- Following the success of its first debt-for-nature swap for the Galapagos, Ecuador received $460 million dollars that will be allocated to the conservation of the Amazon.
- The financial organizations involved in the ‘the Amazon Biocorridor Fund’ have publicized the involvement of Indigenous peoples in the process. However, Indigenous leaders have denied these claims and say they have not been involved in full participation.
- On a positive side, the conservation objectives were set based on scientific work by Ecuador’s National Institute of Biodiversity (INABIO), which identified the areas that need to be prioritized based on the richness of their biodiversity.
- The Amazon Biocorridor Fund is set to begin operating this year, and will do so under the supervision of civil society organizations, seeking transparency in the management of resources.
In December 2024, Ecuador completed a debt-for-nature swap to support Amazon conservation through the creation of the Amazon Biocorridor. While this provides economic relief, Amazonian leaders contend they were not included as key participants in the corridor’s design or funding decisions.
What is a debt-for-nature swap? A debt-for-nature swap is an agreement in which a creditor forgives part of a country’s debt in exchange for investments in conservation projects.
Ecuador’s first debt-for-nature swap occurred in 2023, where it converted $1.63 billion of debt into a $656 million loan. Under the deal, Ecuador committed approximately $450 million to the Galápagos Life Fund, which provides grants for conservation projects in the Galápagos Marine Reserve and the Hermandad Marine Reserve, according to the country’s Ministry of Environment.
Former President Guillermo Lasso, with the then minister of environment, José Dávalos, and the former vice president of CONFENIAE, Lola Piaguaje, during the presentation of the Biocorridor. Image courtesy of Presidency of Ecuador.
The country’s second swap converted $1.527 billion in debt — specifically global bonds, though authorities did not disclose the creditors — into a $1 billion loan with improved terms, facilitated by Amazon Conservation Designated Activity Company (DAC). The transaction received backing from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), Bank of America, the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), and The Nature Conservancy (TNC).
As a result, Ecuador is projected to save $527 million plus the interest that would have accrued on the original debt. Ecuador’s debt will be reduced by more than $800 million by 2035, according to information from the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF).
Additionally, financial institutions involved in the swap reported the “generation” of $400 million, which will be allocated to the Amazonian Biocorridor (BCA) Fund. This fund, established to manage resources from the debt conversion, will support conservation efforts in Ecuador’s Amazon region. It will finance projects in areas such as sustainable development, conservation, restoration and research, led by both governmental and non-governmental organizations.
Although national and international media have reported that conservation funds would come from savings generated by the debt swap, the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) clarified that this is not the case. “The $400 million comes from a commission that Ecuador pays as part of the service of the new debt the country assumes under the operation,” the MEF’s communications department told Mongabay Latam.
In other words, Amazon Conservation DAC will allocate $23.5 million annually for 17 years to the BCA Fund as Ecuador repays its debt to Amazon Conservation DAC. “This amount is in addition to the savings generated by the transaction,” the MEF added, suggesting that while the fund’s resources resemble a private donation, they remain directly tied to the debt swap.
Meanwhile, delays in disbursing funds from Ecuador’s first debt-for-nature swap have raised concerns about the effectiveness of such initiatives. Although the Galápagos swap was announced in May 2023, grants are yet to be distributed. The first call for proposals opened in early 2025, focusing on “strengthening control and monitoring” of the archipelago. Of the funds allocated, $2.5 million will support sustainable fishing projects, while $1 million will go toward marine environmental education.
Indigenous peoples left behind
The Amazon Biocorridor was established on Sept. 5, 2023, through an executive decree issued by then-President Guillermo Lasso. Unlike a physical corridor that provides ecological connectivity, this initiative represents a conservation commitment, according to the presidency’s statement. The decree instructed the Ministry of Environment, Water and Ecological Transition (MAATE) to define the biocorridor’s design, operations and funding mechanisms.
The BCA website describes the biocorridor as “the result of a process designed and continuously developed in collaboration with the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon (CONFENIAE).” However, CONFENIAE leaders and affiliated organizations dispute this claim, arguing they were not meaningfully involved in the process.
“For the government council of the Kichwa Nationality of Pastaza, this came as a surprise,” said Diana Chávez, head of international affairs and organizations for Pakkiru (an acronym in Kichwa for ‘Pastaza Kichwa Nationality’). Chávez said that her organization had no prior knowledge of the corridor and “even less” about the debt swap. She recalled that after learning about the initiative through social media, CONFENIAE, which is the largest Indigenous organization in the Ecuadorian Amazon, decided to discuss the matter at an expanded council meeting.
A leader of CONFENIAE who requested anonymity to avoid further tensions with the Ministry of Environment, said this situation stems from the government’s failure to conduct a free, prior and informed consultation (FPIC) with Indigenous peoples at every stage of the process, as required by Ecuador’s Constitution.
The leader recounted that in mid-2023 — months before a new CONFENIAE government council was elected — the confederation was pressured into signing an agreement for the biocorridor’s creation. This was done hastily, he says, under the MAATE’s “we must do it because we must do it” approach. While several meetings were held to discuss how Ecuador would allocate the funds it aimed to secure, he claimed that only outgoing leadership participated in those discussions.
“The state did not conduct public outreach about the agreement or its applications,” he said. This lack of transparency is concerning because, in official statements from all financial institutions involved in the debt swap, the biocorridor was marketed as having been “co-designed” with Indigenous peoples and nationalities from the Ecuadorian Amazon.
Chávez said that while she agrees that an FPIC should have taken place, she pushes for a more active role: “We must stop being mere subjects of consultation. We must be part of the decision-making process.” She clarified that Indigenous communities are not opposed to the initiative — “We understand that the debt swap is a relief for the state,” she said — but stressed that these decisions directly impact the Amazon.
Ambitious conservation goals
The Amazonian Biocorridor was established to improve the management of 4.6 million hectares (11.36 million acres) of existing protected areas and safeguard an additional 1.8 million hectares (4.45 million acres) of forests and wetlands. The initiative also aims to protect 18,000 kilometers (11,200 miles) of rivers.
“By defining new conservation areas, illegal mining can be significantly curbed,” said Galo Medina, director of the NGO TNC Ecuador. This illicit activity remains one of the greatest threats to the Amazon region. Medina also emphasized that the biocorridor’s commitments extend beyond conservation — it includes bioeconomy, research, monitoring and restoration efforts.
For the CONFENIAE leader, the fund’s top priority should be strengthening Indigenous autonomy, governance and territorial self-management. “That autonomy and governance include directly managing the funds,” Chávez added.
Indigenous peoples have already demonstrated their effectiveness in forest conservation. An analysis by the Amazonian Andes Monitoring Project (MAAP) found that between 2017 and 2021, 74.8% of deforestation in the western Amazon occurred outside Indigenous lands and protected areas, while forest loss within Indigenous territories was only 15.6%.
Chávez said that Indigenous communities implement diverse conservation measures deeply rooted in their cosmovision. For example, Pakkiru has declared its territory a ‘Kawsak Sacha,’ or ‘Living Forest,’ a designation that, in Western legal terms, recognizes nature as a rights-bearing entity. As a result, several Kichwa communities in Pastaza have established Indigenous ranger programs and community monitoring initiatives. “Part of this fund must go to the people who are walking the land and guarding the territory,” Chávez argued.
She also underscored that Amazonian provinces are among the poorest in Ecuador. In five of the six Amazonian provinces — Zamora Chinchipe being the only exception — the income poverty rate exceeds 60%, reaching as high as 74% in the worst cases, according to annual poverty data published in February 2024 by Ecuador’s National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (INEC). “We need to meet the basic needs of our communities,” she said.
A data-driven conservation portfolio
The National Institute of Biodiversity (INABIO) played a key role in the Amazon Biocorridor initiative, aiming to define conservation priorities based on scientific data. “It is crucial that government decisions are based on knowledge,” said Francisco Prieto, INABIO’s deputy technical director.
Prieto explained that the research, conducted over a year, began by analyzing the lack of ecological connectivity between the Andean Amazon and the Amazonian lowlands, as well as the fragmentation of ecosystems caused by the Troncal Amazónica road, urban expansion and the expanding agricultural frontier. Addressing this challenge, he said, “is crucial” to improving connectivity for migratory species such as catfish.
Rather than prioritizing areas based on widely distributed charismatic species like the jaguar or river dolphin, INABIO specialists focused on species with small ranges that are highly vulnerable to environmental changes. They selected key characteristics of reptiles, amphibians, birds, terrestrial vertebrates, trees, plants and aquatic species, as well as considering plants of cultural and practical significance for Indigenous communities.
Using technological tools and software, researchers developed predictive models for species distribution, drawing from scientific collections, natural history data and vegetation formations across the Ecuadorian Amazon. The modeling process generated hundreds of maps per species. Analysts, guided by statistical evidence and ecological expertise, selected the most accurate map for each species, which were then reviewed and validated by expert panels.
This research identified the Condor and Kutukú mountain ranges in southern Amazon as exceptionally rich in biodiversity and endemism, said Prieto. However, these areas are threatened by large-scale mining concessions and illegal mining. Other priority areas include the lower Pastaza province, Yasuní National Park, Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve, and Sumaco.
The next step, Prieto said, is to visit each of these territories, assess their specific needs, and coordinate efforts with Indigenous peoples, local governments and the productive sector. “For us, the conservation portfolio cannot be implemented without the support of communities,” he said.
Despite these efforts, Prieto acknowledged that Ecuador still faces a “major gap in biodiversity data,” making it “essential to strengthen knowledge generation among different stakeholders to support informed decision-making.”
Galo Medina of TNC added that biodiversity data was complemented by a socio-economic study of the Amazon. However, neither report has yet been published on BCA Fund’s website.
2025: The operationalization phase
During the first half of 2025, efforts will focus on assembling the core team and developing operational documents to establish guidelines for the BCA Fund’s administration, Medina explained.
According to the Fund’s work plan, the first step is to finalize the board of directors, which will consist of nine unpaid members. Three members will represent the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Production, while the other six will be from civil society.
The confirmed board members so far include: Galo Medina, director of TNC Ecuador; Sebastián Valdivieso, director of WCS Ecuador, representing international organizations; and Carmen Josse, executive director of Fundación Ecociencia, representing local organizations.
The board will also include an academic representative, a finance expert, and a representative of Indigenous communes, communities, peoples and nationalities.
Members of CONFENIAE are concerned about who will be appointed to represent Indigenous interests, according to the anonymous Indigenous leader interviewed for this article. He said he insists that this person must come from CONFENIAE’s internal structure. “It could turn into another political appointment, as happened with the Circunspección Territorial Amazónica, where we were supposed to have a representative, but that person is no longer aligned with CONFENIAE,” he said.
As part of the operationalization process, conservation areas will be defined based on INABIO’s recommendations. “In the case of Yasuní National Park, which is well known for its biological richness, funding for its management barely reaches half of what is needed. The hope is that the biocorridor can help. The needs are enormous,” Medina acknowledged.
In the second half of the year, the plan is to launch the first calls for funding proposals, allowing governmental and non-governmental organizations to apply for grants from the Fund.
Distribution of biocorridor funds
How will funds for the biocorridor be distributed? Medina explained that, for 17 years, $19 million will annually finance the biocorridor. Meanwhile another $4.5 million per year will be invested in an endowment fund, expected to generate an additional $60 million in returns. In total, the BCA Fund will receive $460 million.
“The goal of this fund is to ensure that conservation activities remain financially sustainable,” added the MEF.
Of the $19 million annual budget, the allocation will be: 40% for government-led projects, 45% for civil society initiatives, and up to 15% for administrative costs.
This means that TNC will receive approximately $2.85 million per year for 17 years to oversee the fund’s administration.
“Those of us who care about the Amazon want this process to work well,” said Medina. “We need transparency, accountability, and clear communication on funding opportunities.”
Meanwhile, organizations such as CONFENIAE and the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CDES) are closely monitoring the Fund’s management.
“We will formally request financial transparency,” said Eva Martínez, a human rights lawyer and coordinator of the CDES Economic Justice program.
CDES previously monitored the Galápagos debt swap and found that civil society on the islands had been excluded from the process. In response, the organization filed a complaint with the Inter-American Development Bank, one of the institutions involved in both debt swaps. Their advocacy led to the inclusion of a local civil society representative on the board of the Galápagos Life Fund, the entity overseeing conservation funds for the islands.
Banner image: A ceiba tree stands out above the canopy in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Image by Rhett A. Butler/Mongabay.
This article was first published here in Spanish on Jan. 22, 2025.
Historic land win for Ecuador’s Siekopai sets precedent for other Indigenous peoples
Credits
