![Sample our Geography journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5937/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Geography.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
In Latin America and the Global South, policy-makers are adopting community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) principles for local governments. The idealized emphasis on ‘local’ collaborative approaches is known to neglect human geographic contexts and issues of capacity, power, and human drivers of change at larger scales. However, critiques lack empirical evidence of policy implementation decisions. How do local government and community actors choose to use decentralized environmental governance policies in relation to a threatened cultural and natural landscape across their jurisdictions? This question is explored in an ethnographic case of a high Andean wetland region in southern Ecuador by focusing on the context and micro-politics of two seemingly contradictory local government decisions: proposals to nationalize a local community protected area and to work with other local governments to construct a road across the wetlands that could threaten protected area status. When different sectors are devolved to different local actors without strong sub-state institutions for conflict management, decentralization may create incentives for conflict rather than conservation. Governance design depends on understanding how and why diverse local actors engage in boundary-spanning regional strategies, calling for additional contributions from political geographers.
Acknowledgements
This paper was first presented at Perth III, Mountains of the Future Earth conference, on 8 October 2015. Additional contributors to this manuscript include Segundo Poma Saca, field assistant; Fabian Reyes Bueno, who provided geographic information services and map illustrations; Leonardo Ordoñez Delgado, who conducted and analyzed several 2014 interviews with national and local agency staff; Paulina Viteri Espinel, who translated and analyzed 2011 data; Profesora Veronica Iñiguez Gallardo, who completed research regarding the Shincata reserve; and Lanphear Design for formatted figures. The authors thank Dr Anne Taufen Wesells, University of Washington, Tacoma, John Duncan, and the journal’s anonymous peer reviewers who provided in-depth comments on earlier drafts, and the many key informants from the communities who provided their critical insights, personal histories, and contacts to advance this research. We offer this research in the interest of supporting their efforts to conserve mountain resources and indigenous landscapes.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. (Políticas y Plan estratégico del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas del Ecuador 2007–2016. MAE, 2007). Estructura general del Sistema (http://chmecuador.ambiente.gob.ec/userfiles/51/SNAP-GEF%20LIBRO%201.pdf).
2. (Ley Orgánica de Recursos Hídricos, Usos y Aprovechamiento del Agua, Asamblea Nacional, Agosto 2014). http://www.agua.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/LEYD-E-RECURSOS-HIDRICOS-II-SUPLEMENTO-RO-305-6-08-204.pdf
3. In January 2018, MAE awarded 8507 hectares of the Shincata for conservation by the 150 members of the Comuna Marco Perez de Castillo, located within the area.
4. Registrado N*95 del 3 de Junio del 2003 declaratoria del Área Ecológica de Conservación Municipal Yacuambi. The original municipal ordinance that created the protected area was approved by the municipality in 2003 and published in the Registro Oficial Nro. 95 on June 3 of 2003 to include 51,497 hectares. Some 15,000 hectares were taken by the MAE Azuay to be included in the Shincata Forest Reserve, an area that remains contested.
5. Mestizo and Saraguro elders in the frontier parish of Tutupali described how their families had secured land by trading guns and ammunition with the Shuar leaders. Saraguro ceremonies revolve around the lakes and other historic associations are culturally important. Shuar informants also spoke of additional trails through the lake system to Loja where they traded their gold for food and other goods, contradicting a voiced assumption that they were lowlanders and non-stakeholders in this decision.