ECUADOR - Land Tenure and Property Rights Portal

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