## 4 Discussion and Conclusions  
The three cases that were analysed with the FFP approach show that conflicts concerning Indigenous land boundaries are created due to inconsistencies between the reality and governmental data. The limits of Indigenous reserves that are known by the State are often outdated and do not match the reality in the field. The resolutions that provide the reserves their legal status contain unclear maps and vague descriptions of boundaries. These resolutions were handed out in the 1970s, when there were not many technologies available for precise field measurements. This resulted in uncertainty about the real limit, which has created overlapping claims between Indigenous peoples and their settler neighbours. The Santa Teresita del Tuparro case offers an example of how inconsistencies between State data and reality causes conflicts between neighbours. The State gave out land properties to the Indigenous peoples and to the settler farmers on the same land. The vague description of the moving road and the imprecise definition of the boundaries in these titles make it impossible to define the actual limit. Other cases, such as the situation in Muco Mayoragua, show that not only precision of the boundary plays a role, but that State data do not represent the real extent of the Indigenous reserve. Indigenous peoples are claiming large parts of land to be part of their reserve. The State has never analysed these claims; therefore, communities are located outside of the official limits of the reserve. From the experience in San Luis del Tomo, where the Indigenous peoples state that the limit is another course of the river, it can also be concluded that the State did not include perceptions of the Indigenous peoples when formalising the reserve. Figure 11: The Indigenous San Luis del Tomo reserve. The red line indicates the limit of the reserve according to the Indigenous peoples. Approximately 3000 ha are claimed by the Indigenous peoples. There is already one private parcel in the claimed area. Cumaribo, 2020. Source: Land in Peace Project, Kadaster. These inconsistencies cause potentially fierce conflicts between Indigenous peoples and neighbouring settle farmers. The Colombian government is the authority that solves these boundary conflicts. Informal parcels of farmers simply cannot overlap with an Indigenous reserve in future formalisation processes, and databases need to reflect the reality. Therefore, the presence of the Colombian state in the process is important for solving discrepancies between boundaries because the State is the only party that can guarantee an official solution or clarification of the situation. Based on the work in the border regions between the Indigenous reserves and their neighbouring settle farms, it can be concluded that the FFP approach works well in such difficult and deeply-felt situations of land conflicts. The FFP approach, with the cooperation of the Indigenous peoples and social cartography, can be used to map the physical reality and to understand the existing boundary conflicts, overlaps, and errors that were made at the time of awarding the reserves by the government. Additionally, the involvement of the neighbours at the socialisation of the results at the public inspection, and with this establishing local agreements, is crucial for conflict resolution. What can be concluded is that the participatory approach leads to trust in the collected field data. Several researchers, such as [PERSON] [21] and [PERSON] and [PERSON] [14], stated that the community has to be involved in the mapping of Indigenous land rights and that participatory mapping is a useful tool for conflict resolution and for increasing Indigenous empowerment at a local scale. Capturing local knowledge is important; however, this is not always sufficient for guaranteeing tenure security for the community for the long term or on a sustainable basis.