Agriculture-driven deforestation in Ecuador's Mache-Chindul Ecological Reserve: The farmers' perspective

Abstract

Tropical rainforests serve as invaluable global carbon stocks with long-term climate mitigation potential and important ecosystem functions and biodiversity. Recent scholarship has identified agriculture as the main driver of tropical rainforest deforestation worldwide, yet effective policy action needs to understand why farmers continue to clear land, beyond broad-brush attributions of blame. This study highlights the constellation of social forces that drive deforestation in a subsection of the Mache Chindul Ecological Reserve (REMACH) in northwest Ecuador. Rather than simply assuming that farmers are either indifferent to or ignorant of the effects of deforestation, we highlight the perspective of farmers themselves as they reflect on, both, their relationship with other key actors and the broader contextual factors informing their own land-use decisions. We surveyed 70 rural households using a 45-question data collection tool, conducted semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders such as local conservation practitioners and community elders, employed participant observation and reviewed government documents.We find that colonist farmers who live in and around the REMACH clear land because they view doing so as their most reliable means of securing a livelihood for themselves and their children in a context of political and economic hardship and uncertainty. A history of government incentives to clear land, a deeply ambiguous land tenure system, and a sudden influx of externally-funded conservation NGOs to the region have all contributed to exclude farmers from the decision-making process, while simultaneously exacerbating the conditions that make deforestation farmers' most practical option—despite their awareness of its environmental impact. The data underscore that locals are, in fact, highly invested in the idea of conserving a healthy environment for future generations, but are nonetheless driven to act against this interest by their own precarity. By helping governmental and non-governmental conservation practitioners better understand farmers’ land-use decisions, the study reframes the latter group not as the problem, but as vital future partners.