Presented at 17th Global Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons Peter Cronkleton, Anne Larson, Joe Saldana y Frangi Valencia Lima, Peru – July 2, 2019

1. Securing Communal Tenure
and Territorial Governance in
Indigenous Communities in
the Peruvian Amazon
17th Global Conference
of the International Association for the Study of the Commons
Peter Cronkleton, Anne Larson, Joe Saldana y Frangi Valencia
Lima, Peru – July 2, 2019

2. Background
• Since 1974 the Peruvian government has titled 1300
indigenous communities in the Amazon
• 1975 policy reform prohibited titling of forest lands
• 2000 decentralization passed key responsibilities to
regional governments
• 2014 Titling programs intensified (COP 10, response to
Soweto, donor interest)
• Difficult to assess the formalization process
o decentralized
o diverse actors
o dispersed remote locations

3. Background
Titling process for Indigenous Territories takes
place over four stages
• Field study stage: Demarcation, boundary
agreements, land use analysis (uso mayor)
• Evaluation stage: State agencies check boundaries
for overlap with production forest and protected areas
• Approval stage: Areas classified as agricultural and
forest/protection areas
• Title emission stage: Formal registration of title

4. General objective
 Analyze the results of land titling programs focused
on Indigenous Communities the San Martin and
Ucayali
Specific objectives
 Compare local perceptions of progress in securing
property rights, the impacts of these programs and
their challenges
 Identify factors influencing tenure security
 Document patterns of territorial governance
 Contribute to a base line for tracking progress in land
titling programs focused on Indigenous People
Objectives of study

5. Project Design
 2 Departments
 12 Native communities
 Three ethnic groups:
 Kichwa,
 Shawi
 Ashaninka
 Different stages in the formalization
process
 2 Titled, georeferenced and registered
 5 Titled, not georeferenced but registered
 4 Titled, not georeferenced and not registered
 4 Recognized and georeferenced
SAN MARTÍN
UCAYALI

6. Sample
Mixed
methods
Region
Key Informant
Interviews
Focus Groups
(Participants)
N° of
Households
(total)
N° of
Households
selected
Household
survey
Ucayali 40 139 285 96 176
San Martín 22 145 265 85 162
TOTAL 62 284 550 181 338

7. Community Characteristics
Communal territories (average size 4600 hectares)
Mosaics of rights
• Collective private property (classified for agricultural use)
• Collective usufruct rights (cesión en uso) forest management
and conservation
• Customary rights to individual plots (Typical 2.6 ha per family)
Livelihoods
• Swidden agriculture and agroforestry for subsistence and cash
income
• Forest and natural resources crucial resources
o 68% of informants reported hunting in the previous month,
o 63% fished in the previous month
o Only 35% harvested timber over the past year
o Only 9% reported selling timber during this period

8. Local knowledge of and participation in
the formalization process
Uneven distribution
• Community juntas directivas main interlocutors with
Indigenous Federations to lobby regional government
• Leadership is mostly male
Participation in community meetings
o 52% of male informants reported participating
o 16% of female informants reported participating

9. Local knowledge of and participation
in the formalization process
Despite limitations, imbalance not seen as
major issue among informants
• 87% of focus group participants satisfied with
the process.
• Most were reporting state of advance rather
than the process of getting there.

10. Perceptions of Rights Security
We asked informants
“Since your community was titled (or demarcated) do you feel
that your access rights to land and forest are strong and
secure?”
• Overall, 80% of informant agreed rights were strong and
secure
• No significant difference between the regions

11. Perceptions of Rights Security
We asked
“In case of dispute over access to land and resources
will your rights would be protected?”
• 75% of all informants agreed
• No significant variation between subgroups
We then asked
“Are you sure no one will contest your rights to
access and use land and forest?”
• Only 54% of informants agreed
• Significant variation by region
o San Martine 64%,
o Ucayali 45%

12. Factors influencing perceptions of tenure security
• Formal title seen as foundation for secure property rights
• Official recognition (i.e. starting the titling process) increased the
sense of security
• Clearly demarcated boundaries and boundary agreements with
neighbors perceived to increase security
• Physical occupation of the territory, demonstrating use by cultivating
the land, and collective action to patrol the territory also contribute to
security

13. Factors influencing perceptions of tenure insecurity
• Lack of formal title perceived as a vulnerability
• Formalization sometimes reopened previously settled land disputes
• Invasion and illegal extraction of resources seen as a threat to security
o While salient topic, only 19% of informants reported involvement in conflicts over the
previous year
• Weak support from State in mediating conflicts perceived as a problem
• Concern that the State would revoke rights

14. Factors influencing perceptions of tenure insecurity
Cesión en uso is likely point of future confusion
• While 7 of 12 communities have land under cesión en uso
• In some communities up to 89% of territory under cesión en uso
• Only 15% of informants had heard of ‘cesión en uso’.
• Only 5% knew whether land was classified as cesión en uso.
• In general, 75% of men were unaware of concept, but 99% of
women in Ucayali and 94% of women in San Martin were unaware

15. Positive local perceptions of titling process
(i.e. official recognition of territorial rights)
The symbolic value of title strongly
influenced perceptions of security,
however collective action and occupation
needed to ensure security
Lack of participation by women in debates
about the formalization process is area of
concern
Conclusions

16. Community members perceived a lack
of support from the state to resolve
conflict
Local concern that State could revoke
rights to give access to other actors
Lack of information and understanding
of cesión en uso is a potential point of
conflict in the future.
Conclusions

17. cifor.org
blog.cifor.org
ForestsTreesAgroforestry.org
Thank You