Provocative thoughts: REDDe rationem

Slowly, but firmly, we are moving towards the redde rationem of the property rights question in the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries) program, a collaboration between FAO, UNDP and UNEP.

I have a very limited knowledge on this, therefore I had to check the official website: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agenda item on “Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries and approaches to stimulate action” was first introduced at the Conference of the Parties (COP11) in December 2005 by the governments of Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica, supported by eight other Parties. The challenge was to establish a functioning international REDD finance mechanism that can be included in an agreed post-2012 global climate change framework. Progress has been made and the need to meet the challenge is now reflected in the Bali Action Plan and the COP13 Decision 2/CP.13. A functioning international REDD finance mechanism needs to be able to provide the appropriate revenue streams to the right people at the right time to make it worthwhile for them to change their forest resource use behaviour. In response to the COP13 decision, requests from countries, and encouragement from donors, FAO, UNDP and UNEP have developed a collaborative REDD programme. The UN-REDD Programme is aimed at tipping the economic balance in favour of sustainable management of forests so that their formidable economic, environmental and social goods and services benefit countries, communities and forest users while also contributing to important reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The aim is to generate the requisite transfer flow of resources to significantly reduce global emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. The immediate goal is to assess whether carefully structured payment structures and capacity support can create the incentives to ensure actual, lasting, achievable, reliable and measurable emission reductions while maintaining and improving the other ecosystem services forests provide.

Risks and potential opportunities under REDD policies and programmes have been noted by many players (NGOs, CSOs, International Specialists, IP organizations). In particular, it is becoming evident that this negotiated approach should first not be limited to seeing the forest as just a source of income (for example forests and other ecosystems hold many values for
Amerindian communities, including spiritual values which cannot and must not be valued
in monetary terms) and second that those who should have a say on these negotiations are not just Governments but also local communities, IPs and others.

In a sense, there is an order on how to approach the issue: first make sure that local communities/IPs basic land and territorial rights and right to prior consent are respected. This needs a serious engagement by all concerned stakeholders in terms of improving policies and legislations, make them effective and respected. Still a long way to Tipperary ...

In addition, strong training/enhancement capacity programs, advocacy and information should also be put in place as a precondition for any real REDD implementation. This is because before signing agreements for ‘development benefits’ or ‘development
funds’ offered by the government, local communities’ leaders and IPs leaders need to look carefully at the possible impacts of these schemes on their peoples, and their local and traditional livelihoods and territories. This means a need to look at the detail and avoid hasty decisions.

Here comes the link with what we do in terms of Community land use and territorial mapping. As has recently been expressed in a workshop organized by Amerindian Peoples Association and Forest Peoples Programme in Guyana (http://www.forestpeoples.org/documents/s_c_america/guyana_redd_ip_rights_wshop_rep_jun09_eng.pdf) “maps of traditional occupation and use can support effective land demarcation and, in programmes like REDD, could help clarify land tenure and resource use. These maps can help show the extensive resource use of indigenous peoples and can show how Amerindian peoples have names for creeks and forest areas which differ from government maps. Incorrect naming of waters, rivers and mountains on government maps has caused errors in existing titles and is hampering the extension process: indigenous land-use maps would provide accurate information to help overcome these problems. The historical information contained in community maps also demonstrates how rotational farming systems have maintained forest cover and how many of our old farms and ‘nature farms’ are found in high bush areas. Indigenous peoples in Guyana should be provided with more technical support to train indigenous cartographers and undertake mapping projects in the various regions. Existing community maps need to be updated in line with the advancements of new technology. Support is needed to help communities complete outstanding work and map areas still to be surveyed. Maps are also useful to help our communities make decisions regarding land use and development. At the same time, community maps can be used as the basis to make claims for extension to land titles and to avoid land claim conflicts”.

The point that we do want to stress is that land rights and REDD are so intertwined that local communities/indigenous communities need to clearly say that these two issues cannot be separated. If land rights issues are not addressed expeditiously and in an equitable way, local communities/indigenous peoples could have their property rights infringed and could lose benefits that are rightfully theirs.

These worries have started being expressed since the beginning of the discussions concerning REDD. Just mentioning CIFORs Director General, Frances Seymour that already in December 2007 wrote: "Since forest property rights are often very unclear, payment for carbon services could end up providing incentives for corrupt officials or local elites to appropriate this new forest value from local communities. We've seen this happen before in similar situations, and there is every reason to believe, given the kind of money now being paid for carbon credits, that it could happen again.[...] This is why efforts to secure property rights for local [...] communities should be encouraged" (http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1207-redd.html).
Others have more recently recalled this critical point: if policy makers fail to address the elephant in the room: secure and devolved property rights (Ben Caldecott: Property rights and the fight against climate change (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/bencaldecott/9909297/Property_rights_and_the_fight_against_climate_change/)
There are reasons to be worried: quoting a recent press release (March 19) by the Rights and Resources Initiative (http://www.rightsandresources.org/blog.php?id=506): INDIGENOUS Peoples were excluded when forest countries and donor governments met in Paris on March 11, 2010 to discuss a major forests and climate initiative. The parties met under an invitation from the French and Norwegian governments to start developing governance structures for the 3.5 billion USD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) readiness funds announced in Copenhagen at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP15 last December. The UNFCCC negotiations are still far from delivering final commitments in full respect of indigenous peoples’rights.

Now we are already moving into a REDD plus, and again the risk of leaving the property rights issue out of the door is there. REDD Plus cannot be imposed on the communities. It has to be voluntary and based on communities’ understanding of the issues, their expected roles and associated benefits. This is where a Participatory and Negotiated approach to, first, Recognizing Territorial Rights and, second, approaching the REDD agenda is needed. There are ongoing experiences on this, as well as an ongoing process of methodological thinking to see how to better address these issues. The point is to get a say at the higher level where this program is implemented. This is our challenge. We hope to be able to report positive news in the months to come.