GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT IN A COMPLEX LANDSCAPE: LEARNING FROM THE YASUNI NATIONAL PARK by Paulina G. Arroyo Dr. Jennifer Swenson, Adviser 24 April 2017 Masters project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Environmental Management degree in the Nicholas School of the Environment of Duke University 2017 Executive Summary Protected areas continue to be the cornerstone of conservation practice, yet linking conservation impact to management and governance is still a daunting challenge for practitioners. Overcoming this challenge, especially in complex political, social, and economic contexts, is important because these results are often used to make funding and policy decisions that affect long-term conservation (Nolte, 2015). This reality is magnified ten-fold in the Amazon region where deforestation rates have been on the rise across the biome, despite successful efforts in Brazil to reduce rates over the last ten years (Nepstad et al., 2014). Yet, rates of forest loss have been consistently lower, on average, inside protected areas and indigenous territories, which cover close to 60% of the Amazon (Coca-Castro et al., 2013, Blackman et al. 2017). Since these areas are proving to be effective to diminish forest loss, improving their management and governance is vital to ensure long-term durability. My goals for this study were to i) conduct an overview of trends in governance and management of protected areas in the Amazon region, ii) determine the factors that are most effective to control or reduce environmental degradation, and iii) develop a case study about the Yasuni National Park (YNP). I used the global annual forest loss data (Hansen et al., 2013) to compare forest loss within the national park to loss in the surrounding Yasuni Biosphere Reserve (YBR). I also used geographic information based on Landsat satellite images from 2000 and 2014 to determine where human activity most affected forest loss. To determine management effectiveness, I used Ecuadorian Ministry of Environment indicators documented from 2012 to 2015. To analyze governance, I conducted semi-structured interviews to link management actions and conservation impact. Results of the study confirm that the existence of the YNP is a deterrent to forest loss. Accumulated forest loss is significantly lower within the park (1,083 hectares, or 0.11% deforestation rate) over 14 years compared to the surrounding YBR (32,720 hectares, or 1.86% deforestation rate). In addition, based on the management effectiveness evaluation scores, I found a slight correlation between effective management and lower forest loss over a four year ii|Page timeframe. In contrast, when management effectiveness scores were lower (year 2015), forest loss was higher. To complement the quantitative data, I conducted semi-structured interviews to capture current perceptions of the park and its governance. The results of the participant interviews illustrated that despite the heavy burden of critical threats such as oil extraction, illegal hunting/fishing, and low cooperation among institutions, local stakeholders are still eager to engage in park decisions and defend it, including the YBR and neighboring indigenous territories. Participants would be willing to re-engage either through the YBR’s management committee or other platforms that embrace a more inclusive form of governance. These results reinforce what many conservation practitioners conclude: that the type of governance employed in park management is a determining factor for its long-term sustainability (Borrini-Feyerbend, 2015). This is one of the first studies of its kind linking management effectiveness with conservation impact and governance in Ecuador, however, I recommend that further research be conducted based on these initial results to identify stronger connections between these two realms. I also recommend that park managers and local constituencies supporting the park adopt a systems thinking approach based on six complexity practices proposed by McCool et al. (2015). This approach visualizes the system as the protected areas and its surrounding context, including the various demands over resource use. This manner of thinking could provide a pathway to better adapt to accelerating changes in a complex socio-political context, often beyond local control, and to begin a path that would make the region more resilient to future threats. iii|Page Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... ii Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Research Objectives .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Background ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 Protected Areas in Latin America and the Amazon .......................................................................................... 5 Figure 1: Amazon Biome Deforestation Rates 2004-2014 ............................................................................ 6 Protected Areas in Ecuador .............................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2: Map of Ecuador's Heritage Protected Areas System (PANE) ......................................................... 9 Table 1: Protected Area Categories and IUCN Equivalents ........................................................................ 10 Conservation Importance ............................................................................................................................... 10 Policy and Legal Framework ........................................................................................................................... 11 Context of Ecuadorian Amazon ...................................................................................................................... 13 Yasuni Biological and Cultural Importance ..................................................................................................... 15 Current Context in Yasuni ............................................................................................................................... 16 Stakeholders and Rights Holders .................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 3: Stakeholders and rights holders in Yasuni National Park ............................................................ 18 Methods .............................................................................................................................................................. 19 Tools and Data Collection ............................................................................................................................... 20 Results of Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Forest Loss ...................................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 4: Forest cover loss inside Yasuni National Park 2001-2015............................................................ 26 Figure 5: Forest Loss in Yasuni Biosphere Reserve and Yasuni National Park 2001-2015 .......................... 27 Figure 6: Yasuni Biosphere Reserve Forest/No Forest Change 2000 and 2014 .......................................... 29 Figure 7: Map Forest Loss Yasuni National Park (Years 2000 and 2014) .................................................... 30 Table 2: Total Forest Loss Yasuni Biosphere Reserve, National Park, and Ecuadorian Amazon ................. 31 Measuring Management Effectiveness .......................................................................................................... 32 National-Level Management Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 32 Figure 8: Evaluation of Management Effectiveness Results for 2012 ........................................................ 33 Figure 9: Evaluation of Management Effectiveness Results for 2013 ........................................................ 34 Figure 10: Evaluation of Management Effectiveness Results for 2014 ...................................................... 35 Figure 11: Evaluation of Management Effectiveness Results for 2015 ...................................................... 36 Management Effectiveness in Yasuni ............................................................................................................. 37 iv|Page Figure 12: Management Effectiveness for Yasuni National Park 2012-2015.............................................. 38 Figure 13: Forest Loss in Yasuni National Park 2012-2015 ......................................................................... 39 Governance ..................................................................................................................................................... 39 Table 3: Frequency of Responses per Question ........................................................................................