Management conflicts in the YBR

In this section, we illustrate the complexity of implementing sustainable development strategies in culturally and biologically diverse areas where non-renewable resource extraction has priority. For that, the YBR is used as an exemplification to show how the overlap of diverse transversal administrative layers can lead to mismanagement. The YBR is probably the most complex case in Ecuador, as it has more land planning and management procedures than any other area in the country. The overlap of different land categories coupled with conflicting administrative entities’ competences hinder its management and thus the overall conservation goals of the YBR. Here, we present the management layers at the national and regional levels and compare it with YBR’s management plan to exemplify the contrasts between legal frameworks, de facto regulations and the mentioned management plan. Emphasis is put on extraction of non-renewable resources, hunting, and logging (Figure 4.3).

Figure 4.3 Configuration of Yasuní Biosphere Reserve according to the administrative and geographical divisions

Ecuador’s political-administrative division does not follow geographical features or biodiversity distribution patterns, making conservation complex. It reduces efforts on wildlife connectivity and makes the administration of natural resources less effective. Multi-layered and clear rules of procedure are needed in order to empower local communities for better forest governance and at the same time effective structures for decision making. New forms of political administrative organization, the Indigenous Territorial Circumscriptions, were created in the Constitution. These special Indigenous Territorial Circumscriptions can be established in order to suit and strengthen indigenous autonomy (Constitution art. 257). Indigenous territorial jurisdictions respond to the juridical pluralism that warrants IP the right to social organization, cultural identity, lands and territories, previous consultation, free and informed participation, self-determination, autonomy, and autogoverning inside their lands. Furthermore, art. 171 of the Constitution authorizes the use of norms and proceedings to solve internal conflicts occurring in their jurisdictions, which institutions and public authorities should respect. Nevertheless, customary decision-making bodies can collide with formal institutions especially when de jure and de facto rights compete with each other (Loaiza et al. 2016). Moreover, the Constitution underlines the importance of the Amazon biome and mandates the creation of a special area that integrates social, environmental, economic and cultural dimensions together with the

territorial planning to guarantee its conservation and the Sumak Kaway (“Good living” in the Kichwa worldview is based on the harmonic relation between man and nature) (art. 250). To achieve indigenous good living, the Institute ECORAE (Eco-development for the Amazon Region) through Presidential Compromise (SIGOB-15031 2014) is in charge of the plan for Transforming Agricultural Systems in the Ecuadorian Amazon (ATPA). According to this new structure, IP’

Territorial Circumscriptions and Decentralized Autonomous Governments (GADs) are in charge of plans and policies to achieve sustainability. However, up to now has not been implemented due to legal gaps.

On a regional level, another management layer originates from the Precautionary Measures Plan for the Protection of the Tagaeri-Taromenane IP (Plan de Medidas Cautelares para la Protección de los Tagaeri-Taromenane). According to the Constitution (art. 57), the territories of voluntarily isolated tribes are irreducible and extractive activities are prohibited there. The violation of these rights constitutes a crime of ethnocide. Therefore, the state should think about several measures to warrant the voluntary isolation of a nomadic group such as the Tagaeri-Taromenane. The protection of these voluntary isolated IP is in itself challenging, even more so considering that 63% of their territories and the 10 km buffer zone overlap with the YNP and oil blocks (22.7%) (Papparlardo et al.

2013). Unenforced land rights together with the inconsistency in border definition and the incursion of illegal loggers, has directly caused the death of dozens of Tagaeri-Taromenane, Waorani and Colonists (Papparlardo et al. 2013).

Additionally, not only the size and shape of the oil blocks, but also the maps indicating the presence (more importantly, absence) of voluntarily isolated IP are continuously being modified to allow extraction (Papparlardo et al. 2013). After 2010, MAE’s duties related to the Precautionary Measures Plan were transferred to the Ministry of Justice, Human Rights and Cults (Executive Decree 503-2010).

Now, the MAE is only in charge of providing environmental technical advice.

However, oil concessions are being granted inside the ZITT, despite the existing legal framework and proven fragility of voluntarily isolated IP. Moreover, Ecuador has been accused at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of not doing enough to protect voluntarily isolated tribes and illegally altering maps (IACHR 2015).

The Preliminary Proposal for the Limitation, Zoning and Land Use in the Yasuní Biosphere Reserve (Comité de Gestión de la Reserva de Biósfera Yasuní 2011) was developed through an evaluation and consultation process with key stakeholders from indigenous communities, the private sector and civil society. It recommends a core, a buffer and a transition zone with different resource-use intensities. Core zones are areas designated for conservation, research and educational activities, generally representing regions with high biodiversity and cultural significance. The YBR core zone comprises the YNP, the ZITT and the Waorani Ethnic Reserve. According to Ecuador’s Environmental Law and the YBR management plan, oil exploitation inside the YNP and the Waorani Reserve are permitted only under high social and environmental standards and are

banned in the ZITT. The reality, however, is that oil blocks overlap with these three areas, covering 79.8% of the YBR (Pappalardo et al. 2013).

While the YBR management plan allows subsistence hunting in the National Park exclusively ‘for communities,’ the Forest Law bans hunting but allows sustainable and traditional fishing for IP (Ley Forestal y de Conservacion de Areas Naturales y de Vida Silvestre, Registro Oficial 418-2004, art. 87). On the other hand, the TULAS (Juridically subordinated legal framework. Texto Unificado de Legislación Secundaria, Medio Ambiente –TULAS, Executive Decree 3516-2003), which establishes environmental politics for the MAE, prohibits hunting in protected areas (Libro IV, art. 114) while allowing ‘rational exploitation’ of natural resources (Libro XIV, art. 170). De facto, sustainable hunting is allowed to communities who are presumed to live inside the protected area, and communities living within the buffer zone may at times infringe on the YNP limits when hunting, although it is known to be prohibited. Furthermore, while the YBR management plan prohibits commercial logging, the Ecuadorian law allows sustainable timber harvesting in IP’ lands (Ministry Agreement 139-2010). Regarding the core zone, inconsistencies have risen due to the unclear definition of ‘high standards’, sustainable harvesting, the location of communities and further contradictions between legal frameworks and management plans. Drafts of a new Forest Law and the Environmental Organic Code have been presented to the Assembly.

They are an attempt to solve these issues and include regulations regarding financial mechanisms, legal frameworks for ecosystem services, among others.

The buffer and transition zones that surround the core zone are meant to mitigate external pressures, especially those coming from human activities. Prioritized uses in these mainly indigenous territories are conservation, ecotourism and sustainable agricultural production. In the last years, evidence of the presence of Tagaeri-Tanomenane and violent encounters with illegal loggers, farmers and other IP has brought attention to the necessity of enhancing protection in the buffer zones of the ZITT. Together with local governments, indigenous groups living in this area should seek sustainable development according to their traditional practices and soil conditions. Extractive activities (mining, logging and oil extraction) should be regulated according to the actual legislation. In the buffer zone, human settlements, productive activities, services and infrastructure are permissible. These areas should be a priority for mitigation strategies like REDD+.

Contradicting plans and legal frameworks make inter-institutional coordination challenging. Main ministries involved in the YBR are the MAE for its protected area status, the Ministry of Justice, Human Rights and Cults for the ZITT, and the Ministry of Energy and Mines for the supervision of non-renewable resources.

Additionally, IP’ territories and communities are under the administration of the Ministry of Agronomy (MAGAP) whereas private properties are under the local administrative entity. Inter-ministerial coordination is difficult and requires lengthy procedures. In the majority of cases, in the end the extraction of non-renewable

resources is prioritized, leaving little room for arguments. In fact, oil exploitation plans, even in protected areas, have practically always been approved (MAE 2006). And despite the fact that mitigation initiatives such as REDD+ are under MAE’s jurisdiction, oil blocks might frequently be implemented in areas with jurisdictional and institutional overlap. Therefore, it is necessary that additional governmental entities are incorporated in the discussion and definition of REDD+

guidelines, measures and actions, especially in areas with non-renewable resource extraction.