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