How should REDD work in Panama? The basics are that it should:

• Be a national system (potentially nested with a definite end for projects);
• Ensure the majority of the benefits reach those living in the forests;
• Not count enhanced forest carbon sequestration that comes from plantations (monoculture Teak, Oil Palm).

Why a national system? Independent projects are great, but they will just push the deforestation around the country - leakage, in other words. If these projects are to be included, it should be within a "nested" approach. This means that projects have a set amount of time (between 5-7 years) to merge their project into the national system, or "nest" it.

It still isn't clear who owns the carbon in the trees in Panama, and that will hopefully be determined in the coming years. To be effective, REDD projects will need to foment other income generating activities to replace the income gained from traditional practices. If the government and/or project promoters capture more than 30% of the cash generated from REDD, there won't be sufficient incentive at the local level to stop deforestation.

Now that REDD is REDD+, (the "+" means the countries/projects can get credit for carbon enhancement), we need to make sure that it is not used to support unsustainable forestry practices such as monoculture plantations. There is also the problem of "additionality" because the majority of the plantations are cultivated for the timber, not carbon capture. Sustainable environmental and social practices should be rewarded, not those that eventually leave land worse off and people not participating in an economically positive manner.

Panama just signed onto the Norwegian/French REDD partnership. This is good for Panama because it will help the country move forward in developing the national level systems and laws necessary to financing and knowledge exchange opportunities. It has the opportunity now with the UNREDD funds already approved to move forward and once again be at the forefront of national level REDD.

Guest post from Chris Meyer, writing from Ecuador

Fellow co-founder Andrew Wulf and I visited a Guarani indigenous village outside of Tena while on vacation/work. While there were numerous similarities between Panama and Ecuador in relation to conservation, economic opportunities, problems with land, and resource management, there were also many differences.

I arranged to stay with the brother of the President of the regional Guarani organization. He lives in his own little "compound" consisting of a couple of houses where his various children now live with their children. In total, about 15 people lived in the compound (10 under the age of 13). Along the river they had cleared about three hectares (7.5 acres) to plant corn (mostly for animals), papaya, cacao, yucca, plantains, bananas, and other fruiting trees indigenous to the area.

He probably controlled (with title) at least 250 hectares of prime jungle and supplemented his family's diet with wild game (we ate peccary and monkey) and fishing. As with many of the indigenous Panamanians I know, he may have been "cash poor", but no one was going hungry and there seemed to be a strong social safety net within the family.

This gentlemen's land was next to the oil production facilities operated by the Ecuadorian government. He informed us and showed us a map of where one of the oil companies wants to drill on his land, but he won't let them. Ecuador is similar to Panama in the sense that under ground minerals belong to the general public (i.e. government) and not the individual landowner. In this case, even though he doesn't own the oil rights (sold in concession by the government), he has to give permission to the company to access his land to exploit.

We discussed the potential oil drilling with his son (23-year old w/ a tourism background). Interestingly, not once did the son mention potentially becoming very wealthy in a monetary sense from drilling royalties. To him and his father, the oil drilling would only bring them problems by poisoning the virgin forest surrounding them. They had given the same response to the loggers, too. For being in the middle of nowhere, I would've thought we were a rarity for them - a couple of gringos visiting. But it turns out that we were only one of many small groups of tourists/students that had passed through in the last couple months. Having studied tourism the son was very focused on developing tourism in the region as a way to bring in needed cash.

I didn't delve into REDD with them, but understood their stance on conservation and thought about how it could benefit them economically. For them, REDD might work by providing supplementary income and capital to expand a small tourism business. It could easily work within a national system that would pay the larger indigenous organization 10-20% to support basic local services (schooling and health) and meet additionality questions (oil located on his land and near colonizers). The tourism component - which I see in this case providing a significant portion of their potential income - could be done in Panama. However, it would be much trickier and probably need to focus on birding because the Panamanian jungle doesn't have the same allure as the Amazon jungle. 

Although Ecuador didn't sign the Copenhagen Accord, it is still very much involved in REDD. It is probably more advanced than Panama because the government is pushing it along for political reasons (trying to become a country of UNREDD and Yasuni-ITT project). However, Ecuador has the moral challenge of having a ridiculous amount of oil left under their forests. Their choice is whether to exploit it or bet on REDD, conservation, and eco-tourism.

We'll be watching closely.

Guest post from Chris Meyer, writing from Bonn

I was in Bonn last week for the first of two weeks of post-Copenhagen climate change negotiations. As I wrote in a blog post for the Environmental Defense Fund, indigenous rights language in the negotiating text - specifically the REDD+ section - is significant.

I wrote in that post:

Most promising in this is that the two-year-old brackets around the text – text is [bracketed] when it is controversial and does not have unanimous support from countries – have been removed.  This is a big victory for indigenous leaders, as it indicates strong support for indigenous peoples' rights.

For example, this excerpt was bracketed:

(c) Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities, by taking into account relevant international obligations, national circumstances and laws, and noting that the General Assembly has adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

(d) Full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, including, in particular, indigenous peoples and local communities in actions referred to in paragraphs 3 and 5 below;

Is the text perfect? No. There are still sections where indigenous leaders want better language about rights and safeguards. The major issue in Bonn was whether the brackets around the remaining social safeguards text would be removed, i.e. be accepted by country negotiators. The latest draft released did not remove the brackets, so this issue will be debated in future negotiations.

As I noted before, the international language is only good as its implementation on the ground, which is often poor. In Panama for example, the community of Arimae (where Planting Empowerment located some of its plantations) still doesn't have secure title to all of its lands. Nor is there consensus on who owns the carbon in the forest, which has been conserved at great expense by the indigenous peoples.

At a global level the negotiating text for REDD is looking much better for indigenous peoples. However, there is still work to be done to strengthen the implementation language in the text, and actually see that translate to positive action on the ground. Things are moving in a good direction in Panama, but the country needs to move quicker to protect its remaining forest and increase benefits to the local peoples.

View the entire document

A recent article on the BBC website decried the treatment of local populations in the development of REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) projects.

Although the author gets some facts incorrect - claiming, for example the "+" in REDD+ represents what are more widely known as co-benefits rather than enhanced forest carbon stocks as noted in the LCA text (i.e. sequestering carbon, or afforestation) - he does do a service in pointing out potential problems with REDD.

The gist of the author's argument is that REDD will centralize decision-making over forest resources within government and prevent community managment. Panama is a good example of the decentralization process because it has been slowly recognizing indigenous peoples' rights over their land.

There is still much to be done and it is unclear how the Panamanian government will proceed with REDD. Nonetheless, we would argue that now there are actually more indigenous leaders in Panama with an understanding of REDD than counterparts at the ministry of environment (ANAM). Panama actually had its UN-REDD proposal delayed because it lacked a required signature from the IP (Indigenous Peoples) representative and concerns expressed to United Nations REDD staff.

At the international level (FIP, FCPF, UNREDD) there is an understanding that indigenous peoples and communities will need to "own" REDD if it is to work. Without their buy in and receipt of the majority of the benefits, there won't be a reduction in deforestation and payments will not flow to anyone - government included. Policy makers at the national level should use community forestry management programs in Nepal and Mexico as examples when designing their REDD programs.

Planting Empowerment advocates more community management of forests. The successful examples of community management in Mexico were supported for 10+ years by outside technical assistance and capital. This enabled skills development at the local level and development of institutions and businesses. We are training local stakeholders to effectively manage their resources in order to profit sustainably and achieve conservation and carbon goals. 

We sat down with the Forest Carbon Portal to discuss Planting Empowerment's innovative approach to forestry and carbon offsetting. This interview provides details about our tree plantations and the local communities' involvement in forest-carbon projects. The Forest Carbon Portal is an excellent resource for learning about terrestrial carbon capture projects around the world.

English:

Spanish:

From board member Chris Meyer

I recently had the privilege of hearing Elinor Ostrom, the 2009 Nobel Laureate in Economics. She won the Nobel for her analysis of "the commons" and communal decision making.

Her work is pertinent to Planting Empowerment because she has studied community forestry and conservation. Along with various colleagues, she has found that conservation actually increases when control of forests are decentralized. This has been proven through various community forestry programs in Nepal and Mexico that increased conservation by enabling more local control of forests.

Our partnering community Arimae is indigenous, and manages its land communally. Although their land title is now being processed, they have been without legal possession for too long because the Panamanian government didn't recognize collective land rights. This lack of recognition has emboldened loggers and cattle ranchers to encroach on Arimae's land.

Arimae's reserve is roughly 25,000 acres. The community's land management plan sets aside a significant amount of rainforest (about 10,000 acres) for conservation. The rest of the land is distributed to community members. Each receives a roughly 25 acre plot for personal activities such as homesteading, agriculture, and tree planting. Additionally, large tracts of converted land are reserved for projects like Planting Empowerment's mixed species tree plantations, or other larger projects.

Our lease payments and future profit sharing are proving that Arimae can generate significant returns from already cultivated land. This then enables them to invest in conserving the remainder of their rainforest preserve and in other revenue generating activites.

Central government control over forests diminishes the sense of ownership for local forest dwellers. This in turn reduces their incentive to sustainably manage those resources. When the Panamanian government opened up the Darien province for settling, it didn't have the means to control unsustainable colonization. This Google Earth shot tells the whole story. You can see Arimae's forest reserve surrounded by deforested cattle pasture and cropland. Arimae has been battling for its land title for decades. Now finally, the Panamanian government appears committed to granting Arimae full control over its land and resources.

Arimae demonstrates the accuracy of Dr. Ostrom's work on communal decision making - Arimae makes more sustainable choices about land management and resource allocation than the central government. The Panamanian government is waking up to this fact, but too bad the lesson has been so environmentally costly.

The Christian Science Monitor and The New England Center for Investigative Reporting recently released a six-part report entitled "Blowing Smoke". Most of the stories examine a project designed to produce voluntary carbon offsets that either has not been fulfilled (the Vatican's tree planting scheme in Hungary), or negatively affects native livelihoods (Poor farmers in India lose land to windmills).

Another of the offset projects profiled is managed by SilvaTree, based in Panama. The report claims that SilvaTree is inconsistent in its claims that its pawlonia tree plantations are certified by the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS). SilvaTree states that they are taking legal action against CS Monitor for defamation and misrepresentation.

I thought each of the reports was interesting, and recommend reading them. However, we are worried that the SilvaTree exposé will give all forestry projects a bad name. So, we'd like to explain a bit more about how Planting Empowerment operates.

Planting Empowerment doesn't guarantee a financial return. The only guaranteed return I know of is the 0.5% interest on my savings account, insured by the FDIC. And the guarantee is only that I won't lose my principal. Too many timber plantations lure investors by guaranteeing high returns only to disappoint them at year five when promised dividends don't appear. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

We sell a hectare of mixed native species (with 30% teak) for $15,000. We plant 1100 trees per hectare, pay higher prices for land because of our lease model, and share our cut of profits with the landowners/local communities. SilvaTree charges $35,000/hectare and guarantees a higher return while only planting 660 trees. More trees planted doesn't necessarily mean more wood production, but it does provide a larger pool from which to cull and maximize timber quality. Also, PE plantations include at least seven different types of trees. This diversity lowers the risk of blight in our plantations, and reduces exposure to price fluctuations in timber markets.

On purchasing carbon offsets: the forestry carbon market is still young and you should educate yourself about forestry carbon credits at the Forest Carbon Portal website before making any purchases. They put out a good report on the market and you should compare it to SilvaTree's and other businesses' claims about their carbon credits. Planting Empowerment has sold carbon credits, but only in personal deals where both parties understood the transaction and where those credits came from. Planting Empowerment will refrain from selling carbon credits to the general public until the market solidifies and we certify the plantations.

A note about REDD (Reducing Emissions from Degradation/Deforestation) projects in Panama. Investing in any REDD scheme that purports to generate carbon credits is like playing craps. The Panamanian government has yet to decide who actually owns the carbon in the trees. Be prepared to lose all your investment when the government/local landowners get the majority of the revenue from carbon offset sales.

We encourage the ideas that new plantation companies are exploring and their potential to slow deforestation and improve economic opportunities. However, we are skeptical of "guaranteed" returns, monocultures, and promises of selling carbon credits. Most importantly, forestry projects designed to benefit the environment should also benefit locals who depend so much on their natural resources. Our position is that projects that displace or alienate the local population are not sustainable in the long run.