Ecuador's new protected areas law under scrutiny for militarization and indigenous exclusion.
Valeria López Peña
Madrid (EFEverde). – When Alex Lucitante was a child, the Aguarico River flowed cleanly through the Ecuadorian Amazon. But years of mining concessions in buffer zones of protected areas and a new law seeking order and investment have muddied those waters, amid criticism for—environmentalists claim—allowing militarization, covert privatization, and the exclusion of indigenous populations.
The Ecuadorian government approved the Organic Law for the Strengthening of Protected Areas, which creates the National Protected Areas Service (SNAP), an entity that will manage these territories independently of the Ministry of the Environment. Although its urgent approval was argued for economic reasons, the law has been harshly criticized by indigenous, environmental, and legal organizations, who warn of legal loopholes and conflicts with collective rights recognized in the Constitution.
Militarization in indigenous territories, between protection and intimidation
One of the criticisms of the new legislation is its militarization. In the words of Lucitante, an A'i Cofán indigenous leader and human rights defender, "it disregards everything we have worked and fought for over many years." For him, the presence of armed forces in areas like Sinangoe has failed to curb illegal mining and, instead, has generated greater tension within the communities.
Lucitante is concerned about the progressive use of force, as illegal groups often come looking for us, "looking at us as if we were all accomplices, intimidating communities, looting homes, treating us as if we were all criminals, when we have protected the territory for generations," he told EFEverde, recalling the military intensification following the death of 11 soldiers in Orellana at the hands of a dissident group of the Colombian FARC guerrilla group last May.
The province of Orellana neighbors Sucumbíos, home to the Cofán Bermejo Reserve. Lucitante led a 2018 lawsuit to halt 52 mining concessions there. However, the Ministry of Environment refused to recognize the claim because it lacked a collective property title, despite the community having a co-management agreement. The Constitutional Court later annulled the concessions and recognized the title of Sinangoe, but to date, it has not been granted.
In addition to the ancestral ties, one of the key arguments for similar rulings has been the overlap between indigenous territories and protected areas. Of the 643 indigenous communities located in the Ecuadorian Amazon, 402 overlap 100% with protected areas , and up to 480 communities have hydrocarbon blocks in their territories, according to the ManchadosXelPetróleo geospatial analysis.
Yasuní, the possible risks of privatization
Another source of concern is the possibility of covert privatization through co-management contracts with private actors . This is what David Fajardo, a member of the YASunidos collective, points out. He fears that this open door could facilitate carbon markets, hydroelectric plants, and extractive activities in protected areas, without adequate mechanisms for consultation or opposition.
"The Constitution prohibits privatization, but allows the exploitation of resources in protected areas if the president declares it to be in the national interest and the Assembly ratifies it. Thus, extraction was authorized in Block 43 of the Yasuní National Park between 2013 and 2014," Fajardo explained to EFEverde.
In 2023, YASunidos successfully passed a referendum in which nearly 60% of the electorate voted to halt oil extraction in Block 43 , an area containing approximately 20% of the country's reserves. However, two years before the vote, there are still open wells, even though the plebiscite allowed one year to halt extraction.
The Energy Minister argued that a safe closure would require more time. But Fajardo asserts that environmental licenses have not been revoked, nor has the infrastructure been removed, which, in his opinion, reflects "a lack of political will."
Although the Constitution prohibits the privatization of natural areas and requires environmental impact studies and prior consultation, the ambiguous language of the new law, according to experts, opens the door for private parties with certain interests to influence the management of protected areas.
A law with loopholes, a historic struggle for territoryAt the heart of the debate is the demand for collective ownership of ancestral territories. "More than ownership, what we're asking for is legal security. The ability to say: this is our territory, no one can come here without consulting us or impose extractive activities on us," José Acero, a lawyer at Amazon Frontlines, explains to EFEverde.
The law, although it mentions respect for Article 57 of the Constitution (which recognizes collective territorial rights), does not establish clear mechanisms to guarantee property titles to communities living in or around protected areas. Instead, according to Acero, mechanisms such as co-management agreements or individual titling remain in place, which do not recognize collective ownership, full autonomy, or oversight mechanisms.
"It's difficult for an Indigenous community to obtain a title to a territory where there are already economic interests or concessions underway," says Acero. He also points out that Article 6 of the law allows for the request for military or police support in cases of illegal activities, without guaranteeing prior consultation with the communities, as required by the Constitution.
Faced with this ambiguity, the demand for qualifications is resurfacing. "It's not just about having documents, but about being certain that not just anyone can impose something from outside," Acero insists.
The law is awaiting the determination of its regulations (how it will be implemented) and faces three lawsuits alleging unconstitutionality before the Constitutional Court, which recently suspended sections of other laws, such as the Intelligence Act and the National Solidarity Act. President Daniel Noboa criticized the decision for "interference by judges in government policy," as he stated during a recent event in Guayas.
Facing a judicial impasse, Lucitante proposes dialogue: "If the government shows good faith and commitment to human and environmental rights, we could engage in dialogue. But if only economic interests are prioritized, environmental degradation will prevent tourism and development." EFEverde
You may be interested in:Beneath the ground, above the people: the human cost of mining
efeverde
