Indigenous groups debate use of land agreements in Ecuador’s protected areas – Mongabay

Report on Indigenous Land Tenure Models and Sustainable Development in Ecuador’s Amazon

Introduction: A Conflict of Rights and Conservation

A 2023 court ruling in Ecuador has brought to the forefront a critical debate concerning Indigenous land rights within protected areas, directly impacting the achievement of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The case, which awarded a land title to the Siekopai Nation for territory previously managed by the Kichwa de Zancudo Cocha community under a government agreement (convenio), highlights the tension between different models of land tenure. This report analyzes the implications of this conflict for Indigenous autonomy, environmental conservation, and the pursuit of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 15 (Life on Land), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Analysis of Land Tenure Mechanisms and SDG Implications

Management Agreements (Convenios): A Tool for State-Managed Conservation

For years, the Ecuadorian government has utilized convenios as a primary mechanism for recognizing Indigenous presence in protected areas like the Cuyabeno Reserve. These agreements have significant implications for sustainable development.

• Function: They grant communities the right to use and manage ancestral lands within the confines of government conservation regulations.
• Contribution to SDG 15 (Life on Land): Proponents argue that convenios provide an essential layer of environmental protection by ensuring that land use aligns with national conservation strategies, thereby protecting biodiversity.
• Challenges to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): Critics contend that these agreements are often temporary, favor government control, and limit the autonomy and self-determination of Indigenous peoples, treating them as tenants rather than rightful owners of their ancestral territories.

Land Titles: Securing Rights and Promoting Self-Determination

The court’s decision to grant a land title to the Siekopai Nation represents a significant shift, prioritizing permanent ownership as a means of securing Indigenous rights. This approach aligns closely with several key SDG targets.

1. Enhancing Autonomy (SDG 10): As stated by Siekopai leader Justino Piaguaje, a title “allows Indigenous peoples to develop their own vision of territorial management, based on their cosmology, their ancestral practices and their way of life.” This directly addresses the goal of empowering and promoting the social and economic inclusion of marginalized groups.
2. Legal Security and Justice (SDG 16): Land titles provide permanent legal security, which is a cornerstone of justice and strong institutions. They replace temporary concessions with inalienable rights recognized under national and international law.
3. Potential for Sustainable Livelihoods (SDG 1): Secure land tenure is fundamental to the economic well-being of Indigenous communities, enabling them to pursue sustainable income projects and build resilient livelihoods.

Wider Implications for National Policy and Sustainable Development

Risks to Peace and Conservation Efforts

The precedent set by the Siekopai case has raised concerns among some Indigenous leaders and government officials about its potential to disrupt established conservation frameworks and inter-community relations.

• Threat to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): Some leaders fear the ruling could invalidate existing convenios and “open the doors” to a wave of new, overlapping land claims, potentially escalating conflicts between Indigenous communities. The need for amicable, non-judicial dispute resolution is emphasized.
• Impact on SDG 15 (Life on Land): There is concern that granting independent property titles outside of ministry regulations could weaken conservation enforcement in protected areas, potentially leading to activities inconsistent with biodiversity protection.

An Opportunity for Rights-Based Conservation

Conversely, human rights advocates and other Indigenous leaders view the ruling as a landmark opportunity to advance a more just and effective model of conservation that is fully aligned with the SDGs.

• Advancing SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The case moves Ecuador toward a rights-based approach, recognizing that approximately 1.2 million hectares of Indigenous ancestral territories are currently “locked” within protected areas. Securing titles for these lands is a powerful step toward rectifying historical inequality.
• Strengthening SDG 15 through Indigenous Stewardship: Proponents argue that empowering Indigenous peoples as legal owners and stewards of their land is a more effective and just conservation model than top-down government management. This approach acknowledges Indigenous peoples’ deep connection to and knowledge of their territories.

Conclusion: Towards an Integrated Approach

The conflict between the Siekopai Nation and the Kichwa de Zancudo Cocha community underscores the urgent need for Ecuador to develop a land tenure policy that holistically integrates environmental protection with the rights of Indigenous peoples. Achieving SDG 15 (Life on Land) cannot be pursued at the expense of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The path forward requires inclusive decision-making processes and robust legal frameworks that recognize Indigenous land titles as a cornerstone of both social justice and effective, sustainable conservation.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  The article connects to this goal through its focus on land rights. Secure land tenure, such as a formal title, is a critical asset that provides economic security and a pathway out of poverty for vulnerable populations like Indigenous communities. The debate between temporary use agreements (convenios) and permanent land titles directly relates to the economic stability and resource control of these communities.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  This goal is central to the article, which highlights the struggle of Indigenous peoples, a historically marginalized group, for self-determination, autonomy, and equal rights. The conflict over land tenure models addresses the need to empower these communities and ensure their social and political inclusion in decisions that affect their ancestral territories and way of life.

• SDG 15: Life on Land

  The entire conflict discussed in the article takes place within the Cuyabeno Reserve, a protected area in the Ecuadorian Amazon. The article explores the complex relationship between Indigenous land rights and conservation, debating whether government-managed convenios or Indigenous-controlled land titles are more effective for protecting terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article is fundamentally about justice, legal frameworks, and governance. It details a court case where the Siekopai Nation sought legal recourse to secure their land rights. It also examines the effectiveness and fairness of state institutions and policies (like convenios), the importance of inclusive decision-making, and the mechanisms for resolving conflicts over land between different communities and the state.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 1: No Poverty
  • Target 1.4: “By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to… ownership and control over land and other forms of property…”

    The article directly addresses this target by contrasting temporary “use and management agreements” (convenios) with permanent land titles. The Siekopai Nation’s pursuit of a land title is a clear effort to gain legal ownership and control over their ancestral land, which provides greater economic security and permanence than the government-controlled convenios.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
  • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… origin…”

    The article highlights this target through the words of Siekopai leader Justino Piaguaje, who states that a land title “allows Indigenous peoples to develop their own vision of territorial management, based on their cosmology, their ancestral practices and their way of life.” This reflects a move towards empowerment and self-determination, away from what is described as a “top-down government-run” system.

  • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices…”

    The critique of convenios as being “lopsided in favor of the government” and restricting Indigenous peoples’ ability to manage their lands points to a policy that may create unequal outcomes. The court case that supersedes a convenio in favor of a land title can be seen as an action to ensure more equal opportunity for Indigenous communities to claim their rights under the constitution.

• SDG 15: Life on Land
  • Target 15.1: “By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests…”

    The article is set in the Cuyabeno Reserve, Ecuador’s second-largest protected area. The debate centers on the best method for conservation within this area. Some argue that government-regulated convenios better support conservation, while others, like Mitch Anderson of Amazon Frontlines, advocate for a “rights-based approach to Indigenous land-tenure and stewardship” as a more effective conservation model.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
  • Target 16.3: “Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.”

    The Siekopai Nation taking the ministry of environment to court and being awarded a land title is a direct example of an Indigenous community using the legal system to seek justice and enforce their rights.

  • Target 16.7: “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.”

    The article explicitly identifies a failure to meet this target as a source of conflict. It quotes a policy proposal stating that a key driver of the conflict is “the exclusion of communities from decision-making and land allocation.” Furthermore, Siekopai leaders argued that the initial dialogue process was flawed because it bypassed their “internal decision-making.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• For Target 1.4 (Control over land):
  • Quantitative Data on Land Area: The article provides specific figures that can be used to measure the extent of land under different tenure systems. These include:
    • The Siekopai Nation was awarded a title for 42,360 hectares.
    • The Zancudo Cocha community’s convenio covered 172,575 hectares.
    • An estimated 1.2 million hectares of Indigenous ancestral territories are within protected areas.
    • Over 7 million hectares of Indigenous lands are formally documented by the government.
  • Legal Status of Land: The distinction between a temporary `convenio` (use agreement) and a permanent land title (ownership) is a key qualitative indicator of the security of tenure rights.
• For Target 15.1 (Conservation of protected areas):
  • Number and Type of Management Agreements: The article mentions that the ministry has signed “seven agreements with Indigenous nations in the Cuyabeno Reserve” and that there are convenios in at least nine protected areas in the Amazon. Tracking the number of convenios versus land titles within protected areas serves as an indicator of the prevailing conservation governance model.
• For Target 16.3 (Access to justice):
  • Legal Rulings: The court ruling in favor of the Siekopai Nation is a concrete indicator of the justice system’s capacity to address Indigenous land claims. The article notes this ruling could set a precedent for other claims.
• For Target 16.7 (Inclusive decision-making):
  • Existence of Conflict Resolution Mechanisms: The article mentions that the ministry entered into a “dialogue and land arrangements” process before the court case. The perceived failure of this process, as Siekopai leaders claim it was “flawed,” is an indicator of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of participatory mechanisms.
  • Reported Causes of Conflict: The identification of “the exclusion of communities from decision-making” as a key driver of conflict is a qualitative indicator that decision-making processes are not sufficiently inclusive.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: news.mongabay.com