Comparative analysis of relations between communities and conservation areas in the Andean Amazon: Findings from 16 case studies using a proposed typology of relations

Key messages

1. This is the second of two briefs that compare 16 cases in the Andean Amazon to understand relations between conservation authorities and communities. The first brief “Typology of relations between communities and conservation areas: A conceptual framework from a comparative study in the Andean Amazon ” builds the conceptual framework; this brief applies it to identify emerging patterns across the cases.
2. The brief examines four types of relations (conflict and tension, coexistence, collaboration and mutualism) across six dimensions: land/resource rights, livelihoods, decision making, communication, institutional capacity and community capacity/cohesion.
3. Conflict and tension are most consistently associated with misalignment around land/resource rights and livelihoods, especially where conservation is perceived as restricting access without credible alternatives.
4. Coexistence is common across the cases but tends to be shallow and fragile, often persisting in contexts of limited engagement and weak institutional capacity.
5. Collaboration emerges where communities have meaningful roles in decision making and where engagement is structured, routine and linked to concrete actions.
6. Mutualism is rare and context specific, occurring where conservation reinforces territorial governance, engagement reflects shared authority and capacities on both sides support long-term implementation.
7. Unpacking relations by analysing their dimensions provides a way to understand the driving forces behind relations: it can inform the design of context-specific strategies and it can guide the targeting of limited resources for the most effective outcomes.
8. A central practical takeaway is to strengthen the three driving forces together: shared interests (rights/livelihoods), better engagement (influence, transparency, problem solving) and sufficient capacity (to follow through). Dialogue without material change can backfire and create ‘participation fatigue’.

---

Download :

English

---

This works is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

---

---