Environmental Justice and REDD:
Impacts for indigenous populations in Latin America
Blake Jordan
April 29, 2010
World Forestry—FOR 595
Spring 2010
North Carolina State University
College of Natural Resources
Department of Forestry and Natural Resources
The United Nations sponsored REDD program (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation
and Forest Degradation) has recently been recognized as an essential component in mitigating
global climate change. Tropical deforestation accounts for 20% of global greenhouse gas
emissions (Anderson, 2009). REDD has been engineered to set up a viable carbon market in
which participating countries (usually developing) are paid for conserving their natural forests
(UN-REDD, 2009). This program was initially introduced by the Coalition of Rainforest
Nations in Montreal, Quebec in 2005 as a presentation to the Conference of the Parties (COP) of
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (Ghazoul, et al.,
2010). Recently, REDD+ was recognized and essentially signed onto by the United States,
China, India, Brazil, and South Africa under the Copenhagen Accord, created during the COP in
Copenhagen in December of 2009 (UNFCCC, 2009). REDD+ is an extension of REDD, and
includes reforestation and afforestation programs (Parker et al., 2009).
While REDD is an unmistakably reasonable solution to global climate change on paper,
the individual impacts of this program are a little less clear. In developing countries in Latin
America, indigenous groups have relied on forests to sustain their populations for centuries.
With these same forests showing potential to be governed by REDD programs, policy makers
must ask: What are the potential implications of REDD climate change policy for indigenous
populations in Latin America? While this question could be posed for any indigenous group in
any developing country that may be facing similar influences of REDD, it is helpful for the
confines of this paper to focus on a specific geographic region. Furthering this research
question, it will be important to introduce the concept of environmental justice as it relates to the
outcomes that can be expected by policy based on historical evidence and how this will be useful
in ensuring that REDD policy is beneficial for all stakeholders. This topic is particularly relevant
2
in this current global climate, as many indigenous groups, local communities, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have spoken out stating that REDD policy does not include
the protection of the rights of forest-dwelling groups (Lang, 2008). REDD programs will need to
be more inclusive of the land use rights that indigenous people have to local resources in order to
be successful.
This paper argues that REDD will have negative impacts for indigenous groups in Latin
America. That said, there are some potential positive impacts that are discussed here, as well as
impacts that cannot be categorized as either positive nor negative (neutral effects). This paper is
structured to present the concept of environmental justice as it pertains to REDD. Reasoning for
choosing Latin America as the case study area of choice is provided. After presenting important
background information, justification for the argument that indigenous people will be negatively
affected by REDD is expounded. In order to maximize the information potential in this paper,
evidence for the positive and neutral effects of REDD on indigenous populations is presented.
Finally, potential policy implications and prescriptions based upon the previously provided
information are given, followed by some concluding remarks.
Environmental racism refers to an unbalanced spatial distribution of environmental
burdens confronted by groups due to their race, ethnicity, gender or socioeconomic status (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2010). Historically, women, impoverished groups,
and racial minorities have been disproportionately encumbered with environmental challenges,
such as living near industrial sites or being exposed to toxins in local drinking water (Prindeville
& Bretting, 1998). Environmental justice refers to a progression towards even distribution of
environmental burdens (and benefits) across all population groups (EPA, 2010). Environmental
justice relates to REDD because strategies to protect the rights of indigenous peoples whose local
3
forests may be used for REDD programs are currently unclear (Ghazoul, et al., 2010). With
many of these groups relying on forests for timber and other products to provide the essentials
for their subsistence lifestyles, complications from REDD are presented (Okereke & Dooley,
2010). Furthermore, these indigenous groups have oftentimes already withstood social, political,
and economic exploitation by the governments of their states (Lang, 2008). REDD could serve
as another avenue for manipulation of these vulnerable indigenous groups.
Latin America is an apt choice of geographic region when discussing the fusion of
indigenous populations and REDD. According to Arturo Santos, Coordinator of Biodiversity
and Sustainable Use Unit at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in
Guatemala, Mesoamerica alone accounts for 85 million hectares of forests (ISTF Spring
Symposium, April 16, 2010). Roughly 65% of the worlds forested community areas are in Latin
America, with 90% of these areas being indigenous territories (Rights and Resources Initiative
(RRI), 2008). This region is also considered a biodiversity hotspot, with endemic species
coexisting with over 100 diverse ethnic groups (A. Santos, ISTF Spring Symposium, April 16,
2010). High rates of deforestation in Latin America are coupled with a poverty rate exceeding
50% in some countries, and government mismanagement and indigenous rights are paired
concepts (A. Santos, ISTF Spring Symposium, April 16, 2010). Because of these reasons, Latin
America presents both prospects and hindrances for REDD.
There are several points of note in making an argument for the negative effects of REDD
on indigenous populations in Latin America. The first can be generalized under the concept of
forest needs. Latin American indigenous peoples have sustained their populations for centuries
by using local forests for timber and non-timber forest products, as well as for activities such as
hunting and fishing (Okereke & Dooley, 2010). There are certain fundamental issues associated
4
with REDD that could hinder traditional land uses by native populations. Permanence is an
example of one of these issues. With permanence, forests set aside for REDD initiatives must
remain forested in order to allow for constant carbon storage (Makundi, 2009). Under a REDD
forest regime, protected lands will not be deforested for timber, agriculture, or any other uses
necessitated by indigenous groups (UN-REDD, 2009). Additionally, financiers of REDD would
probably prefer that forests remain completely untouched to limit any risk of not fulfilling their
carbon market contracts. Restricting forest use could alter the historical utilization of forests by
native peoples as they search for new forests to glean and harvest. Coinciding with this concept
is the idea of leakages. Leakages refer to deforestation in another region, that would have
otherwise remained forested, as a result of one forest being preserved through REDD (Wunder,
2008). While leakages may not explicitly affect indigenous peoples in the way that permanence
might, these populations are the groups that will be shifting their focus to other forests, further
driving deforestation (Lawlor & Huberman, 2009).
Land tenure issues are another topic of concern. Indigenous populations in Latin
America tend to see themselves as a working part of the land, not solely as an owner of property
(A. Santos, ISTF Spring Symposium, April 16, 2010). Problems of land tenure have been
constant with respect to indigenous populations in Latin America (Davis & Wali, 1994). The
Indian Reserves system in Brazil was founded to protect indigenous people, ruled as ineffective
land managers by the Brazilian government (Davis & Wali, 1994). This bureaucratic effort gave
little consideration to the rights of indigenous peoples to native lands, nor to their sustainable use
practices (Davis & Wali, 1994). The Indian Reserves system proved to be highly ineffective as a
result of ignoring traditional land use practices of the native people (Davis & Wali, 1994). Other
nationalization efforts of forests in regions other than Latin America showed greater rates of
5
deforestation under a nationalization regime compared to forests managed by indigenous groups
(Karky & Banskota, 2009). If approached in the same way, REDD could establish itself as
another bureaucratic, well-intentioned program. Moreover, if land tenure issues are already
present in areas (which is oftentimes the case), REDD-imposed boundaries will only serve to
exacerbate existing problems (Lawlor & Huberman, 2009).
Indigenous land ethic and traditional use are two related topics that could be negatively
impacted by REDD. Indigenous groups in Latin America have lived in these geographic regions
for the longest periods of time and have sustained entire populations for centuries (Lang, 2008).
Studies from Brazil have shown than land in indigenous reserves showed 10-20 times less
deforestation than neighboring areas (Anderson, 2009). This may emphasize a land use ethic
held by these indigenous groups. Under REDD policy, indigenous groups may be forced to
travel longer distances to use land approved for harvesting (in place of traditional forests)
(Ghazoul, et al., 2010). Ghazoul, et al. (2010) even provided a term for these groups, known as
―REDD refugees‖—those people that are displaced from native forests as a result of REDD
programs in traditional forests (p. 1). This could amplify damages on the natural landscape by
forcing these groups to be less sustainable and to expand their impacts on the ecosystem via
increased travel distances to resources. Moreover, these populations have traditionally used
these forests for other reasons than just timber harvesting and gleaning activities. Indigenous
groups, such as those seen in parts of the yet un-deforested Amazon, still uphold traditional
religions, ceremonies, and languages (Ghazoul, et al., 2010). Restricting local forests for REDD
purposes could do more than just limit available forestland; it could also remove the spiritual,
aesthetic and cultural needs supplied by the native forest. This could be detrimental to an entire
culture.
6
Political issues associated with the rights of indigenous people under REDD strongly
align with those concerns mentioned in conjunction with land tenure. Where politically corrupt
governments at the state, local and national levels thrive (as is often the case in the developing
countries of Latin America), compensation paid to state entities for emplace REDD programs
will unlikely filter down to the already exploited indigenous populations (Peskett et al., 2008).
Furthermore, there is historically-based concern and distrust amongst indigenous populations in
Latin America about a ―re-colonialization‖ brought about by REDD (Ghazoul, et al., 2010).
Therefore, REDD could intensify these political issues, decrease the willing participation of
indigenous groups, increase the income of corrupt government officials, and keep the indigenous
populations both poor and landless.
REDD policy offers a tremendous problem of scale. As University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill Professor Pam Jagger presented, it is difficult to implement an international level
program at the local, community level without overlooking some populations (ISTF Spring
Symposium, April 16, 2010). Jagger suggested that when trying to maximize the effectiveness
of REDD for climate change mitigation, it may be necessary to not carefully analyze all of the
costs and benefits of this program for all stakeholders (ISTF Spring Symposium, April 16, 2010).
However, this implicitly indicates that indigenous populations may be overlooked in REDD
discussions. Without indigenous groups involved in these conversations, the effect of REDD on
these populations may be grossly underestimated (Lawlor & Huberman, 2009).
While this paper has been structured to argue for the negative effects of REDD on
indigenous populations in Latin America, it is important to present some positive and neutral
effects that are contended in the literature. The first positive effect topic can be grouped under
the genre of development activities. The architecture of REDD in Latin America—as well as
7
other global, developing countries—has been to provide sustainable development and poverty
reduction strategies for disadvantaged groups (Parker et al., 2009). As of 2009, Brazil,
Colombia, Mexico, Panama, members of the Coalition for Rainforest Countries (CfRC), and
Latin American issue based non-governmental organizations had submitted proposals for REDD
programs inclusive of sustainable development strategies (Parker et al., 2009). In order to gauge
the effectiveness of REDD curriculum for development activities, it is helpful to compare the
efficacy of parallel programs.
An example of a similar arrangement is the development program in the ecoregion of
Lachuá. The Lachuá region is nested in rural Guatemala and the local community is primarily
composed of the Qeqchi Maya indigenous population (Bonham, 2006). This native group
maintains the population via subsistence farming and the entire community is encompassed in a
National Park named Laguna Lachuá, a region of sub-tropical, high-biodiversity rainforest
(Bonham, 2006). The development strategy at Lachuá was an effort to preserve the National
Park by training the Qeqchi Maya in natural resource management (Bonham, 2006). As a joint
effort between eight governments, international financiers, technical training coordinators, and a
proactive indigenous community, Lachuá has proved to be a success (Bonham, 2006). Members
of the Qeqchi Maya community received training, felt like a genuine part of the process, and the
National Park as a result has been thoroughly preserved. Using this case study as a relevant
example, if this development strategy worked in Guatemala, a similar program could be applied
to REDD policy successfully. This would be beneficial for all stakeholders, the international
community and indigenous populations alike.
Proponents of REDD also claim that this program would allow better forest management
practices to come to fruition. While some traditional land uses by indigenous populations in
8
Latin America might be irrevocably altered by local REDD forests, this could provide an
opportunity to introduce concepts like sustainable timber logging (Anderson, 2009).
Additionally, while traditional timber harvesting would not be included as a viable practice
available to indigenous populations in Latin America, REDD presents an opportunity to establish
systems such as agroforestry (Anderson, 2009). Likewise, REDD hopes to create a commercial
market for non-timber forest products, thereby providing jobs and more income to impoverished
indigenous populations (Anderson, 2009). Agroforestry is particularly relevant in regions like
the Mesoamerican country of Belize, where cacao for coffee actually grows best under the
canopy of other trees, thereby inherently promoting conservation of forests (Rosenberg &
Marcotte, 2005). Cacao is also a non-timber forest product, and one that is bought and sold in
major global markets (Rosenberg & Marcotte, 2005). If indigenous populations in Latin
America can indeed profit from the commercialization of non-timber forest products like cacao,
it stands to reason that REDD could be an avenue to elevating these generally indigent
communities while also conserving native forests.
The third argument is that REDD policy will neither positively nor negatively affect
indigenous populations in Latin America. Another way to state this argument is that indigenous
populations may not benefit from REDD, but their situations will not worsen due to this
program. Anderson (2009) commented that non-timber forest products would count as allowable
harvest foodstuffs under a REDD program in Latin American countries (p. 24). However, it is
also stated that it is the commercialization of these products that would result in a benefit for
these indigenous groups (Anderson, 2009). Without the commercialization of products, such as
with the case of cacao in Belize, these indigenous groups are operating under ―business as usual‖
activities with gleaning nuts, berries, and other non-timber forest products for sustenance
9
purposes only. Likewise, if people do not become ―REDD refugees,‖ they would still be able to
enjoy the aesthetic, religious, and cultural amenities of local traditional forests that are protected
under REDD policy (Ghazoul, et al., 2010).
Indigenous populations in Latin America will be impacted by REDD programs. The
question is to what extent these impacts will be and whether or not these impacts will be
negative, positive, or neutral. It is evident that REDD will not solely provide negative, positive
or neutral impacts for any stakeholder. Rather, it will be a mix of all of these influences. While
this paper provided substantiation from literature for a few selected evidences for all sides of this
argument, it is apparent that unless policymakers restructure the language of REDD to include
the rights of indigenous people, these groups will face further exploitation. It will be the
decisions of these policymakers that will determine whether environmental justice issues and
REDD will be positively coupled with respect to outcomes for indigenous populations in Latin
America.
Peskett et al.(2008) presented 17 policy conclusions, based upon a thorough literature
review and academic research, on how to make ―REDD work for the poor‖ (p. 4). Many of these
policy deductions can be applied to indigenous populations in Latin America, as minority and
impoverished groups tend to suffer from the same forms of environmental injustices. A key
application of these conclusions, as applied to indigenous populations in Latin America, is that
information must be disseminated at all levels and expectations must be realistic (Peskett et al.,
2008). Another application includes putting indigenous groups at the forefront of REDD
programs by shifting the focus of this policy in a way that limits the amount of environmental
injustices that can occur (Peskett et al., 2008). Additionally, indigenous groups must have
improved access to legal counsel and a greater knowledge of their rights to land access, ensuring
10
that they have the knowledge necessary to protect themselves from exploitation (Peskett et al.,
2008). Encouragement of broad participation across groups, flexibility of programs, and
accountability processes will all be crucial in guaranteeing that benefits are being equally
distributed across populations (Peskett et al., 2008).
Ghazoul et al. (2010) proposed that a comprehensive trade-off model will be a
fundamental element in mitigating social and political injustices in REDD programs (p. 6). Use
of this model, coupled with cost and benefit analyses, will allow policymakers to weigh the
outcomes of certain REDD initiatives on local populations (Ghazoul et al., 2010). In a
comprehensive trade-off model, values such as ecosystem services and sustainable timber
harvesting are included to showcase spatial importance in the allocation of these resources
(Ghazoul et al., 2010). Likewise, a general costs and benefits analysis helps policymakers gauge
which REDD decisions will garner negative impacts, positive impacts, or no impacts at all, and
whether these impacts are direct or indirect (Ghazoul et al., 2010). For example, a local REDD
forest could provide an indigenous person with a paying job, but could also restrict their access
to use the forests to harvest traditional products to sell (cacao, sugar cane) (Ghazoul et al., 2010).
With appropriate, thorough, and careful analysis of these situations on a case by case basis,
potential environmental injustice issues of REDD in Latin America can be weighed to ensure
that policy prescriptions provide positive or no-impact scenarios for indigenous groups (Lawlor
& Huberman, 2009).
REDD programs have not been structured to tackle the sole issue of global climate
change. While this topic is at the core of this policy, REDD is also set up to address sustainable
development and poverty issues in the communities where REDD forests are on the horizon
(UN-REDD, 2009). Since REDD is framed in this way, this program provides an opportunity to
11
address enduring social and political injustices experienced by indigenous peoples in Latin
America while also moving groups in the direction of sustainable development. Indigenous
groups in Latin America have expressed concern that REDD may only benefit big business,
leaving the poor and those that rely on forests behind (Lang, 2008). Engaging all stakeholders in
REDD, from international financiers to poor, subsistence, indigenous farmers will be crucial in
ensuring that these groups are not overlooked. Additionally, maximizing profits and reducing
costs for indigenous people will mitigate the issue of environmental justice. Flexibility in REDD
programs, as well as proper information dissemination should also moderate environmental
inequalities by providing these groups with the information needed to protect their rights and to
prevent themselves from further exploitation. When REDD is framed to include the rights of
indigenous populations and local communities in Latin America, it can be a win-win situation for
climate change and social justice.
Word Count: 3,224
12
References
Anderson, N. (2009). REDDy or not? The Effects on Indigenous Peoples in Brazil of a Global
Mechanism for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation. Journal of
Sustainable Development, 2(3), 18-28.
Bonham, C. (2006). Biodiversity and Conservation of Sierra Chinaja: A Rapid Assessment of
Biophysical, Socioeconomic, and Management Factors in Alta Verapaz, Guatemala
(Master of Science Thesis, University of Montana, 2006). Retrieved April 28, 2010
from: http://www.cfc.umt.edu/grad/ICD/pdf/curanbonham.pdf
Davis, S., & Wali, A. (1994). Indigenous land tenure and tropical forest management in Latin
America. Ambio 23(8).
Jagger, P. (April 16, 2010). ISTF Spring Symposium.
Karky, B., & Banskota, K. (2009). Reducing Emissions from Nepal’s Community Managed
Forests: Discussion for COP 14 in Poznan. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 8(1), 43-47.
Ghazoul, et al. (2010). REDD: a reckoning of environment and development implications.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 1-7.
Lang, C., & Accra Caucus on Forests and Climate Change. (2008). Indigenous Peoples, Local
Communities and NGOs Outraged at the Removal of Rights from UNFCCC Decision on
REDD. Press Release, December 9, 2008. Retrieved April 5, 2010 from:
http://www.redd-monitor.org/2008/12/09/rights-struck-from-draft-text-on-redd/#more1026
Lawlor, D., & Huberman, D. (2009). Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation (REDD) and human rights. Rights-based approaches: Exploring issues and
opportunities for conservation, 269–286. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR and IUCN.
Makundi, W. (2009). Baselines, permanence and leakage in REDD [PDF Document]. Retrieved
on April 17, 2010 from: http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2010/redd_hanoi_baselines.pdf
Okereke, C., & Dooley, K. (2010). Principles of justice in proposals and policy approaches to
avoided deforestation: Towards a post-Kyoto climate agreement. Global Environmental
Change, 20(1), 82-95.
Parker, C., et al. (2009). The Little REDD+ Book: An updated guide to governmental and nongovernmental proposals for reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (3rd
ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Global Canopy Programme.
Peskett, L., et al. (2008). Making REDD work for the poor: A Poverty Environment Partnership
Report. IUCN & ODI. Retrieved April 5, 2010 from: http://www.unepwcmc.org/climate/pdf/Making%20REDD%20work%20for%20the%20poor%20FINAL%
20DRAFT%200110.pdf
Prindeville, D., & Bretting, J. (1998). Indigenous women activists and political participation: A
case for Environmental Justice. Women & Politics, 19(1), 39-58.
Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI). (2008). Latin America: Listening, Learning and Sharing.
RRI. Retrieved April 20, 2010 from:
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/rri_2008_1_14_02_deborah_la_llsl_presentation.pdf
Rosenberg, D., & Marcotte, T. (2005). Land-use system modeling and analysis of shaded cacao
production in Belize. Agroforestry Systems, 64, 117-129.
Santos, A. (April 16, 2010). ISTF Spring Symposium.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (2009). Copenhagen
Accord (FCCC/CP/2009/L.7). Copenhangen, Denmark: United Nations.
13
UN-REDD Programme. (2009). About REDD+. United Nations. Retrieved April 20, 2010 from:
http://un-redd.org/AboutREDD/tabid/582/language/en-US/Default.aspx
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2010). Environmental Justice. U.S. EPA.
Retrieved April 26, 2010 from: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/
Wunder, S. (2008). How do we deal with leakage? In Angelsen, A. (Ed.), Moving Ahead with
REDD: Issues, Options and Implications (pp. 65-75). Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.
14