May 2010 This report was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by ECODIT for the Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups, Task Order No. EPP-I-09- 06-00010-00. EVALUATION OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES WITH LOWLAND INDIGENOUS GROUPS – FINAL REPORT PROSPERITY, LIVELIHOODS AND CONSERVING ECOSYSTEMS (PLACE) IQC TASK ORDER #9 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | I AUTHORITY Prepared for USAID/Ecuador under Prosperity, Livelihoods and Conserving Ecosystems (PLACE) Indefinite Quantity Contract number EPP-I-09-06-00010-00, Task Order #09, awarded February 1, 2010, entitled “Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups”. This “Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups” is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of ECODIT and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. PREPARED BY Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Team Assembled by ECODIT LLC ECODIT 1800 N. Kent Street, Suite 1260 Arlington, VA 22209 USA Tel: +1 703 841 1883 Fax: +1 703 841 1885 Web: www.ecodit.com ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | II [this page intentionally blank] ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | III TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ VI RESUME EJECTIVO .................................................................................................................................... IX 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION ......................................................................................................................................1 1.2 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT ..........................................................................................................................................1 1.3 METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................................................................1 1.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT ........................................................................................................................................2 2.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 3 2.1 BIODIVERSITY IN NORTHWESTERN AND EASTERN ECUADORIAN LOWLANDS .....................................................3 2.2 ECUADOR’S LOWLAND INDIGENOUS GROUPS ............................................................................................................3 2.3 PROTECTED AREAS IN NORTHWEST AND EASTERN ECUADOR ................................................................................6 2.4 THREATS TO ECUADOR’S BIODIVERSITY .....................................................................................................................7 3.0 THE USAID/ECUADOR INDIGENOUS PROGRAM .................................................................... 9 3.1 GOALS AND STRATEGIES ................................................................................................................................................9 3.2 PROJECTS AND APPROACHES .........................................................................................................................................9 3.3 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT APPROACH................................................................................................... 12 3.4 TERRITORIAL RIGHTS................................................................................................................................................... 16 3.5 INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING APPROACH ......................................................................................................... 21 3.6 INCOME GENERATING APPROACH ............................................................................................................................. 24 3.7 SUSTAINABLE FINANCING APPROACH ...................................................................................................................... 29 3.8 CONFLICT MANAGEMENT APPROACH....................................................................................................................... 35 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 39 4.1 GOALS OF THE INDIGENOUS PROGRAM..................................................................................................................... 39 4.2 APPROACHES OF THE INDIGENOUS PROGRAM ......................................................................................................... 39 4.3 LONG-TERM INTERESTS OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ................................................................................. 40 4.4 LONG-TERM INTERESTS OF INDIGENOUS GROUPS .................................................................................................. 41 4.5 STRATEGIES OF THE INDIGENOUS PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 43 4.6 CURRENT MIX OF PROGRAMS AND IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS ........................................................................... 44 ANNEX A: BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................... 46 ANNEX B: LIST OF CONTACTS ............................................................................................................. 49 ANNEX C: INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................................................................... 52 ANNEX D: LESSONS LEARNED FROM PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS ............................................... 58 ANNEX E: EXCERPTS FROM ECUADOR’S 2008 CONSTITUTION (IN SPANISH) ....................... 61 ANNEX F: BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF THE EVALUATION TEAM .................................. 67 ANNEX G: STATEMENT OF WORK ...................................................................................................... 69 ANNEX H: HUAORANI VISIT REPORT (IN SPANISH) ....................................................................... 73 ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | IV ACRONYMS Although an effort was made to reduce the number of acronyms used in this text, in some cases acronyms were necessary. Whenever the acronym or abbreviation appears the first time, it is defined in the text. The following list is provided for ease of reference by the readers of this document. AMWAE Asociación de Mujeres Waorani del Ecuador ARIA Antagonism, Resonance, Invention and Action AT Awá Territory CAIMAN Conservation in Areas Managed by Indigenous Groups Project CEREPS Cuenta Especial de Reactivacion Economica Productiva y Social CM Conflict Management CONAIE Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador CODENPE Consejo de Desarrollo de Nacionalidades y Pueblos del Ecuador CONFENIAE Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon CPGP Cofán Park Guard Program ECOLEX Servicio de información sobre la legislación ambiental ENCAN Empresa Petrolera Canadiense FCAE Federación de Centros Awá del Ecuador FCUNAE Federación de Comunas Unión de la Amazonia Ecuatoriana FECCHE Federación de Centros Chachi del Ecuador FEINCE Federación Indígena de la Nacionalidad Cofán del Ecuador FSC Forest Stewardship Council GIS Geographic Information System GOE Government of Ecuador ICAA Initiative for Conservation in the Andean Amazon IGA Income Generating Activity IL/ICAA Indigenous Landscapes of Initiative for Conservation in the Andean Amazon IMIL Integrated Management of Indigenous Lands INDA Institute for Agricultural Development IS Institutional Strengthening LTPR Land Titling and Property Rights MAE Ministry of Environment M&E Monitoring and Evaluation NAE Nacionalidad Achuar del Ecuador NAWE Nacionalidad Waorani del Ecuador ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | V n.d. No data available NGO Non-Governmental Organization NRM Natural Resource Management OPIP Organización de Pueblos Indígenas de Pastaza PA Protected Area PAT Protecting Biodiversity of Habitats in the Awá Territory of Ecuador PES Payments for Environmental Services PiP Parks in Peril PSUR USAID/Ecuador Southern Border Program REDD Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation SF Sustainable Financing SL/ICAA Sustainable Livelihoods of Initiative for Conservation in the Andean Amazon Integrated TNC The Nature Conservancy TOR Terms of Reference TR Territorial Rights USAID United States Agency for International Development WCS Wildlife Conservation Society ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION The purpose of this evaluation is to make recommendations to the USAID Ecuador Mission (USAID/Ecuador) for increasing the effectiveness of the Mission’s biodiversity conservation strategy and its current and potential future mix of projects under the Indigenous Program. METHODOLOGY The evaluation was prepared with a total level of effort of about 90 person days between February and May, 2010, by a team consisting of a forester, an anthropologist, and an economist. The methodology involved identifying the Indigenous Program’s goals, strategies, approaches, activities, and achievements based on data drawn from project documents, interviews, and field observations. Professional staff of USAID/Ecuador and the members of a Technical Review Panel provided comments and suggestions on a draft report, which the evaluation team incorporated into this final report. BACKGROUND Ecuador is a “mega-biodiversity” country and one of the most important countries in the world from the standpoint of biodiversity and its conservation. The largest concentration of Ecuador’s globally important biodiversity occurs in the forest habitat of its northwest and eastern lowlands regions. The principal threats to the region’s biodiversity are the conversion of forestland to agriculture and pasture and the contamination caused petroleum exploitation. Effective biodiversity conservation in Ecuador requires that large, contiguous areas of forest habitat in the northwest and eastern lowlands be protected and that the severity and frequency of contamination caused by the exploitation of oil be reduced. The only large areas of forest habitat left in the lowlands of northwestern and eastern Ecuador occur in protected areas and indigenous territories. In this region, there are 10 public protected areas with a total area of about 2,582,000 hectares. There are 15 indigenous groups with a total population of about 387,000 and title to about 4,066,000 hectares. The policies of the Ecuadorian government have consistently favored the expansion of the agricultural frontier and exploitation of oil over the conservation of biodiversity and tropical forests. The Government has enforced, sometimes with military force, the provisions of the Ecuadorian Constitution that reserve for the State all mineral resources and that prohibit indigenous peoples from obstructing access to their territories for the exploitation of these resources. Currently, the Ecuadorean government needs to increase the production and sale of oil to raise revenue to fund its ambitious and costly development plans. Consequently, it is likely that conflicts between indigenous groups and the State and oil companies over access to the oil deposits beneath indigenous territories in the eastern lowlands will increase and that the threats to the biodiversity in those territories will become more severe. Ecuador has adhered without qualification to both the International Labor Organization’s Convention Number 169 of 1989 and the United Nations’ Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 2007. Ecuador’s new constitution, approved in 2008, includes strong provisions for the protection of indigenous rights and biodiversity. A strong legal framework therefore already exists for protecting indigenous rights and biodiversity within Ecuadorean indigenous territories. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | VII DESCRIPTION OF THE INDIGENOUS PROGRAM The United States Congress has appropriated funds to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) specifically for the purpose of conserving globally-significant biodiversity. Since 2000, USAID/Ecuador has utilized about US $29.6 million of these funds to finance seven biodiversity conservation projects in the northwestern and eastern lowlands of Ecuador. These projects together comprise the Indigenous Program. The goal of the Indigenous Program, according to the TOR for this evaluation, has been “…habitat conservation and benefits to people living in and around parks and protected areas”. The seven biodiversity conservation projects of the Indigenous Program are (1) Southern Border Program (PSUR); (2) Ecuadorian Awá Territory (AT); (3) Conservation in Indigenous Managed Areas (CAIMAN); (4) Parks-in-Peril (PiP); (5) Indigenous Landscapes (IL/ICAA); (6) Sustainable Livelihoods (SL/ICAA); and (7) Integrated Management of Indigenous Lands (IMIL). These projects have been implemented by CARE, the World Wildlife Fund, Chemonics International, the Nature Conservancy (TNC), Rainforest Alliance, and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). Ten indigenous groups have been involved in the Indigenous Program: Waorani, Cofán, Kichwa, Awá, Secoya, Chachi, Afro-Ecuadorian, Siona, Shuar, and Zápara. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The funds utilized for the Indigenous Program that come from Congressional earmarks for biodiversity conservation must be used exclusively towards advancing the goal of conservation of globally important biodiversity. This evaluation recommends that the Indigenous Program clarify its goal statement to be the “…conservation of habitat in Ecuador’s northwestern and eastern lowlands that is critical for the survival of rare, endemic, and threatened species of plants and animals of global importance”. The Indigenous Program has used six complementary approaches, which have all been useful for conserving biodiversity. The results of some of the approaches, however, provide the foundation for the success of the other approaches. The “institutional strengthening” and “territorial rights” approaches strengthen the negotiating position of indigenous groups in relation to the State and extractive companies. The “conflict management” approach establishes the basis for the long-term success at a significant scale of the “natural resource management,” “sustainable financing”, and “income generating” approaches. The evaluation therefore recommends that USAID/Ecuador view the “territorial rights” and “institutional strengthening” approaches as a means to strengthen the ability of indigenous groups to negotiate on equal terms with the State and oil companies. It recommends that USAID/Ecuador consider the “income generating,” “sustainable financing”, and “natural resource management” approaches as feasible over the long-term when a successful conflict management and resolution process occurs previously. Currently, the indigenous groups have varying capabilities to negotiate the management and resolution of conflicts over access to the resources within their territories. The evaluation therefore recommends that USAID/Ecuador ensure that the actions of the Indigenous Program are designed and implemented to be appropriate for the specific situation of each indigenous group, as determined through frequent and in-depth consultation with the leaders of indigenous groups and their regional and national organizations. The Indigenous Program overall has been consistent with the long-term interests of biodiversity conservation and indigenous peoples. These long-term interests will remain threatened, however, if a successful process for managing and resolving conflicts over access to natural resources is not established, effective and successful. Currently, the most urgent conflict that needs to be resolved concerns the access to the oil resources underlying the indigenous territories in the eastern lowlands. The evaluation therefore recommends that USAID/Ecuador reinforce its contribution to the long-term interests of biodiversity conservation and the welfare of indigenous peoples by focusing the efforts of the Indigenous Program on assisting the indigenous groups, the Government of Ecuador (GOE), and the extraction companies to ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | VIII manage and resolve conflicts over the exploration and exploitation of oil within the indigenous territories in the eastern lowlands. The Indigenous Program has not utilized or developed a single definable biodiversity conservation strategy but rather has used elements of various strategies, including those defined in this report as habitat protection, species protection, production, and research and policy dialogue and conflict management. The evaluation recommends that the Indigenous Program establish one definable strategy and that it be focused on assisting Ecuador manage and resolve the conflicts over the exploration for and exploitation of oil in the indigenous territories in the eastern lowlands. The current mix of programs and implementing partners of the Indigenous Program provides a strong basis for USAID/Ecuador to reorient its strategy towards this recommended strategy of focusing on managing and resolving conflicts over the oil resources of the eastern lowlands. The evaluation recommends that the IMIL project focus on preparing indigenous groups to participate in conflict management and resolution processes through the “territorial rights” and “institutional strengthening” approaches. It recommends that the SL/ICAA project focus on assisting the various ecotourism enterprises of indigenous groups to become profitable and begin to finance the operating costs of indigenous organizations with part of their profits. The provincial and municipal governments are closer to the day-to-day problems of the indigenous peoples than the national government. They therefore could play an important role in improving the management and resolution of conflicts between indigenous peoples and other interest groups in the northwestern and eastern lowlands. The evaluation therefore recommends that USAID/Ecuador reorient the activities of the IL/ICAA project to focus on reinforcing the capability of indigenous organizations to interact with the municipal and provincial governments. Indigenous peoples form a high percentage of the population along Ecuador’s northern border and are in possession of large, generally lightly-populated, and forested territories. The Indigenous Program therefore could make a significant contribution to assisting Ecuador achieve more economic and political stability along its border with Colombia. The report recommends that USAID/Ecuador design and implement future activities of the Indigenous Program within the overall context of its efforts to assist Ecuador to achieve economic, political, and social stability along its northern border. Specifically, the report recommends that USAID/Ecuador link the Indigenes Program with other projects it may finance that have the objective of improving the functioning of municipal and provincial governments. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | IX RESUME EJECTIVO PROPÓSITO DE LA EVALUACIÓN El propósito de esta evaluación es efectuar recomendaciones a USAID/Ecuador para que incremente la eficacia de la estrategia de la Misión para la conservación de la biodiversidad y de su mezcla de proyectos en ejecución y sus proyectos por ejecutarse dentro del marco de su Programa Indígena. METODOLOGÍA La evaluación fue realizada en 90 días entre febrero y mayo del 2010 por un equipo conformado por un ingeniero forestal, una antropóloga y una economista. La metodología consistió en identificar el objetivo, las estrategias, los enfoques, las actividades y los logros del Programa Indígena, basado en datos extraídos de los documentos elaborados por varios proyectos que han sido parte del Programa Indígena, entrevistas y observaciones en el campo. Profesionales de USAID/Ecuador y los miembros de un Panel de Revisión Técnica hicieron comentarios y sugerencias basados en un informe borrador, los cuales el equipo de evaluación incorporó en este informe final. ANTECEDENTES Ecuador es un país "mega-biodiversidad" y por lo tanto es considerado como uno de los países más importantes del mundo del punto de vista de la biodiversidad y su conservación. La concentración más alta de la biodiversidad del Ecuador con importancia global se concentra en el hábitat forestal de las zonas bajas del su región noroeste y este. Las principales amenazas para la biodiversidad de la región son el cambio de uso de suelos de tierras forestales a la agricultura y el pasto y la contaminación causada por la explotación petrolera. La conservación efectiva de la biodiversidad en el Ecuador requiere que grandes áreas del hábitat boscoso en las zonas bajas del noroeste y oriente sean protegidas y que la gravedad y frecuencia de la contaminación causadas por la explotación de petróleo sea reducida. Las únicas áreas grandes de hábitat de bosque que quedan en las tierras bajas del noroeste y el este del Ecuador ocurren en áreas protegidas y territorios indígenas. En esta región, existen 10 áreas protegidas con una superficie total de aproximadamente 2.582.000 hectáreas. Hay 15 grupos indígenas con una población estimada de 387.000 personas y titulo a aproximadamente 4.066.000 hectáreas. Las políticas del gobierno del Ecuador constantemente han favorecido la expansión de la frontera agrícola y la explotación petrolera en vez de la conservación de la biodiversidad y de los bosques tropicales. El Gobierno, a veces utilizando la fuerza militar, ha impuesto las disposiciones de la Constitución Ecuatoriana que otorga al Estado todos los derechos sobre la explotación de los recursos no-renovables y que prohíben a los pueblos indígenas obstaculizar el acceso a sus territorios para la explotación de estos recursos. Actualmente, el gobierno ecuatoriano necesita incrementar la producción y ventas de petróleo para contar con los fondos necesarios para financiar sus ambiciosos y costosos planes de desarrollo. Es probable, por lo tanto, que los conflictos entre los grupos indígenas, el Estado y las compañías petroleras sobre el acceso al hidrocarburo que está en el sub-suelo de los territorios indígenas y las amenazas a la biodiversidad vayan a ser aun más graves en el futuro. El Ecuador ha reconocido sin condiciones los Tratados Internacionales de la Convención de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo 169 del 1989 y la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas del 2007. Además, la nueva Constitución de la República aprobada en 2008 incluye disposiciones para la protección de los derechos indígenas y la biodiversidad. Por lo tanto, un marco legal fuerte ya existe para proteger los derechos indígenas y la biodiversidad en territorios indígenas ecuatorianos. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | X DESCRIPCIÓN DEL PROGRAMA INDÍGENA El Congreso de los Estados Unidos ha asignado fondos a la Agencia de los Estados Unidos para el Desarrollo Internacional (USAID) con el propósito específico de conservar la biodiversidad con importancia mundial. Desde el año 2000, USAID ha utilizado alrededor US$ 29,6 millones de esos fondos para financiar siete proyectos de conservación de biodiversidad en las tierras bajas del noroeste y el este de Ecuador. Juntos estos proyectos conforman el Programa Indígena. El objetivo del Programa Indígena ha sido "... la conservación del hábitat y beneficios para las personas que viven en y alrededor de los parques y áreas protegidas". Los siete proyectos del Programa Indígena son: (1) Programa de la Frontera Sur (PSUR); (2) Territorio Awá (AT); (3) Manejo de la Conservación de Áreas Indígenas (CAIMAN); (4) Parques-en-Peligro (PiP); (5) Paisajes Indígenas (IL/ICAA); (6) Medios de Vida Sostenibles (SL/ICAA); y (7) Manejo Integrado de Tierras Indigenas (IMIL). Estos proyectos han sido ejecutados por CARE, Fondo Mundial para la Naturaleza, Chemonics Internacional, The Nature Conservancy, Rainforest Alliance y Wildlife Conservation Society. Participan diez grupos indígenas en el Programa Indígena: Waorani, Cofán, Kichwa, Awá, Secoya, Chachi, Afroecuatorianos, Siona, Shuar y Zápara. CONCLUSIONES Y RECOMENDACIONES Los fondos asignados a USAID para la conservación de la diversidad biológica de importancia global deben ser utilizados exclusivamente para avanzar hacia este objetivo. Esta evaluación recomienda que USAID/Ecuador clarifique su objetivo para el Programa Indígena para que sea "... la conservación del hábitat en las tierras bajas del noroeste y el este de Ecuador que es crítica para la sobrevivencia de especies de plantas y animales raras, endémicas y amenazadas de importancia global". El Programa Indígena ha utilizado seis enfoques, todos de los cuales han sido útiles para la conservación de la biodiversidad. Sin embargo, los resultados de algunos de los enfoques constituyen la base para el éxito de los otros enfoques. Los enfoques de “fortalecimiento institucional” y “derechos territoriales” fortalecen la posición negociadora de los grupos indígenas en relación con el Estado y las empresas extractivas. El enfoque de la “gestión de conflictos” establece la base para el éxito a largo plazo en escala significativa de los enfoques de “manejo de recursos naturales”, “financiamiento sostenible” y “generación de ingresos”. La evaluación, por lo tanto, recomienda que USAID/Ecuador considera los enfoques de “derechos territoriales” e “fortalecimiento institucional” como medios para incrementar la capacidad de negociación de los grupos indígenas en igualdad de condiciones con el Estado y las compañías petroleras. Se recomienda que USAID/Ecuador considere el enfoque de “generación de ingresos”, “financiamiento sostenible” y “manejo de recursos naturales” como factibles a largo plazo cuando ha sido efectivo y exitoso previamente procesos de manejo y resolución de conflictos. En la actualidad, cada grupo indígena tiene una capacidad diferente para negociar el manejo y resolución de conflictos. Por lo tanto, la evaluación recomienda que USAID/Ecuador asegure que actividades financiadas a través del Programa Indígena sean diseñados e implementados en formas apropiadas para la situación de cada grupo indígena, como es determinado por consultas frecuentes y profundas con los lideres representativos de los grupos indígenas y sus organizaciones regionales y nacionales. El Programa Indígena en general ha sido consistente con los intereses a largo plazo de la conservación de la biodiversidad y de los pueblos indígenas. Sin embargo, estos intereses a largo plazo podrían ser amenazados si los procesos de manejo y resolución de conflictos por el acceso a los recursos naturales no se consolidan con eficacia y éxito. En la actualidad, el conflicto más urgente por resolverse tiene que ver con el acceso a los recursos hidrocarburíferos subyacentes en los territorios indígenas de las tierras bajas orientales. La evaluación recomienda que USAID/Ecuador refuerce su contribución a la conservación de la biodiversidad y el ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | XI bienestar de los pueblos indígenas a largo plazo a través de concentrar los esfuerzos del Programa Indígena en proveer el apoyo a los grupos indígenas, al Gobierno y a las empresas de extracción para gestionar y resolver conflictos sobre la exploración y explotación de petróleo dentro de los territorios indígenas en las tierras bajas orientales. El Programa Indígena no ha utilizado o desarrollado una sola estrategia de intervención sino que ha utilizado elementos de varias estrategias incluyendo las estrategieas de protección del hábitat, la protección de especies, la producción, la investigación y el diálogo y el manejo de conflictos. La evaluación recomienda que el Programa Indígena defina una sola estrategia y que sea enfocada en ayudar a Ecuador a gestionar y resolver los conflictos sobre la exploración y explotación de petróleo en los territorios indígenas de las tierras bajas orientales. La actual combinación de proyectos y organizaciones del Programa Indígena proporciona una base fuerte para que USAID/Ecuador pueda reorientar su estrategia hacia la asistencia al Ecuador en el manejo y resolución de los conflictos asociados con la explotación de los recursos petroleros de las tierras bajas orientales. La evaluación recomienda que el proyecto IMIL se concentre en la preparación de las organizaciones indígenas para participar en el proceso de gestión y resolución de conflictos por medio de los enfoques de “derechos territoriales” y “fortalecimiento institucional”. Se recomienda que SL/ICAA colabore con las empresas de ecoturismo de los grupos indígenas para que sean rentables y comiencen a financiar los costos de operación de las organizaciones indígenas con sus ganancias. Los gobiernos provinciales y municipales conocen más cerca de los problemas diarios de los grupos indígenas y por lo tanto juegan un rol importante en la gestión y resolución de conflictos. El informe, por lo tanto, recomienda que USAID/Ecuador reoriente las actividades del proyecto IL/ICAA para que ayude a fortalecer la capacidad de las organizaciones indígenas para interactuar con los gobiernos municipales y provinciales. Los pueblos indígenas constituyen un porcentaje elevado de la población en la frontera norte de Ecuador y están en posesión de grandes territorios. El Programa Indígena, por lo tanto, podría hacer una contribución importante para la estabilidad económica y política a lo largo de la frontera con Colombia. El informe recomiende que USAID/Ecuador diseñe e implemente las actividades futuras del Programa Indígena dentro del contexto general de sus esfuerzos para ayudar al país a lograr la estabilidad económica, política y social en la frontera norte. Específicamente, el informe recomienda que USAID/Ecuador vincule el Programa Indígena con los otros proyectos que financie que tienen el objetivo de fortalecer el funcionamiento de los gobiernos municipales y provinciales. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of the Evaluation The purpose of this evaluation is to assess past and current United States Agency for International Development (USAID) work with indigenous groups and to provide broad guidance on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation through support of indigenous groups. The evaluation assess the overall effectiveness of the Indigenous Program over the last decade in achieving long-term conservation of biodiversity and the welfare of indigenous peoples and recommends ways to make its current and future activities more effective. The evaluation also explores new approaches to working with indigenous groups at the local, regional and national levels. 1.2 Structure of the Report The report has the following four sections:  Section 1 (this section) is an introduction to the report and its purpose, structure, methodology, and limitations;  Section 2 summarizes the characteristics of the indigenous peoples, the biodiversity and threats to biodiversity, and the protected areas in northwestern and eastern lowland Ecuador;  Section 3 reviews and analyses the six approaches that the projects of the USAID indigenous program have used; and  Section 4 provides the report’s conclusions and recommendations. 1.3 Methodology The evaluation was prepared by a team consisting of a forester, an anthropologist, and an economist; this team devoted a total level of effort of about 90 days between February and May, 2010. The ECODIT Home Office provided administrative and technical backstopping and support to the team including comments on the draft report from an expert in financing for biodiversity conservation (see Annex F). The data for the evaluation were drawn from project documentation, interviews, reference books, papers, and field observations within and around indigenous territories. The methodology used responded to: (1) the purpose of the evaluation; (2) the short period of time available for its preparation; (3) the professional expertise of the members of the evaluation team; (4) the diversity of the projects that were financed as part of the Indigenous Program; and (5) the complexity of the issues with which the Indigenous Program has been involved. The team first defined and analyzed the Indigenous Program’s approaches, strategies, and achievements as a means to identify the common elements of its separate projects. The term “achievements” was used instead of “results” because it is more inclusive, since it covers inputs, outputs, and outcomes as well as just results, and the documentation for the various projects of the Indigenous Program does not generally distinguish between these levels of achievements. The range of issues raised by the Indigenous Program was broader than the professional specialties of the members of the evaluation team. Thus, the methodology included a detailed review of an early draft report by a technical review team that consisted of five specialists whose areas of expertise were law, anthropology, conservation of biodiversity, financing for conservation, and the operation of ecotourism enterprises. Each member of the technical review panel submitted general and specific comments on the draft report. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 2 Concurrently, USAID/Ecuador professional staff reviewed and commented on the draft report. The evaluation team utilized these comments to prepare the final report. 1.4 Limitations of the Report The Indigenous Program is not based on a concept paper or program design but consists of seven different projects, each designed separately. Therefore, it did not establish specific, measurable targets for the overall strategy that the evaluation could use to measure the planned versus actual achievements of the program. Although financial information was available on each of the separate projects, these data were not organized according to the six approaches that the evaluation team identified and analyzed. Time limitations did not permit the evaluation team to re-calculate the financial data in such a way as to make possible a cost-benefit analysis of the six approaches. Limitation of time permitted the evaluation team to study only some of the reports and books, interview only a few of these people, and visit only some of the sites of program activities. In particular, interchange was limited with representatives of the indigenous peoples. The evaluation team, however, does not believe that its principal conclusions and recommendations would have been different if additional data had been available. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 3 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 Biodiversity in Northwestern and Eastern Ecuadorian Lowlands Ecuador has one of the greatest concentrations of rare, endemic and threatened biodiversity in the world and is therefore a key country for the conservation of global biodiversity. Its highest levels of biodiversity occur in its northwestern and eastern lowlands and the Andean foothills. Some statistics provide an indication of this biodiversity. In the Amazon region, 4,857 plant species have been registered. In the Cuyabeno Fuanistic Reserve, 307 tree species may be found per hectare (ha). In the 982,000 ha of the Yasuni National Park, 2,274 trees, 567 birds, 172 mammals, 105 amphibians, 83 reptiles, 382 fish, and over 100,000 insects have been recorded (Benalcazar et al., 2005). The forests of the northwestern lowlands are the southernmost limit of the highly species-diverse Chocó ecoregion (Kernan and Stern, 2006). Ecuador has 369 species of mammals, including 30 endemic species. Mammal diversity is particularly high in the eastern lowlands, and about 33 mammal species are considered threatened. At least 1,616 bird species occur in Ecuador and its bird diversity is highest in the eastern lowlands (700 species), lowland Pacific forests (485 species), and lower montane forests (300-450 species). Ecuador’s greatest diversity of reptile and amphibian species occurs in the eastern lowlands (Kernan and Stern, 2006). 2.2 Ecuador’s Lowland Indigenous Groups Fifteen indigenous groups inhabit Ecuador’s northwestern and eastern lowlands (see Table 1). Four of the groups – the Awá, the Afro-Ecuadorians, the Chachi and the Épera – live in the northwest lowlands and Andean foothills. Three indigenous groups – the Siona, Secoya and Cofán – live in the northeast lowlands and Andean foothills. Lowland Kichwa, Tagaeiri and Taromenane, Zápara, and Andoa live in the central￾eastern lowlands. The Shiwiar, Achuar and Shuar live in the southeastern lowlands. The Kichwa and Shuar, however, have migrated outside of their traditional areas to settle in the northeastern Amazon. Table 1 indicates that the total population of the 15 groups is about 386,528. The Afro-Ecuadorians, Shuar, and Kichwa have much larger populations than the other groups, some of whose populations number less than 1,000. Improved medical care, however, has enabled the populations of most of the groups to grow rapidly over the last few decades. Immigration from Colombia has increased the populations of the Awa and Afro-Ecuadorians. The indigenous groups are not necessarily purely indigenous, because many indigenous peoples have inter￾married with non-indigenous peoples or with other indigenous groups. Marriage outside of the indigenous group, however, is more common among some groups than others. Many Waorani, for example, have married with Kichwa1 and mestizos, and marriage is common between Sionas and Secoyas. The Ashuar, by contrast, are less likely to marry outside of their group. Most of the ethnic groups maintain close ties with relatives of the same indigenous groups in Peru and Colombia.2 The Afro-Ecuadorian, Awá, and Cofán have close links to relatives in Colombia, and Secoya, Achuar, Andoas and Shuar also live in Peru. The Zaparos recently migrated back to Ecuador from Peru. 1 In the Waorani community of Tonampari, for example, half of the population is Kichwa men who have married Waorani women (Fuentes, 1997). 2 Until recently, the Siona, Secoya, Andoas, and Cofánes moved freely between Ecuador, Colombia and Peru. In the 2000s, the Ecuadorian government placed more restrictions on movements outside of Ecuador, including requiring a passport or other identification to cross the Ecuador border and placing military controls on the Putumayo River. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 4 Indigenous groups have been given legal title to about 4,066,495 ha, and they are seeking title to another 511,132 ha. An additional 780,000 ha have been declared an Intangible Zone inside the Yasuni National Park in order to protect the Tagaeiri and Taromenane peoples.3 Table 1 Characteristics of the indigenous groups in Ecuador’s northwest and eastern lowlands Ethnic group Population Province(s) occupied Legalized territory (ha) Additional claimed territory (Ha)4 Principal organizations Awá 4,500 Esmeraldas, Carchi, Imbabura 121,000 5,500 Federación de Centros Awá del Ecuador (FCAE) Afro￾Ecuadorians5 166,1616 Esmeraldas, Carchi, Imbabura - 80,000 Comarca Afro-Ecuatoriana del Norte de Esmeraldas (CANE); Federación de Comunidades y Organizaciones Negras de Imbabura y Carchi (FECONIC) Chachi 10,000 Esmeraldas 105,469 - Federación de Centros Chachi de Ecuador (FECCHE) Épera 300 Esmeraldas - 150 Organización de la Nacionalidad Épera del Ecuador (ONAEE) Cofán 2,640 Sucumbíos 148,907 - Federación Indígena de la Nacionalidad Cofán del Ecuador (FEINCE) Secoyas 400 Sucumbíos 39,414 - Organización de Indígenas Secoyas del Ecuador (OISE) Sionas 360 Sucumbíos 47,888 - Organización de la Nacionalidad Indígena Siona del Ecuador (ONISE) Lowland Kichwa 80,000 Sucumbios, Napo, Pastaza 1,115,000 1,569,0007 Federación de Organizaciones de la Nacionalidad Kichwa de Sucumbíos (FONAKISE); Federación de Comunas Unión de la Amazonia Ecuatoriana (FCUNAE)8 ; Organización de Pueblos Indígenas de Pastaza (OPIP) 3 The Plan de Medidas Cautelares is a legal document issued by the Comisión Inter-Americana de Derechos Humanos in 2006 that judged Ecuador to be guilty of involuntary genocide and required the Ecuadorian government to take measures to protect these two groups. The case was taken to the Commission by the Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador (CONAIE). The policy for Peoples in Voluntary Isolation was approved by Ecuador in 2007, and responsibility for its execution was given to the Ministry of the Environment. On February 26, 2010, the President of Ecuador fired all the Ministry of Environment staff in the unit charged with implementing these measures. 4 These are areas for which an indigenous group hopes to receive titles. 5 Afro-Ecuadorians are really an ethnic rather than an indigenous group, but for the purposes of this report we include them as an indigenous population. 6 This is the population of Afro-Ecuadorians in what can be considered their ancestral territories in the Valley of Chota in Imbabura Province, Esmeraldas, and Carchi. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 5 Waorani 3,000 Orellana, Napo, Pastaza 678,220 Nacionalidad Waorani del Ecuador (NAWE) Asociación de Mujeres Waorani del Ecuador (AMWAE) Tagaeiri and Taromenane9 8010 Orellana, Pastaza - - Plan de Medidas Cautelares Zápara 450 Pastaza 54,000 - Asociación de la Nacionalidad Zápara de la Provincia de Pastaza (ANAZPPA) Andoa 2,500 Pastaza 65,000 30,000 Organización de la Nacionalidad Andoa de Pastaza del Ecuador (ONAPE) Shuar 110,000 Morona Santiago, Zamora-Chinchipe, Pastaza 718,220 182,468 Federación Interprovincial de Centros Shuar (FICSH) Achuar 5,440 Pastaza, Morona Santiago 884,000 133,014 Nacionalidad Achuar del Ecuador (NAE) Shiwiar 697 Pastaza 89,377 100,00011 Nacionalides Shiwiar del Ecuador (NASHIE) TOTAL 386,528 4,066,495 2,100,132 Source: http://www.codenpe.gov.ec/index.php,2010 http://www.inec.gov.ec Table 1 lists only the principal organizations for each indigenous group. All but the Tagaeiri and Taromenane have formed at least one organization. Most of the groups have formed more than one organization: often one organization represents the Catholic members of the group and is lead by the more traditional leaders, such as shamans, while the other represents the evangelical members of the group and is led by non￾traditional leaders. Only the Waorani have a separate organization for women. The organizations listed in Table 1 are members of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon (CONFENIAE), which is a member of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE). Gerlach (2003) describes how the indigenous organizations in Ecuador have grown in political influence mostly through issues of land use and ownership. CONAIE, for example, has said that “…the struggle for land has become one of the most important elements in the consciousness and identify of the indigenous peoples”… (quoted in Fontaine, 2007). 7 According to Blanca Grefa, the president of FCUNAE, the lowland Kichwa claim 1,569,000 ha in all of eastern lowland Ecuador and want to legalize these territories under the legal configuration of cooperatives and communes. 8 The Kichwa organizations of the Amazonia are in an integration process. Blanca Grefa confirms the constitution of that FCUNAE, FONAKISE and OPIP is about to be replaced by the Federation of Indigenous Kichwa of the Ecuadorian Amazon (FIKAE). 9 The Tangaeiri and Taromenane are considered part of the Waorani but are classified as a People in Voluntary Isolation, so their situation is very different from that of the other Waorani. They live in the southern part of the Yasuni National Park in the Intangible Zone, but sometimes migrate outside of the zone in search of the harvest of the morette palm nuts. They also emigrate because the noise produced by the oil exploitation activities in Block 31, which lies next to the Intangible Zone, drives game animals away and because of the aggressiveness of Kichwa peoples who are penetrating and colonizing Block 31. 10 The exact population of these two groups is not know but is estimated to be between 50 and 100 people by the Capuchino Mission in Coca. The groups are currently living near the Shiripuno River in Block 17 in a sector called Armadillo. 11 These ha are in the “Franja de Seguridad Nacional”, an area which was in dispute with Peru until after the war of 1995; it can now be legalized. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 6 Ecuador has adhered without qualification to the International Labor Organization’s Convention Number 69 of 1989, which concerns the rights of indigenous peoples, and to the United Nations’ Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 2007. The Ecuadorian Constitution of 2008, moreover, directly incorporates many of the terms of these two international documents. Indigenous peoples are closely monitoring their compliance particularly in regard to participation, consultation, and prior informed consent on any development project or government program that relates to land tenure, territories, and natural resource development. 2.3 Protected Areas in Northwest and Eastern Ecuador Table 2 indicates that Ecuador has legally established eight national protected areas with a total area of 2,460,666 ha that lie within the northwest and eastern lowland regions of Ecuador. The Yasuni National Park and the Cuyabeno Faunistic Production Reserve lie entirely within the northeastern and central lowlands. The Sumaco National Park and the Cayapas-Coca Ecological Reserve are in the eastern Andes. The Cotacachi-Cayapas Ecological Reserve extends from the high elevations of the western range of the Andes down to the northwestern lowlands. The Cayapas-Mataje Ecological Reserve, on the northwest coast, and the Cofán-Bermejo Ecological Reserve, in the eastern Andean foothills, are both medium-sized protected areas. The Limoncocha Biological Reserve and El Condor Bi-National Park in Morona-Santiago Province are small protected areas. The only protected area in the southeastern lowlands is a relatively small part of the Sangay National Park, which extends from the highlands down to the Andean foothills and a small area in the Condor Mountain Range along the border with Peru. In the southwest lowlands, there are large territories of the Shuar and Achuar indigenous groups; and populations of indigenous peoples live within all of the protected areas that are listed in Table 2. Table 2 Protected areas in Ecuador’s northwest and eastern lowlands Name of protected area Area (ha) Location Indigenous groups Principal threatsc Northwestern Lowlands Cotacachi-Cayapas Ecological Reserve 204,420 Esmeraldas, Imbabura Chachis Logging, forestland conversion Mache-Chindul Ecological Reserve 70,000 Esmeraldas, Manabi Chachi Cayapas-Mataje Ecological Reserve 51,300 Esmeraldas Afro-Ecuadorian Forestland conversion, logging Yasuni National Park 982,000 Napo, Pastaza Waorani, Kichwa Oil contamination Sumaco National Park 205,249 Napo Kichwa Forest conversion and degradation by logging Limoncocha Biological Reserve 4,613 Sucumbios Kichwa Oil contamination Cayapas-Coca Ecological Reserve 403,103 Imbabura, Pichincha, Napo, Sucumbios Cofán, Kichwa Degradation by forestland conversion and logging Eastern Lowlands Cuyabeno Faunistic Production Reserve 603,380 Sucumbios, Napo Siona, Kichwa, Secoya, Shuar Oil contamination Cofán-Bermejo Ecological Reserve 55,461 Sucumbios Cofán Forest degradation by logging El Condor Bi-National Park 2,440 Morona-Santiago Shuar Mining TOTAL 2,581,966 Source: Kernan and Stern, 2006. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 7 2.4 Threats to Ecuador’s Biodiversity DIRECT THREATS The most severe, largest-scale direct threat to the biodiversity in Ecuador’s northwestern and eastern lowlands is the degradation, fragmentation, and elimination of forest habitat caused by the conversion of forestland to pastureland and cropland, usually by migrant settlers but also by agro-industries, particularly African palm companies. A second severe, wide-spread direct threat is the over-exploitation of some plants and animals, including game animals, fish, and orchids, generally for sale to commercial markets. Over￾exploitation not only directly reduces the populations of such plants and animals but can also reduce the genetic variability of the species, thus reducing their potential for resisting or adapting to attacks of diseases or insects or to changes in the climate. Contamination from oil production and transportation, as well as agrochemicals and solid wastes, is a third direct threat to biodiversity in the northwestern and eastern lowlands. A fourth direct threat is aggressive exotic plant and animal species. Such species in the region are mostly introduced and propagated by farmers and include various species of pasture grasses and domestic animals, especially cattle. The scope and severity of the effective of climate change, the fifth direct threat to biodiversity of the northwestern and eastern Ecuadorian lowlands, remain more speculative than based on data. INDIRECT THREATS Population growth in Ecuador in general – and among the indigenous groups specifically – has been an underlying indirect threat to the biodiversity of Ecuador’s northwestern and eastern lowlands. The population of the country grew from 2,369,800 in 1938 to 4,476,007 in 1963, and it increased to 12,400,000 in 2000. This growth of population reduced the area of land available per family or per person in Ecuador’s highlands, creating the pressure that resulted in the Agrarian Reform Law of 1964. According to Sawyer (2004), the “…main focus of land reform was colonization, not redistribution. Indeed the agrarian reform law provided an escape valve for growing population pressure and economic tensions in the sierra. Between 1964 and 1994, roughly 6,500,000 of the approximately 7,500,000 ha adjudicated as private property resulted from colonization not expropriation. The majority of colonization efforts took place in the Oriente (4,500,000 ha)…” Government policies have magnified the indirect threat of population growth to biodiversity and indigenous peoples in the northwest and eastern lowlands. For decades these policies have stimulated the conversion of forestland to cropland and pastureland through a process that involves building roads into forested areas, extracting timber and oil, and encouraging settlement in forested areas by immigrant farmers from the highlands. The government has consistently given priority to oil exploitation over the welfare and rights of indigenous peoples or the conservation of forests and biodiversity (Fontaine, 2007).12 12 Specific policies of the national government that have encouraged this process of deforestation and contamination within traditional indigenous territories in the northwestern and eastern lowlands are the following: (1) The Ecuadorian Institute for Agricultural Development (INDA) continues to give land titles to colonists who can demonstrate that they have cleared forest from 30 percent of a plot of land; (2) The Ecuadorian Constitution appropriates for the State all non￾renewable natural resources except the soil itself and reserves the right of access to any land to extract those resources; (3) The Ecuadorian Constitution and the Forest and Protected Areas and Natural Areas and Wildlife Law of 1983 reserves ownership of all forest resources to the State, giving it authority to regulate and charge for their exploitation , so indigenous people have only usufructs rights to forest resources; (4) The State gives land titles to indigenous communities not to indigenous peoples, so indigenous groups do not have one title to all of their land; (5) By decree, the State has super-imposed protected areas on many traditional indigenous territories, thereby making the provisions of the Forest and Protected Areas and Wildlife Law of 1983 the authority over traditional indigenous governance practices; (6) The 2008 Constitution refers to “territorial circumscriptions” but does not empower indigenous peoples to set up their ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 8 The growth in international demand for oil, combined with the dependence of Ecuador’s government on oil revenue to pay the interest and capital on the national debt and the costs of its own administrative costs, has been a third indirect threat to biodiversity in Ecuador’s eastern lowlands. Fontaine (2007) and Sawyer (2004) describe how the Ecuadorian government has compensated for lower oil prices by trying to increase oil production through awarding exploration and production blocks over almost all of the eastern lowlands. The resulting severe, large-scale negative impacts on biodiversity and indigenous cultures have been described by a number of investigators (Kimerling, 2006; Fontaine, 2007; Sawyer, 2004; Gerlach, 2003; and Narvaez, 2009). own local governments, so indigenous territories remain under the political control of municipal and provincial governments; (7) Although the government has sold concession blocks for oil and mineral exploration and production within indigenous territories, it has for the most part abdicated responsibility for the welfare of the indigenous peoples, leaving oil companies to negotiate directly with the indigenous communities. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 9 3.0 THE USAID/ECUADOR INDIGENOUS PROGRAM 3.1 Goals and Strategies USAID/Ecuador’s goals for the Indigenous Program are stated in the Terms of Reference (TOR) as “…habitat conservation and benefits to people living in and around parks and protected areas”. The TOR says: “All of this work has been financed with funds earmarked by Congress to conserve biodiversity, and entailing specific design and reporting requirements to ensure a conservation focus (see http://www.usaid.gov.our_work.environment/biodiversity)”.13 The TOR further states that the indigenous program has “…been financed with funds earmarked by Congress to conserve biodiversity and entail specific design and reporting requirements to ensure a conservation focus”. To count towards a biodiversity earmark, a program must: (1) have an explicit biodiversity objective; (2) be identified based on an analysis of threats to biodiversity; (3) monitor associated indicators for biodiversity conservation; and (4) positively impact biologically significant areas (USAID, 2005). No overall concept paper or program design has laid out a strategy for the Indigenous Program. Rather, the program has consisted of seven different projects, which sometimes overlapped in time, each with their own approaches and activities aimed at achieving the conservation of biodiversity within indigenous territories. 3.2 Projects and Approaches Table 3 summarizes the Indigenous Program’s projects, including their periods of operation, budgets, implementing organizations, and the indigenous peoples who were involved. The following projects have been part of the Indigenous Program: Southern Border Program (PSUR), Protecting Biodiversity of Habitats in the Awa Territory of Ecuador (PAT), Conservation in Areas Managed by Indigenous Groups (CAIMAN), Parks in Peril (PiP), Indigenous Landscapes of Integrated Conservation of Andean Areas (IL/ICAA), Sustainable Livelihoods of Integrated Conservation of Andean Area (SL/ICAA), and Integrated Management of Indigenous Lands (IMIL). The IL/ICAA and SL/ICAA projects are part of the Initiative for Conservation in the Andean Amazon (ICAA). USAID/Ecuador designed, financed, and implemented PSUR, AT, PiP, and CAIMAN for various periods between 2000 and 2009 and is currently implementing IMIL, which ends in 2011. IL/ICAA and SL/ICAA are jointly financed by USAID/Ecuador and USAID/Washington under ICAA and will end in 2011. 13 USAID/Ecuador’s goals and strategies derive in part from the Ecuador Report on Tropical Forests and Biodiversity (FAA 118 and 119 Report) prepared in 2006. This report recommended that USAID/Ecuador finance two programs in order to conserve Ecuador’s biodiversity and tropical forests; it called one of these programs “Conservation in Indigenous Territories” and the other “Conservation in Protected Areas” (Kernan and Stern, 2006). ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 10 Table 3 Summary of projects in the Indigenous Program Project Completion period Budget (US$) Implementing organization Indigenous group(s) involved Approaches identified NRM TR IS IGA SF CM PSUR (Southern Border Program) 2000-2006 $5,700,000 CARE Shuar X X - X - X AT (Ecuadorian Awá Territory) 2001-2003 $842,673 World Wildlife Fund Awá - - X X - X CAIMAN (Conservation in Areas Managed by Indigenous Groups) 2002-2007 $9,500,000 Chemonics Cofán, Awá, Waorani, Secoya, Chachi, Afro￾Ecuadorian X X X X X X PiP (Parks in Peril) 2002-2007 $4,300,000 The Nature Conservancy Cofán X X X X X X IL/ICAA* (Indigenous Landscapes of Integrated Conservation of Andean Areas) 2006-2011 $2,008,047 The Nature Conservancy Cofán X X X - X X SL/ICAA (Sustainable Livelihoods of Integrated Conservation of Andean Areas) 2006-2011 $1,237,516 Rainforest Alliance Cofán, Kichwa - - - X - - IMIL (Integrated Management of Indigenous Lands) 2007-2011 $6,095,000 Wildlife Conservation Society Waorani, Cofán, Kichwa, Awá X X X X X X TOTAL $29,600,000 6 8 * Budget estimate for ICAA activities in Ecuador from project documentation Key: NRM – Natural Resource Management; TR – Territorial Rights; IS – Institutional Strengthening; IGA – Income Generating Activity; SF – Sustainable Financing; and CM – Conflict Management. The total budget of the Indigenous Program so far has been approximately US$29.6 million. Ten indigenous groups have been involved in the program: Waorani, Cofán, Kichwa, Awá, Secoya, Chachi, Afro-Ecuadorian, Siona, Shuar, and Zápara. The last column of the table indicates the approaches that the evaluation team identified in these projects: Natural Resource Management (NRM), Territorial Rights (TR), Institutional Strengthening (IS), Income Generation (IG), Sustainable Financing (SF), and Conflict management (CM). The following sections discuss the six approaches. In each section, the achievements of the approach are summarized in a table, the “lessons learned” noted in mid-term or final evaluations of the PSUR, CAIMAN, PiP, IL/ICAA, and SL/ICAA projects are quoted verbatim without making any judgment on their validity, the contribution of the approach ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 11 to the long-term conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and welfare of indigenous peoples is discussed, and some general conclusions about the approach are noted. Map 1 shows the geographic location of nine of the ten indigenous groups with which the Indigenous Program has worked. The location of the Kichwa is not shown specifically on the map, but they are the most numerous groups to the south, north, and west of the Waorani territory. Map 1 Geographic locations of indigenous groups with which the Indigenous Program has worked ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 12 3.3 Natural Resource Management Approach ACHIEVEMENTS Table 4 indicates that five of the projects (PSUR, CAIMAN, PiP, IL/ICAA, and IMIL) used the natural resource management approach, while two did not (PAT, SL/ICAA). The projects implemented four types of natural resource management activities: (1) management plans; (2) protection of species; (3) training; and (4) monitoring. Table 4 Principal achievements of the natural resource management approach Project Achievements by activity Management plans prepared Area (ha) Species protected14 Individuals trained Monitoring PSUR (Southern Border Program) Shuar communities 185,000 (38 units) Boca chico; chivu 1,190 None PAT (Protecting Biodiversity of Habitats in the Awa Territory of Ecuador) None None None None None CAIMAN (Conservation in Areas Managed by Indigenous Groups) Territorial management plans 1,262,701 None 1,600 None PiP (Parks in Peril) Cofán Ancestral Área; Cofán￾Bermejo; Sinaguae15 380,000; 55,451; 20,000 (3 units) Tapir; Spectacled bear No data Geographic information system (GIS) monitoring system for Condor Reserve IL/ICAA (Indigenous Landscapes of Integrated Conservation of Andean Areas) La Bonita Reserve 70,000 None 269 Land use change study, northeastern Ecuador SL/ICAA (Sustainable Livelihoods of Integrated Conservation of Andean Areas) Yasuni National; Sumaco-Napo￾Galeras National Parks 1,483,239 None 4,790 None IMIL (Integrated Management of Indigenous Lands) Cofán Dureno Territory; Community Zoning; Waorani and Kichwa territories (n.d.) Charapa turtle 2,407 GIS monitoring system designed for the Yasuni Biosphere Reserve TOTAL 3,456,391 (44 units) 5 species 10,256 Source: Project documentation as listed in the bibliography. 14 “Species protected” refers to an activity concerned with protecting a species rather than a habitat. 15 PiP prepared management plans for the Antisana and Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserves but since these protected areas are located mostly in the highlands, which is not considered part of the geographical area of the Indigenous Program, these management plans are not included in the table. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 13 Management plans were prepared for more than 565,000 ha of indigenous and protected area territories. Training was given to 10,256 people in various technical subjects. Two kinds of native fish were reproduced in fish ponds, agreements were negotiated with local people to reduce hunting of tapirs and spectacled bears, and eggs of the Charapa turtle were collected and incubated and the young turtles were then released. Two monitoring systems were designed – one of which was implemented – and a study of changes in land use in northeastern Ecuador was made. Implicit in the term “natural resource management” is the use of natural resources for commercial or subsistence. These aspects of natural resource management, however, are discussed in the section on income generating activities. LESSONS FROM PRIOR EVALUATIONS  “Focus on areas with a conservation mandate such as protected areas and on indigenous communities with social, cultural, and economic commitments to land uses that are compatible with conservation.”  “The large overlap between areas with indigenous populations and areas of intact habitat with low internal threats managed collectively make conservation of large tracts of habitat feasible.”  “In protected areas, co-management agreements are falling short in delivering tenure security and promoting compliance with NRM plans.” DISCUSSION Management Plans Natural resource management plans for an indigenous territory define the objectives for the management of all or part of the territory. The objectives can be for production, protection or a combination of both. Written management plans also: establish the boundaries of the management unit; locate, describe and quantify its renewable resources; lay out actions to protect and utilize these resources; and assign responsibilities for those actions. They may include a budget and a plan for monitoring and evaluating the management actions and their effects. Since management plans are prepared for a certain period of time, they must periodically be prepared again. The quality of each new management plan thus should generally improve compared to the previous one, since it will be based on more information and experience. Indigenous peoples living in traditional ways did not need a written plan to manage and protect the renewable natural resources within their territories. They managed their land based on the accumulation of experience, precedents, cultural practices, and intimate knowledge of their environment, which formed an integral part of their culture. Their management objectives were largely limited to the needs of a subsistence economy and traditional life-styles and to a population small in relation to the size of their territories. A written management plan would have done little to improve the quality of the management practices of indigenous peoples who lived in a traditional way. The relationship between indigenous peoples and the renewable natural resources of their territories, however, has changed drastically over the past few decades, and few indigenous peoples still live in an entirely traditional way. The causes of this changed relationship are several. First, due to the general availability of medicines and medical care, the population of many indigenous peoples has grown even while the size of their territories has shrunk.16 Therefore, they tend to extract more resources per unit of area than they did 16 In the 1950s, for example, the Waoranis occupied a territory at least double the size of the one they occupy now but their population was less than half. Similarly, the population of the Shuar has doubled over the last two decades, but the size of their territory has become smaller. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 14 previously, thereby affecting the abundance of natural resources. While the boundaries of traditional indigenous territories generally shifted to accommodate these changes in populations, legally established boundaries are more difficult to change. Second, few of the indigenous peoples in Ecuador still live within completely traditional cultures or subsist entirely on products extracted from their environment. Rather, most of them now need cash to pay for the costs of schooling, health, food, and transportation, and they therefore participate in the market economy, selling and buying products. The production of these products often requires the extraction of natural resources – such as wood, fibers, and plants – from within their territories, thus creating the risk of over-exploitation. Third, the State, which claims ownership of all renewable natural resources, has promulgated laws and regulations to regulate the use of these resources. The State has never assigned sufficient funds, personnel, and equipment to make the enforcement of these regulations possible; nonetheless, in order to stay within the law, the indigenous peoples must abide by these regulations when they exploit natural resources within their territories.17 Finally, although land titles may be conveyed to an indigenous community as a whole, often the land within the community is in fact divided up and becomes the equivalent of private property of families or individuals. Management plans may thus be useful under these new conditions, both for the conservation of biodiversity and for the welfare of indigenous peoples. First, they indicate where, when, and how much of a natural resource can be extracted without lowering its production potential.18 Second, management plans may reinforce indigenous claims to land and renewable natural resources and help fend off attempts by outsiders to appropriate them. Third, a management plan may reinforce the legality of indigenous use of renewable natural resources if the plan is made according to the requirements of official regulations. Finally, a management plan may serve to differentiate the areas of the indigenous territory that have been assigned to families or individuals from those that are retained as communal. In his comments on the draft of this evaluation report, Richard Smith notes the need for “…establishing new rules for caring for and using resources within the community based on a shared vision of long-term community goals..” that are “…created and enforced by the community members.” Such rules, he suggests, could be included in a community natural resources management plan which then could serve to help consolidate and defend community territories, strengthen indigenous institutions and conserve biodiversity. Ostrom (1990) has studied such community rule-making processes extensively and shows that – under some conditions – such processes can be an effective way to achieve the conservation of renewable natural resources. Most of the indigenous groups in northwestern and eastern Ecuador have already subdivided most of their territories among families, however, even though the legal title may remain communal. Land still held in common within the territory is often further from a road or river, is more rugged topographically, or has poorer soil for agriculture than land occupied by families. The shared rules that Ostrom and Smith mention, however, could be a useful component of a management plan for the areas of the management unit still held in common or for resources that cross property lines, such as game animals.19 So far as could be determined, the effectiveness of none of the management plans prepared under the Indigenous Program has been evaluated, and doing so was beyond the scope of this evaluation. To draw conclusions about the usefulness of these plans, the following would be required: judgment about their technical quality; the processes used to prepare them; the ways in which they have been used; how they have contributed to measurable outputs, outcomes, and results for biodiversity conservation and indigenous welfare; how they are being adapted and updated; and the opinions of the indigenous people themselves 17 The logging of Spanish cedar in the Waorani territory is a classic example. Spanish cedar probably regenerates mostly in abandoned clearings that the Waorani themselves made in the past for houses and subsistence agriculture. Yet now, if the Waorani negotiate the sale of Spanish cedar trees – whose wood is valuable – without following the regulations of the Ministry of Environment, they are acting illegally and the wood is “illegal”. 18 For instance, obtaining regeneration of Spanish cedar requires a clearing that is large enough to provide the conditions of light, soil, and temperature that its seeds and seedlings require to germinate and grow. 19 In the forest management plans prepared for the Chachi and Awá, for example, the least productive and most remote parts of the territory were chosen to be forest reserves while the land close to the rivers was divided among the families. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 15 about the usefulness of the management plans. Without such evaluations of the management plans, it is not possible to draw a conclusion as to the extent that these management plans have contributed to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity or to the welfare of indigenous peoples. Species Protection The protection or ex-situ reproduction of a species serves to increase the population of that species. If the individuals reproduced are released back into the wild, then the wild population of the species may increase permanently if habitat conditions permit sufficiently successful reproduction or regeneration of the species in the wild. An increase in the number or the reestablishment of a species also may contribute to the preservation of other species by reestablishing interactions between species and may also – in the case of the reproduction of the Charapa turtle, boca chico, and chivu, for example – increase the supply of food available for human consumption. No objective evaluations of the species protection activity were available. The documentation does not indicate the rationale for selecting a few species for special attention or reproduction from among the thousands of species in the northwest and eastern lowlands. A species reproduction activity will be useful for conservation of a species, however, to the extent that it reestablishes reproducing, genetically-diverse, wild populations of the species. The benefits for indigenous peoples would depend on the food value of the species and the costs involved in its reproduction in captivity. Data was not available for this evaluation to draw conclusions about the extent to which the species protection activity achieved either of these benefits. An intuitive judgment, however, would suggest that activities protecting habitat for thousands of species have greater long-term value than activities protecting only a few species out of the thousands that occur in the northwestern and eastern lowlands. Training Training imparts new technical skills for carrying out natural resource management activities. The documentation did not provide any evaluations of the degree to which the people trained have applied their skills. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, however, it is reasonable to assume most of the training was utilized in ways that were useful for the conservation of biodiversity or the welfare of indigenous peoples. Monitoring Monitoring provides the basis for both understanding the character and rate of changes in biodiversity and indigenous welfare, as well as for evaluating and adapting management actions; thus, monitoring is essential for conserving and managing biodiversity and natural resources and for increasing indigenous welfare. The usefulness of the monitoring, however, depends on how well the type, intensity intervals, and indicators for monitoring have been chosen and how regularly and accurately data has been collected and analyzed. There are no evaluations of the monitoring systems or the land use change study that were prepared under the Indigenous Program. Although this evaluation cannot draw any firm conclusions about the usefulness of the monitoring activity, systematic monitoring will be likely provide useful information for managing natural resources. CONCLUSIONS Indigenous peoples have accumulated much knowledge about the natural resources and biodiversity in their traditional territories, so they have a sound basis for managing them. One indication of their ability to protect and manage their territories’ natural resources is that their territories retain more natural forest habitat than those of surrounding areas whose management has passed to the State or to agricultural settlers. Leonardo Viteri of the Organización de Pueblos Indígenas de Pastaza (OPIP) has described the traditional, indigenous ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 16 management of land and natural resources as follows: “[We] have developed agricultural technologies that form a complex of land management strategies appropriate for the regional ecology. Long-term cyclical rotation integrates intensive production, extensive production, managed fallow and managed forest to regenerate the forest…We have our own managed form of ancestral production…and this must be respected” (quoted in Sawyer, 2004). Field observations in the eastern lowlands certainly confirm that indigenous territories retain more biodiversity, more fertile soil, cleaner water and higher quality renewable natural resources than non-indigenous lands. These “results” of indigenous management of biodiversity and forest habitat largely speak for themselves as to the comparative quality of indigenous versus non-indigenous management of natural resources. There is no clear indication that the activities under the natural resource management approach (management plans, training, species protection and propagation, and monitoring) have served to significantly improve upon the traditional systems of natural resource management or have increased the conservation of biodiversity in the indigenous territories. In fact, two indigenous leaders expressed this viewpoint to the evaluation team. Germán Friere, president of NAE said: “The Achaur have always protected their territory. We do not need to be paid to do so.” Similarly, Blanca Grefa, president of the Federación de Comunas Unión de la Amazonia Ecuatoriana (FCUNAE) commented: “We know what conservation is while the organizations NGOs make money from conservation. The forest is our ‘pacha mama’. There we have our medicine, food, and pure air. The others are who should receive environmental education.” It may be true that these statements, as Ted MacDonald of the Technical Review Panel points out, “…speak as much to the individual environmentalists who are seen to run such projects as they speak about broad concepts of conservation…” Nonetheless, the territories that have been under the management of indigenous peoples in Ecuador’s northwestern and eastern lowlands have retained much of their ecosystems, species, and genetic biodiversity, whereas areas whose management has been the responsibility of the State and agricultural settlers generally have not. This certainly suggests that many indigenous people do know how to protect and even foster biodiversity. The main benefit of the natural resource management approach, therefore, may not be so much improved management practices as such; rather, it could be improved interactions of the indigenous groups with the national and international economy and with national institutions in relation to the utilization of the renewable natural resources within their territories. A plan for forest management, for example, provides the basis for complying with national regulations for harvesting and for selling forest products to markets. For such a purpose, the natural resource management approach is probably an important and integral component of attempts to combine the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and natural resources with the increased welfare of indigenous peoples. 3.4 Territorial Rights ACHIEVEMENTS Table 5 indicates that four of the projects (PSUR, CAIMAN, PiP, IMIL) used the territorial approach while three (AT, IL/ICAA, SL/ICAA) did not. The projects implemented five types of activities: (1) land titling; (2) demarcation; (3) park guards; (4) training; and (5) co-management arrangements. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 17 Table 5 Principal achievements of the territorial rights approach Project Achievements by activity Land titled (ha) Indigenous groups involved Demarcation of boundaries Guards (individuals) Individuals trained Co￾management agreements (ha) (group/ protected areas) PSUR (Southern Border Program) 229,654 Shuar (24,361 individuals) Marked boundaries of individual properties None About six Shuar (in titling processes) None AT (Awá Territory) None None None None None CAIMAN (Conservation in Areas Managed by Indigenous Groups) 879,427 Awá and Yasuni Intangible Zone20 500 km in indigenous territories (82 km in Chachi; 248 in Cofán) Cofán (60) and Chachi (n.d.) Cofán Park Guard Program (CPGP) 418 129,000 (Ministry of the Environment (MAE) -Kichwa and Cofán in Yasuni, Cayapas￾Coca, and Cuyabeno Protected Areas) PiP (Parks in Peril) 35,000 Cofánes None Cofán (54) PGP No data 90,000 (MAE - Cofán in Cofán￾Bermejo and Cayapas Coca) IL/ICAA (Indigenous Landscapes of Integrated Conservation of Andean Areas) None None None None None SL/ICAA (Sustainable Livelihoods of Integrated Conservation of Andean Areas) None None None None None IMIL (Integrated Management of Indigenous Lands) 31,600 Waorani 84.2 km in Waorani Cofán, and Kichwa territories Waorani (7), Kichwa (6), Cofán (6) (CPGP) None None TOTAL21 1,175,6 81 584 km 133 people 418 219,000 ha Source: project documentation. 20 The Yasuni Intangible Zone is included here because CAIMAN helped to demarcate the zone. The Taromenane and Tagaeiri indigenous groups live within the YIZ at least some of the time. 21 The numbers in this row should be considered the minimum results, since it is possible that the documentation available did not record all of the results of these projects. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 18 The Indigenous Program assisted indigenous peoples to obtain titles to 1,175,681belonging to the Waorani, Cofán, Awá, and Shuar groups, demarcate 584 km of boundary lines, and employ 133 people as guards. Several Shuar were trained in land titling procedures, and co-management agreements were prepared for 219,000 ha in the Yasuni National Park, the Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve and the Cofan-Bermejo Reserve. LESSONS LEARNED FROM PRIOR EVALUATIONS  “Economic pressures and the absorption of western values are challenging the cultures of indigenous peoples, so the securing of land rights may not only serve cultural or conservation purposes, but also political and economic ends.”  “[I]nalienable community land titles are more suited to maintaining the long-term integrity of indigenous communities’ ancestral lands than are individual titles and give indigenous groups a stronger position to defend their rights in the face of powerful outsiders with greater political clout.”  “[A]n integrated land titling and property rights (LTPR) approach that enhances both the legal and social recognition of rights, supports mechanisms to defend those rights, and strengthens local institutions will yield more sustainable results than the isolated implementation of any single intervention.”  “Titling by itself is unlikely to lead to tenure security or sustainable natural resource management.”  “Park guards are a powerful and visible symbol of an indigenous community’s control over territory and provide multiple benefits such as employment, leadership skills, monitoring and protecting biodiversity, and fostering pride among a community.”  “In protected areas, co-management agreements are falling short in delivering tenure security and promoting compliance with natural resource management plans.” DISCUSSION Land Titling Land titles strengthen indigenous peoples’ possibilities for preventing agricultural settlers from invading their traditional territories. If indigenous people have a title to their territory, the Institute for Agricultural Development (INDA) cannot legally issue a title for the same land to agricultural settlers. INDA requires agricultural settlers to clear forest to prove their occupation and obtain a land title, but it does not require indigenous peoples to clear forest in order to prove occupation. When land titles are given to indigenous people, deforestation is less likely to occur.22 Land titles also give indigenous peoples a stronger position from which to negotiate access to their territories by the state, as well as oil, timber and mining companies. Ecuador has strictly adhered to the International Labor Organization’s Convention 169, which states that indigenous peoples are guaranteed legal title to their traditional lands, and to the United Nations’ Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Ecuadorian Constitution of 2008 directly incorporates many of the terms of these two documents, which require consultation and consent of indigenous people before the resources of their territories are exploited. Thus, when they obtain land titles to their territories, indigenous peoples are given a better legal basis upon which to resist the demands of agricultural settlers, the State, and extractive companies for unfettered access 22 This is not always true, since some indigenous peoples such as the Kichwa and Shuar are also agricultural settlers and clear forest in order to prove occupation to INDA. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 19 to their territories and to negotiate terms that are more favorable for their own long-term welfare and for the conservation of their territory’s biodiversity and natural resources. Furthermore, land titles are a basic requirement for management of the renewable natural resources of a unit of land because they create a degree of certainty that investments in management will not be lost. For example, the first criterion of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) guidelines for the certification of forest management is that the forestland unit must have a legal owner. Germán Freire, president of the Nacionalidad Achaur del Ecuador (NAE) stated that land titles are NAE’s priority objective. The president of the Waorani organization (Nacionalidad Waorani del Ecuador – NAWE) also said that land titles were his organization’s first priority. He said that NAWE wants to obtain a global land title for Waorani territories, because it would be more effective in strengthening negotiations with oil companies and preventing fragmentation of the Waorani territory. Blanca Grefa, president of the Kichwa organization of Orellana Province (Federación de Comunas Unión de la Amazonia Ecuatoriana –FCUNAE), also emphasized that the principal interest of her organization is to obtain land titles for its member communities. Demarcation of Boundaries Marking property boundaries is a routine task of land ownership and management since it is necessary to avoid and resolve disputes about the location of boundaries. Demarcation thus contributes to the stability in land ownership that is a condition for conservation and sustainable management of biodiversity and natural resources. Guards Guards patrol a property for the purpose of identifying and preventing intrusions by people who are trying to invade and occupy land or to extract natural resources such as timber, game, medicinal plants, or fish. Some level of patrolling is required for any property, but it is a particularly necessary activity in areas such as the northwest and eastern lowlands of Ecuador where invasions of forestland by agricultural settlers and illegal extractors of forest resources are so common. In interviews, indigenous people in the Cofán community of Pisuri, including one of its leaders, Aurelio Kenama, emphasized how important the guard program has been in controlling intrusions into the territory from non-Cofánes and also in providing employment. One of the lessons learned notes the usefulness of the guards as symbols of an indigenous community’s existence and its control over a defined territory. The principal issue related to the activity of guards, therefore, is not its usefulness but how to obtain a steady source of funds to pay the guards, since patrolling must be a constant, regular, systematic activity in order to be effective over the long-term. Training It was not possible to evaluate the quality of the training given under the territorial rights approach or how much of the training has been applied. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that training is a basic requirement for implementing the territorial rights approach successfully. Co-Management Agreements Many protected areas in Ecuador have been super-imposed on indigenous territories. There are three possible solutions to making the coherent management and protection of such areas possible: (1) the indigenous people can be relocated; (2) the declaration of the protected area can be rescinded; or (3) the indigenous people and the government can agree to co-manage the area. Co-management agreements offer the only practical solution to the superimposition of protected areas and indigenous territories since options (1) and (2) are not feasible. Such agreements provide official, legal recognition that indigenous peoples live and have ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 20 rights within protected areas, and the agreements identify and offer the possibility of successfully resolving existing and potential conflicts between the interests of the indigenous peoples and conservation purposes of the protected area. One of the lessons learned says that the co-management agreements are not working well. The evaluation team had no possibility of evaluating the validity of this specific statement or the overall effectiveness of the co-management agreements that were prepared with the support of the Indigenous Program. The director of the Cuyabeno Faunistic Reserve indicated that the co-management agreements with the indigenous peoples have been very useful in defining the relationship between the protected areas and its indigenous inhabitants, especially with regards to boundaries between the different indigenous peoples. Delio Payaguaje, one of the principal leaders of the Siona, however, criticized the administration of the Cuyabeno Faunistic Reserve because the Siona receive no benefits from it other than the chance to earn some money by operating boats for tourists. The Indigenous Program does not appear to have been involved in arranging for co-management agreements between private businesses and indigenous peoples. The documentation indicated no attempts, for example, to make co-management agreements between a timber or tourism company and an indigenous group for the management of a unit of land. CONCLUSIONS The Indigenous Program’s territorial approach has established the legal ownership by indigenous peoples of some areas of forested land, enabling them to resist invasions by agricultural settlers. Legal ownership by indigenous people of forest land tends to reduce the rate of forest conversion, fragmentation, and degradation for two reasons. First, their traditional agricultural methods involved the clearing of smaller, more temporary clearings for agriculture that are used for a few years and then allowed to revert to forest. Agricultural settlers, by contrast, tend to clear larger areas of forest for agriculture and, once the fertility of the soil has been exhausted, convert the agricultural land to pasture. Second, the population of the indigenous peoples per unit of land is often less than that of agricultural settlers, so there is less pressure to eliminate forest. Two points about the titles given to indigenous peoples, however, limit their effectiveness for increasing their welfare or conserving biodiversity. First, although the title coveys to the indigenous group the right of occupation of the land, it does not give it the right to the subsurface minerals and conveys only usufruct rights to the aboveground renewable natural resources. This is because Ecuador’s constitution reserves for the State the ownership of all minerals, oil, and gas below the soil surface and timber and other renewable resources above the soil surface. Ecuadorian law, moreover, specifically states as illegal any activity by indigenous peoples that obstructs activities of oil exploitation. There is no chance that these provisions will be changed, since they are deeply rooted in Ecuadorian law and are supported by almost all non-indigenous Ecuadorians. Therefore, the only way in which indigenous peoples will benefit from the non-renewable resources under their territories is if they are able to negotiate compensation in return for access rights or for the negative environmental and cultural impacts on them. Second, the granting of land titles frequently has been utilized to divide and weaken rather than strengthen indigenous peoples. Sawyer (2004), for example, analyzes how the Ecuadorian State – together with the oil company ARCO – weakened Kichwa opposition to oil exploitation in Pastaza Province by giving land titles to separate communities. When different communities remain united in spite of having separate land titles, they may be able to maintain a united position regarding such issues as oil exploration and exploitation. Another solution would be for them to relinquish their community land titles in exchange for a global land title in the name of the entire indigenous group. The first option does not appear to be as permanent as the second, since the unity of an indigenous group may eventually be broken. Attempts to implement the second ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 21 option, however, may stir up rivalries between the indigenous communities, as has occurred within the Waorani group. 3.5 Institutional Strengthening Approach ACHIEVEMENTS Table 6 indicates that four projects (Awá Territory (AT), CAIMAN, IL/ICAA, IMIL) used the institutional strengthening approach and that they implemented six types of activities: (1) training; (2) planning; (3) technical assistance; (4) operating expenses; (5) direct grants; and (6) reform of statues. These projects provided their assistance in institutional strengthening to eight indigenous organizations, including those of the Chachi, Achuar, Awá, Cofán, Secoya, Waorani, Kichwa, and Zápara. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 22 Table 6 Principal achievements of the institutional strengthening approach Project Achievements by activity Type of training provided Institutional strategy plans Technical assistance Operating expenses Direct grants (US$) PSUR (Southern Border Program) None None None Federación Interprovincial de Centros Shuar (FICSH) None AT (Protecting Biodiversity of Habitats in the Awa Territory of Ecuador) Financing; administration (FCAE)* FECAE Reform statues (FCAE) FCAE None CAIMAN (Conservation in Areas Managed by Indigenous Groups) Organizational capacity; administrative manuals (FEINCE, AMWAE, FECCHE, FCAE) Strategic, work and annual plans (various indigenous organizations) Financial administration Various indigenous institutions $1,800,000 (FECCHE, AMWAE, FEINCE, FCAE) PiP (Parks in Peril) None None None None None IL/ICAA (Indigenous Landscapes of Integrated Conservation of Andean Areas) FSC FEINCE Strategy Technical Assistance to FEINCE and PSC for Coca￾Codo Sinclair project; and to COICA for climate change issues Cofán (FEINCE and FSC) None SL/ICAA (Sustainable Livelihoods of Integrated Conservation of Andean Areas) None None None None None IMIL (Integrated Management of Indigenous Lands) Organizational capacity (984 people) Life plans (Waorani, Awá); Strategic Plans (NAWE, AMWAE) Advisors to FCAE, AMWAE, and FEINCE NAWE, AMWAE, FCAE, FEINCE $1,145,000 to 9 indigenous organizations TOTAL 984 people 2,945,000 *Due to the great number of acronyms in this table, a key is provided in lieu of spelling out the full names in the table. Key: AMWAE – Asociación de Mujeres Waorani del Ecuador; FCAE – Federación de Centros Awá del Ecuador; FECCHE – Federación de Centros Chachi del Ecuador; FEINCE – Federación Indígena de la Nacionalidad Cofán del Ecuador; FSC – Forest Stewardship Council; NAWE – Nacionalidad Waorani del Ecuador Source: project documentation. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 23 The Indigenous Program trained more than 984 people in various aspects of administration and financing of indigenous organizations. It helped a number of indigenous organizations to prepare institutional strategic plans, and improve their institutional structures. It provided technical assistance for the negotiation of agreements between the Cofánes and the hydroelectric project Coca-Codo Sinclair. Currently, the IMIL project is providing technical advice to the Federación de Awá del Ecuador (FCAE), the Asociación de Mujeres Waorani del Ecuador (AMWAE), and the Federación Indígena de la Nacionalidad Cofán del Ecuador (FEINCE). The Indigenous Program has supported the operating costs of various indigenous organizations and has made direct grants worth a total of US$2,945,000 to indigenous organizations. LESSONS LEARNED  “Strong local organizations combined with efficient and active government at the local and national levels are necessary for the long-term sustainability of any intervention.”  “Conservation requires active engagement of local government particularly in institutional environments where current national practices are antithetical to conservation goals.”  “Governance is the critical leverage point for biodiversity conservation efforts. Conservation efforts that are not tied to governance considerations risk becoming irrelevant.”  “Programs that strengthen representative indigenous organizations that inhabit areas of high biodiversity value are important bulwarks in protecting biodiversity and empowerment of indigenous organizations.”  “Organizations where political and technical functions are intertwined have difficulty maintaining focus and continuity with respect to technical work. Leadership instability and associated staff turnover impedes the capacity of indigenous organizations to function on an effective and sustainable basis.”  “Indigenous organizations cannot grow and succeed based only on volunteer labor.”  “Without salaries, people are susceptible to corruption and cannot be expected to devote their full attention to the needs of the organization.”  “Alliances with other organizations produce results when each organization respects its own and other geographic and thematic niches.” DISCUSSION Training Training is a basic requirement for strengthening indigenous institutions. The issue is whether – and how well – the people who are trained apply their training within the indigenous institutions. Insufficient data was available to evaluate the effectiveness of the training under the Indigenous Program. Planning Institutions need an institutional plan in order to operate efficiently and effectively. Only the IMIL project has financed an institutional planning activity, assisting the Waorani and Awá to prepare life plans and strategic plans, although the total number was not available. The effectiveness of the life and strategic plans was not evaluated. Technical Assistance Providing technical assistance is a well-established way to strengthen institutions. The Indigenous Program appears to have provided technical assistance that was important for strengthening certain indigenous ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 24 organizations. FCAE was reported to be functioning effectively, perhaps in part because of the reform of its statues. FEINCE is said to be managing its funds well, perhaps in part because of the technical assistance CAIMAN gave it in accounting practices. The technical advisors placed under the IMIL project in FCAE, AMWAE, and FEINCE are probably giving these institutions important assistance. At least, the evaluation team received the impression that the technical advisor – who is financed by IMIL – for NAWE provides sound, resourceful advice to its president. Operating Expenses Payment of operating expenses of the indigenous organizations permits the establishment of an organization with which projects, such as those financed under the Indigenous Program, can interact. The activity also gives the indigenous peoples an opportunity to practice running their own institutions and to use institutions to represent their interests in negotiations with the government and extractive companies. Several of the lessons learned indicate the importance of subsidizing the operating costs of indigenous institutions as a means to help them become more established. Observations in NAWE indicated how important subsidies for operating expenses can be in the establishment of indigenous institutions. Without the Indigenous Program’s support, NAWE would probably no longer exist. Direct Grants Direct grants strengthen indigenous organizations by permitting them to take responsibility for funds and implement activities. The available documentation indicates that the direct grants have been an important factor in keeping the indigenous organizations functioning, although no evaluation of the grants was available. CONCLUSIONS Indigenous peoples need institutions that are able to represent their interests effectively in dealing with State, extractive companies, timber companies, NGOs, and other interest groups that have a stake in the resources within indigenous territories. If they do not have strong institutions, indigenous groups are usually unable to negotiate on an equal basis with the State, extractive companies, settlers, and environmental NGOs. The institutional strengthening approach has enabled a number of indigenous institutions, including NAWE, FCAE, FEINCE, and the Federación de Centros Chachi del Ecuador (FECCHE), to become established or to improve their capabilities. Even a comparatively weak organization such as NAWE has recently been able to competently manage the small funds it has received from REPSOL, an oil company, and from the IMIL. FCAE is also competently administrating funds it has received for the management of its territory. A main issue facing the indigenous organizations is how to maintain their legitimacy with the indigenous communities they were established to represent. Several indigenous leaders noted that unification was their main job. For example, Pedro Inque, the president of NAWE, emphasized, “I represent all of the Waorani, not just my community”. Similarly, Blanca Grefa, the new president of FCUNAE, told the evaluation team how she constantly visits the Kichwa communities along the Napo River in order to avoid a separation between the FCUNAE leadership and its members. 3.6 Income Generating Approach JUSTIFICATION Income generating activities (IGAs) are an important part of lowlands indigenous people’s livelihoods, contributing additional income and job opportunities as a means to fulfill their education, health or transport needs; IGAs even contribute to gender equity in some cases. Small business and entrepreneurial activities are intended to improve the livelihoods of indigenous people and to enable them to gain access to the benefits of ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 25 conservation. Conservation practitioners argue that alternative income-generating activities – if sustainable practices are employed – are strategic ways to reduce endogenous pressures over natural resources (e.g. overexploitation due to financial dependency), and gain indigenous groups’ acceptance for conservation goals (Alers et al., 2007; Bovarnick and Gupta, 2003). To this end, a business-oriented approach to conservation has been recommended to (1) offer employment opportunities or additional income sources locally, (2) divert investment away from activities that negatively affect biodiversity, and (3) develop initiatives that promote sustainable management of the available resources (Bovarnick and Gupta, 2003). IGAs are also perceived as a means to reduce poverty. Most people agree that a range of different types of capital is needed to reduce poverty (including poverty in indigenous territories): natural capital, human capital, business capital, infrastructure (e.g., roads), public institutional capital and knowledge capital. It has also been documented that people stay poor because the amount of capital23 per person actually falls from generation to generation (Sachs, 2005). IGAs can contribute to delivering seed capital to start small-scale businesses. However, IGA interventions have been patchy and few in number. Consequently, they may not be sufficient to promote growth of per capita income at a scale that enables capital accumulation in poor indigenous communities in and around protected areas (PAs). However, there is substantial evidence that IGAs in and around PAs are contributing to improving human well-being by providing job opportunities and increasing seasonal income, particularly in the nature-based tourism sector. The USAID-funded cocoa with SL/ICAA project is an example of combined sustainable agriculture and tourism. Commonly, the process of developing feasible IGA includes a number of critical steps, such as: 1. Identify potential products (that interest indigenous peoples). 2. Conduct situational analysis and target area profile. 3. Assess organizational set-up and capacity. 4. Clarify the business concept. 5. Conduct relevant market research (assess supply and demand). 6. Conduct feasibility study of the proposed business activities. 7. Prioritized activities based on the feasibility study. 8. Write a simple business plan for the most promising activities including costs. 9. Conduct Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) (financial performance, income distribution, and equity). When the proposed product or activity is feasible, then an additional environmental (biodiversity) impact assessment will determine if an impact mitigation strategy should be developed. To implement the business (i.e., the IGA), seed funding will be needed to cover initial costs of infrastructure, training, product development, and marketing. However, operating cost should be covered with profits. Following the process above is a requisite to reducing the risk of failure and enabling the monitoring of the financial performance of an IGA. However, there are limitations on what can be expected from an IGA; and even with the best business plan, market instability can cause an IGA project to fail. 23 Capital is accumulated when households save part of their income, or have part of their income taxed to finance investments (government or stock market). Capital diminishes or loses value over time or with wear and tear (e.g., degradation of forest or marine ecosystems). If savings exceed depreciation, there is a positive net capital accumulation, and in the opposite situation – when savings are less than depreciation – the capital stock declines. But in order to curb down poverty, it will be necessary that – even with a positive capital accumulation – the net capital accumulation is large enough to keep up with population growth (Sachs, 2005). ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 26 RESULTS Five of the seven USAID-funded projects financed IGAs (including 11 different products), involved 4,068 people in training, and set up different commercialization strategies. Details are included in Table 7. Table 7 Principal achievements of the IGA approach Project Type of products financed Activities undertaken Sales volume in US$ Number of people trained Number of beneficiarie s Commercial -ization strategy PSUR (Southern Border Program) Wood; agriculture; animals; handicrafts; eco-tourism; agroforestry Training; direct commercial￾ization n.d. (aproximately 20% rise in income; annual family income ranges from $186 to $1,736) 185 families in low￾impact logging 650 (Shuar and colonos) Direct: sold in 6 stores for forestry and agro-products and 3 for handicrafts AT (Ecuadorian Awá Territory) Wood processing (sawmill) Infrastructure; strategic market access n.d 0 n.d Strategic alliances (temporary joint venture) CAIMAN (Conservation in Areas Managed by Indigenous Groups) Ecotourism; handicrafts; sustainable logging (including giant bamboo); and subsistence activities (poultry, fish ponds, wild beehives, agro-forestry, home gardens) Business planning; product design, training; infrastructure; strategic market access In 2006: $27,113 of forestry products (Awá); $21,650 in handicrafts (Cofán, Awá, Chachi, Waorani); $3,082 in giant bamboo (Cofán) n.d (yet less than 10% of the project investment in training was devoted to improve productive capacities: i.e. $40,000) n.d. Strategic market access with long term joint venture (e.g. Tropic Quehueriono, in ecotourim; and Sinchi Sacha in handicrafts) PiP (Parks in Peril) - - - - - - IL/ICAA (Indigenous Landscapes of Integrated Conservation of Andean Areas) - - - - - - SL/ICAA (Sustainable Livelihoods of Integrated Conservation of Andean Areas) Ecotourism; agriculture (cocoa) Training; strategic market access; best practices and certification In 2008: $634,460 in cocoa and ecotourism (Kiwcha, Cofán) 517 in natural resource manage￾ment 1,747 operations; 21,839 ha (86% close to PA) Strategic market access (13 alliances for ecotourism promotion and cocoa collection) ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 27 IMIL (Integrated Management of Indigenous Lands) Handicrafts; eco-tourism; apiculture (bees); agriculture (fish ponds) Infrastructure n.d. 671 349 (handicrafts); 196 (agriculture); 105 (tourism); 55 (apiculture) Direct (operational costs of 2 stores) TOTAL24 11 different products - Minimum 1,373 People Minimum 3,102 People 2 direct, 3 strategic alliances Source: project documentation. USAID-funded projects targeted different products. The earlier projects (PSUR and AT) concentrated on forest products. The PSUR project, for example, trained the members of 185 families in improved, low￾impact logging techniques and 1,190 people in forest management, forest inventory, silviculture, and wood processing. The Awá project attempted, but failed, to establish a saw mill in San Lorenzo. The CAIMAN project assisted the Awá to sell $27,113 worth of timber in 2006, analyzed the potential of the Waorani territory to produce forest products, and assisted the Cofán in selling some of their giant bamboo in Guayaquil and Cayambe. The current IMIL project, by contrast, has no wood product component. On the other hand, ecotourism and handicrafts have progressively brought attention and support within USAID’s projects. LESSONS LEARNED Three broad lessons about IGAs emerge from the project documentation. The first is that the indigenous peoples do not all share the values or skills that are common in the other societies. Thus:  “[I]ncome generation activities should respect circumstances and culture.”  “The value systems of rural families do not reflect only monetary values but also solidarity, frugality and reciprocity.”  “Traditional economies that rely on communal resources are not easily compatible with profit￾motivated enterprises so creative approaches are need for income generation…”  “Efforts to promote economic activities should take into account the limited education and business skills among indigenous peoples.” A second lesson concerns the relationship between livelihoods and the natural resources within indigenous territories: “Livelihood activities should offset the need to rely on resource extraction to meet basic needs.” This lesson may be questionable. In fact, sustainable use of resources should be permitted and encouraged for indigenous people. Additional lessons from the income generating approach concerns the microeconomic aspects of the enterprises that the projects have supported. “Efforts to promote economic activities should take into account the constraints inherent in local markets, distance and associated transport costs to access markets…”, and “frequently rural producers prefer to sell their products to an intermediary…” The role of the intermediary is very important. “The concept of community has limited application to some indigenous peoples, so productive activities should focus on the family unit.” 24 The numbers in this row should be considered the minimum results, since it is possible that the documentation available did not record all of the results of these projects. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 28 DISCUSSION The promotion of sustainable sources of income for local communities was an important component of most of the projects in the USAID Indigenous Program. USAID’s projects have implemented a large range and number of productive activities (up to 11). These include sustainable logging, ecotourism, non-timber forest products (e.g., handicrafts, cocoa), and even subsistence agriculture (e.g., bee keeping). Some of the activities have not proved viable and profitable during the implementation of the project (e.g., giant bamboo in Duvuno community; sawmill in Awá centers). On the other hand, successful initiatives’ impacts are financially marginal, in particular for the commercial associations. Key limitations of IGAs in lowland indigenous groups have been widely acknowledged by previous consultants, USAID officials, community members, and partners: high operation costs (due to high distances and unavailable infrastructure), insufficient and variable levels of production, low quality products (with no differential characteristics or unique added value), few managerial skills, and cultural constraints that prevent indigenous groups from engaging in entrepreneurial behavior. A wise decision for USAID’s projects would be to narrow down the number of productive activities encouraged, thus setting priorities for those with higher impact on local economies and market demand (i.e., logging, ecotourism, cocoa25, and handicrafts), and improve IGAs’ design and M&E. Indigenous people have been supported by USAID’s projects to meet the expectations of market demand (i.e., quantity and quality). Training producers has been the most frequent activity implemented with indigenous people and seems to have been effective to some extent. Less attention was given to providing technological support. However, previous assessments have already suggested that, given certain conditions, low-tech projects, using inputs available to local people, have a better chance of success (Stocks and Oña, 2005). This certainly is an appropriate suggestion, since high-tech processes demand specific skills usually not available within local populations. The failure of the Awá saw mill or the Dureno giant bamboo initiatives illustrates this limitation. To develop new skills is certainly a costly process and hard to achieve in short periods of time. A good IGA will rely on a sound feasibility assessment, quality project design that incorporates indigenous people’s skills, knowledge and culture (i.e., traditional activities), and close M&E to enable opportune adjustments during implementation. Strategic alliances along the value chain have proven to be critical for the success of different initiatives. These alliances have supported indigenous groups in the development of marketable products and gaining access to the market. Product design and development has become a valuable and necessary investment. For example, CAIMAN contributed to the improved quality, characteristic, and marketability of nature-based products through strategic alliances with commercial-oriented NGOs and private operators (e.g., Tropics Adventure). These activities required an initial investment financed by an external actor, and a follow-up process until operational and marketing skills were developed by indigenous people. The follow-up process is particularly demanding in time and effort, and requires a long-term commitment of a key partner with the appropriate expertise. Ecotourism provides a good example of an IGA with three different management models: full community involvement (e.g., Napo Wildlife Center), joint-venture (e.g., Quehueriono), or delegated management (e.g., Kapawi Lodge). IL/ICAA has also contributed to the linking of a number of initiatives, including those with governmental agencies (e.g., Ministry of Tourism) and eco-label services (e.g., Smartvoyager). The complexity of ecotourism requires establishing several empowering alliances along the value chain, and ideally developing an ecotourism cluster in Ecuador. Strategic alliances are vital to gaining market access, especially in an 25 Comparing total annual sales among different products as a proxy of their market potential, cocoa’s contribution is the largest, both in terms of return and participation. This suggests that cocoa would be the most cost-effective strategy to increase households’ income, at least while the international market demand remains unsatisfied. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 29 international market. Ideally, these alliances should try to link producers, commercial associations, buyers, and third party facilitators (i.e., NGOs, consultant firms) under equitable conditions. Among some USAID projects, a different commercialization strategy was chosen, especially for commodities and handicrafts. This alternative commercialization strategy (called direct commercialization) is based on creating or consolidating productive associations and establishing stores to directly commercialize the products in town and cities. These organizations have recently received an influx of grants from numerous external organizations. An example of such a project is AMWAE, which has opened two stores (in Puyo and Coca) and is looking forward to opening two more26 (in Quito and Tena) with support of external funding. However, operative costs of the stores are almost fully subsidized by different sources (e.g., IMIL, REPSOL). In fact, it is unsettling that the political strength of AMWAE relies on a subsidized, and hence financially vulnerable, productive initiative. Previously, CAIMAN’s strategy was to create a strategic alliance with Sinchi Sacha to guarantee market access. Unfortunately, the long-standing alliance is most probably going to end. Increasingly, such alliances have been replaced by dependency on external funding in order to expand stores owned by the association. Many production associations face this situation: high dependence on external funding. Financial support to these organizations should be strategic, especially to minimize contributions to fully cover the operational costs of the organizations since this eventually undermines both the ability of the organization to survive in the long term and any strategic alliance established. An alternative mechanism would be to create small rotating funds to cover operational capital, and establish capitalization commitments according to business performance over time. Although IGAs’ contribution to income and conservation has been challenged by several authors, and subsequently, its cost-effectiveness (Ferraro and Simpson, 2005; Simpson and Sedjo, 1996), the importance of IGAs for local households should not be underestimated. Given limited financial resources and employment alternatives, this type of activity is often of great importance for household economies. They rarely become the main source of income but are useful to diversify households’ income portfolio and mitigate financial risk. Many times the income generated is directly utilized by women as the only cash they manage autonomously. AMWAE and FCUNAE both play a critical role in favor of Waorani and Kichwa women, respectively. Periodically, women turn in their merchandise to the association’s stores and receive payments for earlier deliveries. They use this money to cover their transport costs to the city on a regular basis and purchase food for the family. Promoting IGAs remains high within the development agenda of indigenous groups and has played a role in strengthening of women’s organizations. Finally, is it is important to avoid the undesired effects of income generating activities. Increased profits from IGAs may be invested in non-sustainable activities and technologies (e.g., chainsaws, guns, agricultural extension; Alers et al., 2007). Hence, this requires an additional effort to develop and implement adequate production practices that use resources sustainably. SL/ICAA has set an example throughout implementation using best practices and certification in cocoa plots. However, efforts within USAID’s projects to monitor these impacts and identify causal linkages between IGAs and biodiversity conservation have been absent. 3.7 Sustainable Financing Approach JUSTIFICATION In protected areas, financial sustainability refers to the ability of a country (at the system level) or environmental manager (at the site level) to meet all costs associated with the management of a protected area system (Bovarnick, 2007). It compares the available sources of funding – including generating more revenue 26 No business plans have been developed to assist in the decision-making process of whether to expand the store system. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 30 through innovative mechanisms – on one hand, and the financial needs required for the proper management of the PA on the other. Good financial planning enables PA managers to make strategic financial decisions, such as re-allocating spending to match management priorities, and identifying appropriate cost reductions and potential cash flow problems. It involves a systematic process of defining costs and identifying ways to meet those costs, which progressively leads toward cost-effective management (Bovarnick, 2007: p. 3). In the context of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in indigenous territories, sustainable financing (SF) implies setting priorities for investments and identifying revenue-sharing mechanisms that can contribute to financing both conservation activities and development objectives of indigenous people. Furthermore, it involves developing the legal, administrative and financial capacity to manage and generate its own economic resources (León and Chang, 2008). Assisting indigenous peoples protect biodiversity and manage their territories requires steady and diversified funding over long periods of time. At a global level, traditional funding (e.g., bilateral donations) has increasingly struggled to face the growing demand for conservation actions, especially in the tropics (Emerton et al., 2006). Hence, the need for new sources of funding has urged the development of innovative financial mechanisms to meet the cash flow requirements to sustain biodiversity conservation and indigenous development. Financing PAs and sustainable development in indigenous territories is a monumental challenge. The combined costs are unknown, although the Ecuadorian Ministry of Environment (MAE) estimated the management cost of the national system of PAs in 2005. For example, the annual basic management costs of the Yasuní National Park27 alone were estimated at $348,434 (MAE, 2005) 28; and currently, the available finding is less than 30% of the estimated costs. Another interesting finding of the study is that management costs per hectare are 32 times higher in small protected areas than in larger ones, a fact that magnifies the challenge of supporting even small efforts of conservation. Protected areas’ co-management agreements with NGOs and private sector enterprises are used by governments to reduce management costs of PAs. However, co-management agreements with indigenous peoples normally require additional expenses for the government. For example, additional funding is often needed to pay for the costs of indigenous park guards. Therefore, these costs are usually covered with short￾term projects with international funding. There is a wide range of financial mechanisms available that can pay for both conservation and sustainable development when designed as a revenue-sharing mechanism. These include market-based and non market￾based options. For example, non market-based options include: budget allocations by the Government of Ecuador (GOE) to support indigenous sustainable development plans, private capital donations (e.g., from the Moore Foundation or corporate contributions), debt-for-nature swaps, and endowment funds to support indigenous people. Market-based mechanisms, on the other hand, include tourism-based fees (e.g., PA entry fees, licenses, royalties, and leasing fees), profits from green venture capital funds, payments for environmental services (PES) such as water, biodiversity, and carbon, and “polluter pays” legislation (e.g., fines, environmental compensations). However, the implementation of revenue-sharing mechanisms is still at the pilot level. It will require a significant scaling-up to have a significant impact. RESULTS Details are provided in Table 8. 27 A recent study updating management costs for Yasuni National Park in 2008 estimates a necessary investment of $418,119 per year to attain a basic level of management (e.g., control, surveillance, and participatory Management; Galindo et al, 2009). 28 For Cuyabeno Fuanistic Reserve, Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve, and Cofán-Bermejo Ecological Reserve, management costs were estimated to be $219,915, $385,873 and $167,661, respectively. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 31 LESSONS LEARNED “Administrative and financial strengthening of indigenous organizations is critical for them to attract new funding to support LTPR and NRM activities.” DISCUSSION After analyzing USAID´s projects in Ecuador, it appears that most efforts regarding sustainable financing have focused on developing planning tools (e.g., sustainable financing strategies, business plans) to assist conservation actions in indigenous lands. Sustainable financing strategies and business plans have gained recognition as important tools to support management decisions in PAs, and several projects (e.g., CAIMAN, IMIL, SL/ICAA, PiP) have developed them, usually through external consultants. These tools aim to quantify financial needs for their management and identify potential financial mechanisms feasible with an indigenous group. Table 8 Summary of the results from the sustainable finance approach Project Sustainable financing activities undertaken Indigenous groups involved Non market￾based mechanism employed Market-based mechanism employed PSUR (Southern Border Program) - - - - AT (Ecuadorian Awá Territory) - - - - CAIMAN (Conservation in Areas Managed by Indigenous Groups) Exploration of financial mechanisms (e.g., debt￾swaps, voluntary agreements with oil companies); negotiations with government to invest in a trust-fund; design of sustainable financing strategies (Awá); support of the Payment for Environmental Services (PES) Program in the Chachi Reserve. Awá, Cofán, Chachi Unsuccessful attempt to gain government support for a trust￾fund (e.g., CEREPS) Joint effort with the Gesellschaft fürTechnische Zusammenarbeit (German Technical Cooperation), Conservation International, and the Ministry of the Environment to support the creation of a $2 million trust￾fund for the PES program ($USD 5/ha) in the Chachi Reserve. PiP (Parks in Peril) Support of the National System of Protected Areas’ sustainable finance strategy, including the development of revenue-sharing mechanisms with communities within protected areas; support of the design of Cofán Trust Fund. Cofán ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 32 Project Sustainable financing activities undertaken Indigenous groups involved Non market￾based mechanism employed Market-based mechanism employed IL/ICAA (Indigenous Landscapes of Integrated Conservation of Andean Areas) Design of sustainable financing strategies (Cofán) and a marketing strategy for the Cofán Endowment Fund; support for the involvement of Cofán in the Socio￾Bosque Program. Cofán, Chachi Chachi and Cofán people were supported to sign agreements with Socio-Bosque Program SL/ICAA (Sustainable Livelihoods of Integrated Conservation of Andean Areas) - - - - IMIL (Integrated Management of Indigenous Lands) Design of sustainable financing strategies (Awá); support for the design of the Yasuni Bioreserve Trust Fund; support of the involvement of Cofán in the Socio-Bosque Program. Awá, Chachi Chachi and Cofán people were supported to sign agreements with Socio-Bosque Program; support of indigenous organization to leverage funds (e.g., $13,000 AMWAE) Agreement with Sani Lodge to cover 50% of 3 Kichwa park guards. Source: project documentation. In order to assess the viability and applicability of any financial mechanism, it is critical to clearly define the objective it pursues. Objectives may vary among supporting indigenous people’s sustainable development plans, compensating for restricted access to PA natural resources, supporting the capitalization of an indigenous people's endowment fund, or supporting programs related to improving the indigenous group's access to credit. Recognizing the specific objective is a key issue when identifying proper financial mechanisms for indigenous groups. USAID´s projects tend not to explicitly define the objective of the financing mechanisms identified or their financial goals (i.e., how much capital these mechanisms will mobilize). Despite that, the capitalization of an indigenous people's endowment fund has been the objective pursued by several projects (e.g., Cofán Endownment Fund Yasuni Bioreserve Fund). Most of USAID’s partners have envisaged the trust funds as the long-term mechanism to sustain key conservation strategies within indigenous lands, particularly park guard programs. For instance, the management costs of Cofán Park Guard Program (CPGP) were estimated at $866,844 in 200829, 56% of which are operative costs (e.g., $487,544). CPGP’s total investment (and ha/person) is higher than the average operative costs in control and surveillance in other Ecuadorian PAs in the Amazon (which are $212,722 according to Galindo et al., 2010). If an endowment fund is attempting to sustain the CPGP annual operation costs, an approximately $5 million endowment fund would need to be created. Endowment funds to support recurring conservation activities have become the goal of financial sustainability plans among USAID’s projects working with indigenous groups. Endowment funds are an appropriate mechanism to address environmental threats that require a long-term and sustained response 29 This amount represents a substantial increase from 2006 ($360,000) due to the support of international donors. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 33 over time (Oleas, 2006; Norris, 1999). Strategic alliances, such as the one between the Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Conservation International’s Global Conservation Fund, offer long term finance to 30,250 ha in Cofán territory and is certainly a move forward into its consolidation. Interviews with Repsol personnel also revealed their renewed interest and willingness to support the consolidation of a trust fund for the Waorani people. If basic conditions are met, the desired outcome could be achieved in a ten year period. However, it is necessary to point out there are challenges involved in establishing an endowment fund. Trust funds are not a silver bullet. Small trusts may face high and unmanageable administrative costs30. The current financial crisis has also revealed their vulnerability to interest rate fluctuations, and the proliferation of local funds implies a significant competition between them (considering funding and standards). At the national level, the changing political landscape of Ecuador and the current government can pose a serious limitation. The government’s refusal to promote/implement funds and the probable elimination of the National Environment Fund (FAN) will challenge the viability of any endowment fund relying on public funding. Taken as a whole, the challenges to establish an endowment trust are many, and the changing institutional and political setting in Ecuador significantly influences the viability of these financial mechanisms. Thus, USAID and its partners will need to be flexible, responsive, and strategic in defining the most appropriate governance scheme for financial mechanisms chosen for implementation, including endowment funds for indigenous people and conservation activities. If the creation of an endowment trust is prioritized, then it should not rely exclusively on external donations. It is necessary to develop a strategy to generate financial mechanisms that support ongoing capitalization. Diversification of revenue sources is important. Financial mechanisms that can support this type of funds – such as PES, including water, biodiversity, and carbon services, or polluter-pays schemes such as fines or environmental compensations – should be explored while taking into account context-specific circumstances. Alternative voluntary agreements with the private sector (e.g., eco-tourism or extractive companies) can also be developed and promoted. Until now, small and marginal results have been attained through this approach in USAID’s projects. The more tangible result is the cost-sharing mechanism between the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), NAWE, and Sani Lodge in order to co-finance three park guards. However, it is necessary to understand that this approach is a continuous and long term process in which financial planning is only the first step. For example, FONAG, the Water Fund of Quito that utilized user fees to collect funding to manage key watersheds, involved a 9-year process to gain the necessary political and financial support. The big difference among the project’s partners has been the follow-up process to choose the appropriate financial mechanisms. TNC efforts have been persistent in trying to establish and consolidate the Cofán Endowment Fund. Although results are yet to come, and the changing political setting of Ecuador has backtracked on some previous achievements, TNC has proven flexible and has amended their proposal without resigning the objective to achieve financial sustainability of the Cofán Endowment Fund. Another innovative financial mechanism is the Socio-Bosque Program. This program has a current budget of $4 million and covers 350,000 ha in lowland indigenous lands. Since 2008, the Ecuadorian government has been implementing a direct payments scheme for those communities or individuals who own native forest and are willing to conserve it. Payments range from $0.50 to $30 per ha depending on total duration of the contract, up to 20 years. The participation is voluntary, though conditional to successful forest monitoring, and requests the presentation of land tittles and property maps. USAID’s projects have been useful in supporting the Cofánes and the Chachis to gain access to this funding. The financial gains of participation in Socio-Bosque have been invested by the indigenous groups to partially cover their park guard programs. 30 Alternatively, trust funds can be managed through a fiduciary account, which only demands a service fee and thus significantly reduces administrative costs. In many cases, this may be the way to implement small-scale initiatives. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 34 Socio-Bosque has become a direct and available source of financing for recurrent conservation and territorial management costs. Socio-Bosque is relying on the United Nations Collaborative Programme for Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), government allocations and private contributions for its long-term funding, and it is a leading actor in developing the REDD strategy at a national level. Plan Ecuador and alliances with local governments also seem like viable mechanisms to support the Park Guard Programs and other sustainable development activities within indigenous territories. Matching funds with the State to support indigenous groups’ needs (e.g., park guards) is a valid and interesting strategy to pursue, and long term strategic alliances are important to seal arrangements and gain access to this mechanism. As discussed previously, a combination of enabling governance frameworks, strategic planning (i.e., business planning tools for cost effective management and new revenue sources), and effective implementation is required to achieve sustainable financing. Implementation of SF mechanisms, however, has been given little attention in USAID´s projects. The implementation process of any financial mechanism with indigenous people demands a high level of commitment by the indigenous people, the building of local capabilities, and the ability to access seed capital. The first certainly requires the sustainable finance strategy to be closely articulated with other planning strategies (e.g., life plans, management plans) and to be consistent with the particular vision and long term objectives of the indigenous group. Secondly, a profound process of capacity building within indigenous groups and local organizations is required. Given the potential long term reach of this approach, it is necessary that the people who have a long term commitment to the wellbeing of indigenous people and biodiversity conservation develop the capacities to champion the implementation of the financial mechanisms. Funding alone does not solve the problems of indigenous organizations regarding limited financial management capacity and accountability, and it does not encourage cost-effective management per se. This challenge must be jointly addressed through the strengthening institutional approach and the implementation and monitoring of financial tools. The projects have also lacked the necessary funds to invest in potentially successful financial mechanisms. Furthermore, in the case of the trust funds (endowment funds), although they can be an important part of financing, they are also subject to the fluctuation of interest rates particularly during financial crises, such as now. Usually, trust funds under $15 million tend to generate limited returns to support managers. Overall, institutional strengthening of local organizations, specific financial and management capabilities, and available seed capital have become bottlenecks for the implementation of any potentially successful financial mechanism. Finally, as discussed previously, protected areas and indigenous territories frequently overlap in lowland Ecuador. Besides territorial rights disputes, this presents a challenge for indigenous peoples to access these areas and share in the fair distribution of benefits associated with conservation. The National System of Protected Areas’ sustainable finance strategy (MAE, 2007) considers the establishment of a mechanism to guarantee the involvement of local populations with the distribution of PA benefits. Yet, in practice, communities’ participation in managing tourism fees, research licenses, and biodiversity offsets remains unsolved and left up to the negotiation skills of indigenous people and their partners. Another example is the Park Guard Program, which represents a direct opportunity for employment of community member in patrolling and surveillance of PAs31. Despite that, the Ministry of Environment does not always welcome, and in some occasions even blocks, community members’ participation. Therefore, more efforts are required to design and negotiate access and benefit sharing mechanisms among indigenous people in PAs. A favorable setting is the $20 million Global Environment Facility project assigned to the 31 Park guard salaries range from $180 to $300 per month depending on the level of funding available within projects. Different arrangements have been developed by communities. In some cases, the most educated young men have been chosen, while in others, families rotate each month. This means equitable distribution of benefits but low impact (~ $180 per year/per family). ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 35 Ministry of Environment. This project aims to solve SF’s bottlenecks in protected areas by i) supporting changes in the legal framework, ii) strengthening financial, management, and monitoring capacities, iii) helping to demonstrate the value of biodiversity conservation, and iii) developing cost-effective revenue mechanisms. 3.8 Conflict Management Approach ACHIEVEMENTS Table 9 indicates that three of the seven projects (CAIMAN, PiP, and IMIL) used the conflict management approach and that they implemented three types of activities: (1) training; (2) resolving boundary conflicts; and (3) building constituencies. The conflict resolution approach has trained 18 people in conflict management methodologies. It has resolved boundary conflicts between: the Awá and Afro-Ecuadorians; the Cofán and the Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve; and the Waorani and the Kichwa. It has also organized an inter-institutional dialogue between MAE, FEINCE, and Sobrevivencia Cofán, and as well as a meeting of Waorani, NGOs, and GOE regarding the issues surround the Tangaeiri and Taromenane peoples. LESSONS  “Conservation of landscape level resources is enhanced when communities have shared rules about their management and take joint action to conserve them.”  “For indigenous people to be able to understand training in conflict management, it must be provided in the language that they understand”. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 36 Table 9 Achievements of the conflict management approach Project Achievements by activity Training provided (individuals) Resolution of boundary conflict between groups Creation of alliances PSUR (Southern Border Program) None none none AT (Ecuadorian Awá Territory) None none none CAIMAN (Conservation in Areas Managed by Indigenous Groups) 18 (Awá, Waorani, Cofán) Awá and Afro￾Ecuadorians none PiP (Parks in Peril) None Cofánes and Cayambe-Coca Ecológica Reserve Inter-institutional dialogue between the Ministry of the Environment, Federación Indígena de la Nacionalidad Cofán del Ecuador (FEINCE), and Sobreviviencia Cofán IL/ICAA (Indigenous Landscapes of Integrated Conservation of Andean Areas) None none none SL/ICAA (Sustainable Livelihoods of Integrated Conservation of Andean Areas) None none none IMIL (Integrated Management of Indigenous Lands) Waorani and Kichwa Meeting of Waorani, NGOs, and the Government of Ecuador regarding People in Voluntary Isolation TOTAL 18 people Source: project documentation DISCUSSION Training Training in conflict management is intended to enhance the skills of people involved in negotiating conflicts. One of the lessons learned is that trainees must understand the language in which the training is given. The documentation did not provide evidence regarding the effectiveness of the conflict management training of the Indigenous Program. Resolving Boundary Conflicts From what could be learned from the documentation and through interviews, boundary conflict resolution activities did reduce or eliminate conflict over boundaries between these groups and can therefore be considered successful. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 37 Creating Alliances Creating alliances is one of the greatest needs in Ecuador for attaining conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and the welfare of indigenous peoples. The State and the extractive companies have unambiguous, well-defined goals, and sufficient financing and organization to work systematically towards achieving them. By contrast, conservation and indigenous organizations do not have such well-defined goals, and – even if they did – they lack the organization and financing to reach them. Setting clear goals for conservation and indigenous welfare and creating alliances between both the various indigenous organizations and between these organizations and conservation NGOs, is a basic requirement for achieving the conservation of biological diversity and indigenous welfare. The available data suggest that the most effective alliances that the Indigenous Program has supported have established formal links between Ecuadorian conservation NGOs and specific indigenous groups. Examples of such alliances include those between the Secoya and the University of San Francisco of Quito, the Awá and the NGO Al Tropico, and the Cofán and the NGO Sobrevivencia Cofán. Although not financed by the Indigenous Program, similar alliances between the Achuar and the NGO Pacha Mama and between the Shuar and the Salesiana missionaries have also been useful in strengthening the indigenous groups. CONCLUSIONS Managing and resolving social-environmental conflicts is the core challenge for attaining the conservation and sustainable use of the region’s biodiversity and the welfare of its indigenous peoples. Conflict in Ecuador’s northwestern and eastern lowlands originates in the different interests of the state, extraction companies, environmental groups, settlers, and indigenous peoples in using land, biodiversity, and renewable and non￾renewable natural resources. Many types of conflicts occur in the northwestern and eastern lowlands within and between indigenous groups, and between indigenous groups, agricultural settlers, the State, and extractive companies. Of all these conflicts, however, those that have occurred – and continue to occur – over the exploitation and extraction of oil within indigenous territories are those whose management and resolution are most required in order to achieve the conservation of biodiversity and the welfare of indigenous peoples, since they affect very large areas and many different indigenous peoples. Fontaine (2007), Narvaez (2009), Sawyer (2004), and Kimerling (2006) discuss in great depth and detail the issues of social-environmental conflict and governability that are linked to the exploration, extraction, and transportation of oil in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Fontaine summarizes the conflicts in the Ecuadorian Amazon over oil production as follows: “In the case of conflicts linked to petroleum activity, it is easy to identify the incompatibility of the objectives related to the use of the resources of soil, water, forest…because their objectives result from opposite cultural knowledge and identities. Therefore, it is possible to consider that these conflicts are a particular form of a more important structural conflict, in which homogenous actors (the State and companies) confront or oppose heterogeneous actors composed of peasant settlers and indigenous peoples…who are supported by external agents such as the Church and environmental and human rights NGOs…” Fontaine identifies the actors in the conflicts over oil production in the Ecuadorian Amazon as petroleum companies, the State, indigenous peoples, agricultural settlers, and environmentalists. Each actor tends to favor a certain part of the official laws and regulations: the petroleum companies give more value to private rights and freedom of action; the State emphasizes the implementation of laws; the environmentalists want to protect the environment; and indigenous peoples emphasize both international law and collective rights. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 38 Agricultural settlers, who were formerly most interested in land reform, now mainly are interested in the defense of their property. Fontaine notes that: “…the State and the companies can share certain interests and values with the indigenous and environmental organizations. What changes is the importance of these values and interests for their respective logic for taking action. Democracy and social justice can be considered as universal values by the State and companies. Equally, economic development and profit can be part of the interests of the defenders of the environment and the indigenous representatives….for these reasons, an analysis in terms of needs based on the identity of the actors seems more pertinent than an analysis based on a struggle for access to resources…” Fontaine emphasizes how these actors develop strategic and tactical alliances, defining the former as an historic alliance that has resulted from fundamental convergence of interests and a tactical alliance as involving more short-term interests. He identifies two types of strategic alliances in the Ecuadorian Amazon region. One is between the State and the companies who are associated in the exploration and production of petroleum, and the other is between indigenous peoples and environmentalists. Fontaine asks the following questions related to the management and resolution of conflicts related to the oil industry in the Amazon: “How can the social-environmental conflicts in a fragile environment linked to the oil industry be characterized? How can they be resolved? What would permit these solutions to be durable and equitable?” Noting that the concept of sustainable development seeks to eliminate the opposition between development and protection of the environment, Fontaine recommends a process for the analysis of conflicts, outlined originally by Rothman (year), called “Antagonism, Resonance, Invention and Action (ARIA).” The Antagonism Stage identifies the real causes of the conflict or the antagonism between the actors. The Resonance Stage aims to find communality between the actors based on their values and concerns and by asking the question: why is the conflict important? During the Invention Stage, the actors reformulate the problem in terms of their motivations and needs and look for mechanisms of cooperation. During the Action Stage, the actors prepare an agenda that answers the questions: what remains to be done? Why? Who will do what? And how will the planned actions be done? In other words, the agenda establishes the objectives, motives, participants, and modalities of the process of negotiation. The 2008 Ecuadorian Constitution, as well as other international treaties and conventions to which Ecuador is a signatory – such as the International Labor Organization’s Convention Number 169 in 1989 and the United Nations’ Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007 – provide a strong legal basis for the implementation of a conflict management and resolution process. Neither the GOE nor the extraction companies can ignore the provisions of these treaties and law without undermining their own credibility. These documents thus provide a strong underpinning for the negotiating position of indigenous groups and make it more likely a positive outcome of a conflict management and resolution process. The ability of the indigenous groups, however, varies considerably. Some of the groups, such as the Awá, Shuar, or Achuar are better able to negotiate with the other actors than other, smaller or more poorly organized groups, such as the Waorani, Siona, or Secoya. The institutional strengthening and territorial rights approaches have the potential to assist the latter groups become more capable of negotiations with the State, companies, NGOs, and agricultural settlers. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 39 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Goals of the Indigenous Program A goal is what a program is planning to accomplish, its endpoint or targeted state. The TOR states the goals of the Indigenous Program as “… habitat conservation and benefits to people living in and around parks and protected areas.” The TOR thus states two rather than one goal for the Indigenous Program. Yet the funding for the Indigenous Program comes from a congressional earmark of funds specifically for the conservation of biodiversity. The goal of “habitat conservation” clearly meets the requirements of that earmark. It does not, however, indicate the geographic location of the habitat that the program is to conserve, although the value of activities to conserve biodiversity through the conservation of habitat depends a great deal on the geographic location and type of the habitat which is conserved since some habitat, mostly primary tropical forest, is much more valuable for the conservation of biodiversity than other types of habitat. The second goal of creating “…benefits to people living in and around parks and protected areas…” does not explicitly meet the requirements of the congressional earmark, for at least two reasons. First, it would be possible to attain benefits to people in and around parks and protected areas without protecting any habitat at all, or without protecting habitat that is valuable for the conservation of biodiversity. Second, it is possible and important to conserve habitat that is not located in or around parks and protected areas. 32 We recommend, therefore, that USAID/Ecuador revise its goal statement for the Indigenous Program to become “…conservation of habitat in Ecuador’s northwestern and eastern lowlands that is critical for the survival of rare, endemic, and threatened species of plants and animals of global importance”. The advantages of this goal statement are that it: responds to the congressional earmark for the conservation of biodiversity; identifies the geographic area of the program; establishes the goal of the program as conserving “critical” – rather than simply “any” – habitat for conservation of biodiversity within that geographic area; and includes areas that are not in and around parks and protected areas. 4.2 Approaches of the Indigenous Program The six approaches utilized by the Indigenous Program and discussed in detail in Chapter 3 form a sequence or hierarchy of importance. At the top of the hierarchy is conflict management. Conflict is pervasive in Ecuador’s northwestern and eastern lowland regions, and it is preventing sound investments, thereby limiting the possibilities for long-term conservation of biodiversity and long-term welfare for indigenous peoples. Successful conflict management requires that the State, extractive companies, conservation NGOs, and agricultural settlers come to just agreements with the indigenous peoples whose traditional territories they are invading and exploiting for their own purposes. Otherwise, conflict will continue until the indigenous groups lose their identities and their territories. Such a solution to the current conflict between the State, extraction companies, settlers and conservation NGOs with indigenous peoples would be contrary to international conventions and treaties that protect indigenous rights and to which Ecuador is a signatory. Thus, successful conflict management is the only sound basis on which to ensure the long-term conservation of the biological diversity of Ecuador’s northwestern and eastern lowlands and the long-term welfare of its indigenous peoples. The five other approaches that the Indigenous Program has utilized are subordinate to the conflict management approach. Therefore, the issue is how to establish negotiating mechanisms that would lead to successful negotiations and management of the conflicts between these actors. Fontaine, as 32 It is redundant, moreover to say “parks and protected areas”, since parks are one type of protected area. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 40 described in Chapter 3, recommends a conflict resolution approach based on Antagonism, Resonance, Invention and Action (ARIA). We recommend that USAID/Ecuador provide support for the ARIA process through additional support to the conflict management approach, concentrating attention on the conflicts caused by oil exploration and production in indigenous territories. We recommend, however, that the Indigenous Program continue to use the territorial rights and institutional strengthening approaches in order to strengthen the negotiating position of some of the smaller or less organized indigenous groups for eventual participation in an ARIA conflict management and resolution process. Some of the smaller groups of indigenous peoples need to further define their legal territorial rights and strengthen their institutions before they will be able to negotiate successfully with the State and extractive companies. If these groups are not strengthened, the other actors – as in the past – will not negotiate to resolve conflicts with the fairness that is the intended outcome of the ARIA process but will favor their own interests. The result will be failure for all the actors, since chaos rather than stability will ensue. Chaos will reduce investment, reduce income, and raise costs, thereby harming the interests of all the actors. Thus, secure land titles – preferably global titles – to indigenous territories, demarcation and patrolling of their boundaries, and indigenous institutions that derive power from their legitimate representation of all the indigenous communities are essential. These will give indigenous peoples sufficient negotiating leverage so fair agreements can be reached and conflict managed. If conflicts can be managed, then the income generation, sustainable financing, and natural resource management approaches also have a much improved chance of being successful over the long term. These three approaches, in turn, will make the long-term conservation of biodiversity and the welfare of indigenous peoples possible. In the short term, it is even possible that these approaches may successful on a small scale and usually with subsidized assistance. Sufficient subsidies and external support can enable income generation, natural resource management, and sustainable financing activities to function for a time. Without the successful management of conflicts, however, it is likely that the removal of external, subsidized support for these activities will cause them to collapse without providing long-term benefits for conservation of indigenous welfare. 4.3 Long-term Interests of Biodiversity Conservation The geographic focus of the Indigenous Program has been consistent with the long-term interests of biodiversity conservation. Ecuador’s northwestern and eastern lowlands boast the highest concentrations of globally-significant terrestrial biodiversity, including many endangered, rare, and endemic species. Most of this biodiversity, however, requires forest habitat in order to survive. The forest habitat of Ecuador’s northwestern and eastern lowlands is severely threatened by conversion, degradation, and fragmentation. Over-exploitation and contamination, moreover, severely threaten some of the species within these forest ecosystems. By focusing on Ecuador’s northwestern and eastern lowlands, the Indigenous Program has devoted USAID resources earmarked for the conservation of biodiversity to the geographic areas within Ecuador where both the most biodiversity occurs and where biodiversity is most threatened. Within the northwestern and eastern lowlands, the focus of the Indigenous Program on the indigenous territories has been consistent with the long-term interests of biodiversity conservation. The indigenous territories, most of which overlap with national protected areas, retain the largest area of forest habitat within the northwestern and eastern lowlands. Since they are lightly populated, however, the indigenous territories are severely threatened by agricultural settlers, who eliminate, degrade, and fragment the forest habitats upon which many of its rarer, endemic, and threatened species depend for survival. If indigenous groups cannot withstand the pressure of agricultural settlers to occupy their territories, then it is likely that much of the forest within those territories will be eliminated, fragmented, and degraded, thereby severely affecting the biodiversity for which it provides habitat. The Indigenous Program’s focus on strengthening the capability of indigenous peoples to resist the pressure of agricultural settlers, therefore, is important for conserving biodiversity. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 41 The greater attention the Indigenous Program has given to the northeastern lowlands compared to the central and southeastern lowlands is consistent with the long term interest of biodiversity conservation. The threats to biodiversity in the northern lowlands are greater than in the more southern lowlands for several inter￾related reasons. First, the construction of roads for oil exploration and exploitation since the 1960s in the northern lowlands has permitted easier access by agricultural settlers. Further south, oil exploitation has not yet occurred, so there is a much less dense network of roads and less agricultural settlement has occurred. Second, the population of the Shuar indigenous group in the south is large, and this group is well-organized and politically relatively powerful. The Achuar, in the central eastern lowlands, are not as large in population as the Shuar but have a strong organizational structure that so far has served to successfully fend off threats from agricultural settlers and the State. Third, the devastation that oil production has caused to the indigenous cultures and lands in the northeast lowlands has served as a powerful lesson to the Shuar and Achuar that they must maintain their cohesion in the face of the threat from oil production. The more northern indigenous groups, by contrast – the Siona, Secoya, Waorani, and Cofán – were unprepared to defend their interests when oil was discovered in and around their territories; and they also have small populations that are more internally divided. Due to the factors listed above, the Indigenous Program has focused on the indigenous groups who are most vulnerable to the threats of agricultural settlers and oil production. The Indigenous Program has been consistent with the long-term interest of biodiversity conservation by supporting those groups of indigenous peoples in the northeastern lowlands – the Cofán, Waorani, and Secoya – who are most likely to utilize their land and forests in ways that are compatible with the conservation of biodiversity. These indigenous groups have cultures and production practices that tend to conserve a large portion of the forest habitat. By contrast, the Kichwa and Shuar – many of whom have migrated into the northeastern lowlands – have generally have adopted agricultural practices that are similar to those of agricultural settlers from the highlands and involve forest clearing, a year or two of crops, and then the establishment of pastures. These production practices reduce, degrade and fragment habitat for many of the region’s rarer, endemic, and threatened plants and animals. Thus, the Indigenous Program has concentrated its attention on those indigenous groups in the northern lowlands whose land use practices are most likely to result in the maintenance of large contiguous areas of the forest habitat that rarer, endemic, and endangered or threatened species require. Finally, the Indigenous Program has worked mostly with the indigenous groups – the Cofán, Secoya, Siona and Waorani – upon whose traditional territories national protected areas have been super-imposed. Ecuador has established these protected areas as its primary means to permanently protect its most important biodiversity. In order for these protected areas to serve this purpose, however, their management must not conflict with the welfare of their indigenous inhabitants. The Indigenous Program has focused considerable attention on how to reconcile the welfare of indigenous peoples who live within the protected areas with the conservation of the areas’ biodiversity. It has thus addressed one of the principal issues for the long term protection of biodiversity in Ecuador’s eastern and northwest lowlands within its protected areas. 4.4 Long-term Interests of Indigenous Groups The Indigenous Program has been consistent in several ways with the long-term interests of indigenous groups. Indigenous traditional culture and economic activities are closely tied to the existence of a diversity of forest and water ecosystems, which are necessary for the species and genetic biodiversity of northwestern and eastern Ecuador. The conservation of biodiversity, therefore, also contributes to the conservation of indigenous cultures. Thus, Orellana (1999b, in Fontaine, 2007, p. 183) notes: ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 42 “…in contrast with the economic conception of land as an exploitable resource, the pan-indigenous conception is more complex, associated as it is with the conservation of the environment, social, cultural, spiritual, economic and political survival of the indigenous peoples and, even more, the survival of humanity.” Similarly, Leonardo Viteri, an Ecuadorian indigenous leader, says: “Our form of land tenancy is completely different from that of the agricultural industry. For indigenous peoples of the Amazon, territory, our ancestral lands, has multiple objectives and within it are multiple things to defend. Land is not simply of use for economic betterment. It is fundamental to our right to develop our culture, to develop our technology – our right to our agriculture, education, religion, social and economic structure. Our form of land tenancy must be considered in a unique manner because having land, living in a territory, is not simply an economic venture. Our territory does not simply produce crops. It is the basis for our culture, our identity.” Conservation of indigenous cultures does not mean that indigenous peoples need not benefit from more profitable economic activities, such as ecotourism, new technologies, such as internet and cell phones, or new ways of thinking, such as adopting political structures that support interaction with Ecuadorian State institutions and extractive companies. Gaining new tools, institutions, and capabilities, however, does not equate to losing traditional cultures. Indeed, the reverse is probably true. If the indigenous people do not adapt to and take advantage of new conditions, technologies, and needs, they will be condemned to being economically marginal and therefore unable to conserve their traditional culture. The Indigenous Program’s effort to conserve biodiversity, therefore, is vitally important to the conservation of indigenous cultures and thereby to indigenous welfare. The quotations above indicate how important their land and its ecosystems are to indigenous cultures. The Indigenous Program assistance to indigenous groups to obtain title to parts of their traditional territories and then demarcate and patrol the boundaries of these territories thus has been extremely important for their long-term interests. Defense of their territorial rights is basic to the long-term interests of indigenous peoples. Ecuador’s constitution and laws severely restrict the rights of indigenous peoples over the renewable and non-renewable resources within their territories. Nonetheless, without their territories, indigenous people would lose their cultural coherence and essentially cease to be indigenous peoples. The territorial rights approach of the Indigenous Program therefore has contributed a great deal to the long-term interests of indigenous peoples. Germán Friere, the president of the Achuar organization, NAE, told the evaluation team that the future of the Achuar is in developing sources of income that do not require extraction of non-renewable resources or opening of their territories to roads and that are compatible with their cultural well-being.33 This statement probably would be accepted by many members of other indigenous groups as well. With its programs to assist indigenous peoples produce and commercialize cacao, handicrafts, and ecotourism, the Indigenous Program thus has contributed to the interests of indigenous peoples, assisting them to utilize for their own welfare some of the resources of their territories. The Indigenous Program would probably contribute more to the long-term conservation of biodiversity if its design and implementation were to be more solidly based on the aspirations, knowledge, and organization of the indigenous peoples and their most legitimate and representative organizations. This evaluation therefore recommends that future projects of the Indigenous Program be designed and implemented in close consultation and cooperation with the representatives of indigenous groups. 33 An example of such an alternative for using but not abusing the Achuar territory is ecotourism such as Kapawi Lodge, which is operated and owned by the Achuar. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 43 4.5 Strategies of the Indigenous Program A strategy is the route, selected from among various alternatives, for achieving a goal. The strategy should be clearly distinguished from the goal. The Indigenous Program has not utilized or developed only one definable strategy, but has used elements of five strategies for reaching the goal of biodiversity conservation. Its principal strategy has been habitat protection, which has included such activities as the establishment of protected areas, preparation of management plans, land titling, and demarcation. The Indigenous Program has made limited use of a species conservation strategy, including the reproduction of fish in ponds, the protection of the tapir and spectacled bear, and the collection and incubation of turtle eggs. A production strategy has included such activities as the certification for tourism operations and cacao production or the preparation of forest management plans. The Indigenous Program has made use of a research and policy dialogue strategy, as it has organized a dialogue about the future of the indigenous people living within the Yasuni National Park. Its conflict management strategy has primarily consisted of helping some indigenous groups resolve conflicts over the location of the boundary lines of their territories. Utilizing more than one strategy complicates the implementation and measurement of achievements. We therefore recommend that USAID/Ecuador select a single, clear, consistent strategy for assisting Ecuador achieve conservation of biodiversity in the northwest and eastern lowlands. We recommend a strategy that does not focus directly on the conservation of biodiversity but on the welfare of indigenous peoples. The long-term conservation of biodiversity in Ecuador’s northwestern and eastern lowlands cannot be achieved if critical habitat is not conserved within its indigenous territories. But the conservation of habitat within these territories requires that the welfare of their indigenous owners be achieved. Well-organized, prosperous indigenous peoples will be able to conserve the habitat within their territories. Unorganized, poor indigenous peoples will not be able to do so. Thus, the basis for conservation within indigenous territories, which are critical to conserving biodiversity in Ecuador’s northwestern and eastern lowlands, is the welfare of indigenous peoples. Therefore, we recommend that the Indigenous Program define increasing the welfare of indigenous people as its strategy for achieving the goal of conservation of biodiversity. In order to enhance the welfare of indigenous peoples, we recommend that USAID/Ecuador place its Indigenous Program within the overall context of the management and resolution of conflicts over the exploration and exploitation of oil from indigenous territories in the eastern lowlands. A basic condition for the prosperity of indigenous peoples, and for Ecuador as a whole, is that the exploitation of its oil resources proceeds efficiently without causing severe negative environmental effects on the environment or on indigenous peoples. Conflict between the indigenous peoples, the State, and extraction companies will make efficient oil production difficult and the welfare of indigenous peoples within those territories difficult to achieve. We recommend, therefore, that the Indigenous Program support the implementation of the ARIA conflict management and resolution process. Some of the weaker indigenous organizations are unprepared to participate in this process on equal terms with the State or the extraction companies. We recommend, therefore, that the Indigenous Program continue its support for the institutional strengthening and territorial rights approaches with such groups, since both approaches help to place the indigenous peoples on a more equal footing with the State and extraction companies. We recommend that USAID/Ecuador provide such support over a period of at least five years and keep the amount of funding relatively small, so as to avoid the risk of overwhelming such organizations with more funds than they are able to handle successfully and thereby potentially weakening rather than strengthening them. We recommend that the amount of funding be negotiated with the leaders of the indigenous organizations and be reduced year by year so that the organizations do not become or remain dependent on USAID/Ecuador financing for their continued existence, and we also recommend that USAID/Ecuador enforce strict standards of accountability on the indigenous organizations to which it donates funds. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 44 Some of the larger or better organized indigenous peoples, however, have established organizations that are already prepared to participate in the ARIA process of conflict management and resolution. Therefore, we recommend that the strategy of the Indigenous Program include support for a process of conflict management and resolution through an ARIA process that includes one or more of these indigenous organizations and their territories. Again, given the importance of oil production within indigenous territories for the welfare of the indigenous peoples, we recommend that the ARIA process focus on managing or resolving conflicts that involve the exploration for and exploitation of oil within indigenous territories. We recommend that USAID/Ecuador thoroughly discuss this strategy with the elected leaders of CONAIE and CONFENIAE and, through them, with the leaders of the organizations that represent the separate indigenous group, thereby avoiding any risk of seeming to minimize their role in a conflict management and resolution process. We also recommend that USAID/Ecuador thoroughly study the previous process of conflict management that has been implemented in the Ecuadorian Amazon, such as the Program of Forests, Trees and People of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, as well as the Program on Nonviolent Sanctions and Cultural Survival Program of the University of Harvard We recommend that USAID/Ecuador coordinate its support for such a conflict resolution process with the national GOE, through the national government with the provincial and municipal governments, and with the World Bank, the Andean Finance Corporation (CAF) and the Inter-American Development Bank. Unless the State and the national and regional indigenous organizations are involved in the design of the conflict resolution process, as described for the ARIA process, then the conflict resolution process is unlikely to work. We therefore reiterate our recommendation that USAID/Ecuador finance a conflict resolution process that is based on consultation with and cooperation between the GOE, CONFENIAE and CONAIE. 4.6 Current Mix of Programs and Implementing Partners The current mix of programs and implementing partners of the Indigenous Program provides a strong basis upon which to reformulate its strategy towards our recommendation of conflict management and resolution related to the exploration and exploitation of oil within indigenous territories. We recommend the following adjustments to the current mix of approaches and implementing partners under the Indigenous Program in order to reflect the conflict management and resolution strategy: We recommend that the emphasis of the IMIL project be shifted to institutional strengthening of the weaker indigenous organizations, such as those of the Siona, Secoya, and Záparas, while continuing to support the strengthening of the Cofán and Waorani organizations. In particular, we recommend that IMIL focus on finding financing to support these indigenous organizations over a period of at least five years. We recommend that IMIL examine in detail the operations of these indigenous organizations to devise ways to help their leaders maintain permanent, productive contact with the indigenous communities that are the organizations’ members. We recommend that the SL/ICAA project reduce its support for cacao plantations and concentrate its resources on tourism within indigenous territories. Specifically, we recommend that the SL/ICAA project makes an effort to ensure that the ecotourism enterprises of the Achuar, Sionas, Kichwa, Secoya, and Waorani succeed, expand, and provide an indication to the members of the indigenous organizations that their institutions are worthwhile supporting. We recommend that SL/ICAA does not emphasize certification of indigenous tourism operations but rather set targets for increasing the number of tourists and the quality and profitability of these tourist operations. Indigenous peoples form a high percentage of the population along Ecuador’s northern border and are in possession of large, generally lightly-populated and forested territories. The Indigenous Program therefore could make a significant contribution to assisting Ecuador achieve more economic and political stability along its border with Colombia. We recommend that USAID/Ecuador consider the Indigenous Program within ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 45 the overall context of its efforts to improve the functioning of municipal governments along the northern border of Ecuador. A process of conflict management and resolution that involves municipal and provincial governments and strengthens their ties to indigenous organizations could make an important contribution to political stability along the northern border. The provincial and municipal governments are closer to the day-to-day problems of the indigenous peoples than the national government. They therefore could play an important role in improving the management and resolution of conflicts between indigenous peoples and other interest groups in the northwestern and eastern lowlands. Thus, the evaluation recommends that USAID/Ecuador reorient the activities of the IL/ICAA project to focus on reinforcing the capability of indigenous organizations to interact with the municipal and provincial governments. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 46 ANNEX A: BIBLIOGRAPHY Alers, M., Bovarnick, A., Boyle, T., Mackinnon, K., and Sobrevila, C. 2007. Reducing threats to protected areas. Lessons from the field. Washington D.C.: UNDP/World Bank GEF. Bencalzar, Fernando L. et. Al.. 2005. Reducing the footprint of 3D seismic in the tropical rainforest of Ecuador",SPE-95384-MS, SPE Asia Pacific HSE Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Bovarnick, A., and Gupta, A. 2003. Local business for global biodiversity conservation: improving the design of small business development strategies in biodiversity projects. New York: UNDP/World Bank GEF. Bovarknick, A. 2007. Financial sustainability scorecard for National Systems of Protected Areas. New York: UNDP. Emerton, L., Bishop, J. and Thomas, L. 2006. Sustainable financing of protected areas: a global review of challenges and options. Cambridge, UK: IUCN. Fernández-Baca, J. C. and Martin, A. S. 2007. Indigenous peoples and protected areas management. Conservation series, Parks in Peril program. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy. Ferraro, P. and Simpson, D. 2005. Cost-effective conservation when eco-entrepreneurs have market power. Environment and Development Economics, 10: 1-13. Fontaine, G. 2007. Precio del petróleo. Conflictos socio-ambientales y gobernabilidad en la región Amazónica. Quito: FLACSO. Fuentes. 1997. Huaomoni, Huarani, “cowudi”, Una aproximación a los Huaorani en la práctica política multi-étnica ecuatoriana, Quito, Abya Yala. Galindo, J., Castro, M., and Rivera, J. C. 2010. Planificación financiera y recomendaciones estratégicas para la sostenibilidad del Programa de Guardaparques Cofánes. Quito: Mentefactura. Galindo, J., Edüez, T. and Rivera, J. C. 2009. Necesidades de financiamiento para los escenarios básicos e integrales relacionados al componente de control y vigilancia, del Parque Nacional Yasuní. Quito: Mentefactura. Gerlach, A. 2003. Indians, oil and politics, a recent history of Ecuador. Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources, Inc. Kernan, Bruce S. and Stern, M. 2005. Report on tropical forests and biodiversity in Ecuador (FAA 118 and 119 Report.). Quito. Kimerling, J. 2006. Modelo o mito? Tecnología de punto y normas internacionales en los campos petroleros de la Occidental. Abaya-Ayala, Quito: FLACSO. León, F., and Chang, J. 2008. Natural protected areas in Peru: valuing benefits and developing sustainable financing. PARKS 17: 37-41. MAE. 2005. Análisis de las necesidades de financiamiento del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas del Ecuador. Quito: MAE. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 47 MAE. 2007. Estrategia de sostenibilidad financiera del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas del Ecuador 2007-2016. Quito: MAE. Martínez, E. 2009. Yasuni, el tortuoso camino de Kioto a Quito. Abya-Ala, Quito. Narvaez, I. 2009. Petróleo y poder: el colapso de un lugar singular Yasuni. Quito: FLACSO. Oleas, R. 2006. Evaluación de opciones para estructurar un mecanismo financiero para el Programa de Guardaparques Cofánes. Quito: Ecodecisión. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons, the evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press. Rothman. Year. (And should go AFTER Roldon if that article is kept in the bibliography.) Sachs, J. 2005. The end of poverty: How can we make it happen in our lifetime? London: Penguin Books. Sawyer.2004. Crude chronicles” indigenous politics, multinational oil and neoliberlism in Ecuador, Durham, NC, Duke University Press Simpson, D. and Sedjo, R. 1996. Paying for the conservation of endangered ecosystems: a comparison of direct and indirect approaches. Environment and Development Economics, 1: 241-257. Stocks, A. and Oña, A. 2005. Assessment of USAID/Ecuador’s strategy to conserve biodiversity on indigenous lands. Quito: USAID. USAID. 2005. Biodiversity conservation; a guide for USAID staff and partners. 176 pp. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 48 USAID Project Documentation Solis, F., and Quiroz, H. 2007. Informe final PSUR. Quito: CARE. Weiss, J. S., and Bustamante, T. (editors). 2008. Ajedrez ambiental. Manejo de recursos naturales, comunidades, conflictos y cooperación. FLACSO y Ministerio de Cultura. WWF-Colombia. 2004. Protecting the biodiversity of habitats in the Awá Territory of Ecuador. Final technical report and project culmination status. Chemonics International, Inc. 2007. Helping indigenous nationalities in Ecuador conserve their territory and culture. Conservation in indigenous managed areas final report. Washington, DC: USAID. The Nature Conservancy. 2007. Condor Bioreserve, Ecuador. Parks in Peril end-of-project report. Arlington, VA. Wildlife Conservation Society. 2008. Integrated management of indigenous lands - performance report (April 1- June 30, 2008). Quito. Wildlife Conservation Society. 2009. Integrated management of indigenous lands - performance report (July 1 – September 30, 2008). Quito. Wildlife Conservation Society. 2009. Integrated management of indigenous lands - quarterly report (October – December 30, 2008). Quito. Rainforest Alliance. 2009. Alliance for conservation and sustainable livelihoods in the Andean Amazon - first draft, FY 2010 work plan. Quito. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 49 ANNEX B: LIST OF CONTACTS # CONTACT ORGANIZATION POSITION SECTOR 1 Sergio Lasso Ministry of Environment Sub-secretary of Natural Capital Government 2 María Isabel Endara Ministry of Environment Biodiversity National Director Government 3 Danny Reascos Ministry of Environment Pastaza District Director Government 4 Ubilden Farías Ministry of Environment Yasuni PA manager Government 5 - Ministry of Environment Cuyabeno PA manager Government 6 Max Lascano Ministry of Environment Socio-Bosque Program Coordinator Government 7 Diego Rodríguez Ministry of Environment Socio-Bosque Program Official Government 8 Gabriel Jaramillo Ministry of Environment-UNDP Yasuni Bioreserve Program Government/NGO 9 Sebastián Meneses Secretary of Indigenous People Minister's Conflict Management Counselor Government 10 Miguel Vásquez Secretary of Indigenous People Minister's Environment Counselor Government 11 Nelson Moreno Secretary of Indigenous People Conflict Management Director Government 12 Gabriel Saint Provincial Government of Sucumbíos Intercultural Department Director Government 13 Pedro Enqueri plus (9) members of government council NAWE President Indigenous group 14 Camilo Wamoni NAWE/Wildlife Conservation Society Waorani Technical Assistant (IMIL) Indigenous group/NGO 15 Manuela Ima AMWAE President Indigenous group 16 Noemi Ulcuango AMWAE Accountant Indigenous group 17 Elena Albán AMWAE Seller Indigenous group 18 Aurelio Cofán Nation Cofán-Bermenjo community President Indigenous group 19 Fidel Aguinda Cofán Nation Former Socio-Bosque Coordinator for the Cofán Nation Indigenous group 20 Aurelio Cofán Nation Shaman Indigenous group 21 Héctor Ruiz Cofán Nation Member Indigenous group 22 Gloria Criollo Cofán Nation Member Indigenous group 23 Héctor QuenamáKeta Cofán Nation Member Indigenous group ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 50 # CONTACT ORGANIZATION POSITION SECTOR 24 Germán Freire plus (7) members of government council NAE President Indigenous group 25 Luis Vargas NAE Former NAE leader and Kapawi manager Indigenous group 26 Andrés Ordoñez Kapawi/NAE General Manager Indigenous group 27 Blanca Grefa plus (3) members of government council FCUNAE President Indigenous group 28 Delio Siona Nation Shaman Indigenous group 29 Marc Donahue Rainforest Alliance Associate Project Director (ICAA) USAID's partner 30 Verónica Muñoz Rainforest Alliance Ecotourism Specialist (ICAA) USAID's partner 31 Andrea Ganzenmuller Rainforest Alliance Technical Coordinator (ICAA) USAID's partner 32 María Verónica Arias The Nature Conservancy Ecuador Representative USAID's partner 33 Paulina Arroyo The Nature Conservancy Project Coordinator (ICAA) USAID's partner 34 Silvia Benitez The Nature Conservancy Conservation Program Coordinator USAID's partner 35 Andrew Noss Wildlife Conservation Society Project Coordinator (IMIL) USAID's partner 36 Pablo Landivar Wildlife Conservation Society Local Technical Assistant USAID's partner 37 Jaime Levy Altrópico Executive Director Local NGO 38 José Valdivieso Fund. Conservación y Desarrollo Executive Director (IMIL) Local NGO 39 Ramiro Zapata Fund. Conservación y Desarrollo Amazon Coordinator Local NGO 40 Estela de la Torre VIHOMA Board Director Local NGO 41 Pablo Yépez VIHOMA Executive Director Local NGO 42 Bernardo Trellez Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Pro Yasuni Program Coordinator NGO 43 Remigio Rivera REPSOL Comunity Relactions Department Director Private Sector 44 Gustavo Rodríguez ENTRIX General Manager Consultant 45 José Galindo Mentefactura General Manager Consultant 46 Ma. Isabel Carrera Consultant Commercialization expert Consultant 47 María Arguello CORPEI/EcoCiencia Biotrade Program Coordinator Local NGO 48 Padre Juan Carlos Vicariato del Aguarico, Coca Capuchino priest Other sector ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 51 # CONTACT ORGANIZATION POSITION SECTOR 49 Mark Silverman USAID/Ecuador Acting Director USAID 50 Bernai Velarde USAID/Ecuador EDGE Director USAID 51 Mónica Zuquilanda USAID/Ecuador EDGE Project Specialist USAID 52 Rocío Cedeño USAID/Ecuador EDGE USAID 53 Amy Archibald USAID/Ecuador US Embassy Policy Officer USAID 54 Mireya Matute USAID/Ecuador RCO USAID ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 52 ANNEX C: INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE 34 Key: IL – Indigenous Leaders; OR – NGO Representatives; NG – National government representatives; LG – Local government representatives; PR – Private sector representatives STAKEHOLDERS SECTI ON CRITERIA QUESTION IL OR NG LG PR GENERAL Which approaches have been used by the project? Why? How have they worked? x x Compatibility between protected area objectives and those of indigenous and traditional peoples Compatibility 1. Are the conservation objectives (perceived) compatible with the existence of indigenous peoples in or around conservation target areas? x x 2. Is the existing indigenous peoples' governing system compatible with the needs and demands PA management plans? x x Tools 3. Is the health of biodiversity monitored? If so, do monitoring practices integrate traditional knowledge and practices of the indigenous peoples who live in or around the protected area? x x 4. Are traditional indigenous knowledge and practices, as well as modern tools drawn from social and natural sciences, used in the development of management and monitoring of protected areas or sustainable use of resources? x x Policies 5. Are the existing legal and regulatory frameworks governing PA conservation objectives and those of indigenous peoples flexible to allow for integration objectives? If not, what are the key laws and regulations, both PA and indigenous laws and regulations, that will require review and reform in the next future? x x 6. Are there any current or past initiatives to assess gaps and opportunities in the legal and regulatory frameworks governing PAs, indigenous people's territories, and sustainable use of biodiversity resources? If yes, which organizations have been involved in the studies? x x 34 Questionnaire based extensively on Fernández-Baca and Martin, 2007. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 53 Key: IL – Indigenous Leaders; OR – NGO Representatives; NG – National government representatives; LG – Local government representatives; PR – Private sector representatives STAKEHOLDERS SECTI ON CRITERIA QUESTION IL OR NG LG PR Rights of indigenous peoples to the traditional use of their lands and resources Agreements and restrictions 7. Have formal agreements been established between the communities and agencies responsible for conservation? If so, are these agreements framed within national policies and protected area legislation? Also, do these agreements establish common objectives and commitments for conservation of these areas, also defining responsibilities for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and resources? What are the key tangible results of such agreements? x x 8. For existing agreements, have usage restrictions been put in place to preserve biodiversity in the indigenous territories, as in the case of the agreements established between the government of Ecuador and the Cofán nation for the management of the Cofán-Bermejo Ecological Reserve? Have these restrictions been respected and found to be satisfactory by both parties? x x Legitimacy 9. Are conservation strategies developed and implemented with the indigenous peoples in or around conservation target areas, treating them as legitimate partners in conditions of equality? How do all key stakeholders (e.g., donors, managers, communities, private￾partners) have been involved in the decision-making process? Is such participation fostering long-term benefits for the indigenous groups, building legitimate alliances and defining clear roles/responsibilities? x x 10. Does the conservation model in place allow indigenous people to exercise their right to self-determination, and consistent with the way indigenous peoples make and implement decisions? x x Property rights 11. Are property rights, including territorial rights and access to natural resource use and administration in indigenous territories, well defined? Have approaches been employed to better define property rights, and the rights to natural resource use and administration, in indigenous territories? x x x x ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 54 Key: IL – Indigenous Leaders; OR – NGO Representatives; NG – National government representatives; LG – Local government representatives; PR – Private sector representatives STAKEHOLDERS SECTI ON CRITERIA QUESTION IL O R NG LG PR Recognition of the decision-making institutions and mechanisms of indigenous and traditional peoples. Policies 12. Does the application of national legislation to indigenous peoples take into account the customs or customary law of these peoples? Have approaches been employed to modify the legislation and institutional structure of the national system of protected areas to incorporate these traditional institutions and administrative processes? x x x 13. Have new institutions been introduced to serve as a link between indigenous communities and the project or existing traditional institutions have been strengthened? Which has proven more successful strategy and why? x x Organization capacities Economic contribution 14. Have approaches been used successfully to strengthen the administrative capacities of indigenous organizations and communities so they may be effective co￾participants in project implementation? Have approaches been employed to empower indigenous organizations to assume responsibility for the management of funds, building their capacity for financial management and accountability? x x 15. Which of the following key areas for organizational strengthening and PA coalition building have been successfully addressed in the past two years? x x · Strategic vision and planning (including sustainable financing) · Organization structuring · Leadership development · Strategic participation · Informed decision-making · Project management and implementation · PA management · PA-based tourism participation and management · Internal and external communications · Accounting, financial management, transparency and responsibility · Human resources development and management · Progress measuring and evaluation ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 55 Key: IL – Indigenous Leaders; OR – NGO Representatives; NG – National government representatives; LG – Local government representatives; PR – Private sector representatives STAKEHOLDERS SECTI ON CRITERIA QUESTION IL OR NG LG PR 16. Which of those areas (institutional building) do you consider to be important and needing of attention by the USAID-supported program in the future? x x x x 17. Have organizational and individual capacities of indigenous organizations and leaders been assessed in a systematic manner (following capacity building assessment standards), and based on the results of such assessments, have capacity building initiatives been designed? x Access of Indigenous Peoples to the Benefits Associated with Protected Areas 18. Has the economic contribution of PAs/projects in or around the indigenous territories been assessed in terms of local employment, income generation, equity, and alleviation of rural poverty? If yes, how is this information used to formulate strategies and improve decision making? x x 19. Have the level of indigenous people's needs, in terms of access to PA benefits/revenue sharing mechanisms ever been assessed? If so, how is this information being used? x 20. What revenue sharing options you consider to be important and need attention by the USAID-supported program? x 21. Has the project successfully created the conditions in which indigenous and traditional peoples can benefit from the labor and market opportunities associated with conservation efforts, such as the generation of alternative income and the demand for jobs related to the management of the protected areas? x x 22. What alliances (i.e., with whom and under which conditions) has been developed to improve indigenous group´s access to AP benefits (e.g., market opportunities, cost sharing mechanisms)? how are them supporting conservation in indigenous lands (e.g., revenue sharing mechanisms), and what constraints are required to overcome? x x x x 23. With which national or international projects, related to sustainable use of biodiversity resources or access to PA benefits, is the USAID-supported program collaborating with? For instance, BioCAN (Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in the Andean Amazon Region) supported by the Government of Finland, the Amazon Initiative supported by the Moore Foundation, or PAT (Programa Amazónico Tripartito, supported by the Government of The Netherlands). What tangible results have been obtained to date? x x ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 56 Key: IL – Indigenous Leaders; OR – NGO Representatives; NG – National government representatives; LG – Local government representatives; PR – Private sector representatives STAKEHOLDERS SECTI ON CRITERIA QUESTION IL OR NG LG PR 24. With which national and regional financial institutions that may provide financial support to develop and implement initiatives related to sustainable access to PA benefits and/or use of biodiversity resources is the USAID-supported program collaborating with? For instance, national financial institutions, local governments, national banks, CAF (Andean Promotion Corporation), CEPAL (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean), or UNDP Small Grants Programme. What tangible results have been obtained to date? x x Sustainable financing 25. Have financial needs of PA/projects been assessed and financial gaps been estimated? Is the available funding diversified and stable? If not, what are the main restrictions indigenous groups have faced to attain it? x x 26. Have USAID investments been assigned considering prioritized expenses/investments and on what basis? For the future, which criterias should be used to assigned resources in indigenous conservation strategies? x 27. Are there any financial mechanisms that have been established with or without support of the USAID program aimed at providing sustainable long-term funding to support projects related to increasing access to PA benefits or sustainable use of biodiversity resources? x 28. How does accountability in PA/project management been encourage? Does participation of key stakeholders, institutional capacity, and efficiency/transparency of used resources being effectively addressed and monitored? x x x Community￾based activities 29. Which of the following tourism-based revenue generating options have been assess and are currently being used as revenue sharing mechanisms to support community development (in the indigenous peoples territory) with USAID support: x x x · Entrance fees · Admission fees · User fees · Licenses and permits · Royalties and sales revenue · Concession, leases, and rent fees · Taxes · Voluntary donations ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 57 Key: IL – Indigenous Leaders; OR – NGO Representatives; NG – National government representatives; LG – Local government representatives; PR – Private sector representatives STAKEHOLDERS SECTI ON CRITERIA QUESTION IL OR NG LG PR 30. Have the existing and potential benefits from ecosystems services in the protected areas in or around the indigenous territories been assessed, or given the case an alliance established, in order to determine strategies to access them (e.g., Socio-Bosque)? If so, how are them supporting conservation in indigenous lands (e.g., revenue sharing mechanisms) and what constraints are required to overcome? x x x x 31. Is there a financial strategy and/or business plan that supports the implementation of the PA management plan or income generating activities? If yes, are revenue-sharing mechanisms an integrated part of the financial strategy or business plan? To what extent does the financial strategy and/or business plan has been implemented? If not, why do potentially successful financial mechanisms have not been implemented? What are the bottlenecks of sustainable financing in PAs in indigenous territories (e.g., seed capital; champions; policy distortions)? x x Policies 32. Are there sufficient provisions in the existing laws and regulatory framework governing PAs to ensure equitable access to PA benefits and revenue sharing for indigenous groups? If no, what are the most prominent legal and regulatory barriers to improve access to PA benefits and revenue sharing? x x x x 33. Does the existing legal framework support the implementation of long term financial mechanisms allowing, for instance, reinvestment of the revenues in PA or effective government support in indigenous conservation strategies? Or does it reinforce policy distortions against PA management and conservation? x x x x IP and Transboudary PA 34. Have transboundary agreements contributed to reducing conflict among indigenous groups? x x x ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 58 ANNEX D: LESSONS LEARNED FROM PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS Table 10 Summary of Lessons Learned from Previous Evaluations Project Lessons learned by approach Natural Resource Management (NRM) ICCA Focus on areas with a conservation mandate, such as protected areas, and on indigenous communities with social, cultural, and economic commitments to land uses that are compatible with conservation. CAIMAN and PSUR In protected areas, co-management agreements are falling short in delivering tenure security and promoting compliance with NRM plans. ICCA The large overlap between areas with indigenous populations and areas of intact habitat with low internal threats, if managed collectively, make conservation of large tracts of habitat feasible. Territorial Rights CAIMAN and PSUR Economic pressures and the absorption of western values are challenging the cultures of indigenous peoples, so the securing of land rights may not only serve cultural or conservation purposes but also political and economic ends. CAIMAN and PSUR An integrated land titling and property rights (LTPR) approach that enhances both the legal and social recognition of rights, supports mechanisms to defend those rights, and strengthens local institutions, will yield more sustainable results than the isolated implementation of any single intervention. CAIMAN and PSUR Titling by itself is unlikely to lead to tenure security or sustainable NRM. Inalienable community land titles are more suited to maintaining the long-term territorial integrity of indigenous communities’ ancestral lands than are individual titles, and these community land titles give indigenous groups a stronger position from which to defend their rights in the face of powerful outsiders who possess greater political clout. CAIMAN and PSUR Park guards are powerful and visible symbols of an indigenous community’s control over territory, and park guard programs provide multiple benefits such as employment, leadership skills, monitoring and protecting biodiversity, and fostering pride among a community. CAIMAN and PSUR LTPR projects need to monitor progress toward higher level outcomes such as tenure security and NRM as much as outputs such as titles and management plans. Attaing the latter does not necessarily lead to the former. PiP Exchanging assistance for obtaining titles for private lands with agreements to take conservation on private lands can be an effective conservation action. Institutional Strengthening CAIMAN and PSUR Strong local organizations combined with efficient and active government at the local and national levels are necessary for the long-term sustainability of any intervention. CAIMAN and PSUR Organizations where political and technical functions are intertwined have difficulty maintaining focus and continuity with respect to technical work. CAIMAN and PSUR Leadership instability and associated staff turnover impedes the capacity of indigenous organizations to function on an effective and sustainable basis. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 59 CAIMAN and PSUR Indigenous organizations cannot grow and succeed based only on volunteer labor. Without salaries, people are susceptible to corruption and cannot be expected to devote their full attention to the needs of the organization. ICCA Solutions to the threats to biodiversity are national in nature and lie in specific country policies, enforcement mechanisms, implementation of laws, attitudes, and local capacity. ICCA Governance is the critical leverage point for biodiversity conservation efforts. Conservation efforts that are not tied to governance considerations risk becoming irrelevant. ICCA The fundamental theme in biodiversity conservation is not biology but governance, especially at the regional, community, and organizational levels and with regards to dealing with indigenous rights, decision-making, enforcemen,t and corruption. ICCA Significant regional biodiversity impact can result from a focus on empowering indigenous communities to manage their land, defend their rights and become full partners in biodiversity conservation. ICCA Conservation requires active engagement of local government particularly in institutional environments where current national practices are antithetical to conservation goals. ICCA Programs that strengthen representative indigenous organizations that inhabit areas of high biodiversity value, are important bulwarks in protecting biodiversity, and empowerment of indigenous organizations is critical in biodiversity conservation. PiP Alliances with other organizations produces results when each organization respects its own and other geographic and thematic niches. Income Generating Activities (IGA) CAIMAN The concept of “community” has limited application to some indigenous people, so productive activities should focus more on the family unit. CAIMAN Traditional economies that rely on communal resources are not easily compatible with profit-motivated enterprises, so creative approaches are needed for income generation. CAIMAN and PSUR Livelihood activities should offset the need to rely on resource extraction to meet basic needs. CAIMAN and PSUR Income generation should respect circumstances and culture. CAIMAN Increased income and market participation is not synonymous with improved livelihoods – market-oriented activities must include educational components. CAIMAN and PSUR Efforts to promote economic activities should take into account the constraints inherent in local markets, distance and associated transport costs to access markets, and the limited education and business skills among indigenous peoples. PSUR The value systems of rural families do not reflect only monetary values but also solidarity, frugality, and reciprocity. PSUR Frequently, rural producers prefer to sell their products to an intermediary, making the role of the intermediary very important Sustainable Financing CAIMAN and PSUR Administrative and financial strengthening of indigenous organizations is critical for them to attract new funding to support LTPR and NRM activities. Conflict Management CAIMAN and PSUR Conservation of landscape level resources is enhanced when communities have shared rules about their management and take joint action to conserve them. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 60 CAIMAN For indigenous people to be able to understand training in conflict management, it must be provided in the language that they understand, not necessarily Spanish. Design and Implementation CAIMAN and PSUR Indigenous nationalities need to be engaged in shaping project objectives and activities to facilitate their buy-in and increase the likelihood for their continuation. CAIMAN Variations in ethnically and culturally defined indigenous groups require iterative, flexible approaches to project implementation, as no one approach fits all situations. CAIMAN and PSUR Resist generalization across indigenous groups. CAIMAN and PSUR Recognize the different values of men and women within indigenous communities with respect to NRM. ICCA Working with indigenous organizations must proceed at a slow yet constant pace, which makes it possible to work with multiple communities simultaneously. ICCA Limited resources must be focused strategically and geographically to have a measurable impact. ICCA Implementers of projects should be candid, describing clearly and transparently both positive developments and vexing setbacks. PSUR Participation of communities, organizations and institutions, in the design phase was critical for establishing priorities and sustainability. PSUR Long-term, participative strategic planning establishes a common set of values that permits implementation obstacles to be overcome. PSUR Bi-national events can make an important contribution to achieving significant results. PSUR The implementation through consortiums expanded the range of experiences and abilities, thus contributing significantly to the success of the activities. PSUR Evaluation of the activities by the participants contributes a great deal to institutional strengthening and sustainability. WCS More efforts in education, health, and organizational strengthening are keys to the Awá people's development. PiP The scale of strategies must respond to the scale of the threat. PiP Strategies should have a monitoring system to measure success and impact (with its corresponding indicators) and inform us if the actions have sufficient impact at the local and regional scale PiP Models should be developed and validated to be replicated in other areas of the country and eco-region. PiP The project should have a permanent communication system and systematize our experience. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 61 ANNEX E: EXCERPTS FROM ECUADOR’S 2008 CONSTITUTION (IN SPANISH) Art. 1. Los recursos naturales no renovables del territorio del Estado pertenecen a su patrimonio inalienable, irrenunciable e imprescriptible. Sección segunda Ambiente sano Art. 14.- Se reconoce el derecho de la población a vivir en un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, que garantice la sostenibilidad y el buen vivir, sumak kawsay. Se declara de interés público la preservación del ambiente, la conservación de los ecosistemas, la biodiversidad y la integridad del patrimonio genético del país, la prevención del daño ambiental y la recuperación de los espacios naturales degradados. Art. 57.- Se reconoce y garantizará a las comunas, comunidades, pueblos y nacionalidades indígenas, de conformidad con la Constitución y con los pactos, convenios, declaraciones y demás instrumentos internacionales de derechos humanos, los siguientes derechos colectivos: 1. Mantener, desarrollar y fortalecer libremente su identidad, sentido de pertenencia, tradiciones ancestrales y formas de organización social. 2. No ser objeto de racismo y de ninguna forma de discriminación fundada en su origen, identidad étnica o cultural. 3. El reconocimiento, reparación y resarcimiento a las colectividades afectadas por racismo, xenofobia y otras formas conexas de intolerancia y discriminación. 4. Conservar la propiedad imprescriptible de sus tierras comunitarias, que serán inalienables, inembargables e indivisibles. Estas tierras estarán exentas del pago de tasas e impuestos. 5. Mantener la posesión de las tierras y territorios ancestrales y obtener su adjudicación gratuita. 6. Participar en el uso, usufructo, administración y conservación de los recursos naturales renovables que se hallen en sus tierras. 7. La consulta previa, libre e informada, dentro de un plazo razonable, sobre planes y programas de prospección, explotación y comercialización de recursos no renovables que se encuentren en sus tierras y que puedan afectarles ambiental o culturalmente; participar en los beneficios que esos proyectos reporten y recibir indemnizaciones por los perjuicios sociales, culturales y ambientales que les causen. La consulta que deban realizar las autoridades competentes será obligatoria y oportuna. Si no se obtuviese el consentimiento de la comunidad consultada, se procederá conforme a la Constitución y la ley. 8. Conservar y promover sus prácticas de manejo de la biodiversidad y de su entorno natural. El Estado establecerá y ejecutará programas, con la participación de la comunidad, para asegurar la conservación y utilización sustentable de la biodiversidad. 9. Conservar y desarrollar sus propias formas de convivencia y organización social, y de generación y ejercicio de la autoridad, en sus territorios legalmente reconocidos y tierras comunitarias de posesión ancestral. 10. Crear, desarrollar, aplicar y practicar su derecho propio o consuetudinario, que no podrá vulnerar derechos constitucionales, en particular de las mujeres, niñas, niños y adolescentes. 11. No ser desplazados de sus tierras ancestrales. 12. Mantener, proteger y desarrollar los conocimientos colectivos; sus ciencias, tecnologías y saberes ancestrales; los recursos genéticos que contienen la diversidad biológica y la agrobiodiversidad; sus medicinas y prácticas de medicina tradicional, con inclusión del derecho a recuperar, promover y ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 62 proteger los lugares rituales y sagrados, así como plantas, animales, minerales y ecosistemas dentro de sus territorios; y el conocimiento de los recursos y propiedades de la fauna y la flora. Se prohíbe toda forma de apropiación sobre sus conocimientos, innovaciones y prácticas. 13. Mantener, recuperar, proteger, desarrollar y preservar su patrimonio cultural e histórico como parte indivisible del patrimonio del Ecuador. El Estado proveerá los recursos para el efecto. 14. Desarrollar, fortalecer y potenciar el sistema de educación intercultural bilingüe, con criterios de calidad, desde la estimulación temprana hasta el nivel superior, conforme a la diversidad cultural, para el cuidado y preservación de las identidades en consonancia con sus metodologías de enseñanza y aprendizaje. Se garantizará una carrera docente digna. La administración de este sistema será colectiva y participativa, con alternancia temporal y espacial, basada en veeduría comunitaria y rendición de cuentas. 15. Construir y mantener organizaciones que los representen, en el marco del respeto al pluralismo y a la diversidad cultural, política y organizativa. El Estado reconocerá y promoverá todas sus formas de expresión y organización. 16. Participar mediante sus representantes en los organismos oficiales que determine la ley, en la definición de las políticas públicas que les conciernan, así como en el diseño y decisión de sus prioridades en los planes y proyectos del Estado. 17. Ser consultados antes de la adopción de una medida legislativa que pueda afectar cualquiera de sus derechos colectivos. 18. Mantener y desarrollar los contactos, las relaciones y la cooperación con otros pueblos, en particular los que estén divididos por fronteras internacionales. 19. Impulsar el uso de las vestimentas, los símbolos y los emblemas que los identifiquen. 20. La limitación de las actividades militares en sus territorios, de acuerdo con la ley. 21. Que la dignidad y diversidad de sus culturas, tradiciones, historias y aspiraciones se reflejen en la educación pública y en los medios de comunicación; la creación de sus propios medios de comunicación social en sus idiomas y el acceso a los demás sin discriminación alguna. Los territorios de los pueblos en aislamiento voluntario son de posesión ancestral irreductible e intangible, y en ellos estará vedada todo tipo de actividad extractiva. El Estado adoptará medidas para garantizar sus vidas, hacer respetar su autodeterminación y voluntad de permanecer en aislamiento, y precautelar la observancia de sus derechos. La violación de estos derechos constituirá delito de etnocidio, que será tipificado por la ley. El Estado garantizará la aplicación de estos derechos colectivos sin discriminación alguna, en condiciones de igualdad y equidad entre mujeres y hombres. Art. 58.- Para fortalecer su identidad, cultura, tradiciones y derechos, se reconocen al pueblo afroecuatoriano los derechos colectivos establecidos en la Constitución, la ley y los pactos, convenios, declaraciones y demás instrumentos internacionales de derechos humanos. Art. 59.- Se reconocen los derechos colectivos de los pueblos montubios para garantizar su proceso de desarrollo humano integral, sustentable y sostenible, las políticas y estrategias para su progreso y sus formas de administración asociativa, a partir del conocimiento de su realidad y el respeto a su cultura, identidad y visión propia, de acuerdo con la ley. Art. 60.- Los pueblos ancestrales, indígenas, afro-ecuatorianos y montubios podrán constituir circunscripciones territoriales para la preservación de su cultura. La ley regulará su conformación. Se reconoce a las comunas que tienen propiedad colectiva de la tierra, como una forma ancestral de organización territorial. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 63 Capítulo séptimo Derechos de la naturaleza Art. 71.- La naturaleza o Pacha Mama, donde se reproduce y realiza la vida, tiene derecho a que se respete integralmente su existencia y el mantenimiento y regeneración de sus ciclos vitales, estructura, funciones y procesos evolutivos. Toda persona, comunidad, pueblo o nacionalidad podrá exigir a la autoridad pública el cumplimiento de los derechos de la naturaleza. Para aplicar e interpretar estos derechos se observaran los principios establecidos en la Constitución, en lo que proceda. El Estado incentivará a las personas naturales y jurídicas, y a los colectivos, para que protejan la naturaleza, y promoverá el respeto a todos los elementos que forman un ecosistema. Art. 72.- La naturaleza tiene derecho a la restauración. Esta restauración será independiente de la obligación que tienen el Estado y las personas naturales o jurídicas de indemnizar a los individuos y colectivos que dependan de los sistemas naturales afectados. En los casos de impacto ambiental grave o permanente, incluidos los ocasionados por la explotación de los recursos naturales no renovables, el Estado establecerá los mecanismos más eficaces para alcanzar la restauración, y adoptará las medidas adecuadas para eliminar o mitigar las consecuencias ambientales nocivas. Art. 73.- EI Estado aplicará medidas de precaución y restricción para las actividades que puedan conducir a la extinción de especies, la destrucción de ecosistemas o la alteración permanente de los ciclos naturales. Se prohíbe la introducción de organismos y material orgánico e inorgánico que puedan alterar de manera definitiva el patrimonio genético nacional. Art. 74.- Las personas, comunidades, pueblos y nacionalidades tendrán derecho a beneficiarse del ambiente y de las riquezas naturales que les permitan el buen vivir. Los servicios ambientales no serán susceptibles de apropiación; su producción, prestación, uso y aprovechamiento serán regulados por el Estado. Art. 242.- El Estado se organiza territorialmente en regiones, provincias, cantones y parroquias rurales. Por razones de conservación ambiental, étnico-culturales o de población podrán constituirse regímenes especiales. Los distritos metropolitanos autónomos, la provincia de Galápagos y las circunscripciones territoriales indígenas y pluriculturales serán regímenes especiales. Art. 274.- Los gobiernos autónomos descentralizados en cuyo territorio se exploten o industrialicen recursos naturales no renovables tendrán derecho a participar de las rentas que perciba el Estado por esta actividad, de acuerdo con la ley. Capítulo quinto Sectores estratégicos, servicios y empresas públicas Art. 313.- El Estado se reserva el derecho de administrar, regular, controlar y gestionar los sectores estratégicos, de conformidad con los principios de sostenibilidad ambiental, precaución, prevención y eficiencia. Los sectores estratégicos, de decisión y control exclusivo del Estado, son aquellos que por su trascendencia y magnitud tienen decisiva influencia económica, social, política o ambiental, y deberán orientarse al pleno desarrollo de los derechos y al interés social. Se consideran sectores estratégicos la energía en todas sus formas, las telecomunicaciones, los recursos naturales no renovables, el transporte y la refinación de hidrocarburos, la biodiversidad y el patrimonio genético, el espectro radioeléctrico, el agua, y los demás que determine la ley. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 64 Art. 317.- Los recursos naturales no renovables pertenecen al patrimonio inalienable e imprescriptible del Estado. En su gestión, el Estado priorizará la responsabilidad intergeneracional, la conservación de la naturaleza, el cobro de regalías u otras contribuciones no tributarias y de participaciones empresariales; y minimizará los impactos negativos de carácter ambiental, cultural, social y económico. Capítulo segundo Biodiversidad y recursos naturales Sección primera Naturaleza y Ambiente Art. 395.- La Constitución reconoce los siguientes principios ambientales: 1. El Estado garantizará un modelo sustentable de desarrollo, ambientalmente equilibrado y respetuoso de la diversidad cultural, que conserve la biodiversidad y la capacidad de regeneración natural de los ecosistemas, y asegure la satisfacción de las necesidades de las generaciones presentes y futuras. 2. Las políticas de gestión ambiental se aplicarán de manera transversal y serán de obligatorio cumplimiento por parte del Estado en todos sus niveles y por todas las personas naturales o jurídicas en el territorio nacional. 3. El Estado garantizará la participación activa y permanente de las personas, comunidades, pueblos y nacionalidades afectadas, en la planificación, ejecución y control de toda actividad que genere impactos ambientales. 4. En caso de duda sobre el alcance de las disposiciones legales en materia ambiental, éstas se aplicarán en el sentido más favorable a la protección de la naturaleza. Art. 396.- El Estado adoptará las políticas y medidas oportunas que eviten los impactos ambientales negativos, cuando exista certidumbre de daño. En caso de duda sobre el impacto ambiental de alguna acción u omisión, aunque no exista evidencia científica del daño, el Estado adoptará medidas protectoras eficaces y oportunas. La responsabilidad por daños ambientales es objetiva. Todo daño al ambiente, además de las sanciones correspondientes, implicará también la obligación de restaurar integralmente los ecosistemas e indemnizar a las personas y comunidades afectadas. Cada uno de los actores de los procesos de producción, distribución, comercialización y uso de bienes o servicios asumirá la responsabilidad directa de prevenir cualquier impacto ambiental, de mitigar y reparar los daños que ha causado, y de mantener un sistema de control ambiental permanente. Las acciones legales para perseguir y sancionar por daños ambientales serán imprescriptibles. Art. 397.- En caso de daños ambientales el Estado actuará de manera inmediata y subsidiaria para garantizar la salud y la restauración de los ecosistemas. Además de la sanción correspondiente, el Estado repetirá contra el operador de la actividad que produjera el daño las obligaciones que conlleve la reparación integral, en las condiciones y con los procedimientos que la ley establezca. La responsabilidad también recaerá sobre las servidoras o servidores responsables de realizar el control ambiental. Para garantizar el derecho individual y colectivo a vivir en un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, el Estado se compromete a: 1. Permitir a cualquier persona natural o jurídica, colectividad o grupo humano, ejercer las acciones legales y acudir a los órganos judiciales y administrativos, sin perjuicio de su interés directo, para obtener de ellos la tutela efectiva en materia ambiental, incluyendo la posibilidad de solicitar medidas cautelares que permitan cesar la amenaza o el daño ambiental materia de litigio. La carga de la prueba sobre la inexistencia de daño potencial o real recaerá sobre el gestor de la actividad o el demandado. 2. Establecer mecanismos efectivos de prevención y control de la contaminación ambiental, de recuperación de espacios naturales degradados y de manejo sustentable de los recursos naturales. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 65 3. Regular la producción, importación, distribución, uso y disposición final de materiales tóxicos y peligrosos para las personas o el ambiente. 4. Asegurar la intangibilidad de las áreas naturales protegidas, de tal forma que se garantice la conservación de la biodiversidad y el mantenimiento de las funciones ecológicas de los ecosistemas. El manejo y administración de las áreas naturales protegidas estará a cargo del Estado. 5. Establecer un sistema nacional de prevención, gestión de riesgos y desastres naturales, basado en los principios de inmediatez, eficiencia, precaución, responsabilidad y solidaridad. Art. 398.- Toda decisión o autorización estatal que pueda afectar al ambiente deberá ser consultada a la comunidad, a la cual se informará amplia y oportunamente. El sujeto consultante será el Estado. La ley regulará la consulta previa, la participación ciudadana, los plazos, el sujeto consultado y los criterios de valoración y de objeción sobre la actividad sometida a consulta. El Estado valorará la opinión de la comunidad según los criterios establecidos en la ley y los instrumentos internacionales de derechos humanos. Si del referido proceso de consulta resulta una oposición mayoritaria de la comunidad respectiva, la decisión de ejecutar o no el proyecto será adoptada por resolución debidamente motivada de la instancia administrativa superior correspondiente de acuerdo con la ley. Art. 399.- El ejercicio integral de la tutela estatal sobre el ambiente y la corresponsabilidad de la ciudadanía en su preservación, se articulará a través de un sistema nacional descentralizado de gestión ambiental, que tendrá a su cargo la defensoría del ambiente y la naturaleza. Sección segunda Biodiversidad Art. 400.- El Estado ejercerá la soberanía sobre la biodiversidad, cuya administración y gestión se realizará con responsabilidad intergeneracional. Se declara de interés público la conservación de la biodiversidad y todos sus componentes, en particular la biodiversidad agrícola y silvestre y el patrimonio genético del país. Art. 401.- Se declara al Ecuador libre de cultivos y semillas transgénicas. Excepcionalmente, y sólo en caso de interés nacional debidamente fundamentado por la Presidencia de la República y aprobado por la Asamblea Nacional, se podrán introducir semillas y cultivos genéticamente modificados. El Estado regulará bajo estrictas normas de bioseguridad, el uso y el desarrollo de la biotecnología moderna y sus productos, así como su experimentación, uso y comercialización. Se prohíbe la aplicación de biotecnologías riesgosas o experimentales. Art. 402.- Se prohíbe el otorgamiento de derechos, incluidos los de propiedad intelectual, sobre productos derivados o sintetizados, obtenidos a partir del conocimiento colectivo asociado a la biodiversidad nacional. Art. 403.- El Estado no se comprometerá en convenios o acuerdos de cooperación que incluyan cláusulas que menoscaben la conservación y el manejo sustentable de la biodiversidad, la salud humana y los derechos colectivos y de la naturaleza. Sección tercera Patrimonio natural y ecosistemas Art. 404.- El patrimonio natural del Ecuador único e invaluable comprende, entre otras, las formaciones físicas, biológicas y geológicas cuyo valor desde el punto de vista ambiental, científico, cultural o paisajístico exige su protección, conservación, recuperación y promoción. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 66 Su gestión se sujetará a los principios y garantías consagrados en la Constitución y se llevará a cabo de acuerdo al ordenamiento territorial y una zonificación ecológica, de acuerdo con la ley. Art. 405.- EI sistema nacional de áreas protegidas garantizará la conservación de la biodiversidad y el mantenimiento de las funciones ecológicas. El sistema se integrará por los subsistemas estatal, autónomo descentralizado, comunitario y privado, y su rectoría y regulación será ejercida por el Estado. El Estado asignará los recursos económicos necesarios para la sostenibilidad financiera del sistema, y fomentará la participación de las comunidades, pueblos y nacionalidades que han habitado ancestralmente las áreas protegidas en su administración y gestión. Las personas naturales o jurídicas extranjeras no podrán adquirir a ningún título tierras o concesiones en las áreas de seguridad nacional ni en áreas protegidas, de acuerdo con la ley. Art. 406.- El Estado regulará la conservación, manejo y uso sustentable, recuperación, y limitaciones de dominio de los ecosistemas frágiles y amenazados; entre otros, los páramos, humedales, bosques nublados, bosques tropicales secos y húmedos y manglares, ecosistemas marinos y marinos-costeros. Art. 407.- Se prohíbe la actividad extractiva de recursos no renovables en las áreas protegidas y en zonas declaradas como intangibles, incluida la explotación forestal. Excepcionalmente dichos recursos se podrán explotar a petición fundamentada de la Presidencia de la República y previa declaratoria de interés nacional por parte de la Asamblea Nacional, que, de estimarlo conveniente, podrá convocar a consulta popular. Sección cuarta Recursos naturales Art. 408.- Son de propiedad inalienable, imprescriptible e inembargable del Estado los recursos naturales no renovables y, en general, los productos del subsuelo, yacimientos minerales y de hidrocarburos, substancias cuya naturaleza sea distinta de la del suelo, incluso los que se encuentren en las áreas cubiertas por las aguas del mar territorial y las zonas marítimas; así como la biodiversidad y su patrimonio genético y el espectro radioeléctrico. Estos bienes sólo podrán ser explotados en estricto cumplimiento de los principios ambientales establecidos en la Constitución. El Estado participará en los beneficios del aprovechamiento de estos recursos, en un monto que no será inferior a los de la empresa que los explota. El Estado garantizará que los mecanismos de producción, consumo y uso de los recursos naturales y la energía preserven y recuperen los ciclos naturales y permitan condiciones de vida con dignidad. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 67 ANNEX F: BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF THE EVALUATION TEAM Team Leader - Bruce Kernan is a seasoned Senior Natural Resource Management Specialist with longstanding experience in Ecuador working with indigenous communities and enhancing natural resource management. Mr. Kernan is a Forestry and Natural Resources Expert with two Master’s degrees in Forest Science and Natural Resources. As a USAID Foreign Service Officer from 1982-1988 in Ecuador and later as a Regional Environmental Advisor from 1994-1998, Mr. Kernan developed a sophisticated knowledge of the United States Government’s environmental regulation compliance in South America and has subsequently designed and led trainings in environmental assessment and compliance. Since 1998, Mr. Kernan has performed more than 40 environmental consultancies in 12 countries, 26 times as Team Leader, in the fields of alternative development, forest management certification, environmental impact assessment, country strategies for biodiversity and tropical forest conservation, and environmental laws and policies, including program evaluations and assessments for USAID. Local Sustainable Finance Expert - Macarena Bustamente is a trained environmental economist with extensive experience developing sustainable finance mechanisms and frameworks for incentivizing conservation in Ecuador and the Andean region. Ms. Bustamente has performed and led economic research in the areas of cost-benefit analysis of conservation within the indigenous community of Oyacachi, has designed financial mechanisms to minimize losses due to human-wildlife conflict in the Cayapas-Coca Ecological Reserve, and has collected and analyzed socioeconomic data in indigenous territories in Western Amazonia. She has contributed to and completed analytical work in publications on financing opportunities for Protected Areas and carbon sequestration, benefit sharing mechanism along the cacao value chain value, and evaluation of payments for ecosystem service schemes in Ecuador. Most recently, she supported research and coordination of the Trans-boundary Paramo Project (five transboundary protected areas in Ecuador and Colombia) and developed a conceptual framework for the Regional Monitoring Program in the Andean Paramo Project, integrating biophysical and socioeconomic indicators to analyze dynamics within rural communities in the highlands of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. She is fluent in both English and Spanish. Local Anthropologist - Kati Alvarez is an experienced social scientist with over 10 years of experience researching lowland indigenous communities’ interactions with society and the environment, conducting environmental impact assessments and management plans, and performing and leading ethnographic studies. Ms. Alvarez has interviewed and worked with members of the Cofán, Kichwa, Secoya, Waorani, and Shuar indigenous communities. She has recently obtained her Master of Social Science with a concentration in Anthropology, and she completed a master’s thesis on the impacts of contact with the national public on the Waorani cultural practices. Ms. Alvarez has completed a land management plan for the province of Santo Domingo de los Tas’chilas, performed social economic analysis of the supply and demand and implementation of a payment for environmental services scheme for Proyecto PRODERENA, and successfully completed numerous environmental impact assessments and environmental management plans through socio-environmental consultancies with ENTRIX and ECOPLADE. Ms. Alvarez has a working knowledge of a number of Ecuadorian indigenous languages. Sustainable Finance Specialist - Marlon Flores is a skilled professional with over 15 years of progressive experience in international protected areas (PA) management, ecosystem-based revenue mechanisms (including payments for ecosystem services, REDD (Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), PA climate change mitigation and adaptation), PA financial planning, environmental trust funds (under the USAID-TFCA Tropical Forestry Conservation Act), PA business planning and environmental fiscal reform. Mr. Flores has extensive experience in establishing complex high-level institutional partnerships and all aspects of project/program management. He is an effective facilitator of ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 68 organizational change with exceptional problem solving skills and ability to work effectively under pressure. Mr. Flores has extensive and well-established connections with the donor community (bilateral and multilateral), national governments, and the global network of conservation finance practitioners. He just returned from a mission in August 2009 as Secondary Revenue Sharing Specialist for ECODIT on the Afghanistan Biodiversity Support Program. Mr. Flores was responsible for developing sustainable funding source plans for the Band-i-Amir National Park, Afghanistan’s first national park. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 69 ANNEX G: STATEMENT OF WORK 1. INTRODUCTION Ecuador is one of the world's most biodiverse countries, and conserving biodiversity is a longstanding objective of the U.S. government's cooperation programs. The goals of USAID/Ecuador's environment program are habitat conservation and benefits to people living in and around parks and protected areas. USAID partners with the Ecuadorian government, the private-sector, NGOs, and indigenous groups to improve the management of globally important biodiversity and to extend conservation benefits to local residents. Among the approaches of USAID/Ecuador to biodiversity conservation has been to partner with lowland indigenous groups in the conservation of their territories, which contain more than two million hectares of critical habitat. All of this work has been financed with funds earmarked by Congress to conserve biodiversity and entailng specific design and reporting requirements to assure a conservation focus (see http://www.usaid.gov/ourwork/environment/ biodiversity!code.html). Most of these poor and natural resource-dependent populations are located in an arc starting in the northwestern Esmeraldas Province, and continuing east and south across Ecuador's eastern basin (Orellana, Napo, Sucumbios, Pastaza and Morona Santiago Provinces). The northern border provinces have been experiencing political, economic and social instability because of deterioration of the security situation in southern Colombia, severely impacting indigenous groups. There is no reason to assume insecurity will not continue. USAID has learned that the lowland indigenous organizations are far weaker than originally anticipated. Only a small portion of the population speaks Spanish and the education level is very low. According to National Statistics, the rural illiteracy rate is three times that of the cities, and the indigenous rate is 42%; indigenous women's illiteracy reaches 53%. The unique language and culture of each group and the lack of financial and technical resources limit their ability to absorb donor resources. New global and Ecuadorian approaches, such as payment for ecosystem services through the Socio Bosque Project, present new and challenging opportunities for support. 2. BACKGROUND Since the late 1990s, USAID/Ecuador has supported biodiversity conservation in indigenous territories through a variety of grants and contracts, costing a total of approximately $20,000,000. • The Parks in Peril Project in the Condor Bioreserve, 2002-2007.1 implemented by The Nature Conservancy (TNC), • In 2001 to 2003, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Altropico implemented The Ecuadorian Awá Territory: Protecting Habitat Biodiversity to maintain vegetation cover and the biological and cultural integrity of the Awá Territory adjacent areas. • From 2002 to 2007, Chemonics International implemented the CAIMAN Project to conserve biodiversity in indigenous territories. • From 2000 to 2006, Care International implemented the multi-sectoral Southern Border Program (PSUR) to improve social and economic conditions of the inhabitants along the Peru-Ecuador border, thereby promoting border integration, • Since late 2007 the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) has implemented the Integrated Management of Indigenous Lands program to promote sustainable conservation of Waorani, Awá, Cofán, and Kichua territories and cultures by strengthening institutions, consolidating territory, and improving livelihoods. The program includes a significant cross-border program with Colombian Awá and Cofán. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 70 • The Initiative for Conservation of the Andean Amazon (ICAA) is a centrally-funded activity designed to build conservation capacity and commitment across the Amazon Basin. Two consortia implement activities in Ecuador, The Nature Conservancy ("Strengthening Indigenous Amazonian Organizations," which focuses on tribal governance issues), and Rainforest Alliance ("Sustainable Livelihoods in the Western Amazon," focusing on community-based enterprises). The program's approach has been to support representative indigenous organizations to develop the needed capacity for conservation (i.e., the technical, financial and administrative capacity to manage their lands effectively). In each project, significant field work was implemented by local organizations. Strong indigenous organizations are assumed to be essential to conservation in indigenous territories. With this activity, USAID will be able to review USAID/Ecuador's conservation and development strategies with Ecuador's lowland indigenous groups in terms of goals, activities, results and partners, and on this basis recommend appropriate strategic changes. 3. PURPOSE The purpose of this activity is to review USAID/Ecuador’s conservation and development strategies with Ecuador’s lowland indigenous groups in terms of goals, activities, results and partners, and on this basis recommend appropriate strategic changes. 4. OBJECTIVES The objective of this activity is to assess the effectiveness of previous and current USAID approaches in activities with indigenous lowland groups, and provide recommendations of proven alternative approaches to make investments more socially, economically and environmentally effective in the medium and long terms. The evaluation team is to respond to the following requirements and questions: 1. Review the common goals and strategies of relevant activities, and report on themes and assumptions, especially regarding conservation of habitat, territorial rights, organizational capacity, and governance. a. Has a definable strategy prevailed or developed through USAID’s programs? b. Have the goals and approaches been consistent with the long-term interest of biodiversity conservation? c. Have the goals been consistent with the long-term interest of the indigenous groups themselves? 2. Review the quality, timeliness, and cost of results achieved through various approaches to the conservation of habitat, territorial rights, organizational capacity, and governance at national and local levels. (i.e., were there clear differences in the implementation approaches of various programs, and were any of these consistently more efficient or effective than others?) 3. Recommend improvements, modifications, and new approaches to increase the effectiveness and sustainability of conservation work with indigenous groups. Recommendations should be practical and readily implementable and should consider recent and imminent changes in the Ecuadorian constitutional law and environmental policy. 4. Review the current mix of programs and implementing partners (WCS, TNC, Rainforest Alliance), including recent evaluations, and recommend possible changes to increase efficiency or improve results. Have USAID programs used local networks to implement effectively and efficiently, and are certain approaches to conservation alliances more effective? ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 71 5. Review the strategies and results of conflict management and mitigation approaches applied in USAID’s programs, including cross-border indigenous issues and to conflicts within the Waorani, Zápara and other groups, and recommend improvements? 5. TECHNICAL APPROACH The three-person team assembled by the contractor (ECODIT) shall begin the evaluation on/around February 1, 2010 and complete it by no later than on/around March 19, 2010, as indicated in the detailed timeline below. The team will use qualitative methodologies to evaluate the conservation activities with some of Ecuador's lowland indigenous groups (Awá, Cofán, Waorani, and Shuar/Achuar) that USAID/Ecuador has financed since 2000. The evaluation will include the following five key parts: (1) Literature Review and Meetings with USAID staff, USAID partners, representatives of indigenous groups, GOE representatives, and other donors in Quito, (2) Understanding USAID-financed Activities and Refining Evaluation Framework and Survey Questionnaire; (3) Field Visits to Select Indigenous Groups; (4) Formulation of Conclusions and Recommendations; and (5) Preparation of Draft and Final Reports, including Technical Review Panel. 1. Literature Review and Meetings with USAID Staff, USAID Partners, and Other Stakeholders in Quito The evaluation team shall rely extensively on past project assessments and evaluations to comprehend USAID goals, strategies, lessons learned, past partners, and identified programmatic weaknesses and successes. The evaluation shall begin with a targeted literature review, in particular of the following documents and others as recommended and provided by USAID, NGOs and donors. Meetings with USAID staff shall be used to clarify USAID objectives for the evaluation, understand the different conservation approaches used with various indigenous groups, prioritize site visits, identify critical stakeholders, and gain Awáreness of developments since publication of the most recent evaluations and assessments. The evaluation team shall submit a revised work plan and report outline for USAID's approval at the completion of the literature review, evaluation planning, and meetings in Quito. 2. Understanding of USAID-Financed Activities and Refining the Evaluation Framework and Questionnaire The evaluation team then shall refine and finalize a Survey Questionnaire/Interview Talking Points that will be used to conduct informal surveys/interviews with representatives/members of conservation organizations, government agencies, non-governmental organizations, indigenous organizations and leaders, contractors and grantees, and other donors to gauge perceptions regarding the quality and timeliness of results achieved as well as possible improvements. This questionnaire will help standardize the evaluation over the breadth of indigenous programs and groups while being flexible enough to recognize the unique features of individual programs and indigenous groups. Specific attention shall be given to the willingness and capacity of indigenous groups, implementing partners, donors, and the GOE to participate in new sustainable conservation 'financing mechanisms and activities. 3. Field Visits to Select Indigenous Groups The team shall evaluate qualitatively the achievements of the activities against the inputs, outputs, outcomes and results which they had proposed to achieve. The team members shall make this comparison on the basis of the content of written reports, interviews with key staff in USAID and its partners, NGOs and indigenous organizations, survey/interview results (using the final survey/interview questionnaire) and its own very limited observations of field activities. The evaluation team shall identify and analyze factors that influenced ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 72 negatively or positively the achievement of the intended outputs, outcomes and results. The return on project inputs shall be estimated and used to evaluate the effectiveness of various approaches and help guide prioritization of future USAID activities. The team shall prepare and submit an Interim Report with preliminary findings and discuss this interim report with USAID after the first round of site visits, in order to determine the appropriateness of the team's approach and perceptions of USAID's programs and make adjustments as necessary in the final round of interviews/field visits and in preparing the Draft Report. 4. Formulation of Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the evaluation of the activities, the evaluation team shall formulate conclusions and recommendations that will support USAID/Ecuador's efforts to design and implement future conservation activities with Ecuador's lowland indigenous groups. It shall formulate these conclusions and recommendations in terms of institutional arrangements, funding mechanisms and requirements, geographic areas, indigenous groups, technical approaches and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. Where appropriate the evaluation team shall prioritize new and continued efforts, identify opportunities to streamline and harmonize programs' efforts and measure indigenous organizations capacity to accommodate the team's recommendations and/or ways to increase such capacity and target USAID's technical support. 5. Preparation of Draft and Final Reports, including Technical Review Panel Immediately after the task order is signed the ECODIT home office PLACE Deputy Program Manager with experience in natural resource management in Ecuador dating back to 1963 will review the CVs of all persons who have accepted invitations to serve on the review panel and possibly other suggested by USAID and, working with the Team Leader, select from 10 to 11 candidates with complementary skills to nominate to USAID for participation on the panel. Following discussions with USAID, the five-member panel will be selected from these nominees and, ideally, will include natural resource management specialists, anthropologists, sociologists, and financial analysts with experience working to assist indigenous peoples in natural resource management, especially biodiversity conservation, in Ecuador. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 73 ANNEX H: HUAORANI VISIT REPORT (IN SPANISH) By Kati Alvarez “La organización política tradicional waorani puede ser descrita como igualitaria e individualista, no hay jefes o jefes nacidos en puestos de poder”…; “sin embargo, se rescata el papel de un líder que aunque tenía influencia solamente en su grupo asociado, velaba por la paz y participaba en la organización de fiestas, a este personaje se lo conocía como el Ahuene”. (Rival, 1996. P. 82) CONTEXTO ETNO HISTÓRICO Y TERRITORIAL Los Waorani y Pueblos en Aislamiento Voluntario No se conoce con certeza el origen de las Familias Waorani, sin embargo se supone que son grupos venidos desde el Brasil (Rival, 1996; Tagliani, 2004). Su idioma es el Waotededo o el Waotiriro. Este idioma a criterio de Miguel Ángel Cabodevilla tiene tantos dialectos como clanes dentro del grupo (Cabodevilla, 2007). Según el Consejo de Desarrollo de Nacionalidades y Pueblos del Ecuador CODENPE (2003), en la actualidad se estiman alrededor de 3.000 miembros35 repartidos en 35 comunidades. Por otra parte, dentro del mismo tronco étnico están los miembros de la familia Tagaeri. Este grupo viene del clan de Ñihua, el mismo que tras la muerte de su líder y su hermano se divide y Taga (hijo de Ñihua) decide separarse del grupo e internarse en la selva. Mientras que, los Taromenane aparecen en la memoria de los Waorani en sus relatos de guerra desde hace mucho más de un siglo y se reconoce su fortaleza como clan. Los Taromenane se han situado hacia el Sur-Este del territorio Waorani y muy próximos a la frontera con el Perú, su líder era Taromenga (Cabodevilla, 1998). En la actualidad se estiman alrededor de 200 miembros en conjunto, es decir entre Tagaeiri y Taromenane y éstos están divididos en cinco clanes. Al parecer por las circunstancias en las que viven estos pueblos en aislamiento voluntario, se han establecido alianzas matrimoniales entre Tagaeiri y Taromenane, de ahí que no se tiene tan clara la distinción entre unos y otros. Ocupación Territorial En la actualidad el territorio Waorani comprende 6.782,20 kilómetros cuadrados36, y la mayoría de las comunidades Waorani están dentro de los límites del Parque Nacional Yasuní; a lo largo de las cuencas de los ríos Tiputini, Yasuní, Cononaco y Nashiño; y algunos de sus afluentes.37 Dentro del territorio Waorani hasta el momento existen 35 comunidades de las cuales 6 están dentro del Parque Nacional Yasuní: Bameno, Dícaro, Guiyero, Peneno, Kawimeno y Tobeta.38 Los vecinos interétnicos actuales del territorio Waorani son los Kichwas Amazónicos tanto del Napo como del Curaray; los Shuar ubicados en la vía Auca y río Shiripuno aguas arriba y los Colonos ubicados en la vía Auca (Orellana) y hacia el sector de Arajuno, provincia de Pastaza. 35 CODENPE, 2003. 36 En 1990, la CONFENIAE y la Organización de Estados Americanos OEA solicitan a nombre de los Waorani la legalización de su territorio. El Presidente Rodrigo Borja reconoce en aquel entonces 612.650 ha., a la etnia Waorani. (Rivas y Lara, 2001). El territorio ancestral Waorani abarcaba desde el río Napo al norte hasta el río Curaray al sur. Actualmente está reconocido un tercio del mismo. (Paz, 2007. P.10) 37 Aguirre, 2003; Rivas y Lara, 2001. 38 Además cabe señalar asentamientos temporales de los grupos Taromenane y Tagaeri en la zona intangible y en el Parque Yasuní. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 74 Mapa: FAO-RBY Zona Intangible Tagaeiri y Taromenane De acuerdo al Decreto Ejecutivo No. 552, publicado en el Suplemento del Registro Oficial No.121 del 2 de febrero de 1999, el Estado Ecuatoriano declaró la Zona Intangible Tagaeri-Taromenane, en aproximadamente 700.000 ha., de territorio dentro de la Reserva de la Biosfera del Yasuní. Según el Decreto, la Zona Intangible Tagaeiri-Taromenane (ZITT) tiene como objetivos respetar, por un lado, la decisión étnica de estos dos pueblos de no establecer contacto con otros Waorani o personas externas; y por otro lado, la conservación de los recursos naturales de esta área importante del Yasuní. Sin embargo, el estatus legal de ZITT es otorgado en el 2005. Los vecinos territoriales intra e inter étnicos de la Zona Intangible Tagaeri-Taromenane son los Waorani, los Kichwa del Curaray, el ente administrativo del Parque Nacional Yasuní; madereros asentados temporal e ilegalmente en el área de amortiguamiento de la ZITT y algunos bloques petroleros: 16, 17, 31 y el ITT al norte de la Zona Intangible (Documento “Línea Base del Programa…, 2008). Además, es necesario mencionar que dentro del bloque 17 y 14 residen colonos provenientes de otras provincias del país, estos colonos son blanco-mestizos, Shuar y Kichwas. PROYECTO CAIMAN Durante la implementación del proyecto Conservación en Áreas Managed by Indigenous Groups Project (CAIMAN) en el territorio Waorani se procura dentro del tema de Consolidación Territorial y Manejo de Derechos Ancestrales Territoriales dos acciones, la primera que se refiere a delimitación y señalización de ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 75 fronteras territoriales; y la segunda que tiene que ver con el estudio de delimitación de la Zona Intangible Tagaeiri-Taromenane. En la siguiente tabla se observan los resultados de la delimitación física y señalización de frontera del territorio Waorani. Tabla 1 Consolidación Territorial y Manejo de Derechos Ancestrales Territoriales Kilómetros de fronteras territoriales delimitados y señalizados en el territorio Waorani Periodos Kilómetros 2003 50 2004 122 2005 0 2006-7 50 Total 222 Los 222 kilómetros de delimitación del territorio se dieron en partes consideradas vulnerables debido a dos factores, el primero para un mayor control de los recursos naturales por parte de los Waorani y el segundo debido a la creciente tensión en los bordes con los vecinos colonos, Kichwas y Shuar. En lo que tiene que ver con el estudio de la delimitación de la Zona Intangible Tagaeiri–Taromenane, el proyecto CAIMAN junto con el equipo técnico de Wilderness Conservation Society, ECOLEX y ENCAN realizaron el estudio de delimitación de la ZITT, el mismo que fue entregado al Ministerio del Ambiente en el 200539. Como resultado del estudio el 3 de enero del 2007 a través del Decreto Ejecutivo 2187 se confiere el estatus legal de 758.051 ha., de Zona Intangible, donde “En esta Zona se garantizará y respetará el derecho del Pueblo Huaorani y de los pueblos ancestrales en aislamiento voluntario a realizar sus actividades de caza y pesca; así como el uso habitual de los recursos de la biodiversidad con propósitos de subsistencia” (art. 1). Además de prohibir actividades extractivas, construcciones de infraestructura y cualquier otra obra u actividad incompatibles con el objeto de la Zona Intangible, sin embargo, en el área de amortiguamiento se permite las operaciones allí establecidas sujetas a la utilización de técnicas de bajo impacto (art. 4). Espacio y Actores en disputa De manera sucinta se ha procurado contextualizar la geografía socio cultural y territorial de los Waorani, y de manera concreta se ha abordado sobre la intervención dentro del proyecto CAIMAN en la delimitación y demarcación del territorio Waorani y el estudio de la ZITT. Pero antes de partir de este enfoque puntual – porque se procura revisar las posiciones con respecto al trabajo de USAID en esta temática – hay que considerar como telón de fondo las profundas tensiones existentes tanto en el territorio Waorani como en el Parque Nacional Yasuní. Visto desde los representantes locales, en el territorio Waorani y el Parque Yasuní coexisten material y simbólicamente varios actores, están las familias Waorani con sus particulares intereses que desde una 39 Documento de la cita 10. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 76 metamorfosis política económica40 donde las opciones por tener recursos vienen de las empresas petroleras, madereras, turísticas, así como de agencias de investigación científica y de organizaciones no gubernamentales tanto de desarrollo como ambientalistas. Sumada a esta gama de “proveedores de recursos económicos y de estatus de civilización” se establece la presencia de un Estado que por muchos años estuvo ausente de la región y que desde hace poco pretende establecer algunas regulaciones en la zona. Además, están las organizaciones de la etnia como la Nacionalidad Waorani del Ecuador (NAWE), la Asociación de Mujeres Waorani del Ecuador (AMWAE(), la Asociación Waorani del Shiripuno, la Asociación de Gareno y la Ome Gompote Kiwigimoni Huaorani De otro lado, están los frentes de colonización establecidos tanto por mestizos, como por Kichwas y Shuar. Asentados en territorio ancestral Waorani, estos grupos con niveles de pobreza elevados han ejercido presión sobre los recursos y el territorio de la etnia y también dentro del Parque Nacional Yasuní. Muchas han sido las estrategias para ello, unas han devenido de enfrentamientos armados que cobraron algunas vidas por los años 80´ hasta muy entrado el siglo XXI. Otras a través de alianzas matrimoniales con Waorani para acceder a los derechos territoriales y uso de recursos naturales renovables y no renovables, otras a través del robo o la invasión, etc. De igual manera que los Waorani, los vecinos Kichwa y Shuar se encuentran organizados en Asociaciones y Federaciones. Únicamente los colonos no tienen estos niveles de representatividad, sin embargo sus organizaciones cooperativas y gremiales les confieren ciertos poderes y decisiones políticas en el área. Visión de la ONHAE y de la actual NAWE sobre el Proyecto CAIMAN En primera instancia con el programa de consolidación territorial existieron oposiciones por parte de algunos individuos Waorani, ya que consideraron que al reconocer el asentamiento de los colonos mestizos, kichwas y shuar perdieron gran parte de su territorio. Sin embargo, luego se reconoció la importancia de la acción como medida de protección a las amenazas a sus recursos naturales y como la única forma de pacificación con los vecinos. En el tema de la delimitación de la Zona Intangible tanto los Waorani – a través de la NAWE – como los Kichwa del Curaray e incluso la Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador (CONAIE) manifestaron su inconformidad y oposición a esta medida sosteniendo la pérdida de territorio ancestral41. Recomendaciones Los Waorani solían dividir al tiempo en períodos de guerra y períodos de paz (Naranjo, 1994); el prejuicio sobre este pueblo guerrero los ha fijado en los tiempos de guerra y la violencia subrayada en cierta literatura científica como en algunos reportajes mediáticos ha determinado la percepción que la sociedad nacional y en general el mundo occidental tiene sobre los Waorani. Pero no se ha mencionado que los tiempos de guerra, eran tiempos de hambre, de dolor, de huída y de empezar una y otra vez. Los Waorani siempre han deseado sus tiempos de paz, de prosperidad, de comida, de fiestas y alianzas. 40 Los Waorani son familias cazadoras-recolectoras, su ética en la obtención de recursos tanto naturales como económicas deberían rebasar el prejuicio occidental, y se debería mirar a los Waorani como sujetos económico-políticos. Se podría afirmar que el territorio Waorani y sus familias se hayan divididas de acuerdo a la fuente de recursos económicos, de ahí que hacia los espacios de operación petrolera. El interés por las familias Waorani es mayoritariamente la extracción –muchos grupos se han movido a estos sitios, por ejemplo a Gareno un grupo intentó movilizarse a Dícaro pero las amenazas de muerte por parte de Araba lo impidieron. Otros prefieren el turismo como es el caso de Quehueiriono, Ñoneno, y Bameno. Otros prefieren la movilidad política con diversos intereses y para ello acceden a las organizaciones como la NAWE, AMWAE, Asoc. Shiripuno, Asoc. Gareno y la Asoc. Ome Gompote Kiwigimoni Huaorani que significa en español: Defendemos nuestro territorio Huaorani. Se trata de colocar en toda esta gama de posibilidades a las familias Waorani, sin embargo esto sobre todo es decisión de individuos autónomos, donde las situaciones y decisiones son más complicadas y diversas. 41 Entrevista a Pedro Enkeri, febrero, 2010. Y ver el documento Línea Base del Programa para la Conservación y el Manejo Sostenible del Patrimonio Natural y Cultural de la Reserva de la Biosfera Yasuní, 2008. ECODIT Contract #EPP-I-09-06-00010-00; Task Order #09 Evaluation of Conservation and Development Strategies with Lowland Indigenous Groups Page | 77 Y es precisamente este punto el que atraviesa las intenciones actuales tanto de los miembros de la etnia Waorani, como de los agentes externos que intervienen en la zona. Nadie quiere violencia, ni muerte y son muchos los esfuerzos emprendidos por todos y todas para ello. Bibliografía Cabodevilla, M. A. 1998. Coca: La Región y sus Historias. Vicariato Apostólico del Aguarico, CICAME Cabodevilla. M. A. 2007. El Exterminio de los Pueblos Ocultos. Vicariato Apostólico del Aguarico, CICAME. Naranjo, M. 1994. Etnografía Waorani. Quito (sin publicación). Paz, Hernán, 2007, Los Huaorani del Cononaco, En lucha por la sobre vivencia de su selva y su cultura amazónica frente al avance de las grandes petroleras, Quito, Abya Yala Rival, L. 1996. Hijos del Sol, padres del jaguar. Quito, Abya Yala. Rivas, A. y Lara R. 2001. Conservación y Petróleo en la Amazonía Ecuatoriana, Un acercamiento al caso Huaorani. Quito, Eco-ciencia-Abya Yala. Tagliani, L. 2004. También el Sol Muere. Cuatro años con los Huaorani, Vicariato Apostólico del Aguarico, CICAME. Otros Documentos y Técnicas:  Artículo de Milagros Aguirre, 2003. Los waorani viven con el conflicto, diario El Comercio, versión digital.  Consejo de Desarrollo de Nacionalidades y Pueblos del Ecuador CODENPE, 2003. En www.codenpe.gov.ec  Línea Base del Programa para la Conservación y el Manejo Sostenible del Patrimonio Natural y Cultural de la Reserva de la Biosfera Yasuní, 2008.  Informe de Proyecto CAIMAN.  Entrevista a representantes de la NAWE.