developed a land tenure and property rights (LTPR)impact assessment tool. USAID/Washington and ARD sought to field test the tool and reached out tovarious Mission candidates. USAID/Ecuador responded with a request for a rapid impact assessment of theConservation in Areas Managed by Indigenous Groups Project (CAIMAN, in Spanish) and the SouthernBorder Integration Program (PSUR). Both projects sought to strengthen territorial rights of indigenousnationalities: the Cofán nationality in the case of CAIMAN and the Shuar nationality in the case of PSUR.The core of the assessment team consisted of four independent consultants, aided by logistical support froma local consultant. The team applied the tool in order to understand the impact of CAIMAN and PSURLTPR activities on objectives defined by the projects at their outset. In particular, the team sought to distill:1) the combination of factors that contributed to outcomes corresponding to project objectives; and 2) theoutcomes resulting from the LTPR interventions implemented by the projects, whether they were expectedor unexpected.For each project, a conceptual map was developed to: (a) characterize the LTPR intervention-to-outcomerelationships as conceived in project design; and (b) pinpoint higher-level expected outcomes against whichimpact would be assessed. This information was drawn from project documentation and interviews withproject implementing organizations.In order to assess impact, the team drew on both primary and secondary information sources. Projectdocumentation from CAIMAN and PSUR, as well as other relevant materials relating to the identifiedoutcomes, was reviewed. Interviews and rapid appraisal techniques were employed to gather informationfrom stakeholders and other key informants in Quito, Lago Agrio, and Macas from March 3–15, 2007. Theseindividuals were selected using a purposeful non-random sampling approach. The team consulted with Shuarand Cofán indigenous beneficiaries, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), public sector actors, anddonors.The main findings of the assessment respond to three key questions:To what extent did CAIMAN and PSUR LTPR interventions contribute to their objectives?CAIMAN and PSUR have contributed to several positive outcomes, including more secure legal rights toindigenous territories, improved protection of territorial limits, and strengthened capacity of indigenousorganizations in assisting communities to better protect their territorial rights and conserve the resourceswithin those territories. Within each project, the assessment has uncovered promising approaches thatwarrant future consideration:• CAIMAN: Territorial consolidation has shown the benefits of multiple, interconnecting LTPRinterventions in achieving positive and lasting outcomes. CAIMAN’s successful efforts with theIndigenous Federation for the Cofán nationality in Ecuador (Federacion Indigena de la Nacionalidad Cofán delEcuador, FEINCE) have demonstrated the benefits of investing institutional strengthening, while theproject’s support for park guards and demarcation of boundaries have enhanced territorial defense.• Southern Border Integration Program: PSUR’s multi-sectoral approach reveals the importance ofworking with indigenous nationalities in a manner that simultaneously addresses their differentdevelopment needs.INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENTv

While CAIMAN and PSUR contributed to attainment of targeted outputs and lower-level outcomes, findingssuggest that their contributions toward higher-level outcomes—associated with territorial integrity,productive investment, and/or biodiversity conservation—have been limited.What was the efficacy of project approaches for achieving sustainable impact?The sustainability of CAIMAN’s and PSUR’s distinct approaches to strengthening territorial rights wasassessed through multiple lenses.• Cultural and Social Sustainability: There have been positive changes in public opinion on naturalresource conservation both at the national and indigenous community levels.• Institutional Sustainability: Increases in financial, administrative, and technical capacities of FEINCEto defend Cofán territory clearly attained a level of sustainability.• Economic Sustainability: Effective, conservation-friendly methods to generate income for indigenouspeople have yet to be widely introduced and expanded in the northern and southern border areas.• Political Sustainability: The assessment revealed the importance of separating the technical aspects ofdefending territorial rights from its political elements. One factor that appears to be have contributed tothe Cofán’s success in defending and conserving its territories is that technical support for these actions iskept separate from FEINCE, the political arm of the Cofán.• Sustainability of CAIMAN and PSUR Impact: Since termination of CAIMAN, respondents did notindicate a decline in FEINCE’s effectiveness or in the Cofán’s commitment to securing their territorialrights. In the case of PSUR, although the federation was executing titling activities by the end of theproject, it has not developed the fiscal resources nor maintained the technical capacity to title land on itsown.What are the implications for future LTPR programming to support indigenous territorialrights?The findings of the assessment suggest various considerations for future USAID/Ecuador programming inthe realm of indigenous territorial rights.• Resist generalization across indigenous groups: Cultural, geographical, and contextual differences ofindigenous nationalities (and communities within) must be carefully considered. These factors will shapethe ultimate success of interventions.• Shifting indigenous value systems: Under traditional practices, indigenous groups may be goodstewards of natural resources; however, economic pressures and the absorption of western values areincreasingly challenging these traditions. Project designs need to address these changes.• Integrated approach: An LTPR approach that enhances both the legal and social recognition of rights,supports mechanisms to defend those rights, and strengthens local institutions such that they can carryon these functions, will yield more sustainable results. Titling by itself is unlikely to lead to tenure securityor sustainable natural resources management.• Community vs. individual titles: Inalienable community land titles are more suited to maintaining thelong-term territorial integrity of indigenous communities’ ancestral lands than are individual titles.• Government involvement: Government obligations around monitoring and enforcement need to befulfilled at local and national levels if impacts on securing territorial rights are to be sustained.viINDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT

• Relationship of livelihoods to conservation: Consideration should be given to livelihood activities thatoffset the need to rely on resource extraction to meet basic needs as well as respect indigenouscommunities’ priorities, values, and geographical constraints.• Focus on higher-level outcomes: LTPR projects need to monitor progress toward higher-levelobjectives (e.g., tenure security, reduced encroachment, biodiversity conservation) as much as outputs(e.g., titles, management plans).In light of the impacts sustained by past projects, continued support for strengthening the territorial rights ofindigenous nationalities within Ecuador is recommended. Projects should continue support for strengtheningthe capacity of indigenous organizations to secure and defend territorial rights as well as building the capacityof communities themselves to demarcate territory and defend their borders. Nevertheless, more concertedefforts should be directed toward: 1) introducing conservation-friendly livelihood opportunities; 2)augmenting the financial sustainability of indigenous organizations; 3) addressing the growth in outsidepressures confronted by indigenous groups in defending their territories; and 4) eliciting stronger supportfrom relevant government entities in enforcing territorial rights. Finally, it is critical that LTPR interventionsto support territorial rights are informed by indigenous communities and implemented in a manner thataddresses the differing circumstances of each nationality.INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENTvii

1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OFASSESSMENTUnder the US Agency for International Development (USAID) Lesson Learned: Property Rights and NaturalResource Management (GLT2) Task Order, ARD, Inc. developed a land tenure and property rights (LTPR)impact assessment tool. This tool was crafted to assist USAID Missions assess impact of land tenure andproperty rights (LTPR) interventions and derive important lessons that can inform future programming. Itcomprises the sixth volume in a series of LTPR tools.Following a USAID review and subsequent revision of the draft impact assessment tool,USAID/Washington and ARD sought to field test the tool and reached out to various Mission candidates.USAID/Ecuador responded by requesting a rapid impact assessment of the Conservation in Areas Managedby Indigenous Groups Project (CAIMAN, in Spanish) and the Southern Border Integration Program (PSUR).Specifically, the assessment called for an analysis of: (a) the extent to which higher order CAIMAN and PSURobjectives were met; (b) expected and unexpected outcomes of CAIMAN and PSUR interventions; (c)efficacy of project approaches for achieving a sustainable impact; and (d) lessons learned.The scope of the assessment centered upon:• CAIMAN efforts to strengthen territorial rights of the Cofán nationality—particularly within theprovince of Sucumbios; and• PSUR support to enhance territorial rights of the Shuar nationality within the province of MoronaSantiago.It is important to point out that both CAIMAN and PSUR encompassed other components in addition tosupport for territorial rights, and each covered extensive geographic areas. A comprehensive analysis of theprojects, however, was beyond the scope and resources of this assessment.Overall, this assessment seeks to guide future decision making in terms of effective and sustainable ways tosupport indigenous groups in consolidating territorial rights and protecting natural resources.INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1

2.0 ASSESSMENT DESIGN2.1 METHODOLOGYThe assessment team was constructed to balance technical sector and programmatic expertise; the coreconsisted of four independent consultants: an LTPR specialist, a Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)specialist, an evaluation specialist, and an institutional development specialist. Throughout the fieldwork, theteam received logistical support from three host country nationals: one previously affiliated with CAIMANand the other two from CARE-Quito and CARE-Macas. ARD’s Land Tenure and Natural ResourceGovernance Specialist also accompanied the team and observed the use of the LTPR tool throughout theevaluation.The study utilized the LTPR Impact Assessment Tool as its touchstone methodology. Qualitative in nature,the tool seeks to understand impact from two distinct angles: (a) Outcomes–“What were the combination ofcauses that resulted in the given change or outcome?”; and (b) Interventions–“What changes or outcomesresulted from the given intervention?” Together, these questions help establish the extent to which LTPRinterventions contributed to their objectives as well as to other unanticipated outcomes.As the foundation of the LTPR assessment, CAIMAN and PSUR conceptual maps were designed throughanalyzing relevant project documentation and consulting with USAID/Ecuador and project implementingorganizations. The maps served as theoretical depictions of the outcomes that, according to project design,were expected to emerge from interventions. The team elected to focus on assessing change in higher orderoutcomes as they correspond to intended project impact. Annexes C and D provide the conceptual maps ofeach project.Data was gleaned from primary and secondary sources. Secondary collection included a review of technicalsector reports as well as CAIMAN and PSUR documents: quarterly reports, project evaluations, performancedata, and USAID reports. Primary data collection consisted of fieldwork in Quito, Lago Agrio, and Macasfrom March 3–15, 2007. Activities were conducted through the following means:• Semi-structured Interviews: Government representatives, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),project staff, and key informants were interviewed in each location (Quito, Lago Agrio, and Macas).• Rapid Appraisal Workshops: A total of four workshops, disaggregated by gender, were conducted withthe Cofán nationality: two in the Duvuno community (with 7 women and 11 men); and two in theDureno community (13 women; 8 men). Translators were hired to enable those who did not speak (orwere not comfortable speaking) Spanish to participate. Additionally, pictures and symbols were utilizedto encourage participation and close the literacy gap among respondents (see Annex H for the rapidappraisal protocol).• Group Observation and Inquiry: In Lago Agrio, the team observed and interacted with an annualassembly of Cofán community representatives (2 women and 38 men). In Centro Angel Rouby, teammembers attended a Shuar assembly held to elect local community leaders during which they observedongoing dialogues and posed a small number of evaluative questions (27 women and 43 men).• Supplementary Interviews: When needed, complementary interviews were conducted to verifyinformation or deepen that which was already gleaned.INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT 3

Although data analysis was iterative across the evaluation, its emphasis took place upon the conclusion offieldwork. The analytical phase kicked off with the presentation of preliminary findings to USAID/Ecuadorstaff for feedback and recommendations. A content and frequency analysis was performed afterward inproject outcome and intervention data organized in Excel spreadsheets. Triangulation techniques wereutilized to analyze the responses of key informants and identify repeated attributions that highlight patterns ofcausality and impact as well as important differences in perceptions.2.2 RESEARCH SAMPLEA purposeful non-random sampling approach was utilized to examine PSUR and CAIMAN stakeholders. 1 Inexamining this sample (composed principally of project beneficiaries, public sector officials and key NGOactors), the evaluation sought to determine the level and sustainability of impact upon a segment ofindigenous beneficiaries.TABLE 2.1: CAIMAN SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICSSAMPLEPOPULATION ASSESSMENT METHODIndigenous project Rapid appraisal workshops, semi-structuredbeneficiaries (Cofán interviews, group observation and inquiry,nationality)individual interviewsGovernment stakeholders(local and national levels)NGO stakeholders (localand national levels)SAMPLE GENDERSIZE CHARACTERISTICS79 22 women57 menSemi-structured interviews 8 1 woman7 menSemi-structured interviews, supplementary 19 2 womeninterviews17 menTOTAL: 106 25 women; 81 menTABLE 2.2: PSUR SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICSSAMPLEPOPULATION ASSESSMENT METHODIndigenous projectbeneficiaries (Shuarnationality)SAMPLESIZEGroup observation & inquiry 70 27 women43 menGENDERCHARACTERISTICSGovernment stakeholders(local and national levels)Semi-structured interviews 3 1 woman2 menDonor (GTZ) Semi-structured interviews 1 1 manNGO stakeholders (localand national levels)Semi-structured interviews 13 1 woman12 manTOTAL: 87 29 women; 58 menAs seen in Tables 2.1 and 2.2, a total of 193 informants were interviewed across the assessment. Selectioncriteria for the participants included: gender and indigenous nationality (in the case of communitystakeholders) and project affiliation or technical sector focus. Data from these key stakeholder groups weresystematically collected and compared across each project.1Selection of informants within this sample was principally driven by the implementing organizations: CARE (for PSUR) and the ex-CAIMAN Grants Manager (for CAIAMAN).4 INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT

2.3 LIMITATIONSThis assessment had various limitations that warrant illumination. First, the team was simultaneously chargedwith addressing two statements of work: one calling for the assessment of USAID/Ecuador’s LTPR effortsand another for the pilot testing and appraisal of ARD’s LTPR assessment tool. This dual focus prevented amore robust assessment, as sacrifices were required in terms of scope, level of effort, and time on the ground.Another key constraint was the challenging logistical nature of examining LTPR efforts in remote indigenouscommunities. This reality, combined with limited fieldwork time, precluded a more extensive sample. Instead,it required fieldwork to take place in the most logistically convenient indigenous communities within theCofán and Shuar territories.The study recognizes the limitations of an impact assessment that focuses upon select communities withintwo of Ecuador’s numerous indigenous nationalities. From the geographic location, to the level oforganization among representative entities, to the type and level of external threats, each nationality (andcommunities within) is distinct. While recommendations drawn form the analysis attempt to provide somegeneral LTPR guidance, it is far form prescribing a one-size-fits-all approach.Equally important, this study was not able to interview external stakeholders that may have been impacted byLTPR interventions or have alternative views about their outcomes (e.g., bordering indigenous nationalities,colonists, or companies). As external stakeholders are seen to possess an interdependent relationship to theefficacy of LTPR interventions and sustainability of succeeding outcomes, their absence in this analysis wasconsidered significant.Finally, and as seen in Tables 2.1 and 2.2, the level of time and effort spent reviewing PSUR activities wascomparatively less than CAIMAN due to limited time and resources. While this constraint was discussed withUSAID/Ecuador at the outset of the assignment, a rapid assessment of PSUR’s LTPR activities in Macas wasnonetheless considered valuable to Mission learning.INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT 5

3.0 CONCEPTUAL MAPS:INTERVENTIONS ANDOUTCOMES OF INTERESTThe assessment design drew from the CAIMAN and PSUR conceptual maps. The conceptual mappingexercise served two purposes: (a) to characterize each project’s LTPR intervention-to-outcome relationshipsas conceived in project design; and (b) to pinpoint higher-level expected outcomes against which impactwould be assessed. The following provides an overall description of this process within each initiative.3.1 CAIMAN PROJECTImplemented from 2002–2007, the CAIMAN project possessed the overarching goal of conservingbiodiversity in Ecuadorian indigenous territories. Activities were implemented under three thematic areas:territorial consolidation, financial sustainability, and institutional strengthening. While all themes areinterconnected, the assessment focused upon territorial consolidation and the crosscutting area ofinstitutional strengthening.CAIMAN’s approach to territorial consolidation involved a chain of mutually supporting LTPRinterventions designed to enable indigenous groups to control (via support for legal rights to ancestral land),defend (via mechanisms to protect legal rights), and conserve their associated land and resources. Complementingthis area was institutional strengthening of indigenous representative organizations, which helps theirconstituent communities secure and defend territorial rights among other duties.Between these two CAIMAN themes, seven key LTPR-related interventions were identified: (a) Legal andPolicy Dialogue; (b) Communal Titling; (c) Conflict Mitigation/Resolution; (d) Co-management Agreements;(e) Delimiting and Demarcating Boundaries; (f) Patrolling Borders; and (g) Institutional Strengthening.As part of the conceptual mapping process, key anticipated outcomes for each CAIMAN LTPR interventionwere identified from project documentation and interviews from executing agencies. Stemming from eachintervention, a series of low-level outcomes (or outputs) as well as mid- and high-level outcomes wereidentified. As the assessment was most concerned with determining impact, the following five outcomes ofinterest were selected:• Mid-level: (i) Effectively interacting with external actors regarding territorial rights;• High-level: (ii) Indigenous groups with adequate legal rights, (iii) territorial rights of indigenouscommunities respected, and (iv) indigenous communities honor legal obligations; and• Strategic Objective Level: (v) Biodiversity conservation.As a next step, indicators corresponding to each of these outcomes were identified as proxies forcharacterizing change. The indicators drove the methodology in assessing the outcome-side of CAIMAN’simpact and are highlighted in the CAIMAN Conceptual Map (see Annex C).INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT 7

3.2 SOUTHERN BORDERS PROGRAMFrom 2000–2007, PSUR was implemented along the Ecuador-Peru border as a multi-sectoral developmentprogram. The totality of PSUR encompassed four major components: income generation; social services(water and sanitation); local government; and natural resource management. The assessment centered uponthe relatively small natural resources management (NRM) component.The overarching objective of PSUR’s NRM component was to improve the management of natural resourcesin select areas along the southern border. Under NRM, the assessment examined three of five originallydesigned subcomponents or major LTPR interventions: (a) Protected Area Management; (b) CommunityForestry Management; and (c) Policy and Legal Issues.Through review of the project literature, the team produced a conceptual map that associated theseinterventions with expected outcomes. Two were then chosen as the focus of the assessment:• Mid-level: (i) Tenure security; and• High-level: (ii) Increased capacity to manage natural resources sustainably.Indicators were then designed for these outcomes of interest and are highlighted on the PSUR conceptualmap (see Annex D).8 INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT

4.0 FINDINGSThis section analyzes the responses to key questions posed by the assessment related to CAIMAN and PSURinterventions and outcomes of interest.First, the outcome-side of the inquiry is examined to determine: What were the combination of causes that resulted ina given change or outcome? For each outcome of interest, the analysis includes: (i) a description of the indicatorselected to approximate it; (ii) the change in indicator state and the factors contributing to this change asperceived or documented by the multiple sources consulted; and (iii) the degree to which the LTPRinterventions of the respective projects contributed to achieving expected outcomes, according to the sourcesconsulted.The intervention-side of the inquiry is subsequently assessed and considers: What changes or outcomes resulted fromthe given intervention? Under each intervention, the analysis is organized as follows: (i) description of theintervention; and (ii) outcomes seen to emerge from those interventions.In an effort to provide a summative understanding of findings as well as highlight recurring data, theresponses by each of the informants consulted for the CAIMAN project have been included in Annex E andF.4.1 CAIMAN: EXPECTED OUTCOMES OF INTEREST4.1.1 Expected Outcome 1: Effectively Interacting with External Actors RegardingTerritorial Rights (MO-7)Description of Targeted Indicator: CAIMAN dedicated significant effort to the institutional strengtheningof Indigenous Federation for the Cofán Nationality in Ecuador (Federacion Indigena de la Nacionalidad Cofán delEcuador, FEINCE). The project’s efforts were aimed not only at creating an organization that can crediblyrepresent the Cofán people, but also at developing an entity that successfully defend the Cofán’s territorialclaims. Thus, the indicator (MI) selected to measure this mid-level outcome (MO) was: Perception that theFederation is effectively managing territorial issues with external actors (MI-1 and MI-7).Change in Indicator States and Contributing Factors: Evidence of the maturation of FEINCE sinceCAIMAN began its work with the institution is obvious. A large number of the informants consultedaffirmed that in 2002 FEINCE existed only on paper. It had no staff, office, phone or lines, it carried debt,and it possessed no credibility with its Cofán constituency. Today, 19 individuals work in FEINCE’s wellequippedoffices. According to informants, the institution has established financial and accountingprocedures, manages projects, and receives funding from international organizations and the government ofEcuador, indicating significant institutional improvement.However, the question corresponding to the indicator remains: is FEINCE effectively managing territorialissues with external actors? From the perspective of the majority of those sampled, the answer is yes. Thecausal factor most cited for this improvement was CAIMAN’s institutional support of FEINCE. The otherprominent factor identified by multiple stakeholders was FEINCE’s relationship to and support by theFundación para la Sobrevivencia del Pueblo Cofán (also know as Fundación Cofán).INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT 9

Community members as well as NGO and government representatives provided numerous examples of howFEINCE is effectively managing territorial issues. These included: (a) the successful negotiation that led tothe recent titling of Cofán ancestral territory in Rio Cofánes; (b) FEINCE’s positive reputation with localgovernment officials; (c) the canton (municipality) of Nueva Loja providing the Cofán a space in themunicipal park to sell handicrafts; (d) the Cofán’s ability to leverage support from the local military; and (e)the improved relationship with the Fundación Cofán, which further strengthens FEINCE’s territorial defensecapabilities.At the community level in Dureno and Duvuno, opposing views about FEINCE were also expressed. Certaincommunity members felt that FEINCE was not providing adequate support to the Cofán community.Supplementary information gained from informants (i.e., not directly related to the query) reveals thefollowing possible explanations for these negative perceptions:• FEINCE’s leadership: Certain community members expressed discontent that FEINCE is led by acolonist (as opposed to a Cofán) who does not speak the Cofán language; and• FEINCE’s relationships to communities: The relationship between FEINCE and the Durenocommunity is stronger and more active than that with the Duvuno community. Distance betweenFEINCE and the communities as well as community leadership can all factor into this equation.Relevance of CAIMAN Interventions to Outcomes of Interest: Most stakeholders see CAIMAN’s role asa primary contributor to FEINCE becoming a more organized, capable institution. While CAIMAN hasclearly contributed to FEINCE’s improved ability to interact with external actors around territorial rights,evidence is much weaker in terms of the organization’s ability to attain higher-level LTPR outcomes (HOs):indigenous groups with adequate legal rights (HO-1); territorial rights of indigenous communities respected (HO-2); andindigenous communities honor legal obligations (HO-3). This, however, is seen by the assessment as part of a naturalprocess. Institutional strengthening occurs in a building block manner that necessitates stages. In the past fiveyears, FIENCE has made exceptional progress through solidifying operational, electoral, and administrativeprocesses; it now possesses a solid foundation upon which these higher-level outcomes may be secured.4.1.2 Expected Outcome 2: Indigenous Groups with Adequate Legal Rights(HO-1)Description of Targeted Indicator: Secure, defendable, and enforceable legal rights are vital to the abilityof indigenous nationalities to defend against encroachment and invasion of their territories. Legal rights alsoform one of the pillars of territorial integrity. 2 Two high-level outcome indicators (HIs) were identified tomeasure the adequacy of indigenous nations’ legal rights: (a) perception the state will support legal claims; and(b) perception of secure tenure status. The team selected the former, Perception the state will support legal claims(HI-1), to measure this indicator.Change in Indicator States and Contributing Factors: Respondents generally indicated that the statecurrently supports legal claims of indigenous nationalities. The majority of respondents described animprovement in state support between 2002 and the present. Yet those citing a positive trend—and thepolitical will bolstering it—often noted government resource constraints as seriously compromising theState’s ability to act. An example can be seen in the Lago Agrio office of the National Institute of AgrarianDevelopment (INDA), which is staffed by one technician who is responsible for preparing legalizationpaperwork and investigating property disputes for Sucumbios Province. At both local and national levels,2Territorial integrity is defined here as a state whereby a community’s land and natural resources can be controlled and defended in orderthat it can be conserved.10 INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT

concrete actions that provide indigenous groups with adequatelegal rights are perceived as significantly restricted by insufficientgovernment resources.“It is not that outsiders respectour territory, we have made themrespect it.”–FEINCE officialThe increase in state support over the past years was attributed toa combination of factors. The two most often cited were: (i) theorganizational advancements of indigenous entities; and (ii) the political will and posture of the currentgovernment. The 1998 Constitution’s guarantee of indigenous territorial rights, civil society pressure, andpublic opinion were also named as factors precipitating this change. Interestingly, only two parties mentionedtitling as a contributing factor to the state’s increased support of legal claims of indigenous nationalities.Relevance of CAIMAN Interventions to Outcome of Interest: Collected data reveals multiple causes forpositive change around state support for legal claims to indigenous territory, though CAIMAN was not notedas one of these causes. Yet, CAIMAN was associated with the organizational advancement of indigenousfederations—cited as a primary causal factor in promoting positive change in state support for legal claims.Specifically, this relationship can be traced to CAIMAN’s institutional strengthening efforts of FEINCE andlikely other indigenous federations as well.Today, FEINCE’s enhanced institutional capacity and ability to work with external stakeholders appear tohave enabled success in obtaining state support for Cofán territorial“The government will support the claims. This was recently demonstrated as FEINCE successfullyCofán with police force. Backing negotiated with the canton of La Bonita to register title of 30,000up the Cofán is backing up the hectares within Area Rio Cofánes, despite strong opposition frompresident.”other interests. CAIMAN’s institutional strengthening efforts appear–Local government official to have played an important role in FEINCE’s current capacity tosecure legal claims to ancestral territory.4.1.3 Expected Outcome 3: Territorial Rights of Indigenous CommunitiesRespected (HO-2)Description of Targeted Indicator: CAIMAN sought to empower indigenous nationalities with knowledgeand practical tools (through border patrols, boundary delimitation, trained paralegals, etc.) to better protectand defend their territory. Two high-level indicators were identified for this outcome: (a) incidences ofencroachment; and (b) perception of external stakeholder respect for indigenous territory. The high-levelindicator selected to assess this outcome was: Perception of external stakeholder respect for indigenous territory (HI-4)Change in Indicator States and Contributing Factors: Overall, respondents perceived that there isimproved respect for indigenous territory. The Cofán’s enhanced capacity to patrol and defend againstincursions was specifically mentioned. However, in terms of external respect for territory, significantpressures were seen to persist from outsiders seeking resources for individual/community consumption orfor commercial purposes.The respondents cited three primary reasons––all driven by Cofán territorial defense efforts—forimprovements in external respect: (i) park and forest guards; (ii) demarcation, delimitation, and conflictresolution along borders; and (iii) positive relationships with external actors and local authorities (e.g. Cofánability to call on local military assistance). Additional causes cited included the Cofán’s own will andknowledge, the Constitution, and corresponding political recognition of indigenous rights, land titles, and civilsociety pressure. Importantly, government respondents (particularly at the national level) noted an improvedlegal atmosphere, but appear to be limited in mitigating the intentions and efforts of multinational companies’utilization of natural resources.Relevance of CAIMAN Interventions to Outcome of Interest: A majority of respondents answered thisquestion along two lines of thought. On the one hand, external regard for territory has in large part remainedINDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT 11

the same. On the other hand, the ability of Cofán communities to defend their territory has increased, partlyas a result of CAIMAN’s territorial interventions. For example, the Kichwa-14 agreement, which transferred aportion of Cofán territory to the neighboring indigenous Kichwa community, is credited for reducingincursions in Dureno. In Cofán Bermejo, Cofán park guards and Ministry of the Environment (MOE) parkguardsworked together to form a human barrier that prevented the China National Petroleum Corporationfrom entering the reserve. Finally, in Dureno and Duvuno, targeted outreach sensitizing neighboringcolonists about collective rights has helped to reduce encroachment. CAIMAN’s territorial consolidationapproach contributed to a number of defense-oriented tools that appear to be generating degrees of externalrespect for their territory.4.1.4 Expected Outcome 4: Indigenous Communities Honor Legal Obligations(HO-3)Description of Targeted Indicator: In effort to measure the level to which indigenous communities honorlegal obligations, the assessment selected the high-level outcome indicator: Perception of degree of community'scompliance with co-management agreements and NRM plans (HI-6). In protected areas, co-management agreementsserve as the formal recognition of a legal right to land. NRM plans are prerequisites to titling or signing comanagementagreements. Upon analysis of information gleaned, however, it was recognized that thisindicator did not elicit precise information on co-management agreements and NRM plans. Instead, thephrasing of the indicator provoked discussion around a range of formal and informal NRM plans, includingthose linked to co-management agreements, titling, forestry plans, and the community’s formal and informalNRM processes. In addition, significantly less data was collected on this indicator in comparison to theothers. The results below attempt to sort the responses according to how the question was interpreted by theinformants.Change in Indicator States and Contributing Factors: Although compliance levels vary by indigenouscommunity, overall responses did not indicate strong compliance with resource use regulations as establishedin NRM plans. For example, in the community of Sinangue, the outdated NRM plan is completely ignored,while in the community of Savalo, the plan is reportedly followed to the letter (e.g., any family killing morethan the three allotted birds per year is fined $50). Yet Savalo appears to be the exception. In most cases, theNRM plans are developed and agreed upon as a way to satisfy a government requirement in order to obtain atitle or co-management agreement.In those cases where communities are honoring these legal obligations, respondents cited variouscontributing factors: (i) the existence of income generating activities that allow community members to meetfamily needs without depleting natural resources (most important); (ii) community participation in NRMplanning; (iii) support for NRM plan implementation from NGOs; and; (iv) FEINCE’s conservation focus.Relevance of CAIMAN Interventions to Outcome of Interest: It does not appear that CAIMAN’sinterventions have contributed to improving indigenous communities’ compliance of legal obligationssurrounding resource management. Indigenous communities will most often comply with co-managementand NRM plans if they see the value in doing so, if doing so fits into their own rules, objectives, and way oflife, or if there are serious consequences for not doing so. This in mind, it is important to note that whilenon-compliance of NRM use regulations is grounds for cancellation or non-renewal of co-managementagreements, minimal or non-existent monitoring on the part of the MOE facilitates such trends. The currentlack of resources around MOE monitoring is illustrated by the fact that only two ministry park guards areresponsible for patrolling 375,000 hectares of the Cayambe Coca Ecological Reserve where the Cofán have aco-management agreement.12 INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT

4.1.5 Expected Outcome 5: Biodiversity Conservation (SO-1)Description of Targeted Indicator: Biodiversity within Cofán indigenous territories is threatened by adiverse number of actors, including: (a) actors outside the territories that are contaminating water, soil, and airthat flow into the territories; (b) Cofán communities that extract resources on their own land; and (c) actorsoutside areas who encroach, invade, or negotiate access to land and/or resources. Key threats stem frompetroleum exploration and extraction, logging, mining, hunting, fishing, and medicinal plant harvesting. Theoverall purpose of the CAIMAN project was to conserve biodiversity in the chosen protected areas andbuffer zones managed by indigenous groups. The strategic objective indicator (SOI) selected to measure theproject’s highest-level outcome was: Perception that natural resources within indigenous territories are utilized by all actorsin a sustainable manner (SOI-1).Change in Indicator States and Contributing Factors: This indicator yielded mixed responses. Half of thesample indicated positive change between 2002 and 2008. The other half noted that there had been nochange or negative change in sustainable natural resource use by all actors over this time period. There is noclear pattern to this split in viewpoints. Cofán community members fell on both sides of the fence, withDureno men exhibiting a more positive attitude than Duvuno men. Women in both communities say thesituation has worsened. For the most part, NGO representatives reported that the situation has improved,while government representatives stated it has not. Potential reasons for divergent views perceived by theassessment team include:• Awareness of Contrary Forces: Pressures are simultaneously being exerted in support of and againstconservation (e.g., communities are regulating their own hunting/fishing but simultaneously experiencingan increased number of encroachments from neighbors);• Diverse Community Realities: The interpretation of “sustainable use of natural resources by all actors”differs across communities and is influenced by numerous factors including: culture, external and internalpressures, external support, and level of private-sector penetration; and• Diverse Perspectives and Frames of Reference: Differences in gender, age, location, or social statusmay affect how one perceives this indicator. As an example, one community member’s response focusedon quantity of medicinal plants while another’s focused on the departure of the oil company.When positive change in sustainable resource use was articulated, respondents attributed territorialcontrol/park guards as a primary cause. At the local level, community regulations for resource managementand the departure of oil interests were mentioned as contributing factors. At the NGO/government level,multiple respondents cited the Constitution and the government’spolitical will. When negative change was assessed, the primarycauses cited were invasion/encroachment, pressure placed byexternal actors, and oil contamination. Multiple respondentshighlighted the profit driving motives of companies as, “they will gowhere there resources are.” Respondents also made clear that whencompanies depart, the environmental situation improves.“Before, there were lots ofanimals and fish. Now I go fivedays without eating.”–Cofán elder from ChandiannaeRelevance of CAIMAN Interventions to Outcome of Interest: While progress has been made, thereappears to be a long road ahead toward achieving sustainable natural resource use by all actors. In the case ofthe Cofán, CAIMAN’s efforts aimed at territorial control seem to have given a boost to their ability to defendand protect their resources. Although CAIMAN’s efforts are seen to positively contribute to the strategicobjective of biodiversity conservation, other critical factors (e.g., the weakness of government capacity toenforce resource management regulations) seem to severely limit achievement of sustainable resource use andbiodiversity conservation.INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT 13

4.2 CAIMAN: INTERVENTIONS4.2.1 LTPR Intervention 1: Legal and Policy DialogueDescription of Intervention: The 1998 Ecuador Constitution established a legal basis that encouragedadvances by indigenous nationalities with respect to territorial consolidation. The Constitution gaverecognition to the political and civil rights of indigenous communities, including collective territorial rights.The CAIMAN project implemented outreach activities to inform indigenous community members aboutthese constitutionally based rights through workshops and brochures written in Spanish and relevantindigenous languages. In addition, the project trained paralegals selected from the Cofán communities in howto negotiate and defend their territorial rights and acquainted them with laws on agrarian development,mediation and arbitration, forestry, and others subjects. Together, these activities aimed to provide Cofánindividuals and entities with the legal knowledge and negotiating skills necessary to more effectively interactwith external actors and defend their rights.Prominent Outcomes: According to respondents, the key outcome yielded by these interventions was anincreased capacity to not only interact, but also to successfully negotiate with a wide range of actors:indigenous communities, ministries, colonists, and private companies. For example, Cofán forest guards areled by a paralegal. The paralegal’s ability to competently discuss legal rights gives weight to discussionsundertaken with colonists found encroaching on Cofán territory. In addition, respondents in the Cofáncommunities credited the awareness raising and training interventions with “waking them up” to a clearerunderstanding of ancestral rights and mechanisms to defend their territory. Thus, the legal and policy dialogueactivities of the project are seen to contribute to reaching mid-level outcome Effectively interacting with externalactors regarding territorial rights (MO-1). Although this intervention yielded positive results, numerousrespondents pointed to the lack of paid positions for newly trained paralegals. That is, once trained, there isvery limited opportunity for paralegals to apply this knowledge.4.2.2 LTPR Intervention 2: Community Land TitlingDescription of Intervention: Collective titling of ancestral lands was one of the major activities of theCAIMAN project. However, the large majority of Cofán territory falls within Ecuador’s protected areassystem and certain Cofán communities outside those protected areas were titled decades ago. Thus, the onlycollective titling undertaken by the project in Cofán territory was initiating a dialogue regarding the Area RioCofánes in La Bonita in the province of Sofia. 3 Accordingly, interview questions related to CAIMAN titlingwere more generalized, as opposed to specific activities undertaken in the Cofán territory.Outcomes: Respondents indicated that outcomes from CAIMAN’s land titling intervention yielded: (a) anenhanced perception around indigenous communities’ legal rights; (b) decreased conflict with neighbors; (c)an enhanced feeling of tenure security; and (d) decreased encroachment. The acknowledgement of ancestralrights represented by a legal title to land appears to provide both practical and social benefits to Cofáncommunities. These responses support two of the project’s higher-level outcomes: Indigenous groups withadequate legal rights (HO-1) and territorial rights of indigenous communities respected (HO-2).Additionally, there were two unexpected outcomes of titling cited by respondents: pride in land ownershipand changes in land use. While only part of a long-term process of change in Ecuadorian politics and socialdevelopment, legal land title is instrumental in providing indigenous communities with an official basis on3After project completion (2007), 30,000 hectares of the Area Rio Cofánes in Sofia was titled by ministerial decree.14 INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT

which to interact with society. Legal title also gives communities a sense of security in knowing that theycannot be arbitrarily removed from their land; this security may end up contributing to longer-termsustainable resource use and management strategies.4.2.3 LTPR Intervention 3: Conflict Mitigation/ResolutionDescription of Intervention: Resolution of conflicts between indigenous communities and theirsurrounding neighbors (colonists and other indigenous groups) were a primary focus of CAIMAN. Evenwhen indigenous communities have secured titles, conflicts still arise between actors. In order to enableresolution of conflicts, especially over boundary delimitation/demarcation or rights to specific naturalresources, workshops and meetings were facilitated by the project. Results of this intervention often resultedin the signing of good neighborliness agreements or paving the way toward titling. For example, conflictresolution in the Duvuno community led to the Kichwa-14 agreement.Outcomes: Typical responses demonstrated that conflict resolution was important to: (a) lowering theoverall level of conflict; (b) reaching agreements with neighbors; and (c) obtaining respect for territorial limits.The majority of outcomes articulated by respondents (agreements, demarcation, and conflicts reduced) referto output level outcomes as opposed to impact level outcomes. The responses did provide moderate evidenceof conflict resolution contributing to the high-level outcome, Territorial rights of indigenous communities respected(HO-2). However, contrary to project expectations that improved respect of territorial borders wouldcontribute to indigenous groups with adequate legal rights (HO-1), this link was not born out by the responses.Based on this picture, it appears that informants do not associate conflict mitigation with yielding formalizedtenure. This may be because titling was not a prominent activity within Cofán territory under CAIMAN, andsuch support was needed to fuel the linkage. Alternatively, while external stakeholders pointed to existingconflicts with colonists and other indigenous communities as a key issue confronting the Cofán, the objectiveof their resolution appears not to be titling.4.2.4 LTPR Intervention 4: Co-management AgreementsDescription of Intervention: In order to strengthen indigenous communities’ legal rights within protectedareas, CAIMAN helped establish co-management agreements between the MOE and indigenousorganizations. These agreements demonstrate state recognition of indigenous rights to land within theprotected area system. They also place obligations on indigenous groups to abide by specific regulations thatgovern use of natural resources. In the Cofán territory, CAIMAN facilitated co-management agreements for7,500 and 22,538 hectares within the Cuyabeno Wildlife Production Reserve and Cayambe-Coca EcologicalReserve respectively. In 2002, prior to CAIMAN, the Cofán had obtained a similar but legally weaker coadministrationagreement for 50,000 hectares within Cofán Bermejo Ecological Reserve.Outcomes: Respondents indicate that co-management agreements have fallen short in: (i) providing securelegal status; (ii) fostering a sense of tenure security, and (iii) advancing sustainable use of natural resources.On the first two points, the Cofán perceive that they are legally vulnerable with co-management agreementsand see them only as a step toward obtaining collective title. On the latter point, in most cases NRMrequirements contained within co-management agreements are not implemented by indigenous communities,nor are they adequately monitored or enforced by government agencies.Given the above, the CAIMAN’s support for co-management agreements had a limited effect on theexpected high-level outcome of Honoring of legal obligations by indigenous people (HO-3). Since no respondentsassociated the agreements with increased Respect for territorial rights of indigenous groups (HO-2), there wouldappear to be limited impact on this expected outcome. But it may also be that, between the Cofán and theirsupporters, the quest for titles overwhelmed their ability to find merit in co-management agreements.INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT 15

4.2.5 LTPR Intervention 5: Delimiting and Demarcating BoundariesDescription of Intervention: The enforcement of territorial rights is difficult to execute without physicalindicators of boundaries. These help internal and external actors understand and comply with territorialboundaries. Clearing land and placing signs that visibly demarcate the limits of each community’s territorywas an important intervention within the CAIMAN project. Trained community members, including parkguards, participated in delimitation and demarcation activities. Across Cofán territory, a total 248 kilometersof boundaries were demarcated.Outcomes: Within the project, this intervention aimed to support the following high-level outcomes:Indigenous groups with adequate legal rights (HO-1) and Territorial rights of indigenous communities respected (HO-2).Respondent opinions, however, were clearly focused on the latter. Many of those interviewed indicated thatthis intervention contributed to: (a) greater respect for territory; (b) improved security; (c) resolution ofdifficult issues; and (d) establishment of boundaries. In some cases, the clearing and marking of territorialboundary required the resolution of, sometimes decades-old, conflicts with neighboring communities(colonists or indigenous communities). It also allowed for reconciliation between legal boundaries and sociallyrecognized boundaries, contributing to the prevention of further conflicts.While not meriting the category of unexpected outcome, it is noteworthy that one respondent crediteddemarcation and delimitation for enabling park guards to work in a more informed manner. Thus, at least oneinformant identified the synergy between this intervention and other border enforcement activities.4.2.6 LTPR Intervention 6: Patrolling BordersDescription of Intervention: Border patrolling is a visible mechanism for the defense of property rights andthe enforcement of rule of law. Fundación Cofán and CAIMAN collaborated in creating the Cofán ForestGuard Program. Approximately 60 border guards (including women) received training on topics such as firstaid, global positioning systems use, conflict resolution, and biological monitoring. In addition to protectingterritory and demarcating and maintaining boundaries, park guards also collect data on the biological health ofthe flora and fauna within their boundaries (See Annex G, Figures G-1 and G-2 for park guard monitoringsheets). The guards are broken into two groups: (i) park guards monitor areas within the protected areasystem and possess the same rights as MOE guards; and (ii) forest guards monitor titled communities such asDuvuno and Dureno. Operationally speaking, the guards organize into roving patrols and staff rangerstations.Outcomes: Responses gleaned on this intervention demonstrate a strong linkage to attaining expected midleveloutcomes: Borders of indigenous territories respected (MO-3) and agreed property rights enforced at the local level (MO-4). Likewise, respondents point to an important tie between this intervention and the expected high-leveloutcome, Territorial rights of indigenous people respected (HO-2). The conservation of natural resources was alsoidentified as an outcome of the border patrol program. According to respondents, this is occurring throughthree means: (i) guards protecting natural resources within Cofán territory; (ii) guards earning a consistentincome that reduces pressure on the environment (i.e., usingland/resources to fulfill basic needs); and (iii) enhanced feelings ofresponsibility toward the environment on the part of youngCofáns participating in the guard program. Thus, the guardprogram was also seen as contributing to the attainment of thestrategic-level objective Biodiversity conservation (SO1).Additional important outcomes of border patrolling activitiescited included the generation of leadership skills and employmentfor (mainly young) community members. Several other interesting“I am happy and content that Ihave this work and that I amconserving the forest. Before, Inever had these types of ideasabout preserving animals andterritories like this. ”–Cofán park guard16 INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT

outcomes were noted by respondents, including that border patrolling makes visible the concept of territorialintegrity and promotes collective awareness about conservation of animal species and territorial defense. Thisactivity was seen to instill a sense of “legacy” in young Cofáns. Park/forest guard respondents emphasizedtheir motivation and need to protect their land for future generations. They also reported feelings of wellbeingand pride in carrying out their work. Clearly, border patrolling—through its active enforcement ofboundaries, prevention of encroachment, and protection of natural resources—is a key intervention in thechain that comprises territorial consolidation. There is ample evidence that this activity has impacted bothinternal and external actors through increased awareness and compliance with rules governing naturalresource use.Given the extensive and profound impacts associated with the park/forest guard program, the financialsustainability for this intervention was voiced as a major priority. Current annual costs are consideredreasonable as they are calculated at approximately $1/hectare per year. Donors such as Blue Moon Fund, theMacArthur Foundation, and the Moore Foundation have provided funding for this year and part of 2009, butbeyond this point, the program’s future is uncertain. Establishment of an endowment may be a longer-termsolution to continue the funding of this program.4.2.7 LTPR Intervention 7: Institutional StrengtheningDescription of Intervention: Before CAIMAN, FEINCE existed only on paper. Through costreimbursementgrants and the provision of technical assistance, CAIMAN’s institutional strengtheningintervention encompassed a range of activities: support for FEINCE’s physical infrastructure and operatingcosts and direct salary payments. Additionally, CAIMAN delivered capacity building in the form ofworkshops combined with on-the-job training in areas such as paralegal issues, computer literacy, labor, taxlaws, financial management, and proposal preparation. FEINCE’s planning and administrative capacitybuilding was carried out through two local NGOs and includedthe creation of operational manuals and related forms followed byintensive instruction on their utilization. FEINCE was alsotrained in management of projects and other technical areas. Overthe life of CAIMAN, FEINCE was decreasingly subsidized andhad to identify and secure new sources of financing.Expected and Unexpected Outcomes: Across the sample, stakeholders most often mentioned the lowerleveloutcomes associated with an operationally sound institution: ability to obtain funding, administrativecompetency, and negotiation competency. Evidence also points to attainment of the mid-level outcome:Effectively interacting with external actors regarding territorial rights (MO-7). However, and as discussed earlier, datadoes not show this intervention as leading to the achievement of the three higher-level outcomes (HO-1,HO-2, and HO-3). Again, this is considered to be a normal, owing to the extended nature of institutionalstrengthening processes. Impact on these higher order outcomes would be expected to emerge later on.4.3 PSUR: EXPECTED OUTCOMES OF INTEREST 4“The best thing CAIMAN did wasto strengthen FEINCE.”–NGO representative4.3.1 Expected Outcome 1: Tenure Security (MO-1.1)Description of Targeted Indicator: A common assumption among agricultural experts is that investment inland occurs mainly when tenants perceive they will be tenure secure (i.e., in control of the land and its4As detailed in the limitations section above, the succeeding PSUR findings are based on a limited field study and sample.INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT 17

products for an extended period of time). The mid-level indicator selected for this outcome was: Shuarcommunities’ willingness to make a long-term investment in land (MI-1). Typical long-term land investments includethe planting of old-growth trees (cedar or mahogany) as designated in forestry management plans.Change in Indicator States and Contributing Factors: No major change was observed or noted byrespondents in this indicator. Overall, respondents perceived that Shuar communities are unlikely to makelong-term investments on their land despite possessing a title. The following were seen to be prominentfactors that have left the state of this indicator as unchanged:• Poverty: Similar to the socio-economic situation of many indigenous nationalities in Ecuador, resourcesof Shuar family and community members are limited. This relative poverty restricts their ability to investin productive activities over the long term. In the past, for example, when provided with project supportfor fishponds, including fish fry, the fish were consumed before they reached maturity. While thissatisfied subsistence needs, no fish were available for reproduction or sale.• Short-term Needs and Perspectives: Numerous respondents referred to the Shuar’s traditional shorttermproduction perspective. Focus on day-to-day decision making rather than long-term planningappears to have limited their motivation to administer natural resources and make investments that canyield income while conserving the environment.• Communal vs. Individual Titling: Community land titling does not appear to have led to long-terminvestment in land. Upon receiving these titles, some community respondents expressed that they werenot free to utilize and/or sell the land as they wish. When probed about what would be done withindividual titles, it was indicated that the Shuar people would prefer to use the titles to obtain credit orsell the land, rather than to invest in it.• Payment for Conservation: Some Shuar respondents expressed the expectation that a financialbenefit/payment from external actors should be exchanged for sustainably investing in or conservingtheir natural resources. “Environmental services” is understood as abstaining from extracting naturalresources. Based on the limited sample, it appears that some level of financial offset is necessary tofacilitate conservation and/or sustainable investment.• Land-Use: Internally, there appears to be conflicting views on land use. In addition to the traditionalindigenous viewpoint that “land is our mother,” numerous Shuar respondents expressed that land servesas a resource to be sold for individual benefit or used for immediate needs. Finally, it was also perceivedthat for some, land also serves political purposes.Relevance of PSUR Interventions to Outcome of Interest: As there was no perceived change in theoutcome indicator, it does not appear that PSUR interventions havecontributed to improving the tenure security of the Shuar. Based onthe limited sample, it is clear that efforts around titling,strengthening legal protection for the Cordillera Kutuku, orforestry/logging plans are not facilitating a long-term investment onland. The complex set of socio-economic factors detailed above canprovide some causal markers as to why.“Community land titling is notgood because we can’t get creditto sell property.”–Shuar community member4.3.2 Expected Outcome 2: Increased Capacity to Manage Resources Sustainably(HO-2)Description of Targeted Indicator: There is an outstanding richness of natural resources in the Shuarterritory. However, this plant and animal life there is vulnerable and can be easily destroyed by internal orexternal actors’ negligence or misuse. In effort to measure this expected outcome of interest, the assessment18 INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT

targeted the high-level outcome indicator (HI): Perception that natural resources are utilized in a sustainable manner(HI-1)Change in Indicator State and Contributing Factors: The region can be divided into two general areas:the Trans Kutukú and the Upano River basin, near Macas. Change in the state of the indicator was differentin the case of each region.In the Trans Kutuku region, no major change in the use of natural resources was cited over the past sevenyears (life of the PSUR). The Trans Kutukú, representing the majority of Shuar territory and a minority of theShuar population, remains a relatively untouched and fairly pristine zone. It appears that the primarycontributing factor regarding the lack of change in the Trans Kutuku area is its geographic isolation. Whilethis has enabled a level of protection for natural resources, the situation may change with the roadconstruction that is slated to cut through this zone.Over the life of PSUR, most stakeholders described an overall deterioration in natural resources in the UpanoRiver zone as indicated by declining numbers of animals and plants—particularly trees and medicinal herbs.Respondents attributed this to the massive deforestation of the region resulting from a government policy inthe 1960s that required the majority of land be under “active production” in order to maintain a title. Whilethis policy is no longer in effect, its result was a depleted natural resource base at the start of PSUR. TheMOE indicated that 70% of the wooded area had been cut before the year 2000. The degree of additionaldeforestation that has taken place in the Upano zone over the past five years is not clear. However, it is clearthat the Shuar frequently extract resources, such as wood, to sell for cash.Relevance of PSUR interventions to Outcome of Interest: Surprisingly, none of the surveyedrespondents credited the titling interventions carried out by PSUR for advances in sustainable NRM use.However, PSUR’s titling interventions were credited with providing protection against outsiders andpreventing further damage in the Upano River region. While titling can be seen as contributing to theprevention of encroachment, its effect on sustainable natural resource management in the Upano area islimited due to the existing extensive damage to natural resources. In terms of the Trans Kutuku region,geographic isolation—which prevents access to markets and restricts demographic pressures—seems to havebeen the key factor in its unchanged natural resource state. Finally, and in both regions, PSUR’s communityforestry management and protected area management interventions were not fully implemented and thus didnot contribute to this outcome.4.4 PSUR: INTERVENTIONS4.4.1 LTPR Intervention 1: Policy and Legal Issues (Titling)Description of Intervention: Land titling was the primary intervention in the PSUR policy and legal issuessub-component. 5 Communal land titling was carried out in both the Upano and Trans Kutuku areas. Limitedindividual land titling was carried out in the Upano River area.As part of titling activities, PSUR measured and marked borders, secured agreements with neighboringlandowners and tenants, elaborated management plans, and completed the requisite paperwork for titling ofancestral lands. Initially, CARE subcontracted the services of an Ecuadorian NGO, Ecolex, to carry out5In the case of the Shuar, the costs related to legalization of land have historically been financed by outside actors such as NGOs. Both thegovernment and the Shuar communities are accustomed to this external support and FICSH has not found alternative sources of funding.In the future, this may prove to be a stumbling block to the continuation of titling.INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT 19

titling. In addition, several organizations carried out various conservation and policy studies that providedsupport for titling. However in 2004, at the request of the Inter-provincial Federation of Shuar Communities(FICSH), the responsibility for titling was shifted directly to FICSH. To complete this process, CARE trainedparalegal and forestry technicians within FICSH to take on these tasks. CARE also contracted a lawyer toprovide legal support throughout the processOutcomes: The project was successful in securing communal titles far beyond its original targets. By 2005,the project has already titled 100,000 hectares out of an eventual total of 229, 654. Respondents identified anumber of positive outcomes that stemmed from this intervention, including: (a) providing value toindigenous skills; (b) giving value to the land; (c) empowering the Shuar to manage their own land; and (d)reducing conflicts. Taken as a whole, these responses serve as moderate evidence that titling is graduallymoving toward the mid-level outcome, Tenure Security (MO-1.1). Here, it is important to consider that thestate of the indicator for Tenure Security, Shuar communities’ willingness to make a long-term investment on land (MI-1),was earlier described as unchanged. However, based on the combination of respondent-generated outcomes,the assessment considers titling to be moderately contributing to tenure security from the perspective ofrestricting encroachment. This being the case, there is little evidence that its has manifested higher-leveloutcomes, particularly Increased productive investment on land that uses natural resources sustainably (HO-1) or Increasedcapacity to manage natural resources sustainably (HO-2).4.4.2 LTPR Intervention 2: Community Forestry ManagementDescription of Intervention: The elaboration of integrated forest management plans, including loggingplans, was completed as a formal requirement for land titling in order to guide better use of forest lands.PSUR financed the creation of these plans along with workshops that addressed forestry regulations.Outcomes: Integrated community management plans covering 184,563 hectares (as compared to a planned100,000) were completed. However, respondents claim that these plans are not being implemented. Manyalso noted that the Shuar view the plans as imposed by outside interests. In the case of the Trans Kutukúreserve, land was divided into several areas with different types of titles. Yet, according to respondents, noneof the management plans required by the titling have been carried out because the Shuar maintain that, asowners of the land, they have the right to determine how it is utilized.Similar to those in CAIMAN, many PSUR stakeholders indicated that management plans were createduniquely for the process of titling. Accordingly, low-level outcomes (or outputs) have been achieved throughestablishing Logging and integrated forest management plans (LO-2). The information does not demonstrate,however, that this intervention led to PSUR higher-level outcomes: Increased productive investment on land that usesnatural resources sustainably (HO-1) or Increased capacity to manage natural resources sustainably (HO-2).4.4.3 LTPR Intervention 3: Protected Area ManagementDescription of Intervention: This component included the elaboration of three conservation plans, severalproposals for conservation concessions, studies on deforestation and hunting, a rapid ecological assessment,and mapping of project areas.Outcomes: It appears that no completed protected area management plan was submitted for the TransKutuku forest zone. CARE completed a conservation plan, but the MOE indicated that there was no followupto this plan. Ecociencia, the primary institution responsible for this sub-component, left part way throughthe process. Consequently, no outcomes can currently be assessed for this intervention.20 INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT

5.0 INSTITUTIONALSTRENGTHENINGInstitutional strengthening of indigenous entities is considered as a key intervention that heightens thepotential of efficacy and sustainability of indigenous territorial consolidation interventions. Accordingly, itssuccesses and challenges within both projects are highlighted below.5.1 CAIMAN: FEINCESuccesses: FEINCE has made exceptional progress since CAIMAN began to work with the organization in2003. From the ground up, it has established a physical infrastructure, accumulated staff, securedorganizational and technical capabilities, developed relationships with external actors, and strengthenedconnections to its Cofán constituents. FEINCE has gone from an ineffective organization existing only onpaper to an entity that has been recognized as the legitimate voice of the Cofán people. The mutuallybeneficial relationship with Fundacion Cofán has further strengthened FEINCE and allowed a clearseparation of political and technical functions, with FEINCE taking over the former and the FundacionCofán maintaining the latter. This has enabled technical work to advance separate from political interests. Thewillingness of organizations such as CARE, The Nature Conservancy, the Institute for the Eco-developmentof the Amazon Region, the Field Museum, and the Government of Ecuador’s Child Development Fund toprovide grants (including those that are competitively awarded) to FEINCE attests to the organizationalprogress achieved.Challenges: FEINCE faces challenges in obtaining ongoing financial support, specifically funding that is notdependent on often-shifting donor programming priorities. The federation will further benefit fromenhancing the professional capabilities of its in-house staff and adopting by-laws and practices that allowprofessionals to remain within the organization—even after leadership changes. While FEINCE is nowviewed as the legitimate representative of the Cofán, it needs to forge stronger relationships with all of itsconstituent communities. The strong partnership FEINCE has with Fundacion Cofán yields many technicaland financial sustainability benefits and should be strategically built upon over the long term.5.2 PSUR: FISCHIn 2003, CARE and FICSH reached an agreement whereby the implementation of NRM subcomponentactivities on land titling would be carried out primarily by FICSH. In order to better implement thissubcomponent, CARE carried out two kinds of institutional strengthening activities within FICSH: (a)training of community members in forestry skills, including mapping and GPS, to broaden FICSH’s capacityto carry out land titling activities; and (b) administrative and accounting training of FICSH staff. FICSHcontinued to work with a lawyer to complete the titling process.Successes: FICSH has managed to rally segments of various communities to effectively defend the Shuar’sproperty rights. FICSH also has a clear vision of the Shuar’s desire to control its own destiny. Finally, theINDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT 21

federation has managed to build a bridge between communities and outside actors, despite previous negativeexperiences and general distrust.CARE interventions, particularly forestry training, resulted in the establishment and maintenance of atechnical capacity within the Shuar community. The foresters trained by the project possess skills in mappingand GPS and are able to carry out basic forestry management. They also periodically staff an enterprise withinFICSH that was created during the project to facilitate the titling process.Challenges: Currently, FICSH is seen as capable of assuming the responsibility of further titling activitieswith the support of CARE or other qualified external agencies. Since the end of project, however, FICSH hasnot carried out any further titling procedures. While they have been able to organize required documents, theylack the legal expertise and finances necessary to complete these processes. The technical enterprise, whilestill loosely operating, does not receive adequate support from the federation nor is there an adequate marketfor its services in the local communities. The enterprise is offering a specialized service of removing trees,using a minimally destructive process. However, respondents noted that potential customers are not willing topay the higher costs associated with sustainably harvested wood.According to several respondents, politics appears to be the main preoccupation of the Shuar organizations.There are ongoing political conflicts within and between communities. In addition, there are three separatefederations representing the Shuar: FICSH, the Organization of Shuar Communities of Ecuador, and theIndependent Federation of the Shuar Community of Ecuador. FICSH, the federation representing thecommunities working with CARE, suffers from frequent changes in leadership that in turn precipitates thereorganization of administrative and technical staff. Overall, internal conflicts and constant changes restrictthe federation’s institutional knowledge and delivery of services.Although FICSH is 45 years old, it has a limited capacity to administer resources and engage in strategicplanning. With technical and financial support from outside organizations, FICSH has been able tosuccessfully manage complex projects. For example, the federation successfully managed a convention centerand a cattle farm with the support of the Salesian Order. However, at present they desire full control over theimplementation of all project activities. Any future technical interventions with the Shuar represented byFISCH must leverage the group’s desire to maintain control of activities and manage funds in order to buildtheir capacity to do this effectively.22 INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT

6.0 SUSTAINABILITY OF LTPRAND NRM ACHIEVEMENTSThe sustainability of CAIMAN’s territorial consolidation activities and PSUR’s natural resources managementcomponent can be assessed through multiple lenses as detailed below:Cultural and Social Sustainability: There have been positive changes in public opinion on natural resourceconservation both at the national and indigenous community levels. Civil society’s increasing conservationconsciousness, foreign and local activism, and cultural tendencies of certain indigenous communities (e.g., thepro-conservation values and attitudes of the Cofán) all help foster sustainability of project activities.Institutional Sustainability: Strong local organizations combined with efficient and active government (atlocal and national levels) are necessary for the long-term sustainability of any intervention. A level ofsustainability has clearly been attained through increasing FEINCE’s financial, administrative, and technicalcapacities to defend Cofán territory. Likewise, there is both the political atmosphere and established policiesthat favor the integrity of indigenous groups’ territorial rights. However, much needs to be done tostrengthen the role and increase the financial and technical resources of specialized government agencies(particularly the MOE and INDA) so that they can more effectively contribute to the protection of theenvironment and enforcement of indigenous groups’ territorial rights.Economic Sustainability: Effective, conservation-friendly ways to generate income for indigenous peoplehave yet to be widely introduced and expanded in the northern and southern border areas. Appropriate typesof economic activities should take into account the constraints inherent in local markets, distance andassociated transport costs to access markets, and the limited education and business skills among indigenouspeople. Alternate employment options that promote conservation can include: income generation fromendowment funds, payment for environmental services, as well as government reinvestments in conservationservice performed by communities (for example, allocating park entrance fees to pay park guards) should beconsidered within future project programming. In the long term, conservation in indigenous territories willnot succeed unless people occupying those areas embrace income-generating alternatives to logging and otherextractive pursuits.Political Sustainability: The assessment has highlighted the importance of separating the technical aspectsof LTPR and NRM from its political elements. One factor that appears to be contributing to FEINCE’seffectiveness is that its technical capacity to support land titling is drawn from outside the political arm of theorganization. As well, FEINCE is currently discussing internal rules that would prevent technical andadministrative staff from turning over when leadership changes. At the national level, divisive politicaldebates persist on the topic of indigenous territorial rights, such as the amount of land and control of naturalresources that indigenous groups (a small minority in Ecuadorian society) should maintain. The sustainabilityof interventions supporting indigenous land rights will therefore depend on how that debate is managed andthe relative strength of competing forces.Sustainability of CAIMAN and PSUR Impact: Since termination of the CAIMAN project, stakeholdersinterviewed for this assessment did not indicate a decline in FEINCE’s effectiveness or in Cofáncommitment to secure their territorial rights. Instead, examples were provided of the Cofán’s emerging abilityand capacity to maintain and protect borders and negotiate with external stakeholders. In the short-run, thisINDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT 23

demonstrates a solid level of sustainability. In the longer-term, however, sustainability will depend uponnumerous factors, including FEINCE’s continued and enhanced ability to attract financing, diversify itsdonor support, maintain committed and effective leadership, and sustain Cofán commitment to conservation.In the case of PSUR, the institutional strengthening of FISCH has not yielded equal results in terms ofsecuring and defending territorial rights. Although FISCH was executing titling activities by the end of PSUR,the federation has not developed the fiscal resources nor maintained the technical capacity to title land on itsown. Equally important, titling as a sole LTPR intervention seems unlikely to yield sustainable resource use inShuar territory. Rather, there is a need for complementary support for enforcement of territorial rights andincome-generating efforts that make natural resource extraction less necessary and attractive.24 INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT

7.0 LESSONS LEARNED ANDCONCLUSIONAcross the sample, participants were asked to identify key lessons learned from working with indigenousgroups to secure their territorial rights. This final section provides a summary of these lessons that are insome cases drawn directly from informant responses and in others developed by the assessment team basedon investigation results. In either case, they aim to provide some guiding markers around LTPR programmingfor indigenous territorial rights.7.1 LTPR PROGRAMMING CONSIDERATIONS FOR INDIGENOUSTERRITORIAL RIGHTSProject Design and Implementation of LTPR Activities• Resist generalization across indigenous groups: Cultural, geographical, and contextual differences ofindigenous nationalities (and communities within) must be carefully considered when designing LTPRand NRM projects. These differing realities can influence the willingness and ability of people to makelong-term investments in land and to implement conservation activities.• Gender differences: Men and women within indigenous communities often have different values whenit comes to NRM. They may adopt different criteria to determine the state of natural resources withintheir communities and may be impacted differently by project interventions.• Shifting indigenous value systems: Under traditional practices, indigenous groups may be goodstewards of natural resources; however, economic pressures and the absorption of Western values areincreasingly challenging their cultural customs. With increasing value attached to land and scarce naturalresources, the securing of land rights by indigenous nationalities may not only serve cultural and/orconservation purposes, but also political and economic ends. Indigenous nationalities need to be engagedin shaping project objectives and activities up-front to facilitate their buy-in and increase the likelihoodfor their continuation.• Benefits of an integrated approach: An integrated LTPR approach that enhances both the legal andsocial recognition of rights, supports mechanisms to defend those rights, and strengthens localinstitutions such that they can carry on these functions will yield more sustainable results than the isolatedimplementation of any single intervention.• Securing legal rights (community vs. individual title): Titling by itself is unlikely to lead to tenuresecurity or sustainable NRM. Inalienable community land titles are more suited to maintaining the longtermterritorial integrity of indigenous communities’ ancestral lands than are individual titles. Withcommunity titles, indigenous groups are likely to be in a stronger position to defend their rights in theface of powerful outsiders and possess greater political clout. Conservation of landscape level resources(e.g., forests and waterways) is also enhanced when communities have shared rules about theirmanagement and take joint action to conserve them; such collective action is aided when the rights toresources are held in common. In protected areas, co-management agreements are falling short indelivering tenure security and promoting compliance with their associated NRM plans.INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT 25

• Government involvement: Government obligations around monitoring and enforcement need to befulfilled at local and national levels. Limited government investment negatively impacts the effectivenessand sustainability of project interventions. Government staff, at all levels, must become actively engagedin supporting the integrity of indigenous territories for this to become a reality. Strong national policiesand political will are fundamental, but if they are not backed up with action and funds, their aims willonly be partially realized at best. In order to successfully manage resources sustainably, government mustplay an active role in monitoring the resource management practices of indigenous communities andother stakeholders.• Relationship of livelihoods to conservation: In designing conservation programs, considerationshould be given to livelihood activities that offset theneed to rely on resource extraction to meet basic needs.Employment directly related to conservation functionssuch as park guards is particularly advantageous as itprovides income generation as well as instillsconservation ethics.• Income generation that respects circumstances and culture: Sustainable NRM requires creativeconsideration and implementation of income generating alternatives (e.g., endowments, agriculture,payment for environmental services, or small enterprise development) that respect indigenouscommunities’ priorities, values, and geographical constraints. To date, this has been difficult toaccomplish within Ecuador’s indigenous territories. USAID/Ecuador may wish to consider supporting astudy that harvests successful income generating strategies implemented by indigenous groups across theworld and their particular lessons. This study could specify how to adapt such strategies to suit theparticular circumstances confronted by Ecuador’s indigenous nationalities.• Multiple benefits of park guards: Park guards are a powerful and visible symbol of an indigenouscommunity’s control over territory. In addition to reducing encroachment, they provide multiple benefits,including providing employment opportunities to men and women, building leadership skills, monitoringand protecting biodiversity, and fostering feelings of pride and well-being among community members.• Job-based training: Training and capacity building should be linked to immediate practical application.When appropriate, it should be implemented through longer-term mentoring support (e.g., CAIMAN’sgrant manager working on a continual basis to transfer financial and administrative skills to FEINCE).Institutional Strengthening• Capacity to manage funds: Administrative and financial strengthening of indigenous organizations iscritical to enabling them to attract new funding to support sustainable LTPR and NRM activities.• Separate political and technical functions of indigenous representative entities: Organizationswhere political and technical functions are intertwined have difficulty maintaining focus and continuitywith respect to the technical work. Thus, projects may attain better results when the political andtechnical tasks associated with their objectives are maintained separately, either as independent units orentities.• Leadership stability matters: Leadership instability and associated staff turnover impedes the capacityof indigenous organizations to function on an effective and sustainable basis.Sustainability“The forest is rich but it isassociated with poverty.”–MOE official• Do not expect people to work for free: Indigenous organizations can not grow and succeed based onvolunteer labor alone. Without salaries, people are susceptible to corruption and cannot be expected todevote their full attention to the needs of the organization.26 INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT

• Financing: Financial sustainability options should consider both the establishment of endowments tosupport certain activities as well as an increasing government commitment to allocate of funding forstrengthening territorial rights and promoting conservation.• Focus on higher-level outcomes: LTPR projects need to monitor progress toward higher-leveloutcomes (e.g., tenure security and natural resource management) as much as outputs (e.g., titles andmanagement plans). As we have seen in this assessment, attaining the latter does not necessarily lead tothe former.7.2 CONCLUSIONSThe findings of this rapid impact assessment indicate that certain progress has been made in Ecuador towardconsolidating indigenous territories and conserving biodiversity. The government’s supportive stance inrecent years toward indigenous rights and conservation has created opportunities for advancement. Throughland titles and co-management agreements, the state possesses the legal instruments to recognize indigenousnationalities’ rights to significant portions of Ecuador's rich biodiverse forests.Overall, the CAIMAN and PSUR projects have contributed to securing legal rights to indigenous territories,protecting territorial limits, strengthening the capacity of indigenous organizations to advocate for and defendterritorial rights, and assisting communities to better protect and manage their land. Within each project, theassessment has uncovered promising approaches that warrant future consideration. In the case of CAIMAN,territorial consolidation has shown the benefits of multiple, interconnecting LTPR interventions in achievingpositive and lasting outcomes. CAIMAN’s successful efforts with FEINCE have also demonstrated thepowerful potential of institutional strengthening. On the other hand, PSUR’s multi-sectoral approach revealsthe importance of working with indigenous nationalities in a manner that simultaneously addresses theirdifferent development needs.While the CAIMAN and PSUR projects contributed to attainment of lower-level outcomes (e.g., hectarestitled, in the case of PSUR, or kilometers demarcated, in the case of CAIMAN), the assessment findingssuggest that their contributions toward higher level outcomes associated with territorial integrity, productiveinvestment, and/or biodiversity conservation have in some instances been mixed and at times even negligible.In some cases, it may be that more time is needed before impact on these higher-level project objectives canbe realized (e.g., biodiversity conservation), or that continued support is needed if these impacts are tomaterialize and be sustained.Biodiversity conservation should be viewed as a long-term endeavor, as should preservation of the culturalheritage of Ecuador’s indigenous nationalities. While pressures against conserving both biodiversity andcultural heritage are enormous (loggers, miners, oil interests, the expansion of Western values, populationgrowth, poverty, etc.), the stakes are too great to let the difficult road ahead prevent continued efforts topreserve and conserve. The achievements of CAIMAN and PSUR should be complemented in the future byefforts to promote a strong legal foundation, active government monitoring and enforcement mechanisms,and decisive involvement from internal and external stakeholders in support of indigenous rights andbiodiversity conservation.In contrast to the policies promoting the expansion of the agricultural frontier during the 1950s and 1960s,future policies and political decisions should be guided by careful assessment of the environmentalconsequences and threats to resource sustainability before embarking on new ventures. For example, plans tobuild a road that would link the Trans Kutuku with the rest of the Province of Morona Santiago couldtransform the culture of Shuar communities living in the reserve and irreversibly damage the region’sbiodiversity.Continued support for strengthening the territorial rights of indigenous nationalities within Ecuador isrecommended. In light of the positive impacts sustained by past projects and lessons they have generated, it isINDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT 27

critical to ensure that LTPR activities be incorporated in a manner that addresses the differing circumstancesof each nationality and wins their active support for its goals.28 INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT

ANNEXESINDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT 29

ANNEX A: LIST OFDOCUMENTS REVIEWEDAlcalde, Martin, et al., Peace Parks in the Cordillera del Cóndor Mountain Range and BiodiversityConservation Corridor.Brady, Cynthia, Reducing Conflicts in the Indigenous Territories on the Ecuador/ Colombian Border, October 2007.CAIMAN, Eighteen Month and Final Work Plan: October 2005–March 2007, Chemonics International:Quito, March 2007.CAIMAN, Second Quarterly Report: April 2003–June 2003, Chemonics International: Quito, June 2003.CAIMAN, First Quarterly Report: June 2002–March 2003, Chemonics International: Quito, March 2003.CAIMAN, Second Quarterly Report: April 2003–June 2003, Chemonics International: Quito, June 2003.CAIMAN, Third Quarterly Report: July 2003–September 2003, Chemonics International: Quito, September2003.CAIMAN, Quarterly Report: April 2004–June 2004, Chemonics International: Quito, June 2004.CAIMAN, Quarterly Report: January 2005–March 2005, Chemonics International: Quito, March 2005.CAIMAN, Quarterly Report: April 2005–June 2005, Chemonics International: Quito, June 2005CAIMAN, Quarterly Report: January 2006–March 2006, Chemonics International: Quito, March 2006.CAIMAN, 2006 Indicator Tables, Chemonics International: Quito, 2006.Chemonics International, Helping Indigenous Nationalities in Ecuador Conserve Their Territory and Culture:Conservation in Indigenous Managed Areas Final Report, April 2007.Dirección Nacional Forestal, Ministerio del Ambiente, Estrategia de Desarrollo Forestal Sustentable.Dirección Nacional Forestal, Ministerio del Ambiente, Procedimiento para Adjudicación de Tierras, 2008.ECOLEX, Analisis Sobre la Incidencia de los Insturmentos Politicos y Legales Sobre Los Derechos Territoriales Inigenas,ECOLEX: Quito, November 2003.INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT A-1

ECOLEX, Diagostico Sociocultural de Genero y Necesidades de Capacitacion – Pueblos Indiginas Awa, Cofán y Huarani,ECOLEX: Quito, undated.ECOLEX, Informe del Posicionamiento de Conflictos en Territorio Cofán, ECOLEX: Quito, undated.ECOLEX, Manual de Formacion de Paralegales Comunitarios, ECOLEX: Quito, undated.Fundacion Futuro Latinoamericano, Informe de la Evaluacion de la Capacitacion: Prevencion y Manejo de Conflictos yNegociacion Colaborativa Para los Lideres de las Nacionalidades Cofán, Awa y Huaorani, USAID: Quito, June 2005.Ministerio del Ambiente – Republica del Ecuador, Politica y Estrategia Nacional de Biodiversidad Del Ecuador 2001–2010,MoE: Quito, undated.Moncada, Martha, et al., Ecuador NCSA Perifil Tematico en Biodiversidad, Ecociencia: Quito, undated.Morales-Fejido, Manolo, Documento Politico-Legal Sobre Aspectos Territoriales E Indigenas, Quito, undated.Kernan, Bruce and M. Stern, Report on Tropical Forests and Biological Diversity, Country Strategy Statement FY2007–FY2012, USAID: Quito, March 2006.Ministerio del Ambiente, Política y Estrategia Nacional de Biodiversidad del Ecuador 2001–2010.PSUR, Informe Final Programa Sur, Periodo Ocutbre 2000–Septiembre 2007, CARE: Quito, Noviembre 2007.PSUR, Informe Preliminar: Borrador Evaluacion de Program Sur, CARE: Quito, undated.PSUR, Narativo Conolidado: Analisis de de la Estrategia y Logros del Programa, PSUR: Quito, September 2007.PSUR, Resumen Ejecutivo, PSUR: Quito, September 2007.PSUR, Resumen de la Propuesta Original, PSUR: Quito, September 2007.Schofield, et al., Mid-Term Evaluation: Ecuador Border Region Development Program ASSA/PSUR, Submitted toUSAID/Ecuador by Development Associates, Inc., Agust 2003.Solis, Fernando et al., Informe Final Programa Sur, November 2007.Stocks, Anthony, Assessment of USAID/Ecuador's Strategy to Conserve Biodiversity on Indigenous Lands, USAID:Quito, September 2005.USAID/Ecuador, “CAIMAN Scope of Work,” USAID: Quito, undated.USAID/Ecuador, “RFA: Actividad para el Desarrollo de la Región Fronteriza del Ecuador (EBRDA) No. 518-00-A-001,” USAID: Quito, May 2000.Internet ResourcesA-2 INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Consejo de Desarrollo de las Nacionalidades y Pueblos del Ecuador (CODENPE): http://www.codenpe.gov.ec/The Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE): http://conaie.nativeweb.org/The Chicago Field Museum: http://www.fieldmuseum.org/Fundación Ecuatoriana de Estudios Ecológicos: http://www.ecociencia.org/INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT A-3

NUEVA LOJA (LAGO AGRIO)Maximo Abad, Mayor of Lago Agrio, Municipalidad de OrellanaRoberto Aguinda, Forest Guard, FEINCEAlfredo Buitron, Executive Director, Manos SolidariosJosé Castillo, SISA Director, Consejo ProvincialVictor Hugo Chala, Assessor to the Prefecture, Consejo ProvincialGuido Coloma Ballesteros, Provincial Director, INDARita Cardona, Director of Education, FEINCEEmeregildo Criollo, Project Coordinator, FEINCETeyo Criollo, Forest Guard, FEINCEWilson Crillo, Secretary, FEINCEPablo Fajardo, Selva VidaEsteban Hernandez, Coordinator, FEINCEJose Hernandez, Director of Health, FEINCEDarwin Lozada, Prefecture, Consejo ProvincialOmar Jacinto Villarrial Luna, Forest Management Tecnician, MOEEduardo Medina, Treasurer, FEINCEEfraín Mendúa, Forest Guard, FEINCEFausto Mochoa, Forest Guard, FEINCEFrancisco Quisomga Moreno, Biodiversity Leader, MOELuis Narvaez, Director, FEINCEElisa Omenda, Member and Craft Shop Manager, FEINCEJose Bazurto Perez, Project Technician, FEINCEWinston Romero, Accountant, FEINCEGustavo Vallejo, Technician, Manos SolidariosHolger Verdezoto, Environmental Manager, MoECathy Villagomez, Secretary, FEINCEMORONO SANTIAGOJosé Acachu, Director, FICSHCatalina Cahuán, Director, INDA SUCUANorman Castillo, Technical Director, Ministry of the EnvironmentA-2 INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Monseñor Pedro Gabrielli, Vicar Apostòlico de MèndezEdwin Ponce, Integral Management, FIDACEPatricia Rivadeneira, Project Director, CAREINDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT C-3

ANNEX C: CAIMANCONCEPTUAL MAP FORTERRITORIAL CONSOLIDATIONAND INSTITUTIONALSTRENGTHENINGINDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT C-1

Figure C-1: CAIMAN Conceptual Map for Territorial Consolidation and Institutional StrengtheningINDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT C-3

ANNEX D: PSUR CONCEPTUALMAP FOR NATURAL RESOURCEMANAGEMENTINDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT D-1

Annex D-1: PSUR Conceptual Map for Natural Resource ManagementINDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT D-3

ANNEX E: CAIMAN OUTCOMEINDICATORS ANDCONTRIBUTING FACTORSINDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT E-1

Table E-1: CAIMAN Outcome Indicators and Contributing FactorsContributing Factors Reported by Respondents for Change in Outcome IndicatorsCAIMAN Outcome IndicatorsState Support of LegalClaimsExternal stakeholderrespect for territoryCommunity compliance withrules governing NRM useFEINCE effectivelymanaging territorial issuesNatural resources utilized ina sustainable mannerPolitical orientation ofPolitical support of current Political will of governmentcurrent administration/political willgovernmentCivil society Civil society Civil societyGovernment recognition ofancestral rightsThe Constitution/legal rightsInsufficient oversight capacity ofMOE (negative)Constitutional guarantee of Recognition by state ofConstitution and ancestral rightsancestral rightsindigenous territory as categoryof special interestCONDENPE and CONAIE FEINCE Stronger FEINCE Improved organization ofindigenous actorsStrength of indigenousEnhanced knowledge aboutorganizationsTitlingCases are now argued incourtagricultural productionRecognition by state of need tomanage resources betterResources already depletedPositive relationship with externalauthorities who provide supportTitlesRelationship with externalactorsLand titlesResources have already been Depletion of resources forcingdepleted in accessible areas shift to other income activitiesExistence of alternative income Alternate income opportunitiesCreation of alternate incomegenerating optionssourcesPark guards Park guards Park guardsCAIMAN CAIMAN Women's participation in parkguard programSignage and demarcation ofterritorial limitsDesigning plans withcommunities in participatorymannerPolitical stability within theorganizationLeadership Boundaries maintained Lack of leadership (negative) Better staffed, more organizedinstitutionHigher level of community Cofán will and respect for their Limited resources of MOE to FEINCE vision and will to takecommitment to territory own territorysupervise and verify plans controlVisibility of theenvironmental movementEstablishing zones/areas(negative)Push into market economy/needfor cash (negative)Improved economic situationPressure by external actors andcommercial interests (negative)Improved control of territoryLack of alternate income sources(negative)Failure of conservation projects(negative)INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT E-3

CAIMAN Outcome IndicatorsLegal and associatedprocedural reformsSensitization of colonistsregarding rights and boundariesAssistance by external actors Support and relationship withFundación CofánIntegration of projects Leadership training Communities changing their way Legalizationof lifeDelimitation Rapid methods of communication Ability to attract funding andprojectsPolitical stability of recent Awareness of consequences (e.g.,yearsTexaco suit)Representation ofResolution of conflictsindigenous communities ingovernment bodiesMOE has fewer resources Higher biodiversity profile of area(negative)within scientific communityThe local and international profileof the CofánLeadership perspectiveDialogue with external actorsCompliance with communityNRM rulesPopulation growth (negative)Use of forest products forhandicrafts (negative)Continued encroachment(negative)Decreased level of invasionImplementation of the ForestryLawDeparture of oil interests/feweroil spillsDepletion of fish/wildlifeencouraging extraction(negative)Pollution outside territoryleaking in through rivers(negative)Note: Cells shown in the same color illustrate similar contributing forms cited by respondents across various outcome indicators.E-4 INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT

ANNEX F: CAIMANINTERVENTIONS AND RELATEDOUTCOMESINDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT F-1

Table F-1: CAIMAN Interventions and Related OutcomesOutcomes Reported by Respondents for Each InterventionLegal & PolicyDialogueAbility to dialoguewith external actorsAbility to manageprocesses withministries and othersImproved ability todefend territoryUnderstanding bycolonists of ancestralrightsNew generation ofexecutive staffStrengthenedFEINCEGeneration ofrespect fromexternal actorsImprovedcommunityunderstanding andawareness ofancestral rightsKnowledge ofmechanisms availableto help defend rightsCommunityTitlingChanges in land useConflictMitigation/ResolutionAgreements withCAIMAN InterventionsComanagementAgreementsDelimiting &DemarcatingBoundariesResolution of difficultPatrolling Boardersneighborsland tenure issuesFewer conflicts Fewer conflicts Fewer conflicts Use of conservationfocusedtraditionalskillsImproved ability todefend territoryFewerencroachments andinvasionsTenure securityLegal guarantee/securityResolution ofdifficult land tenureissuesRespect forterritory andproperty limitsLess invasion forpermanentsettlementSmall degree oftenure securityProtection againstinvasionRespect for limits ofprotected areasPrideImproved defense ofterritoryCreation of leadersInstitutionalStrengtheningAbility to negotiate withexternal actorsAbility to obtain financingfor park guard programMore effective andempowered organizationBetter use of naturalresourcesFewer incursions Fewer invasions FEINCE recognized bythe StateRecognition ofboundaries andterritory byneighborsDemarcation Demarcation Improved legalsecurityTerritorial control Demonstration ofalternativelivelihood optionsConsolidation ofterritoryRemoval of invadersfrom territorySharedresponsibilitiesbetween Cofánand the StateIdentifying territoryPark guards workingin more informedmannerConservation andrestoration of animalpopulationsEnhanced Cofánappreciation forterritory and itsresourcesIncreased effectivecontrol of territoryEmploymentAbility to push territorialagendaCreation of legitimaterepresentation of theCofánMore employeesEmploymentINDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT F-3

Change in attitudeof owners towardmanaging land withlonger termoutlookHectares titledPride in landownershipRecognition ofancestral territoryStrengthenedterritoryClarified nature ofconflictsCAIMAN InterventionsCommunityrespect for areasdesignated forspecific usesRecognition byMOE Cofáncapacity tomanage their landDemonstratedalternativelivelihood optionsFear that securitycan be removedExpansion ofterritoryAgreements withneighborsEstablishing zones/areasDevelopment ofmodern skills capacityLegalization of landCommunitycompliance with rulesRecuperation ofterritoryYoung Cofáns notavailable to executeinfrastructure projectsEquipment and furnitureTraining for executivestaffIllness due to poultryproductive projectClearer vision for futureactivitiesAbility to serve asinterlocutor betweenCofáns and colonistsNote: Cells shown in the same color illustrate similar outcomes cited by respondents across the different interventions.F-4 INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT

ANNEX G: PARK GUARDMONITORING DOCUMENTSINDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT G-1

Figure G-1: Park Guard Monitoring Documents–JournalINDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT G-3

Figure G-2: Park Guard Monitoring Documents–Animal Inventory SheetG-4 INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT

INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT G-5

ANNEX H: RAPID APPRAISALWORKSHOP PROTOCOL• Do colonists, other indigenous communities, loggers, and companies respect Cofán territory?• Does FEINCE help protect your territory and take care of the forest?• How do you know if there are changes in the forest? If the forest is improving or deteriorating?• Would the government help if there were an invasion into Cofán territory?INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT H-1

ANNEX I: INTERVIEWSCHEDULETABLE I-1: INTERVIEW SCHEDULEQuitoDate Entity Project /Purpose Informants3-3-08 USAID CAIMAN & PSUR/General ProjectInfo.Thomas Rhodes, Mónica Zuquilanda, and EdgarGuillen3-3-08 Project CAIMAN CAIMAN/General Project Info. Joao Queiroz3-3-08 CARE PSUR/Logistics Jeannette Rodríguez3-4-08 ECOLEX CAIMAN & PSUR/General ProjectInfo.Edmundo Morán, José Luis Freire, and PedroRosero3-4-08 Fundación para laCAIMAN/Impact Assessment Randy BormanSobrevivencia Cofán (FSC)3-5-08 Sinchi Sacha CAIMAN/Impact Assessment Juan Martínez and Marlon Brito3-5-08 MOE CAIMAN/Impact Assessment Roberto Alulima and Gustavo Galindo3-5-08 Jatun Sacha CAIMAN/Impact Assessment Nubia Jaramillo and Miguel Naranjo3-6-08 INDA CAIMAN/Impact Assessment Mario García3-6-08 GTZ PSUR/Impact Assessment Damián Villacrés3-6-08 The Nature Conservancy CAIMAN/Impact Assessment Paulina Arroyo3-6-08 ECOLEX PSUR/Impact Assessment Fabián Arroyo3-7-08 MOE PSUR/Impact Assessment Carlos Carrera3-7-08 Manos Solidarios CAIMAN/Impact Assessment Alfredo Buitron and Gustavo Vallejo3-7-08 World Conservation Society CAIMAN/Impact Assessment Estéban Suárez, Andy Nos, and Manuel Morales3-7-08 ECOLEX CAIMAN/Impact Assessment Manuel MoralesNueva Loja (Lago Agrio), Sucumbios3-9-08 FEINCE CAIMAN/Logistics Emeregildo Criollo and Winston Romero3-10-08 Cofán – Dureno Community CAIMAN/Impact Assessment 13 women; 8 men3-10-08 Selva Vida General Technical Sector/Impact Pablo FajardoAssessment3-11-08 FEINCE CAIMAN/Logistics Luis Narváez3-11-08 Cofán – Duvuno Community CAIMAN/Impact Assessment 7 women; 11 men3-12-08 FEINCE CAIMAN/Impact Assessment President, administrative and technical staff3-12-08 INDA CAIMAN/Impact Assessment Guido Coloma Ballesteros3-12-08 Nueva Loja Municipality CAIMAN/Impact Assessment Máximo Abad3-13-08 FEINCE CAIMAN/Impact Assessment Roberto Aguinda, Teyo Criollo, Fausto Mochoa,Fausto Criollo, and Efraín Mendúa3-13-08 FEINCE – Assembly CAIMAN/Impact Assessment Governing Council Members of FEINCE3-13-08 MOE – Nueva Loja CAIMAN/Impact Assessment Fausto González and Holger Velastegui3-13-08 Provincial Council CAIMAN/Impact Assessment Darwin Lozada, José Castillo, and Víctor HugoChalarINDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT I-1

TABLE I-1: INTERVIEW SCHEDULEMacas, Morona Santiago3-14-08 MOE PSUR/ Impact Assessment Norman Castillo3-14-08 FIDACE PSUR/ Impact Assessment Edwin Ponce3-14-08 FISCH PSUR/ Impact Assessment José Acachu3-14-08 INDA PSUR/ Impact Assessment Catalina Cahuán3-14-08 CARE PSUR/ Impact Assessment Patricia Rivadeneira3-14-08 Centro Shuar – Guadalupe PSUR/ Impact Assessment Aja Shuar members3-15-08 Centro Shuar – Angel Rouby PSUR/ Impact Assessment Assembly members3-15-08 Vicar Apostòlico de Mèndez PSUR/ Impact Assessment Monseñor Pedro Gabrielli3-19-08 CARE PSUR/Impact Assessment Mario AñazcoI-2 INDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN ECUADOR: RAPID IMPACT ASSESSMENT

U.S. Agency for International Development1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20523Tel: (202) 712-0000Fax: (202) 216-3524www.usaid.gov