This post is also available in: Spanish
Los Amigos Conservation Concession, Madre de Dios, Peru. Original image by Geoff Gallice (CC BY 2.0)
Forests cover about sixty per cent of Peru, almost 72 million hectares; the second largest forest ecosystem in Latin America, and the fourth largest tropical forest surface in the world.
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)
Location: Peru
Readiness Preparation Plan (R-PP)
The latest version of the R-PP has been reviewed by stakeholders including national and international non-governmental organizations, indigenous organizations, Grupo REDD, and the FCPF Participant Committee. Most of them note that the R-PP needs improvement in its elaboration process, especially in terms of the consultation and participation of stakeholders, including compliance with the Law of Previous Consultation and with special concern over the stakes of indigenous groups; that the plan needs improvement in issues of land tenure; that it needs to properly identify the drivers of deforestation and to ensure the transparency of the monitoring process; and lastly, that it does give enough attention and value to the benefits and impacts of deforestation other than carbon.
The Government of Peru made changes to the 4th draft of the R-PP to accommodate critical observations made by AIDESEP in a letter. In meetings prior to the Da Lat PC8, the Peruvian government addressed some of the concerns of AIDESEP and agreed to certain adjustments to the R-PP that are to be presented at the PC8, including;
1. Adjustment to the norms governing indigenous lands consistent with the concept of collective rights of indigenous peoples in ILO 169, with indirect references to collective territory.
2. Rapid startup of the legalization and titling of land, beginning in the region of Loreto, with an estimated initial Budget of $US 1 million in addition to the $200,000 budgeted within the FCPF R-PP (leaving clear the balance of $20 million that is required to complete the legalization process based on an estimate of $US 1 per hectare for 20,000 hectares under claim).
3. Inclusion of the content describing “Indigenous REDD” within the R-PP as proposed by AIDESEP
4. Inclusion of a self-organizing Indigenous MESA REDD within the R-PP
5. Safeguards based on ILO 169 and UNDRIP, no only the UNFCCC or World Bank
6. Inclusion of a addressing the regulatory oversight capacity of MINAM to avoid pressures and protect invasions of local communities against a REDD speculative bubble.
Ultimately, the position of AIDESEP and several other allied organizations will rest on the presentation of the Peruvian Government, to incorporate these and other stated recommendations and the approval of the on the FCPF PC.
Forest Investment Program (FIP)
From January 17th – 20th, a Forest Investment Program scoping mission was carried out in Peru, one of the FIP’s eight pilot countries. The mission including staff from the World Bank, the IFC, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and Peru’s Environmental Ministry. The IDB participated having been proposed as the “delivery partner” for FCPF and FIP programs in Peru.
Civil society interaction during the scoping mission was significantly improved over those carried out in 2010. The Indonesia scoping mission report, for example, notes that only two NGOs were able to attend the civil society information meeting, “because of the short notice for the meeting.” In Peru’s case, the scoping mission met with Grupo REDD Peru, in addition to bi-lateral meetings with two umbrella indigenous federations, covering communities in the Peruvian Amazon.
On January 19th, the scoping mission team visited the offices of AIDESEP, the Inter-Ethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Amazon. In recent years, AIDESEP has been engaging within the REDD discussions, for example sending their climate change focal point, Daysi Zapata, to deliver statements at the FCPF participant committee meetings in Guyana (June 2010) and Washington, DC (November 2010).
During the scoping mission visit to their offices, the AIDESEP team outlined a number of concerns and proposals related to REDD implementation in Peru. These ideas have been further fleshed out in AIDESEP’s recent letter to the World Bank regarding the latest version of Peru’s “readiness preparation proposal” to be discussed at the FCPF’s upcoming meeting in Da Lat, Vietnam. Key aspects include:
(1) Territory: Prior demarcation of hundreds of un-recognized or un-titled indigenous communities, expansion of some existing titles, and formalization of proposed communal reserves and other reserves created for the protection of indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation. They also demand that laws regulating titling of indigenous territories be modernized in accordance with Peru’s obligations under international law such as ILO Convention 169.
In the R-PP3:
The document reassures that Peru’s Political Constitution “stipulates that the State guarantees the right of land ownership”, and that the “Law of Native Communities and Agrarian Development of the Selva and Ceja de Selva stipulates that the State shall guarantee the integrity of the lands of indigenous peoples, conduct the corresponding cadastre, and grant them property rights”. The R-PP also claims that the issue of land titles and assignations to indigenous groups is of key importance to REDD+.
In terms of the demarcation of communities, the R-PP states that it will be the responsibility of the respective regional governments to issue the demarcation of these lands, and therefore the assignation of agricultural lands and lands suitable for forestry, will be stipulated in accordance to the Regulation on the Classification of Lands by their Capacity for Greater Use.
Likewise, for the the formalization of proposed communal reserves, the R-PP says that both the Forest and Wildlife Law and the National Forestry Policy have been proposed to be the national forest authority. They claim that these laws were prepared by the State with the participation of various sectors nationally, regionally and locally. The draft Forestry Law states that the assignment for use constitutes a real, exclusive, perpetual, non-transferable right, the objective of which is to ensure the traditional uses and life systems of native communities and grants to exclusive ownership, access, use, enjoyment, and recovery of lands for forest production and protection, as well as of forest and wildlife resources found within them.
For land titling, the R-PP states that it will not grant authorizing titles of land that, as of the date of the Law’s publication, are still in the process of titling or the expansion of native communities; no project or activity will be authorized in such areas.
The R-PP claims that there are current discussions at the national level concerning AIDESEP’s petition for the completion of land title clearing in areas occupied by indigenous communities, not just those with an ongoing process, and that forest authorization titles exclude the areas of passage of people in voluntary isolation. The R-PP also claims that they are discussing how all laws in regard to land tenure, forest governance and indigenous groups will meet the obligations under ILO C169.
However, it states that it is hard to title these lands due to the lack of information such as an official study that determines the number of indigenous people’s existing in the territory and the status of the process of their recognition or expansion of communal lands, and also the lack of economic resources for demarcation and titling. They understand the social conflicts resulting from this problem, as well as the need to update the official registries in order to avoid them.
Therefore, one of the main problems with demarcation and titling of communal reserves and indigenous territories is the lack of information and proper record-keeping. The R-PP3 proposes an allocation of funds to several aspects of a process that will help improve that situation. The funds come from FCPC and MOORE and will go to the analysis of land use in terms of: an overall diagnosis, an analysis of overlapping, a diagnosis of ownership, title clearing, and the governance and intervention on lands traditionally occupied by indigenous communities and their use. It also includes the preparation of a specific program to identify uncategorized lands, designing specific actions to resolve land titling, and analyzing a way to put together a unified cadastre for land titling. The funds total.
To prepare the political, legal and institutional framework for the REDD+ strategy that addresses land tenure issues, a REDD+ Coordination Agency will be formed (OCBR). During the first two years of R-PP implementation, the OCBR will be financed by projects that co-finance the Readiness phase and the FIP, and in the third phase, it is expected to be self-sufficient.
The R-PP also states that SESA will help Peru to ensure the proper development of society within REDD, including the development and implementation of an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF).
Peru has made some advances to address the issue of land tenure and indigenous communities. Land titling, however, is a grave issue and it should be given more attention by the government as well as the international community. The IDB, for example, has dedicated smaller-scale funding projects to address issues with titling, such as the Multiphase Sustainable Forest Development Program (Pro-Bosque) for Honduras that provided $6 million to finance cadastre and land titling. Such projects would greatly support the REDD+ strategy initiative in Peru.
(2) “REDD Indigena“: AIDESEP is proposing an alternate model for REDD, which would include (amongst other characteristics): Considering the holistic value of forests, not just value as carbon sinks, indigenous management of forests, no third-party control of forests within indigenous territories, the primacy of ILO 169 and UNDRIPs within REDD contracts, and maintaining indigenous territories outside of the carbon market.
(3) National legal norms: AIDESEP has repeated the need to approve the Prior Consultation Law, as it was originally passed by the Peruvian Congress in April of 2010. They have also made suggestions for crucial improvements to the Forestry Law and the Environmental Services Law, which have not been incorporated.
Read the Scoping Mission Aide Memoire
Common Approach
Members of the Task Force sent their recommendations on Environmental and Social safeguards for the REDD+ Strategy to the Participants Committee on June 9th, 2011, which they hoped would be approved during the PC9 meeting, and adopted as a common approach to the implementation of REDD by all delivery partners. The TF worked intensively for seven months to develop a consensus on the contents of the Common Approach, to decide on the Environmental and Social Safeguards for the implementation of REDD+ in the Pilot Countries by the Multiple Delivery Partners.
First, they focused on developing a common approach that was workable for the two DPs selected by the Pilot Countries. Representatives of the Inter-American Development Bank and the United Nations Development Programme have been actively and extensively engaged in all aspects of the TF deliberations. The Asian Development Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organization also provided background information ontheir safeguard policies and procedures. Also, the information on the current safeguard policies and procedures of both DPs was gathered and compared with the info provided by CSOs during a consultation to ensure that the safeguards were being implemented to their fullest extent. This information was all used as background information when comparing the DP safeguards to those of the World Bank, utilizing the Bank’s Operational Policies for identifying “gaps” between the two sets of safeguards.
The TF believes that the safeguards that they developed for the two DPs can be applied to all six DPs. Therefore, they have recommended to the Participants Committee a process for determining whether a potential DP can serve as a DP.
Read More
Common ApproachTask Force Conveyance Memo to PC9
Guidelines on Stakeholder Engagement
The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility and the UN-REDD Programme presented a draft of the a set of guidelines for stakeholders engaged in REDD+ Readiness. They discuss the key elements of effective stakeholder engagement with an emphasis on the participation of indigenous peoples and other forest-dependent communities. The document discusses three main elements: 1) principles for effective participation and consultation, 2) operational guidelines, and 3) practical how to guidance on planning and implementing consultations. Furthermore, these guidelines also reiterate the purposes and values of the REDD+ program and acknowledges the risks of the program if it is not handled properly.
See Document
Guidelines for Stakeholder Engagement in REDD ReadinessCSO Statement on Common Approach
Civil society organizations presented their statement on the Common Approach, a document that was issued at the PC9 meeting in June, 2011 in Oslo, Norway. The Common Approach is a guide for implementing Readiness grants that administered by the chosen multiple delivery partners in the approved pilot countries.
The CSO statement presses on the need for social and environmental safeguards in order for the REDD+ Strategy to be socially and environmentally sustainable. The organizations who participated in this statement agree that the Common Approach will serve as a guide for countries to prepare for REDD activities. They express their approval for the set of protections that were provided in the document.
They reiterate the importance of the effective on-the-ground implementation of highly protective safeguards, which, at this point in REDD activities, is more critical as five additional pilot countries have been authorized. They also state the need for a well-established and fully funded accountability mechanism. In the statement, they stress the need for the active and meaningful participation of civil society; that stakeholders are well informed and that their recommendations be fully taken into account. They mention that in previous consultation efforts were unsuccessful because the time frame did not allow for the meaningful participation of stakeholders. Nonwithstanding, the statement commends many of the efforts by the FCPF and they state their commitment to cooperating in outreaching to southern civil society.
Finally, these organizations address bilateral and multilateral financial institutions and prompt them to practice good governance by recommending that they adopt high common standards for the provision of social and environmental safeguards, transparency, and accountability
FENAMAD – Pronunciamiento – “Due to the lack of consensus over the text of the forest law consultation bill. We demand the return of the agrarian Commission for a debate at the new congress”
They do not agree with the fact that the report of the Free, Prior and Informed Consultation Process for Indigenous Peoples about the Forest and Wildlife Law has been considered concluded and consented. Therefore, express the following:
First: They reject the fact that the government desperately seeks to approve a law that does not have the consent of the indigenous peoples. They demand that the law guarantee territorial rights and is subject to the approval of a Previous Consultation Law.
Second: After having participated in consultations and some of their views have been incorporated but some of the main articles that have been brought to question by FENAMAD and Andean representatives have not gone through another round of consultation. They resent that only a small number of people were called for a consulation and say they hope that the Ombudsman is not agreeing with changes to consultations.
Third: They criticize that the President of the Agrarian Commission approved 90% of the accords without having called them for a consultation. Therefore, they deauthorize the use of the first, inconclusive round of consultations.
Therefore:
- They demand that the withdrawal of Bill Nº 4141/2009-PE, Forest and Wildlife Law, which the Agrarian Commission wants to consummate in its current format.
- Call congressmen to object to this bill and they request a return to the commission to construct a truly participative process, and a free, prior and informed consultation process of indigenous people in Peru.
- There is no guarantee that the inputs will be integrated into the dictate because it is already at the Plenary Agenda, but it is unknown what the President of the Commission will add.
- The legislative power has not coordinated with the regional government in Madre de Dios which is autonomous and has requested to Congress that they be given time to generate a process of consultation in line with the ILO 169 Convention. They have not received an answer, nevertheless the Madre de Dios government will conduct Regional Consultation Process on the 5th and 6th of July, 2011.
COICA and AIDESEP at Iquitos
During the National Workshop “Climate Crisis, REDD+, and Indigenous REDD” held from April 25-29, 2011, these two organizations released a declarations about REDD, titled “There is No REDD+ without Territory, Rights, and the Autonomy of Indigenous Peoples”.
The main areas of concern are:
Territories – Titling of almost 20 million ha of indigenous territories, as well as communal and territorial reserves.
Rights – Enactment of the previous consultation and consent legislative framework through which there is effective previous consultation and consent of indigenous peoples about forest and environmental laws that prevent new forest estates, respect indigenous territory already in possession, and that promote communal forest management. These three laws would be approved by the new elect congress.
Autonomy – Establishing Indigenous Mesas REDD+ based on local indigenous organizations. Not to sign a REDD+ contract yet unless it guarantees indigenous territorial and intellectual control.
They declare that the danger to the Amazon region has a lot to do with the changes in global climate due to the emission of polluting gases from industrialized countries, a situation which is worsened by deforestation and other impacts to forests and biodiversity. So they demand that nations with these heavily polluting nations change their way of life in order to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. They demand that the importance of the contribution of indigenous people to humanity by maintaining the planet for thousands of years be recognized.
They reject the carbon market as way to compensate for their continued pollution because the contracts used to pay indigenous people to reduce emissions only deepen the loss of control over ancestral territories, loss of ways of life and their rights. They believe it harms everyone to kill indigenous peoples’ way of life, therefore it is unacceptable to do so to seek after more business.
They believe that REDD+ could dangerously be driven toward a similar scenario of false solutions to the climate change problems, when the real problem of high levels of contamination will remain and the climate issue will not be resolved. They fear the strategy will become a venue for companies like Sustainable Carbon Resources Limited to enter Peru offering indigenous people money in order to gain control of forests and carbon, while dividing indigenous communities.
Therefore, they support the “Indigenous REDD+” initiative led by AIDESEP that adapts the strategy to the cultures, rights, and objectives of indigenous people and meets with the internationational laws that defend indigenous people, such as the ILO Convention 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
FCPF Participants Committee
The FCPF PC7 evaluated how the R-PP3 complies with the standards for the plan. The PC7 suggests that the plan of management needs clarification in terms of the roles, relationships and responsibilities of the managers. They also have concerns over ensuring the participation of stakeholders, including indigenous groups, so that consultations are not dominated by technical experts. They also mention that the private sector needs to be considered in order to apply appropriate methodologies and technologies to REDD+. Also, the group suggested that the R-PP needs to clarify how the results and feedback of consultations will be evaluated, in order to ensure an appropriate plan of implementing information. PC7 also says that Peru must make sure that it complies with its obligations with the ILO C169 in terms of the “Law of Previous Consultation”; to ensure the consultation and participation of indigenous groups in both the R-PP and REDD+ strategy.
They had concerns about land use, and forest policy and governance. They suggest strengthening the legal framework of indigenous land and territories by evaluating the responsibilities of the Ministry of the Environment (MINAM) as there could be a contradiction in forest governance policy; this ministry is both in charge of authorizing megaprojects and a member of the REDD+’s Coordination Agency(OCBR). Their comments give a lot of attention to the management of funds, suggesting the need for more clarity in regards to the roles and relationships between the donors and fund managers, as well as the role of different organizations in FIP,which is in charge of financially supporting the REDD+ strategy.
Grupo REDD
Grupo REDD has been very important in the R-PP process, especially in regards to their consultations. The government has requested their opinions and statements on the R-PP’s content and process of elaboration. MINAM has agreed with Grupo REDD that the group’s participation is imperative in the R-PP’s elaboration. Grupo REDD will also be involved in the REDD preparation process; they are planning changes to their organization in order to do so. Grupo REDD is composed of many organizations and they have agreed on the need for indigenous organizations to participate, and planning on asking AIDESEP about how they feel about this participation in the group.
The Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest (AIDESEP)
AIDESEP prepared a report of its analysis and suggestions about the R-PP3. Their analysis concentrates mostly on land tenure, the R-PP’s consultation process, and the participation of indigenous groups in a way that is fully consistent with ILO 169 and UNDRIP. In terms of territory, they want the demarcation and titling of hundreds of unrecognized territories as they believe that this is a historical social debt on the part of the state to indigenous peoples. They also believe that such action would prevent the increase of social conflicts that result over these territories. They also want to see this happen through the regional and local governments so that they titling process does not depend on state authorities that did not perform adequately. They also ask for safeguards by the consolidation and reorganization of territory with the same objective, to prevent social conflict over the land. This organization which represents many indigenous groups also asks that safeguards be implemented that defends their right to decide and control the process of culturally appropriate development.
Their concern with land tenure leads into their point about consultation. They ask that their requests be taken into account and incorporated into the plan so that meetings with indigenous groups are not be simply decorative. They also argue that indigenous communities be given the opportunity to manage the forests because they have the knowledge for doing so holistically and sustainably, using fewer resources and causing minimal impact. They want an improvement of the law of environmental services which they believe could use the inputs of different communities. . They constantly mention that they still feel that their inputs are not being properly incorporated into this important document.
AIDESEP will participate in a Panel Discussion on March 22, 2011 in Da Lat, Vietnam, speaking about how to safeguard the rights and participation of indigenous people and civil society in REDD.
Rights, Environment, and Natural Resources (DAR)
DAR suggests that the R-PP is deficient in three main areas which are consultation and participation of indigenous groups, the treatment of the drivers of deforestation, and the implementation of SESA (Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment), stating that both the process of elaboration and the contect of the R-PP are important.
DAR at PC7
DAR commented on second version of the R-PP at PC7 in Washington, DC. They commended MINAM for incorporating Grupo REDD’s suggestions into the R-PP, which were based on the opinions by TAP (FCPF Technical Advisory Panel), the World Bank, the Participants Committee, indigenous organizations, and different national and international NGOs. However, they stressed that there is still room for improvement of the plan, especially on the activities needed for the R-PP’s implementation phase. They also pointed out the deficiencies of the elaboration process on incorporating the opinions of the public and private sectors at the regional and local levels, focusing especially on the participation of indigenous communities. They mentioned that it is not clear how the economic benefits reach local and indigenous communities.
Global Witness
Global Witness expressed similar concerns about R-PP3, saying the document is still weak in its production process, stating that the consultation of stakeholders has been no more than an information provision. They mention that civil society had already communicated their concern over the matter last year, but no changes have been made. They also say that it should easier to track the changes made on the latest version of the R-PP so that NGOs and other organizations do not have to spend valuable time and resources finding the differences. In regards to consultations, they asked to clarify the participatory role of Grupo REDD, in terms of having a vote in the process, and how much their inputs are being incorporated into the R-PP. This organization is also concerned that the R-PP3 is not clear about ensuring “free, prior, and informed consent” from the necessary parties, especially indigenous groups and their territory. Global Witness also notes that the section about drivers of deforestation and degradation needs to be consolidated as it can be confusing. Also, they say the R-PP needs to properly explicate the monitoring of the benefits and impacts of forests other than carbon, and that it needs to include monitoring by independent Peruvian society in order to ensure integrity and transparency in the system. Finally, they say that the length of the document can make it confusing; that is needs to avoid too much repetitiveness.
Rainforest Foundation Norway (RFN)
The Rainforest Foundation Norway said that the R-PP process in Peru was fundamentally flawed and lacked transparency and credibility. They suggested the need to improve the lack of communication and trust between the government and indigenous groups and civil society in order to correct those problems. They also concentrate their criticisms on territory; they say that territorial legislation does not sufficiently take into account the government’s obligations with the ILO C169; that such weak handling of these issues only feeds into the lack of trust from their counterparts. Their comments also suggest that Peru needs to develop a credible plan with clearer guarantees for the proper consultation to indigenous peoples’ representatives and wider society. They also say that the current law of consultation is also not consistent with the ILO C169. They say that that Peru’s forest law needs to improve in regards to indigenous peoples, corruption, and other forest governance issues; it is still too weak and negative to be the foundation for the R-PP. Another concern is the difficulty behind tracking the changes made to the document which can be so subtle yet so important, making it hard to be reviewed.
Read the ReportDeclarations by COICA and AIDESEP in Iquitos, Peru (April 27, 2011) (PDF, 335KB)
Partners
DAR (Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales)AIDESEP (Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana)
COICA (Coordinadora de Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica)
Forest Carbon Partnership Facility
Guidelines for Stakeholder Engagement in REDD Readiness, (PDF, 776KB)AIDESEP’s Proposals for REDD+ Peru, Da Lat, Vietnam, March 2011 (English)
AIDESEP’s analysis of RPP, February 2011 (English)
AIDESEP’s analysis of RPP, February 2011 (Spanish)
Peru R-PP for PC-8 (March 2011)
Peru R-PP (English)Peru Draft R-PP for PC-7 (November 2010)
Peru Draft R-PP (Español)AIDESEP-Recomendaciones sobre R-PP (Sept. 2010)
AIDESEP Letter on R-PP
Peru Draft R-PP (September 2010)
Peru Draft R-PP (April 2010)
Peru Draft R-PP (PDF, 4.2MB) and Presentation (PDF, 430KB)TAP Synthesis Review (PDF, 535KB) and Presentation (PDF, 292KB)
PC Synthesis Review and Presentation (PDF, 57 KB)
Carta de AIDESEP / Letter from AIDESEP (June 22, 2010) (Español) (PDF, 1.5MB)
Respuesta del Banco Mundial a AIDESEP / World Bank Response to AIDESEP[/icon_link] (Español, English) (PDF, 68KB)
Comentarios de la Sociedad Civil sobre el R-PP de Perú / Civil Society Comments on Peru’s R-PP[/icon_link] (June 2010) (Español, English) (PDF, 1.5MB)
Peru R-PIN (June 2008)
R-PIN (PDF, 644KB)TAP Synthesis Review (Word Document, 178KB)
Forest Investment Program
Peru: Scoping Mission/FIP (January 2011)Pilot Country – Peru (FIP Website)