During its meeting on 9th June, the Guna General Congress in Panama took the historic decision to reject all REDD+ projects in the Gunayala territory. Alongside this rejection of all RED+ projects, the Congress took the specific decision to reject a proposed REDD+ pilot project in the region, after 2 years of public consultations.
For more information, click here to read the Congress’ resolution (only available in Spanish).
UN-REDD seeks to calm row with Panama indigenous body
LONDON (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – The United Nations’ scheme for preserving forests has said it will learn lessons from disagreements with indigenous forest communities in Panama, which have left the Central American nation’s programme in disarray.
The U.N.-backed initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (UN-REDD) launched an independent investigation and evaluation after the National Coordinating Body of Indigenous Peoples in Panama (COONAPIP) announced it would pull out of the programme in March.
The group accused the government and U.N. agencies of not including indigenous groups in decision making, nor offering enough funding to support their participation and gain legal security for their territories.
Two investigators – an anthropologist and a lawyer – carried out a fact-finding mission in Panama for two weeks starting in late May and will return for a second visit in July. They said in a preliminary report, seen by Thomson Reuters Foundation, that clear procedures had not been put in place to involve COONAPIP in consultation, dialogue and decision making, and funds of only around $300,000 were offered to help the group, compared with the $1.78 million requested for its activities.
“All this has resulted in a situation where the dialogue has failed both institutionally and personally, and apparently there is no confidence in the good faith of the parties involved,” the report said.
Relations between COONAPIP, UN-REDD and the Panama government were harmonious when the three-year, $5.3 million programme was launched at the beginning of 2011, but they subsequently deteriorated to the point where the indigenous body withdrew this year, causing new activities to be suspended, according to the report.
The Panama REDD programme is being implemented by the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation and the United Nations Environment Programme, together with the Panama National Environment Authority. In 2000, Panama had almost 45 percent forest cover, down from about 70 percent in 1947, according to UN-REDD. Losses to logging, ranching and infrastructure development highlighted the need to conserve forests, it said.
Betanio Chiquidama, COONAPIP president and chief of a reserve that is home to more than 33,000 people in the east of the country, said the report demonstrated that “UN-REDD is a programme with problems, and that it has been rejected with reason by indigenous peoples”.
“(The report) makes clear that in the future there must be a system in place that allows for the comprehensive, effective and meaningful participation of indigenous peoples, in accordance with the rules and laws that protect our rights,” he said in a statement released at the weekend.
“More than half the country’s forests are on the lands of indigenous people in Panama. How can an effective plan to save these forests be negotiated if the indigenous leaders are not at the table?” he added.
On a more positive note, the report indicates that COONAPIP would be willing to restart dialogue with UN-REDD if certain conditions are met, and calls on the U.N. Resident Coordinator in Panama to convene a high-level meeting between the two sides to explore how they can better collaborate in the future.
‘THINGS MAY HAVE GONE WRONG’
Mario Boccucci, head of the Geneva-based secretariat for the UN-REDD Programme, said he could not comment on the report’s specific findings as he had not yet seen it, and the investigation was ongoing. The report is due to be presented to the UN-REDD policy board in late June.
But Boccucci said his office had taken “very seriously” the issues raised by COONAPIP, and wanted to ensure “a proper and thorough investigation of what has happened”, as well as a mid-term evaluation of the programme.
“We want to really understand what worked and what did not work, then find a way to ensure that the programme fully delivers on its commitments,” Boccucci told Thomson Reuters Foundation. “We will build on (the investigation’s) recommendations and the lessons that have been learned, and apply them in Panama and everything else we do in every other country.”
UN-REDD was not “discounting the fact that things may have gone wrong, may go wrong, will go wrong in the future, but it’s important that we have really totally committed to learn and see what went wrong so that we can find a way to better deliver,” he added.
Chiquidama said COONAPIP respected “UN-REDD’s speedy response to our call for help”.
“We have great hope that the agency will act on the results of the investigation,” he added.
Boccucci described the REDD+ programme and its activities in forest-rich countries as an experiment in sustainable development, where economic growth must be accompanied by social and environmental benefits. And he emphasised the initiative’s commitment to bringing such benefits to the indigenous communities who manage many forests on a day-to-day basis.
“The UN-REDD programme is based on and adheres to a human rights-based approach and is committed to promoting the rights of indigenous peoples,” Boccucci said.
TEST OF U.N. RIGHTS DECLARATION?
COONAPIP believes its complaint against Panama’s REDD programme marks the first major test of a key provision in the 2007 U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, under which they have the right to refuse projects and investments affecting their natural resources.
COONAPIP said the programme had so far excluded them from full participation in planning activities in Panama, and failed to guarantee their rights would be respected.
The investigation team’s report noted, however, that the programme had not had a “significant negative impact” on indigenous people’s collective or individual rights, as no legislative or administrative measures had yet been adopted. But it had added to the pressures on indigenous peoples and their resources in an already difficult environment, the document said.
Susan Kandel of the Salvadoran Programme for Research on Development and Environment (PRISMA), which has recently completed a study on the impact of REDD+ in Panama, said its findings echoed those of the U.N.-appointed investigators.
“Our research suggests that despite the development of laudable principles for safeguarding the rights of indigenous people and forest communities in the UN-REDD Programme, there are very few concrete measures that have been put into place that would ensure that these safeguards would actually be respected,” she said. “The absence of such measures turned out to be critical in Panama, and we hope that this experience can help REDD processes correct this critical flaw.”
New York City, New York – “The United Nations is violating Indigenous Peoples rights” denounced Indigenous Peoples attending the 12th session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) in New York, which concluded yesterday. In particular, indigenous leaders condemned UN-REDD for violating their right to free, prior, informed consent, a fundamental principle enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest degradation) is a carbon market offset mechanism whereby industrialized countries and corporations use forests, plantations and land as sponges for their pollution instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions at source.
“UN-REDD is violating the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” stated Chief Betanio Chiquidama, President of the National Coordinating Body of Indigenous Peoples of Panama (COONAPIP). The traditional authorities of the COONAPIP collectively withdrew from UN-REDD on February 25, 2013. A delegation of COONAPIP meet with the UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya at UN headquarters during the Permanent Forum to denounce abuses committed by UN-REDD.
“We call upon all the Indigenous Peoples of the world to proceed with caution and to take the necessary measures to avoid being tricked by United Nations bodies and officials, who have the legal obligation to comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” states the COONAPIP resolution on UN-REDD, which COONAPIP delivered to the Special Rapporteur.
According to Hector Huertas, legal counsel of COONAPIP, “UN officials and the Panamanian government are dividing indigenous communities with money from the Programme to force supposed consultations. This unethical and reprehensible procedure prompted COONAPIP to stop participating in a process whose objective is to privatize the forests of Panama in violation of the Panamanian constitution and laws, and allows the State to cash in on carbon credits in utter contempt for the rights of Indigenous Peoples.”
But the Indigenous Peoples of Panama are not the only ones whose rights are being violated by UN-REDD. According to a preliminary survey by Carbon Trade Watch, of the sixteen countries with UN-REDD National Programmes, at least ten countries have violated the right to free, prior and informed consent and the right to participation of civil society and Indigenous Peoples in processes related to REDD. Other countries where these rights have been violated include Indonesia, Ecuador, Paraguay and the Democratic Republic of Congo where civil society groups have suspended engagement with the National REDD Coordination Process.
In addition to the rights to participation and consent, a host of other rights enshrined by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and other international and national human rights instruments are being violated as well. Of the 46 articles of the UN Declaration, more than 15 including the right to self-determination may be violated by carbon credit projects. Human rights organizations like Survival International are concerned about the growing number of abuses from carbon offset projects and REDD-type initiatives.
For this reason, in 2012, indigenous organizations requested that the UNPFII study the adverse impacts on Indigenous People’s rights of REDD-type projects and policies. However, during the 12th session, the Indigenous leaders were dismayed that the UNPFII’s report on “Indigenous People’s Rights and Safeguards in Projects related to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+)” characterizes carbon market REDD as an “opportunity” for Indigenous Peoples.
The International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change, the Indigenous Peoples’ caucus, has consistently and categorically rejected carbon market REDD, as all its statements to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change demonstrate.
“The report is misleadingly optimistic about the so-called “opportunities”of REDD-plus projects for enhancing indigenous rights and interests and demonstrates a pro-REDD bias. There is no real evidence that there will ever be legally binding REDD safeguards that guarantee the prevention of human right abuses,” says Tom Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environmental Network who also attended the UNPFII. “There is no safe REDD. There is no human rights REDD. The UN itself recognizes that REDD can “lock-up” forests. REDD-type projects are already taking over indigenous customary and traditional lands. For emerging REDD-readiness initiatives, our analysis says there can be no pro-indigenous REDD.”
Dr. Blessing Karumbidza of the Ngorima Chieftaincy, from the Shangani branch of the Nguni communities of Southern Africa is also skeptical about the efficacy of REDD both as a climate change solution as well as its professed contribution to development. “Evidence from exchange visits and research through the Timberwatch NGO Coalition based in South Africa, with Indigenous Peoples such as the Masaai in Kenya and Tanzania have shown beyond a doubt that these projects have negative social, economic and environmental impacts, ” says Dr. Karumbidza.
Meanwhile, “In the United States, the State of California is on the verge of implementing a global REDD program that lets climate criminals like Chevron and Shell off the hook by using the forests of Mexico and Brazil as sponges for their greenhouse gases and toxic pollution. This is an international human rights issue,” according to Alberto Saldamando, a veteran human rights lawyer.
“REDD allows polluters to continue to dump toxics on people-of-color and low income communities in California causing sicknesses such as asthma and cancer, and has fueled social conflict in Chiapas, Mexico. The provisions of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the principle of free, prior and informed consent are already being violated in these emerging REDD initiatives as well. The UN should be protecting the health, human rights and the well-being of all our brothers and sisters of the forested regions of the South and local communities in the North, but they aren’t and this is wrong,” Saldamando said.
Of the sixteen countries with UN-REDD National Programmes, at least ten countries have violated the right to free, prior and informed consent and the right to participation of civil society and Indigenous Peoples in processes related to REDD.
BOLETIN DE PRENSA: 1 de junio 2013
ONU viola los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas:
ONU-REDD viola el derecho al consentimiento libre, previo e informado
Contacto: Tom Goldtooth (218) 760-0442 ien@igc.org
“Las Naciones Unidas está violando los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas”, denunció los pueblos indígenas que asistieron a la 12ª sesión del Foro Permanente de las Naciones Unidas para las Cuestiones Indígenas (UNPFII) en Nueva York, que concluyó ayer. En particular, los líderes indígenas condenaron ONU-REDD que viola su derecho al consentimiento libre, previo e informado, un principio fundamental consagrado en la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas.
REDD (Reducción de Emisiones por Deforestación y Degradación Forestal) es un mecanismo de compensaciones del mercado de carbono mediante el cual los países industrializados y las empresas utilizan los bosques, las plantaciones y la tierra como esponjas por su contaminación en lugar de reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero en el lugar donde se origen.
“ONU-REDD está violando la Declaración de la ONU sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas”, declaró el Jefe Betanio Chiquidama, Presidente de la Coordinadora Nacional de Pueblos Indígenas de Panamá (COONAPIP). Las autoridades tradicionales de la COONAPIP retiraron colectivamente de ONU-REDD, el 25 de febrero de 2013. Una delegación de COONAPIP se reunió con el Relator Especial de la ONU sobre Pueblos Indígenas, James Anaya en la sede de la ONU durante el Foro Permanente para denunciar los abusos cometidos por ONU-REDD.
“Hacemos un llamado a todos los pueblos indígenas del mundo para proceder con precaución y tomar las medidas necesarias para evitar ser engañados por los órganos y funcionarios de las Naciones Unidas, que tienen la obligación legal de cumplir con la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas “, afirma la resolución sobre ONU-REDD, que COONAPIP entregó al Relator Especial.
Según Héctor Huertas, abogado de COONAPIP, “funcionarios de la ONU y el gobierno panameño dividen comunidades indígenas con dinero del Programa para forzar supuestas consultas. Este procedimiento inmoral y reprobable llevó a la COONAPIP a dejar de participar en un proceso que tiene como objetivo la privatización de los bosques de Panamá, en violación de la constitución y las leyes de Panamá, y que permite que el Estado saque ganancias con los créditos de carbono en un total desprecio por los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas. ”
Sin embargo, los pueblos indígenas de Panamá no son los únicos cuyos derechos están siendo violados por el ONU-REDD. De acuerdo con una encuesta preliminar de Carbon Trade Watch, de los dieciséis países con programas nacionales de ONU-REDD, por lo menos diez países han violado el derecho de consentimiento libre, previo e informado y el derecho a la participación de la sociedad civil y los pueblos indígenas en procesos relacionados con REDD. Otros países donde se han violado estos derechos incluyen Indonesia, Ecuador, Paraguay y la República Democrática del Congo donde grupos de la sociedad civil han suspendido su participación con el Proceso de Coordinación Nacional REDD.
Además de los derechos a la participación y el consentimiento, una serie de otros derechos consagrados en la Declaración de la ONU sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas y otros instrumentos internacionales y nacionales de derechos humanos están siendo violados también. De los 46 artículos de la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas, más de 15, incluido el derecho a la autodeterminación puede resultar violado por los proyectos de créditos de carbono. Organizaciones de derechos humanos como Survival International están preocupadas por el creciente número de abusos por parte de los proyectos de compensación de carbono e iniciativas tipo REDD.
Por esta razón, en 2012, las organizaciones indígenas solicitaron que el UNPFII estudiara los impactos negativos sobre los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas de proyectos y políticas tipo REDD. Sin embargo, durante la 12ª sesión, los dirigentes indígenas se consternaron a comprobar que el informe del Foro Permanente sobre “Derechos y salvaguardas de los pueblos indígenas en los proyectos relacionados con la Reducción de Emisiones por Deforestación y Degradación Forestal (REDD +)” caracteriza el mercado de carbono REDD como una “oportunidad” para los pueblos indígenas.
El Foro Internacional de Pueblos Indígenas sobre el Cambio Climático, el conclave de los Pueblos Indígenas, ha rechazado sistemáticamente y categóricamente REDD del mercado de carbono, como todas sus declaraciones a la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático demuestran.
“El informe es engañosamente optimista acerca de las llamadas” oportunidades” para que los proyectos de REDD-plus mejoren los derechos e intereses indígenas y demuestra un sesgo pro-REDD. No hay evidencia real de que habrán salvaguardias jurídicamente vinculantes para REDD que garanticen la prevención de los abusos de los derechos humanos “, dice Tom Goldtooth de la Red Ambiental Indígena, que también asistió al Foro Permanente. “No hay REDD seguro. No hay REDD con un enfoque de derechos humanos. La propia ONU reconoce que REDD pueda resultar en la “clausura” de los bosques. Proyectos tipo REDD ya se están despojando tierras ancestrales y tradicionales indígenas. En el caso de las nuevas iniciativas de REDD, nuestro análisis indica que no puede haber REDD pro-indígena”.
Dr. Blessing Karumbidza de la Jefatura Ngorima, de los Shangani de las comunidades Nguni de Sudáfrica también se muestra escéptico sobre la eficacia de REDD, tanto como una solución al cambio climático, así como una supuesta contribución al desarrollo. “La evidencia de intercambios e investigación de la Coalición de ONGs Timberwatch con sede en Sudáfrica, con los Pueblos Indígenas, como el Pueblo Masai de Kenia y Tanzania han demostrado más allá de toda duda de que estos proyectos tienen impactos sociales, económicos y ambientales negativos”, dice el Dr. Karumbidza.
Mientras tanto, “En Estados Unidos, el Estado de California está a punto de implementar un programa mundial REDD que permite a los criminales climáticos como Chevron-Texaco y Shell esquivar su responsabilidad [de reducir emisiones] mediante el uso de los bosques de México y Brasil como esponjas de sus gases de efecto invernadero y la contaminación tóxica . Este es un problema internacional de derechos humanos “, según Alberto Saldamando, un veterano abogado de derechos humanos. .
“REDD permite que los contaminadores siguán vertiendo sustancias tóxicas en las comunidades de afros y latinos, y ha agudizado conflictos sociales en Chiapas, México. Las disposiciones de la Declaración de la ONU sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas y el principio del consentimiento libre, previo e informado ya están siendo violados en estas iniciativas emergentes de REDD. La ONU debería proteger la salud, los derechos humanos y el bienestar de todos nuestros hermanos y hermanas de las regiones boscosas del Sur, así como de las comunidades locales en el Norte, pero la ONU no lo está haciendo, y esto es malo “, dijo Saldamando.
De los dieciséis países con programas nacionales de ONU-REDD, por lo menos diez países han violado el derecho de consentimiento libre, previo e informado y el derecho a la participación de la sociedad civil y los pueblos indígenas en procesos relacionados con REDD.
During its meeting on 9th June, the Guna General Congress in Panama took the historic decision to reject all REDD+ projects in the Gunayala territory. Alongside this rejection of all RED+ projects, the Congress took the specific decision to reject a proposed REDD+ pilot project in the region, after 2 years of public consultations.
