ECUADOR - Land Tenure and Property Rights Portal

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
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 and 24: 4.0 FINDINGSThis section analyzes t
Page 25 and 26: concrete actions that provide indig
Page 27: 4.1.5 Expected Outcome 5: Biodivers
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?