Conservation and territorial justice in Ecuador

Summary

In Ecuador, our oceans face many problems. From my perspective, the most consequential in the medium and long term are pollution and overfishing, alongside global problems such as warming waters and acidification.

What are currently the most significant changes in the relationships between the ocean, natural environments and societies in the territory you study? Which seem most consequential in the medium and long term?

In Ecuador, our oceans face many problems. From my perspective, the most consequential in the medium and long term are pollution and overfishing, alongside global problems such as warming waters and acidification. These problems directly lead to species decline, endangerment and extinction, as well as the destruction of marine and coastal habitats.

Regarding pollution, land-generated waste is the main source of ocean pollution in Ecuador because of inadequate urban waste collection strategies, the absence of policies to curb plastic packaging, and rural settlements' inability to process the waste generated by contemporary ways of life.

Overfishing is connected with pollution. Shrimp production is concentrated on Ecuador's coasts. It pollutes in multiple ways, destroys mangroves and, from an antispeciesist perspective, kills thousands of marine inhabitants destined for export. Unfortunately, we lack pollution controls, and threatened fauna is found not only near the coast but also in protected regions such as Galápagos, which has endemic marine fauna.

Neither pollution nor overfishing is expected to decrease or come under control; their growth and associated problems will therefore worsen.

How do these changes redistribute vulnerabilities, resources and land uses? Which groups, activities or ecosystems benefit, which become more exposed, and what trade-offs or conflicts result?

As elsewhere, the most marginalised groups are most affected by the inequitable use of resources and the appropriation of territory by companies that exploit them. Mangroves are the ecosystems most exposed to shrimp production. Tourism also harms ecosystems, however. Recently, there was a controversy in Olón, Santa Elena, where community members defended local ecosystems against a property and tourism development promoted by the family of the country's current president. Confronting the political, judicial and military power that protects the president, community members feel threatened. There are records of the imprisonment and deaths of environmental defenders in the country, for example Monika Martyna Koniuszek, also known as Mónika Silva. One could therefore say that there is no space for mediation or negotiation, but rather for imposition by force, even when that is unconstitutional. This occurs with projects on the coast, in the mountains or in the Amazon, whether in mining, oil extraction, agroindustry, logging, property development or tourism. I believe that environmental defenders seeking to protect their territories face a real threat today.

In response to these changes, which measures seem most relevant in the territory you study today, and what determines their success or explains their limits?

I am currently researching pollution in the Indigenous Tsa'chila territory. Two leaders of this Indigenous nation have been fighting a pork-producing company located near Tsa'chila territory since the late 1990s. The rivers have been heavily polluted, while meat production continues to grow unchecked. Given the company's economic and political power, little or nothing can be expected from local or national governments in response to pollution complaints.

In this context, responses must be developed on several fronts. Environmental controls and pollution tracing must be rigorous. The Tsa'chila nation has the right to be heard and to establish mitigation, remediation and reparation measures, both environmental and epistemic. Public policy must focus on promoting sustainable diets, even if this means reducing meat consumption. Indigenous territories cannot be used as sacrifice zones. The state must promote a transition towards sustainability in energy consumption and in agrifood production.

The limits of these measures once again depend on governments' political will and on environmental justice for affected mestizo or Indigenous communities.

What does the case of the Mache-Chindul reserve reveal about the gap that can exist between official conservation objectives and the experiences of the people who inhabit the territory?

This case reveals something that occurs in most environmental problems in Ecuador. The people living in that region, which was later designated a reserve, lacked access to land and had been displaced by droughts in Ecuador's southern provinces. Settlement in the area, and in other places such as parts of the Amazon, was promoted by the state and required land to be cleared to demonstrate its "productive" use. Climate migration has been occurring in Ecuador for decades without being recognised as such. Settlers may not know practices that benefit the ecosystems into which they move, but the greater responsibility lies with the state.

Unequal access to land therefore generates most environmental conflicts in Ecuador. In Mache-Chindul, lack of information and government clarity meant that few people could legalise their occupancy before the area was declared a reserve.

Creating a reserve in an already inhabited area will inevitably generate conflicts. I believe these conflicts could have been prevented or resolved through solutions benefiting residents who already came from impoverished groups. There was never transparent and genuine dialogue between the state and the inhabitants.

How do protected areas transform access rights, productive practices and local forms of authority?

A transformation arises from regulations governing access rights and production within an inhabited area that is subsequently turned into a reserve. In practice, however, the regulations will not be observed and will be continually breached. Because state enforcement is underfunded, informal ways will probably emerge to circumvent the rules, live with the restrictions and ultimately survive in these spaces. Residents' aim is to secure their own lives, their families' livelihoods and inheritance of or access to land for future generations. They will shape their actions to continue surviving in a context of new limitations and rules.

Which actors manage to define what counts as a legitimate use of nature, and whose knowledge is marginalised in that process?

Authority over the legitimate use of nature belongs to the state. Today, the government uses its monopoly on force to impose the ways in which legitimate use may or may not occur. The knowledge marginalised is that developed by native inhabitants and local communities, who conserve and live from these territories.

What alliances, negotiations or forms of resistance have communities built in response to environmental policies perceived as unjust or inadequate?

Communities in Ecuador exercise the right to resist. Depending on the struggle, alliances may be local, as in the defence of water in Cuenca; national, in mining conflicts; or international, in the Amazon or Galápagos. Today, however, defenders are being threatened, killed and imprisoned. A new method used by the current government is to freeze bank accounts, whether individual or organisational, as a coercive measure to put community members under pressure.

What alternative forms of conservation would protect ecosystems without separating environmental justice from territorial rights?

A form of conservation that does not respond only to the isolated defence of species, resources or ecosystems, but understands that environmental conflicts arise from historically unequal relationships, and that solutions must be deliberated among all actors. Genuine dialogue must inform public policies, which should be built "from below". An approach that addresses structural problems would be more effective than implementing narrowly bounded conservation projects. This means combining a comprehensive, holistic view of environmental problems with political processes developed through deliberation and agreement among all actors.

Editorial appendix

Response to the original wording of the third question, retained to preserve all material submitted by the author.

Drawing on your fieldwork and research, which idea or experience that remains insufficiently heard should, in your view, contribute more to international debates and public action on the ocean, nature and societies?

Environmental problems do not arise in a vacuum, but through historical processes and the social production of vulnerability. Solutions therefore cannot be only technical or technological. Indeed, any prospect of a solution must emerge from horizontal debate with those affected, and public policy must be built from the bottom up, taking all groups involved into account. Environmental protection decisions are fundamentally political. Decision-makers and academics also tend not to analyse geopolitical or international factors. In most cases, local resource exploitation responds to a global need or demand. This includes "exotic" animals used for "medicinal" purposes or entertainment; animals used as food, including shrimp and all marine fauna; and plastic waste production connected with new patterns of ultra-processed food consumption. Habitat damage may also respond to a tourism or property market serving wealthier population groups. I would call for debate on Latin America's role, and that of other world regions, as a supplier of raw materials; the power relations running through trade agreements; and how inequalities are expressed in local conflicts among coastal populations. I would also emphasise that the way we eat is directly related to the current environmental catastrophe.

Bibliographic information

Type

Article

Date

14 October 2026

Author

Angélica Ordóñez Charpentier

Study Centre

ONS

Original language

English

Original document

PDF, 3 pages

Full text

Transcription of the original document

← All publications