ECUADOR - Land Tenure and Property Rights Portal

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: ECUADORINDIGENOUS TERRITORIALRIGHTS
Page 3: INDIGENOUS TERRITORIALRIGHTS IN ECU
Page 6 and 7: 4.3.1 Expected Outcome 1: Tenure Se
Page 9: PREFACEThere is a continuing need t
Page 12 and 13: While CAIMAN and PSUR contributed t
Page 15: 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OFASSESSMENTU
Page 18 and 19: Although data analysis was iterativ
Page 21 and 22: 3.0 CONCEPTUAL MAPS:INTERVENTIONS A
Page 23: 4.0 FINDINGSThis section analyzes t
Page 27 and 28: 4.1.5 Expected Outcome 5: Biodivers
Page 29 and 30: which to interact with society. Leg
Page 31 and 32: outcomes were noted by respondents,
Page 33 and 34: targeted the high-level outcome ind
Page 35 and 36: 5.0 INSTITUTIONALSTRENGTHENINGInsti
Page 37 and 38: 6.0 SUSTAINABILITY OF LTPRAND NRM A
Page 39 and 40: 7.0 LESSONS LEARNED ANDCONCLUSIONAc
Page 41 and 42: • Financing: Financial sustainabi
Page 43: ANNEXESINDIGENOUS TERRITORIAL RIGHT
Page 46 and 47: ECOLEX, Diagostico Sociocultural de
Page 50 and 51: NUEVA LOJA (LAGO AGRIO)Maximo Abad,
Page 53: ANNEX C: CAIMANCONCEPTUAL MAP FORTE
Page 57: ANNEX D: PSUR CONCEPTUALMAP FOR NAT
Page 61: ANNEX E: CAIMAN OUTCOMEINDICATORS A
Page 64 and 65: CAIMAN Outcome IndicatorsLegal and
Page 67 and 68: Table F-1: CAIMAN Interventions and
Page 69: ANNEX G: PARK GUARDMONITORING DOCUM
Page 72 and 73: Figure G-2: Park Guard Monitoring D
Page 75:
ANNEX H: RAPID APPRAISALWORKSHOP PR
Page 78:
TABLE I-1: INTERVIEW SCHEDULEMacas,
show all

ECUADOR - Land Tenure and Property Rights Portal

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?