Panama Country Case Study
August 2006
Anne Larson
Panama Country Case Study
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................. 3
Status of forest ownership and tenure in the country .................................................. 4
Official distribution of forest tenure .................................................................................. 4
Differences between FRA data, the data included in “Who Owns,” and the data we find in our current
search, and why ........................................................................................................ 6
Gendered effects of tenure status. .................................................................................. 6
Key elements of the policy and regulatory framework regulating indigenous and other local community
tenure/forestry rights ................................................................................................... 7
Motives, extent, level and scale of decentralization or devolution of rights ................................... 7
Scale of forest sector decentralization or devolution with respect to particular forest assets .............. 8
Initiatives recently completed, underway or proposed to reform tenure ....................................... 8
Impacts of tenure reform................................................................................... 9
Forests and poverty in the country ...................................................................... 10
Existing data or inferential information regarding poverty and forests ........................................ 10
Key government initiatives or programs to reduce poverty in forest areas................................... 11
Key community or local civil society proposals and/or initiatives to reduce poverty ........................ 12
RRI Partner initiatives if any ......................................................................................... 12
Impacts of policy reforms and projects.................................................................. 13
Key threats to local rights and livelihoods .............................................................. 13
Key opportunities to advance RRI Tenure and Poverty Goals....................................... 13
References ................................................................................................. 15
In 2005, founding members of the Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) coalition agreed to undertake a scoping program to assess
and understand the realities, challenges and opportunities in tropical forest countries around the world. The program, called the RRI
Listening, Learning and Sharing Launch (LLSL), was designed as a series of consultations and conversations that could serve as an
“ear to the ground” to understand the concerns and goals of community organizations, civil society organizations, and governments.
The goal was to bring these voices and experiences to help shape the global and regional priorities for RRI. LLSL was organized
around the three key regions in which RRI is engaged – Africa, Asia and Latin America. In a series of scoping studies and
participatory consultations, RRI Partners identified key trends, issues and opportunities in policy, tenure and livelihoods in forest
areas.
The dialogues, workshops, background papers and synthesis reports prepared as part of the LLSL inform RRI strategy and planning
in each region and created new and stronger links between RRI Partners and local civil society organizations. A selection of the
synthesis reports and background papers are publicly available on the RRI website at www.rightsandresources.org.
This report was completed as a part of the Listening, Learning and Sharing Launch program. The ideas and information presented
here are those of the authors and are not necessarily shared by Rights and Resources Initiative or the Partners in the RRI coalition.
2
Panama Country Case Study
Introduction
Panama is the southernmost country in Central America and has a total land area of 75,520 km2 (FAO
2004). Its total population was 3.2 million in 2004, with a GDP of $13.7 billion (World Bank 2006a). It is
bounded on the north by the Caribbean, on the east by Colombia, on the south by the Pacific Ocean and
on the west by Costa Rica. A central mountain range runs through the country from west to east,
dropping to sea level on both sides of the Panama canal; western elevations rise to 3,000 m, whereas
elevations to the east of the canal are lower, reaching only 1,000 m. The northern Caribbean coast is
wetter than the Pacific and is the location of the majority of the country’s tropical forests.
The forest
roundwood
imports. In
371 joinery
industry is small, accounting for only 0.5% of GDP in 2000 (Lebedys 2004). In 2002,
production totaled 73,000 m3, with raw material coming mainly from natural forests and
1999 the timber industry was essentially comprised of 31 sawmills, 3 plywood factories and
and general carpentry workshops (FAO n.d.).
Panama’s economy has depended on the Panama Canal and the service sector for many years, with
services occupying 74-79% of GDP from 2002-2004 (World Bank 2006). Investments or even
development plans for rural production or for rural areas in general have been largely neglected. The
development of the first national forest strategy has been under negotiation since 2003.
At the same time, Panama is among the most advanced Latin American countries in terms of the land
tenure rights of its indigenous populations. Five autonomous indigenous comarcas have been recognized,
each with its own law. Nevertheless, in spite of high average income levels and an HDI rank much higher
than the other Central American countries in this study (see World Bank 2006b, UNDP 2006), rural
poverty levels are high and are particularly associated with remote and indigenous areas. New efforts
have been made in the past decade to address rural land tenure and poverty issues, and to protect the
country’s important forest cover. These efforts appear to have been primarily conservation oriented,
though some current initiatives are beginning to place greater emphasis on sustainable resource use.
The priority of national development policies, however, is on privatization and attracting foreign
investment. This includes the recent passage of a coastal lands law that could grant 90-year leases on
public lands and permit substantial development of coastal and island areas. It is being vigorously
opposed by environmental and other groups. Mining concessions also pose an on-going threat to
indigenous and other rural lands.
3
Panama Country Case Study
Map 1 - Forest cover, Panama
(Source: FAO n.d.)
Status of forest ownership and tenure in the country
Official distribution of forest tenure
FAO (2006) states that Panama has 4.3 million hectares in forests, with 90.4% on private land and only
9.6% on public land. This includes over 3.3 million hectares of mature natural forests and almost one
million of fragmented forests (FAO n.d.). Mature natural forest covers 45% of land area, and total forest
cover is 58%. Forest plantations account for 40,000 hectares; average annual deforestation between
1990 and 2000 is estimated at 52,000 ha (FAO n.d.). More than 25% of the country’s land area is
designated as protected areas. Just 10% of natural forests have been designated as production forests
and 47% as protection forests; most of the rest has not been classified (FAO 2006).
4
Panama Country Case Study
Interestingly, the 1994 Forestry Law states that state forest patrimony includes all natural forests, the
soils upon which these forests are located, state lands with preferential aptitude for forestry and
plantations established by the state on state lands. Nevertheless, under certain conditions state forest
lands can be titled, and regulations for forest management clearly recognize private property rights to
forests.
In addition to the 10 provinces of Panama, the country also has several indigenous comarcas totaling
20% of the national territory. The indigenous population, representing seven well-defined indigenous
groups, comprises 10% of the Panamanian population. In descending order by population, these include:
Ngabes (60%), Kunas (21.6%), Emberá, Buglé or Bokata, Wounaan, Nasos (Teribes or Tlorios) and BriBri (Moreno 2005).
As of 2000, there were five comarcas: three comarcas of the Kuna plus Embera-Wounaan in the East (all
four in Darién), and Ngabe-Bugle in the West. About half of the indigenous population is located inside
the comarcas. The first comarca , which existed prior to the Panamanian state, was Kuna Yala, which was
recognized by Panama in 1938 and became the model for the others. Other possible comarcas are under
discussion, such as Naso-Teribe in Bocas del Toro in the West, and Takarkunyala in another Kuna area
(luventicus 2003).
The Panamanian 1972 Constitution declared, for the first time, that “indigenous lands must be given as
property,” rather than through usufruct agreement. “Using this disposition, the Legislative Assembly has
recognized indigenous lands through a special law for each indigenous group, in which the legal figure of
the comarca or collective landholding is created… Each is governed by an executive decree, which gives
the indigenous group wide latitude for administering its lands, under the general rules established in the
legislative act creating that comarca.” In spite of its “superior legal framework” for indigenous land
tenure, Panama has not signed ILO Convention 169. “Nevertheless, its model of land regularization and
indigenous rights is recognized as innovative and effective, respectful of indigenous autonomy and
supportive of community initiative” (Roldán Ortiga 2004).
There is no specific law regarding indigenous rights to natural resources, however. Though some authors
argue that these appear to “have been recognized without great controversy” (Roldán Ortiga 2004, see
also Moreno 2005), subsoil rights have clearly continued to remain centralized and have generated
significant controversy with regard to mining concessions, and current discussions regarding a national
forest strategy might raise new issues as well. These concerns suggest that overlapping tenure regimes
present a serious risk to tenure security for indigenous peoples in Panama, as they do in other countries.
An important part of the nation’s forest is located inside the comarcas. Data from San Blas (it is unclear if
this refers to all three Kuna comarcas or only one), Emberá Wounaan and Ngobe Buglé show that 27% of
the mature natural forest is located in these three areas (PROARCA/UICN 2005). There are also
numerous rural communities that are not inside the comarcas (for example, there are currently 45
Emberá Wounaan communities outside of the demarcated comarca area and who do not have land titles,
Moreno 2005), as well as those that are not indigenous. These communities have largely been neglected
in national policy (Arancibia, interview).
5
Panama Country Case Study
Map 2 - Indigenous populations and comarcas in Panama
Source: Moreno (2005)
Forest colonization, for agriculture and ranching, and for land speculation particularly in relation to road
construction, is seen as the primary cause of deforestation (World Bank 2000), though other sources
point out the importance of large scale investments such as mining and hydroelectric facilities (Arias
Garcia 2004). Of 15 national parks, 13 have people living inside them, with as many as 1,500 in some
(Moreno 2005). The demarcation of existing comarcas and creation of additional pending ones is seen as
an important way to protect both indigenous lands and forests (World Bank 2000).
Differences between FRA data, the data included in “Who Owns,” and
the data we find in our current search, and why
Panama is not included in the White and Martin (2002) study. The FAO data regarding forest tenure is
somewhat surprising given the overall lack of clear tenure and the government’s claim to ownership of all
forests, regardless of land tenure. It also fails to take into account collective tenure within the comarcas,
which is presumably classified under private property. The data above suggested that 27% of forests are
located in the comarcas alone. Additional forests are in the hands of indigenous people and communities
who live outside of these.
Gendered effects of tenure status.
There are clear disparities by gender with regard to land titling, though there is no legal limitation to
women’s access to tenure regularization. Of 7,556 titles issues from 1988 to 1993, only 28% were to
6
Panama Country Case Study
women, and of the total area titled (almost 66,000 hectares), only 20% went to women. The main
impact of social and agrarian policies on women is “defined by omission” (World Bank 2000).
Key elements of the policy and regulatory framework regulating
indigenous and other local community tenure/forestry rights
The two most important aspects of the forestry regulatory framework refer to reforestation and to
logging. A Reforestation Incentives Law was passed in 1992 that provides numerous tax breaks as well as
other benefits for reforestation. Though it states that it is aimed at enterprises, associations, communal
organizations and cooperatives, it does not actually create any incentives that would apply to the three
latter groups. The law even offers immigrant visas to foreign investors who reforest. There are important
problems with the legislation that facilitate fiscal evasion, exaggeration of costs and the failure to
maintain the plantation over time. Notably, five out of Panama’s six forests certified by the Forest
Stewardship Council are private plantations, and the sixth is partially a plantation and part natural forest
(PROARCA/UICN 2005).
Panama’s first Forestry Law was passed in 1994 (Law No. 1). All logging must be approved by the
Institute of Renewable Natural Resources (INRENARE) except on plantations planted on private lands.
Logging in natural forests on private lands requires a forest inventory, management plan and the marking
of the trees to be cut. Logging on state lands requires, in addition, an environmental impact assessment.
Permits can be given for domestic or subsistence logging “with proof of a lack of economic resources”;
for logging on state plantations by contract; or by concession. Logging on sites larger than 5,000
hectares is subject to public bidding. On sites less than 5,000 hectares, the person soliciting the
concession must publish his or her intentions for three consecutive days in a national newspaper so that
any conflicting claims on the area in question can be addressed. If any of the area overlaps with an
indigenous comarca, authorization by the comarca authority is required (Arts. 26-32).
Permits and concessions for logging on indigenous comarcas and reserves are authorized by IRENARE
together with their respective Congress, after a “scientific management plan study” (Art. 44).
Nevertheless, “there are virtually no incentives or special programs that promote or facilitate the
management of natural forests.” There is no credit available for natural forest management from state or
private banks, only for reforestation. The result is “natural decapitalization and inefficiency”
(PROARCA/UICN 2005). The other apparent result is the widespread use of subsistence permits for the
sale of trees to logging companies and their intermediaries, especially in the eastern province of Darién
and the indigenous comarcas there (Arancibia interview).
Though permits and concessions do not give the concessionaire any rights over the property on which
the forest is located, they do confer all legal rights to prevent the intrusion of third parties onto the land
(Art. 33). This is also true of the reforestation law.
With regard to land and forest tenure, the Forestry Law declares that the State Forest Patrimony is
inalienable. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to this, where “agricultural activities are being developed
or other activities aimed at the well-being of the population”; in this case the National Directorate of
Agrarian Reform is in charge of working out an agreement with the Institute of Renewable Natural
Resources (INRENARE) (Art. 12).
Motives, extent, level and scale of decentralization or devolution of
rights
Panama’s government is highly centralized. There is no law, policy or administrative apparatus for
decentralization. Municipal autonomy is not recognized as it is throughout the rest of Central America,
7
Panama Country Case Study
with the law defining functions for municipal officers but not municipal governments. Mayors are directly
elected, but the Constitution still allows for appointed mayors. National statutes do not specify municipal
government responsibilities, leaving broad room for confusion and ad hoc negotiations. Numerous
ministries do the work normally assigned to municipal governments in other countries. Budget control by
the Controller General prevents financial autonomy. There is no law for government transfers to
municipalities, and the actual amount transferred from 1995 to 2002 averaged only 0.2% of the national
budget, the lowest in Central America. Nor do Panamanian municipalities collect much in local taxes and
fees. In spite of some participatory mechanisms that exist by law (though fewer than in most of Central
America), “effective citizen participation in local governance has not really started to occur, mainly
because the government is still highly centralized and citizens are more accustomed to operating in an
authoritarian political environment.” For example, all of the other Central American countries have begun
to experiment with participatory local development planning (AID 2004).
Scale of forest sector decentralization or devolution with respect to
particular forest assets
Forest management in Panama is at best deconcentrated. ANAM has 12 regional environment
administrations to attend to the regional and local levels. All of these offices correspond to provinces,
except for the province of Panama, which has three subdivisions. The Indigenous San Blas comarca also
comprises a regional unit. These regional offices are in charge of directing and coordinating the
application of environmental policies, plans and actions; they also coordinate with other government
institutions, agencies, municipalities and comarcas for regional and local activities regarding resource and
environmental protection and conservation (FAO n.d.).
Initiatives recently completed, underway or proposed to reform
tenure
Government
Land tenure is highly skewed in Panama, with a Gini coefficient estimated at .87 in 1990 and .77 in 1997
(World Bank 1999). About 70% of rural producers do not have title to their lands, though several forms
of property rights are recognized, including the legal status of “possession.” With the support of the
World Bank, the government is undertaking a Land Administration Project (PRONAT) aimed at “titling,
cadastre and registry of rural and urban lands; land claim adjudication and conflict resolution; land policy
reforms (including legal and regulatory changes); demarcation and consolidation of existing protected
areas within the project’s area of influence; establishment and demarcation of several indigenous
territories (comarcas); and institutional strengthening and capacity building” (World Bank 2000). In 2005,
the project had handed out 12,500 titles as of October (PRONAT 2005). The project was being
restructured and reduced in scale in 2006 due to “significant implementation delays and bottlenecks”
(World Bank 2006).
A new Coasts Law was passed in 2006 (Law No. 2), which grants state coastal areas and islands in
concession for up to 90 years and is aimed at attracting foreign investment for large-scale tourism
projects. The Law makes exemptions to environmental laws for tourism projects. It would allow the
development of up to half of the area of islands, as long as this is outside of protected areas.
Environmental groups announced that they would challenge its constitutionality (almanaque azul 2006).
A national forest strategy has been under discussion since 2003. Though this strategy is not aimed at
altering land tenure, it is aimed at developing a forestry strategy that would improve both conservation
and forest management in Panama – a sector that has never been taken seriously in spite of the
8
Panama Country Case Study
importance of forest cover in the country (as well as the ecological importance of forest cover for the
protection of the canal from sedimentation). There is concern regarding the capacity of smallholders and
communities to manage forests, due to bad past experiences with cooperatives after the expropriation of
the banana companies. Given that forests are legally the property of the state, the “appropriate” way to
manage those forests is under discussion. For example, it is possible that even in the comarcas,
communities would be required to request a concession. This is all currently under debate (Arancibia
interview).
Local civil society movements or initiatives
Indigenous organizations are lobbying for the formation of at least two additional comarcas, and the 68
Kuna communities have demonstrated interest in uniting their three territories into one (luventicus, n.d.).
Indigenous groups have tended to work separately in Panama; there is no effective pan-Indian
organization (Howe 2002).
RRI Partner initiatives
None known.
Impacts of tenure reform
•
In 1993-95, several organizations came together in a participatory research mapping project “to
document the subsistence lands used by the indigenous populations of the Darién Province,
eastern Panama. The region is the historic territory of the Kuna, Emberá, and Wounaan peoples,
with a biosphere reserve, two indigenous comarca homelands, and one of the most active
colonization fronts in Central America. Having fought for recognition of their land rights in the
face of encroaching outsiders, indigenous leaders were well aware of the power and importance
of cartographic information.” Until then, “the Darién was the most inaccurately mapped province
in the country, and indigenous leaders embraced the idea of a mapping project to document their
expanding settlements and natural resources. Community representatives were trained to
complete land-use assessments using questionnaires and sketch maps. They worked with a team
of specialists … to transform this information into standard cartographic and demographic results.
The project’s simple design brought outstanding results, including the first large-scale mapping of
indigenous lands in this little-known region” (Herlihy 2003).
The project “documented the spatial extent of natural resource use,” and “authenticated
indigenous toponymy.” It also had less tangible results in terms of empowerment. Project
participants learned how to develop maps, and the project reaffirmed indigenous identity and
“brought land and natural resource management issues to the attention of villagers in even the
most remote corners of the province” (Herlihy 2003).
•
The way in which the legal framework recognizes indigenous tenure in Panama is very important
in determining the degree of security and authority that indigenous people exercise over the land
and natural resources there. Tenure security is very high because each comarca is created by its
own law. Though there is no clear definition of territory or of natural resource rights, the
comarcas function in practice as territories and the communities there have had wide power to
administer and use the natural resources on their lands. The comarcas are recognized as political
and administrative entities, and indigenous groups have wide powers to administer their own
affairs according to customary law. Comarca authorities are public servants who can initiate
judicial actions if legal recourse is required (Roldán Ortiga 2004).
9
Panama Country Case Study
•
Only one comarca law explicitly mentions natural resource rights – the Emberá-Wounaan
comarca. The law states that subsoil rights are the collective property of the communities, and
any contracts will include their participation in negotiation and profits; the law establishes
community rights ranging from 40% to 80% of the benefits based on the type of mineral.
Nevertheless, the Constitutional provision stating that mineral rights are under the authority of
the state would take precedence over the comarca law (Tresierra 1999).
Forests and poverty in the country
Poverty and well-being can be measured and interpreted in numerous ways. Most of the information
rapidly available is from the World Bank or has been generated using the World Bank’s methodology,
which uses income as the primary poverty indicator. This is a very limited view of poverty, and is far from
taking into account the perspectives of communities themselves. Many indigenous groups in particular
find it insulting to be classified as poor and emphasize the ways in which their lives are richer than those
without their culture and spiritual values. This should be taken into account for future research and action
and while reading the rest of this section, which is based on data available using primarily World Bank
measures.
Existing data or inferential information regarding poverty and forests
In spite of Panama’s fairly high income per capita, 37% of the country is classified as poor and 19% as
extremely poor. One half of all Panamanian children are poor. This poverty is concentrated in rural areas,
where 44% of the population lives (Earth Trends 2003): 65% of the rural population is poor and 39% is
extremely poor. Curiously, female-headed households are not associated with a higher incidence of
poverty in Panama (World Bank 1999).
There is no specific data regarding poverty in forested areas, though an in-depth poverty study provides
data on poverty by corregimiento (district) in the entire country (Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas
2005), and with time it would be possible to compare this with a detailed forest cover map.1 (The way in
which poverty data is grouped does not correspond with the way in which readily available forest cover
data is grouped, except with regard to indigenous areas.)
The Panama poverty assessment (World Bank 1999) found that poverty rates are highest in San Blas,
Darien, Bocas del Toro, Cocle, and Chiriqui, and lowest in the Provinces of Panama and Colón, though
these two latter provinces still have one third of Panama’s poor. Within each region, poverty rates are
highest in the rural, indigenous and remote areas and lowest in urban districts. Comparison with the
forest cover map (FAO n.d.) suggests that these areas tend to also be forested, though given the high
forest cover throughout the country there are many forested areas outside these regions. There are also
poor non-indigenous people living in important forested areas as well.
A poverty study in Panama in 1997 found that while comprising only 8% of the national population,
indigenous people accounted for 19% of the country’s poor and 35% of extreme poor. Poverty rates
were as high as 95% in some areas, particularly among the largest group, the Ngobe-Bugle, followed by
the Embera-Wounan and the Kuna; 86% live in extreme poverty. There was also high malnutrition, and
lack of access to basic services such as schools, health clinics, water and sanitation, and electricity.
Nevertheless, a survey mapping social capital in rural and urban poor communities found that social
capital (various forms of community organization) was much higher among rural indigenous communities
than in other poor communities (World Bank 1999, see also Davis 2002).
Though quality of life indicators do not exist specifically for forested areas, this data is available in
general for rural areas and for indigenous areas. Literacy rates even among the rural poor are fairly high
at 86%, (compared to 92% nationally, Moreno 2005), though they drop significantly to 62% for the
10
Panama Country Case Study
indigenous poor. Primary education has 91% and 83% coverage respectively, but secondary drops to
37% and 16%. Life expectancy in the poorest regions of Panama is only 63, and infant mortality is 40-50
in the 40 poorest districts, in spite of a national average of 19. (World Bank 1999)
Many indigenous peoples migrate temporarily to coffee, banana and cane farms to work as agricultural
laborers, but a large percentage have also left their territories and comarcas permanently, such as 58%
of the Bri Bri population and 35% of the Emberá who are now in the province of Panama. In general both
indigenous and other poor rural people are dedicated primarily to subsistence agriculture. According to
PNUD, 60% of the rural population works in agroforestry activities, 13% as temporary wage workers or
traveling salespersons, 8% as artisans and 7.5% in small commercial businesses. Among indigenous
people agroforestry activities occupy 88%. In Kuna Yala, 63.3% of agricultural area is dedicated to
permanent crops (Moreno 2005).
Remoteness and ethnicity correlate with high poverty rates. For example, the rural population in the
regions encompassing the province of Panama and the Central and Occidental areas is 54% to 61% poor,
but the indigenous areas are 95% poor, and remote areas are 78% poor. Labor accounts for 77% of the
total income of the poor, and poverty reflects the lack of opportunity particularly in rural areas.
The lack of a coherent rural development or forest development policy, unclear tenure over both land and
forests, and unclear procedures and regulations for logging or extracting forest resources legally has
contributed to the lack of organization with regard to forest management and short term perspectives for
resource use.
Key government initiatives or programs to reduce poverty in forest
areas
•
The Rural Poverty and Natural Resources Project (PPRRN) was implemented under the direction
of the Ministry of Agricultural Development (MIDA) and the National Environmental Authority
(ANAM), with the goal of poverty alleviation and natural resource protection. This project was
aimed at strengthening local capacities for management planning, community organization and
the development and implementation of subprojects, as well as the development of participatory
management processes in the buffer zones of protected areas. At the same time, the
Panamanian Mesoamerican Biological Corridor Project (CBMAP), also under ANAM, was aimed at
ecosystem conservation and the long-term sustainable use of biological resources. A second
phase of these projects, now known as PPRRN-CBMAP, was under preparation in 2005. The new
project is aimed at poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation through land use planning,
the incorporation of local authorities in environmental management, and the development of
sustainable local investments, including the development of new methods for sustainable natural
resource use (Moreno 2005).
•
The current national initiative for the development of a forest policy operates in three spheres:
subsectoral (sustainable forest management, improving technical capacity, etc.), sectoral
(incorporating forestry as a viable economic sector) and intersectoral (to articulate forest policy
with the national development model). The last of these includes “improving [the forest sector’s]
relative contribution to the socioeconomic development process, considering that this
contribution mainly favor traditionally marginalized rural zones” (PROARCA/IUCN 2005, emphasis
mine). This initiative is currently in process.
•
The Pro-Darien project was undertaken with GEF funds as a government initiative to alleviate
poverty in Darién. BIO Darien was another project funded with UN funds. Like the PPRRN and
CBMAP projects above, they combine biodiversity and conservation concerns with poverty
concerns, particularly in indigenous areas. Information is not readily available regarding their
effects. However, indigenous leaders appear to be somewhat critical of their results, as well as of
11
Panama Country Case Study
the lack of participation of indigenous communities in their formulation and implementation (see
Arias Garcia 2004).
•
Panama’s Millennium Development Goals clearly include poverty alleviation and rural poverty
alleviation in particular (see Government of Panama 2003), but social assistance programs could
be better targeted and more efficient to be able to reach those who need them most (World
Bank 1999). Information was not readily available regarding the results of programs and
priorities since 1999, which were apparently being designed with more specific targeting to rural,
indigenous and urban areas.
Key community or local civil society proposals and/or initiatives to
reduce poverty
•
The Kuna Congress has an active leadership that regularly seeks out projects for the Kuna
comarcas, the best-known of which are probably their eco-tourism projects in San Blas. There
was no readily available data regarding current projects or economic effects, though an Integral
Development Plan for Kuna Yala was in preparation as of 2004-5. The Kuna also manage the
Nargana Wildlife Area, at the initiative of a group of urban Kuna working in the canal zone.
Among other things they have developed the NUSAGANDI Biological Center and the first phase of
a management and development plan for the comarca. A subproject, supported by the
Mesoamerican Biological Corridor project, involves community monitoring to protect the forest
from the incursion of colonists. Future goals include the preparation of forest management plans
(Arias Garcia 2004).
•
WWF, Rainforest Alliance and Forest Stewardship Council have all recently opened offices in
Panama. They are currently supporting efforts toward the development of the national forest
strategy and promoting the role of communities in forest management. This includes a WWF pilot
project for the development of a community forestry enterprise among a group of communities
that were already logging, as well as studying community concessions in other countries to help
develop effective and appropriate models for Panama (Arancibia, interview).
•
An analysis of forests, indigenous people and forest policy in Panama, conducted by the
Foundation for the Promotion of Indigenous Knowledge of Panama (Arias Garcia 2004), found
that indigenous participation in the development, implementation and evaluation of government
policies is minimal, in spite of the fact that Panama has some of the most advanced policies on
indigenous rights. The paper concludes with a series of recommendations for improving the
implementation of international commitments in indigenous communities, such as: the
establishment of a support group comprised of indigenous and local representatives, full
participation of indigenous communities (and transparent dissemination of information) in
projects and programs, direct channeling of international cooperation funds to comarcas, support
to indigenous organizational structures, independent biodiversity monitoring, recognition of
traditional practices relating to forests and biodiversity, etc.
RRI Partner initiatives if any
ACICAFOC has an office in Panama and has developed a Central America-wide program for indigenous
people and biodiversity, funded by the World Bank. The goal is to strengthen biodiversity conservation by
promoting cultural values and sustainable traditional land use practices (World Bank 2004).
12
Panama Country Case Study
Impacts of policy reforms and projects
•
An evaluation of the Panamanian Mesoamerican Biological Corridor Project in 2005 stated that it
was the most successful of the biological corridor projects. The component supporting
conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity resulted in projects carried out in 118
communities and benefiting 13,000 families (34,856 persons). “Forty-two agroforestry
subprojects (7,702 beneficiaries) were financed, and 85 percent of all subprojects contained an
agroforestry component. Other types of projects included: 15 handicrafts-agroforestry, 12 fish
farming-agroforestry, 9 eco-tourism (involving 15,940 beneficiaries), 9 agriculture-agroforestryfish farming, 5 captive breeding-agroforestry, 4 natural resource management, 1 subproject of
the Kuna Yala comarca to help protect their territory, 1 subproject for capacity building and
environmental education focused on the harpy eagle carried out in 28 communities, 1 solid waste
management and 1 renewal energy project. The involvement of indigenous communities was
strong: 75 percent of the subprojects were carried out by indigenous communities, accounting
for 70 percent of subproject funding…. Nearly half the beneficiaries of subprojects were women”
(World Bank 2005).
Key threats to local rights and livelihoods
•
Subsoil rights and mining
In the mid-1990s, the government signed contracts for mining exploration for gold and copper in
an area encompassing about 75% of the Kuna Yala area. Protest by the Kuna has led the
Canadian company holding the concessions to focus elsewhere. Mining operations have led to
persistent conflict (Howe 2002). The government actively promotes private investment in mining.
In 1999, 67 concessions for metal mining and 38 applications for non-metal mining were
reported in Darién alone; Ngobe-Bugle communities affected by copper mining have also
protested vigorously (Tresierra 1999). In 1994, 25% of the national territory was subject to
concessions or requests for concessions; by 2004 this had risen to half the territory. Many mines
are in forested areas, and 70% of concessions have been authorized in indigenous territories
(Arias Garcia 2004).
•
Forest rights
The current legal status of forests is not entirely clear, and the rights of indigenous communities
to control the forests in their territories may be threatened by new developments in the forestry
sector aimed at “improving forest management.”
•
Development priorities and privatization
Overall development priorities appear to favor privatization and large-scale foreign investment.
These priorities are apparent with regard to reforestation incentives for the past decade as well
as with the promulgation of the coastal lands law in early 2006.
Key opportunities to advance RRI Tenure and Poverty Goals
•
The current political context in Panama provides some opportunities for community-oriented
initiatives. The president is interested in pursuing social projects. ANAM officials are interested in
developing forestry as a productive sector and recognize the importance of communities currently
living in forests and controlling forest lands. Several international NGOs and institutions (such as
FAO) are participating in the intersectoral dialogue to develop the national forest strategy, and at
13
Panama Country Case Study
least some of those are interested in supporting community forestry; community and indigenous
representatives are also apparently participating in this process (FAO n.d.). Greater clarity
regarding forestry regulation and priorities would support the development of the sector overall.
•
Indigenous communities, through the comarcas, control at least the land on which an important
part of the country’s forests reside and may maintain control over their forests. In particular, it is
likely that prudent community forest management initiatives would reinforce indigenous rights to
their forests, as well as increasing the forestry contribution to poverty alleviation.
•
There is also general interest, particularly from ANAM, in understanding the current situation of
remote forests and forests outside of indigenous comarcas, where there is little information
currently on the actual state of ecological resources or human presence (though some areas are
known to be home to colonists and other non-indigenous communities). This information would
be used to develop policies for these areas (Arancibia interview).
14
Panama Country Case Study
References
AID (2004) Trends in Decentralization, Municipal Strengthening, and Citizen Participation in Central
America, 1995–2003. International City/County Management Association Cooperative Agreement No.
LAG-A-00-98-00060-00.
Almanaque Azul (2006) Playas de cemento: ley 2 de 2006 firmado. Accessed 26 May 2006
<http://www.almanaqueazul.org/ley-costas-panama-132-especulacion>
Arancibia, Daniel. Interview 24 May 2006. Forest Stewardship Council, Panama ([email protected]).
Arias García, Marcial (2004?) Bosques, Pueblos Indígenas y política forestal en Panamá. Fundación para
la Promoción del Conocimiento Indígena en Panamá. www.internationalalliance.org/documents/panama_esp_full.doc
Decreto Ley No.1 (1994) “Por la cual se establece la legislación forestal en la República de Panamá y se
dictan otras dispocisiones.” 3 Feb.
Earth Trends (2003) Population, Health and Human Wellbeing- Panama. Earth Trends Country Profiles.
Accessed 26 May 2006. <earthtrends.wri.org>
FAO (2006) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005: progress towards sustainable forest management.
FAO Forestry Paper 147. Rome: FAO.
FAO (n.d./2004) Forestry Department Country Pages. Panama. www.fao.org/forestry/site/countryinfo/en/pan
Government of Panama (2003) Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio. Primer Informe de Panamá. Gabinete
Social. Enero.
Herlihy, Peter H. (2003) Participatory Research Mapping of Indigenous Lands in Darién, Panama. Human
Organization 62(4): 315-31.
Howe, James (2002) The Kuna of Panama: Continuing Threats to Land and Autonomy. In D. MayburyLewis (ed.) The Politics of Ethnicity: Indigenous Peoples in Latin American States. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Luventicus (n.d.) Mapa de Panamá. (accessed 22 May 2006) www.luventicus.org/mapas/panama.html
Mapa de Pobreza de Panamá y Metodología para su Elaboración. Dirección de Políticas Sociales,
Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas. Available at: www.mhyt.gob.pa (this web page has not been working
but apparently provides a poverty map of Panama).
Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas (2005) Panama: Pobreza e Desigualdad a Nivel de Distrito y
Corregimiento. Anexo 10. Dirección de Políticas Sociales.
Moreno, Ana Lucia (2005) Plan de Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, Proyecto PPRRN-CBMAP II. April.
PROARCA/UICN (2005) Desafíos para la implementación de la Política Forestal en Panamá. En:
Centroamérica en el Límite Forestal. Guatemala/ San José: PROARCA/ USAID/ CCAD.
PRONAT (2005) “Solicitar Reestructuración de Programa de Titulación de Tierras,” PRONAT Comunicados
de Prensa. (October?)
15
Panama Country Case Study
Roldan Ortiga, Roque (2004) Models for Recognizing Indigenous Land Rights in Latin America. Paper No.
99. Biodiversity Series. The World Bank Environment Department.
Tresierra, J.C. (1999) Rights of Indigenous Peoples over Tropical Forest Resources. In K. Keipi (ed.)
Forest Resource Policy in Latin America. Washington, DC: IDB.
UNDP (n.d.) Documento Preliminar Los pueblos indígenas de Panamá: Población de Alta Prioridad para el
desarrollo humano del país.
UNDP (2006) Human Development Report 2005. http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/
White, A. and A. Martin (2002) Who Owns the World’s Forests? Forest Tenure and Public Forests in
Transition. Washington, DC: Forest Trends/ Center for International Environmental Law.
World Bank (1999) Panama Poverty Assessment. Priorities and Strategies for Poverty Reduction. Report
No. 18801. June 28. Human Development Department. The World Bank.
World Bank (2000) Project Appraisal document on a proposed loan to the republic of Panama for a Land
Administration Project. Report No. 21444PAN. December 14.
World Bank (2004) Central America - Indigenous Integrated Ecosystem Management GEF. Updated
Project Information Document. Project PO75219. August 31.
World Bank (2005) Implementation completion report (TF-28950 tTF-20454) on a global environment
facility trust fund grant in the amount of 6.3 million SDRs (US$8.4 million equivalent) to the republic of
panama for an atlantic mesoamerican biological corridor project. Report No. 34757. December 23.
Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Sector Management Unit, The World Bank.
World Bank (2006a) http://devdata.worldbank.org/data-query/
World Bank (2006b) World Development Report 2006. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
World Bank (2006) Panama Data Profile. World Development Indicators Database, April 2006
<www.devdata.worldbank.org>
16
Panama Country Case Study
1
A national poverty map is also apparently available, but the government web site was not functioning at
the time this report was written (see Mapa de Pobreza in the references).
17