LCDS, GRIF and REDD+: What does it all mean?

43

1

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Over the past few years the topic of climate change has dominated a lot of the news and national discussions in Guyana. Communities have heard a lot about REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) and the LCDS (Low Carbon Development Strategy), but may not know what they mean and more importantly how they affect your life. Moreover, community leaders have told us that they need more information about REDD+ and LCDS, but fewer technical explanations. This series of booklets seeks to address these issues.

As the owners of forest lands, how could REDD+ and other similar initiatives impact you? What are the risks, and the potential benefits? The Rainforest Foundation—US and the Amerindian Peoples Association believe it’s important for indigenous leaders to be informed about these issues, and more importantly, to understand how they relate to your livelihoods and your control of land and resources.

These materials are arranged as a series of booklets that can be used by you, as trainers, to prepare for your community-based workshops. Each booklet will address a different topic and will contain basic information about that topic and also some ideas about questions to be addressed during your workshops. Together, the booklets will form a binder, so you can easily use them when they are most suited to your workshop.

Booklet 1 provides guidance and support for trainers who will be carrying out workshops in their communities and regions. Booklets 2–6 deal specifically with climate change and forest issues.

Booklet 2 lays out the general concepts behind climate change and REDD+. In the third booklet, we talk about the international negotiations on climate change that have been taking place over the past few years, and that have set the stage for what is currently taking place in Guyana and elsewhere. We talk in greater details about the REDD+ schemes in Guyana in booklet 4. It’s important for you and your communities to know your rights to your lands, and to consultation and participation. Therefore, booklet 5 discusses indigenous rights in Guyana and internationally. Social safeguards are explained in booklet 6 ; they are critical and will need to be upheld in order for any REDD+ or other climate change initiative to work.

You, as trainers, are the people for whom these materials were designed. We plan to update these materials every year, so your opinions and suggestions are essential to making this tool more appropriate to your needs.

Let’s get started!

On the front and back cover: Amerindian motif of monkey by Jean La Rose.

2012 © INDIGENOUS RIGHTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Rainforest Foundation–US and Amerindian Peoples Association (APA)

Organizer: Marina Campos

Authors: Marina Campos and Christine Halvorson

Contributors: Jean La Rose, Laura George, Carlos Calvo, and Tessa Lee

Design: Scott W. Santoro / Worksight

Created by:

Supported by:

Licensed by:

This means that the texts in this publication are under a Creative Commons license (www.creativecommons.org), which opens intellectual property rights. In practice, this license allows the texts of these booklets to be reproduced and used in derivative publications without previous authorization from the editors (Amerindian Peoples Association and Rainforest Foundation US), but with some criteria: they can only be used for non-commercial purposes; they must cite the original source; and in the case of derivative publications, they must also be licensed in the Creative Commons.

You can:

Share—copy, distribute and transmit the Indigenous Rights and Climate Change Booklets

Remix—adapt the Indigenous Rights and Climate Change Booklets for your community’s use

Under the following conditions:

Attribution—You must attribute credit as follows: Indigenous Rights and Climate Change, Amerindian Peoples Association and Rainforest Foundation US (with link).

Noncommercial—You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

If you do adapt the booklets, please send us a copy! We hope to make these available in different languages and adapted to the different realities of different countries.

AMERINDIAN PEOPLES ASSOCIATION

3

LOW CARBON DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY AND OTHER CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES IN GUYANAAfter reading booklet 2 on climate change and booklet 3 on the international debates surrounding Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), you now understand what climate change is and how REDD+ is envisioned as a partial solution to the problem. But how are REDD+, and the other confusing policy acronyms you may have heard about, like the LCDS, being applied in Guyana? And more impor-tantly how will they affect the indigenous peoples of Guyana? Let’s find out!

WHAT IS THE LCDS?

Periodically, every country creates plans for how to develop economically. In 2009, the President of Guyana launched a new development plan for Guyana called the LCDS. This stands for Low Carbon Development Strategy. As you learned from booklet 2, carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas contributing to climate change. We have also dis-cussed how developed countries are responsible for the great majority of greenhouse gas emissions, which are generated by their factories, cars, agricultural and infrastruc-ture projects. Historically, the path to becoming a wealthy and developed country has required burning lots of fossil fuels—cutting down forests and building factories and cities, and emitting lots of greenhouse gases1 in the process. A low-carbon develop-ment plan would in theory allow a country to develop economically while emitting low amounts of greenhouse gases. The country must pursue alternative ways to generate money and jobs that do not degrade the environment. In the case of Guyana, the LCDS has three objectives:

1) To develop the economy of Guyana,

2) To do it through activities that do not contribute to climate change and

3) To prepare the country for the consequences of climate change, also known as becoming “climate-resilient.”

Traditionally, most tropical countries cut down their forests to make money off timber extraction, large scale agriculture, mining and cattle ranching. Guyana could follow the same path and cut down its valuable forests for those same economic reasons. If Guy-ana’s development results in the destruction of its forests, this will have worldwide con-sequences on humanity and on our planet. As we know from booklet 2, the greenhouse gas emissions associated with deforestation are major contributors to climate change. Therefore, a central goal of low carbon development in Guyana is to grow the country economically while still keep the forests standing.

Besides keeping the trees standing, developing a low carbon economy requires promot-ing sectors of economic activity that do not produce large amounts of greenhouse gases.

4LCDS, GRIF and REDD+: What does it all mean?

Deforested Hill in the Brazilian Amazon/Marina Campos, RFUS Archive.

1 For a definition of greenhouse gases, please read booklet 2.

4 LCDS, GRIF and REDD+: What does it all mean? 5

Some of the projects and ideas that are included in the LCDS are:

• Where necessary, reform existing forest-dependent sectors, such as forestry and mining, so that these sectors can operate at the standards required to sustainably protect Guyana’s forest. For instance, enforcing prohibitions against illegal mining. The mandate to review existing policy could also include revision of the Amerindian Act, as it could impact indigenous communities’ use of forest resources.

• Improving access to arable (suitable for growing crops), non-forested land. There are places in Guyana where food could be grown without cutting down any for-est, but that right now are not economically feasible to cultivate because of high transportation costs. If this savannah land were developed, food production could be increased without cutting down any more forest. This strategy is not without its drawbacks, as developing this land would have a negative impact on the savan-nah and the communities that live there. The savannah is home to plants and ani-mals that are found there and have many useful purposes for nearby communities, including traditional or customary practices, eco-tourism, and other economic ventures. The type of large-scale agriculture that is apparently envisaged will require large amounts of inorganic fertilizers as well as the draining of the savannah, both of which will drastically change the fragile eco-system and damage the environment.

• Promoting investment in high-potential low-carbon sectors, such as fruits and veg-etables (which have higher economic value but lower emissions than other crops, such as rice), aquaculture, ecotourism and business-process outsourcing, which involves activities that foreign corporations contract local businesses to do. Con-struction of a hydro-electric dam at Amaila Falls. Currently, all electricity in Guyana is produced by the burning of fossil fuels. The construction of this dam would pro-vide the country with an electricity source that according to its proponents would not produce greenhouse gases. It must be noted however, that some amount of greenhouse gases will be released in the construction of the dam, and that accord-ing to some specialists, dams in tropical forests produce lots of greenhouse gases, because the trees they flood give off methane.2 It must also be noted that there are questions and concerns surrounding indigenous land rights and the building of the dam, and it’s not clear how indigenous communities will directly benefit from the project.

• Improved fiber optic bandwidth (faster internet connection), that will lead to im-proved communication, thereby facilitating the development and growth of low-carbon business activities.3 Problematically, thus far all such business activities have been determined by the state, and indigenous communities have yet to develop low-carbon business plans.

• Expanded access to services and new economic opportunities for Amerindian communities, including improved social services (such as health and education), low-carbon energy sources (i.e. solar power), clean water and employment or other income opportunities that do not threaten the rainforest.

• Improving services to the general Guyana citizenry, including improving and ex-panding job prospects, promoting private sector entrepreneurship, and improving social services with a particular focus on health and education.

• Getting funding for these LCDS policies by participating in a national REDD+ mech-anism, as explained below.

To assist the Government in the implementation of the LCDS, the President created a new body called the “Multi-Stakeholder Steering Committee.” The members of this Committee are supposed to:

• Participate in monthly meetings convened by President Jagdeo;

• Provide input and guidance to the planning and execution of sub-national consul-tations as well as other education and awareness-raising activities;

• Provide feedback on Guyana’s Low Carbon Development Strategy;

• Assist in dissemination of information to the public; and,

• Assist in convening forums within different constituencies to promote and discuss the Strategy.

Among others, members of this Committee include: 4

• President Jagdeo

• Dr. Roger Luncheon and several others, Office of the President

• Minister Robert Persaud and others, Ministry of Agriculture

• Minister Pauline Sukhai, Ministry of Amerindian Affairs

• Shyam Nokta, Office of the President

• Andrew Bishop, Office of the President

• Yvonne Pearson, National Toshaos Council

• Ashton Simon, The National Amerindian Development Foundation

• Rommel Simon, National Amerindian Development Foundation

• Bertie Xavier, North Rupununi District Development Board

• Sydney Allicock, North Rupununi District Development Board

• Colin Klautky, Guyanese Organisation of Indigenous Peoples

• George Norton, Guyanese Organisation of Indigenous Peoples

• Pamela Mendonca, the Amerindian Action Movement of Guyana

• Peter Persaud, the Amerindian Action Movement of Guyana

• David James, Individual capacity

• Joe Singh, Individual capacity

• David Singh, Conservation International

• Edward Shield, Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association2 Methane is a type of greenhouse gas more powerful than carbon dioxide.

3 Heavy industries have a large impact on the climate because they have high carbon emissions. Technology-based businesses in theory do not have as much of an impact.

4 Members of the LCDS Multi-Stakeholder Steering Committee as of October 2011.

6 LCDS, GRIF and REDD+: What does it all mean? 7

• Hilbertus Cort, Guyana Forest Producers Association

• Vanda Radzik, Civil Society

• Jocelyn Dow, Civil Society

• James Singh and 1 other, Guyana Forestry Commission

• Karen Livan, Guyana Geology and Mines Commission

The ultimate objective of this committee is get input into the government’s LCDS from different sectors of the Guyanese society. However, some concerns were expressed by the APA regarding the terms of reference of the committee when it was founded, as no terms of reference were actually made public at that time. Concerns were also raised about the quality of the awareness work regarding the LCDS among indigenous commu-nities, along with concerns surrounding the openness of those heading the Committee to accepting other’s inputs, as well as the quality of the indigenous representation on the Committee, especially that of the National Toshaos Council’s representative and the two other indigenous organizations’ representatives. Based on public statements made by these persons, it appears that they feel that their position is to unquestioningly support the government’s position without actively representing or campaigning for indigenous concerns. Chief among the issues that the committee needs to address (but has not yet) are the impacts of proposed REDD+ initiatives on indigenous land rights, and the ques-tion of inadequate legislative protections for indigenous peoples.

REDD+ AS PART OF THE LCDS

As you saw, REDD+ is just a part of the overall LCDS strategy. Rainforests provide eco-system services to the whole world and 75% of Guyana’s land is covered in rainforests. An ecosystem service is a benefit that humans receive from nature (for more details see booklet 2). For example, Guyana’s forests are home to thousands of unique animal and plant species, and high biodiversity provides many benefits to humans, such as medi-cine. The forests also store carbon in trees and regulate the water cycle, preventing soil erosion and helping to maintain regular rainfall patterns. If the forest is cut down or oth-erwise degraded and can no longer provide these services, it would cost a lot of money to replace them through other means or adapt to do without them. These ecosystem ser-vices are provided not only to Guyanese people, but to the whole world. Problematically, these services are still not measured or valued by the economic market, meaning that countries like Guyana have higher economic incentives to cut down their forests than to keep them standing. That is to say, right now Guyana could make more money by cutting its forests down than by protecting them, in part because the valuable benefits provided by healthy forests are not worth money. But obviously, as described above, forests are worth more than money, especially to the people who live in them—here, we are just talking about economic incentives. To fix this, governments, businesses, and societies are seeking to create economic incentives that make forests more valuable standing than cut down. And that is precisely what the President of Guyana has been trying to do: to protect the forests in the long term, but in exchange for economic compensation—in theory that is what REDD+ is designed to make possible.5

5 Read more about REDD+ in the booklet 2.

As you read in booklet 3, there are different options for implementing REDD+. The inter-national community will likely soon agree on a worldwide system with which to move money from countries that emit greenhouse gases to countries that reduce climate change by keeping their forests standing.6 In the meantime, countries may choose to enter into “bilateral” agreements, which are arrangements made between just two par-ties, or countries. Under this option, one country pays another to keep its forests stand-ing. In the case of Guyana, a bilateral agreement was signed with the Government of Norway, setting up a system through which Norway will pay Guyana to avoid or prevent deforestation and forest degradation. Guyana can then use that money to improve its economy and to reduce its emissions from other sectors. The primary objective of the Norwegian Government’s climate policy is to play a part in establishing a global, bind-ing, and long-term regime, or set of rules and laws, that will ensure that global green-house gas emissions are reduced sufficiently so as to avoid catastrophic climate change. Norway’s agreement with Guyana is part of that policy. Therefore, in theory, the money donated by Norway should be used solely to promote the initiatives of the LCDS. It’s important to know that Norway has signed similar agreements with other tropical coun-tries in the world like Brazil, Indonesia and Tanzania. All of these agreements attempt to create economic incentives for forest conservation, but they are being implemented differently in each country.

THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN GUYANA AND NORWAYIn November 2009, Guyana and Norway signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). A MoU is simply a document wherein two parties reach an agreement of some sort. It’s similar to a contract, but it’s not legally binding or enforceable. The MoU be-tween Guyana and Norway includes the possibility of Guyana receiving payments of up to US$250 million over 5 years, from 2010 to 2014. Whether or not Guyana gets that money depends on if the country is able to meet certain obligations that were also out-lined in the MoU, including keeping its deforestation rate at or below a certain level. If Guyana’s deforestation rate increases beyond a certain level, it will get less money or no money at all. If Guyana keeps deforestation low or even decreases it, it will get the money. The specific and technical details of the agreement are described in the Joint Concept Note (JCN) which is a part of the MoU. The MoU is intended to be a temporary agreement. If an agreement regarding REDD+ is achieved by the UNFCCC (an interna-tional community) in the meantime, Guyana could use those terms to complement the agreement with Norway.

Although Norway is willing to give up to U$250 million, the actual amount of money that Guyana gets depends its current rate of deforestation compared to something known as a “baseline”. But what is a baseline? A baseline, also called a “reference level,” is the amount of greenhouse gases that theoretically would have been emitted in the absence of the REDD+ agreement.7 It’s like imagining that Guyana did not have the LCDS and that Norway was not interested in making any REDD+ payments to Guyana. If that were the case, Guyana would most likely destroy more of its forests through logging, mining and

6 Booklet 3 explains in greater detail the international debate and initiatives related to climate change and REDD+ that are currently happening.

7 Booklet 2 discusses in greater detail what are baseline and reference levels.

8 LCDS, GRIF and REDD+: What does it all mean? 9

Flooded city in the Brazilian Amazon. Rodrigo Baleia/Greenpeace.

10 LCDS, GRIF and REDD+: What does it all mean? 11

other extractive activities, in order to earn some money and develop economically. The existence of REDD+ programs provides incentives to Guyana keep the forest standing. Determining the baseline is an imaginative exercise, but it’s the closest anyone can get in determining how much money Guyana deserves. The money that Guyana will receive for avoided deforestation will be calculated by comparing the agreed-upon baseline against the reality of its deforestation rates.

To calculate how much money Guyana will receive, one first has to know the current deforestation rate, which can be determined by comparing how much forest there is in one year against how much there is the following year. The difference is the deforesta-tion rate. People usually divide this difference by the total amount of a country’s for-est to express the deforestation rates as a percentage (%). For example: If Guyana had 100 hectares (ha) of forest and cut down 1 ha last year, the deforestation rate would be: 1 ha/100 ha or 1% per year. In 1990 Guyana’s forests covered 18.47 million hectares and in 2009 the forest area was 18.4 million hectares. This represents an annual rate of de-forestation of 0.022% over twenty years. For a ten year period 2000–2009 the annual average of deforestation rate was 0.03%.8

So, to evaluate if a country is reducing its deforestation rates; the rate of deforestation is then compared with the baseline or reference level. If the deforestation rate is below the baseline or reference level then the country could be eligible for receiving REDD+ pay-ments. If the deforestation rate is higher than the baseline than the country could not re-ceive any payment under a REDD+ scheme. The JCN establishes the method for calculat-ing the reference level in Guyana. It does so by calculating the average deforestation rate for the period from 2000–2009, which was 0.03%. The average global deforestation rate in tropical countries is 0.52%, which is about 17 times the rate of Guyana. Other tropical forests countries in the world have had much higher deforestation rates. The average of this global rate and Guyana’s historic rate was used to determine what rate could be ex-pected for Guyana gave the final reference level of 0.275% with which Guyana’s progress is used to calculate its earnings under REDD+.

For the first reporting period (Oct 2009 to Sept 2010) under the agreement with Nor-way 10,280 hectares were deforested resulting in an annual rate of 0.056%. The dif-ference between the current deforestation rate (0.056% in 2010) and the baseline of 0.275% is what is known as avoided deforestation. All those trees (or hectares) that were not cut down, in this example about 50,482 hectares, would now have a mon-etary value under the REDD+ scheme. This value is measured by the tons of carbon that are stored in the forest’s trees. One ton of carbon is given a price (currently, US$ 5 per ton). By multiplying the amount of tons of carbon stored in one hectare9 (range from 150–500 tons of carbon per hectare) of trees by the number of hectares that avoided deforestation, you obtain the number of tons of carbon that were stored. If you then multiply that number of tons by the price of one ton of carbon (US$ 5), you get the money that Guyana can earn through its REDD+ agreement with Norway.

8 Data from Guyana Forestry Commission and Pöyry Forest Industry Report , 2011. forestry.gov.gy/Downloads/Guyana_MRVS_Interim_Measures_Report_2010_Final_January_2011.pdf

9 The amount of carbon stored in trees depends on the type of forest (open, closed, tall, or short). So different forests have different amount of carbon stored in trees. The range varies from 150-500 tons of carbon per hectare.

There is one complicating factor in all this. When the original JCN was agreed on by Guyana and Norway in 2009, no one knew the current deforestation rate in Guyana, so they used the average, as described above. When the JCN was renewed in March 2011 and it was clear that Guyana’s deforestation rate remained quite low (though it had increased to 0.056%), the countries agreed to set a limit of 0.1%, thereby ensuring that funds would not be granted if deforestation increased significantly. This still allows Guyana to increase deforestation by about two times, but even this rate is lower than the global average.

The agreement with Norway included other requirements, such as a stipulation that Guyana should begin negotiations on structuring a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) with the European Union (EU). Voluntary Partnership Agreements are the means of putting the EU’s Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) licensing sys-tem into effect. This initiative attempts to exclude illegally logged timber products from EU markets. Timber products which have been legally produced in VPA partner countries will be licensed for legality of production, and only licensed products from these partner countries will be allowed access to the EU. The VPAs offer an important means of improv-ing forestry governance in the partner countries.

Finally, it’s important to know that independent third-party auditors10 will periodically assess the progress of Guyana’s agreement with Norway and how the funds are being used. The first of these assessments has already occurred. The auditor found the LCDS consultation process in Guyana to be “credible, transparent and inclusive,” even though they recognized that they had some “reservations”. They also mention that the Guyanese society is “well informed” about the LCDS, although the cost of and obligations required by REDD+ and the LCDS “are not always fully understood”. However, indigenous com-munities lack access to mainstream media, and have complained about the poor quality of the LCDS and REDD+ information they received (too technical and fast paced). Based on feedback from many of these communities, it seems clear that indigenous people in Guyana are still poorly informed and do not understand much about the LCDS or the REDD+ programs. Unfortunately, the independent monitors and auditors hardly ever vis-it indigenous communities to get their opinions and instead rely on the government or the head of the National Toshoas Council (NTC) for information, and the head of the NTC hardly ever, if ever, visits communities independent of the government or its represen-tatives—who have stronger incentives for presenting positive results from indigenous areas than for discovering and presenting the truth.

In the recommendations section of their report, the auditors mention that although the safeguards of partner entities were established in the MoU, “they may need to be more clearly explained and a clear consensus reached with Guyana about them.” Each partner entity has its own safeguards policies, e.g., the World Bank had its Operational Directive 4.10 which provides guidelines on the treatment of indigenous peoples for Bank Proj-ects. Under the GRIF each partner entity is supposed to apply and follow their existing

10 Real-Time Evaluation of Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative: Contributions to National REDD+ Processes 2007–2010, Country Report: Guyana, March 2011. regjeringen.no/upload/MD/2011/vedlegg/klima/klima_skogprosjektet/Evalueringsrapportene/Report_15_Guyana_web.pdf

12 LCDS, GRIF and REDD+: What does it all mean? 13

safeguards but the auditors are suggesting that this should have consensus agreement with Guyana. They also express concern about elements of the LCDS that are not funded by Norway, as those elements “may not be consistent with Norway’s views and with the safeguards required on the use of its development funds.” They mention two examples: the draining of the Rupununi and the Amaila Falls dam project. They also recognized that “the slow progress with titling and the resolution of outstanding extension claims needs to be addressed urgently.” And they recognized that land extension is an issue: “Even when [land is titled], the question will remain over the extension claims to land used historically”. Lastly, they note that partner entities should work towards “greater in-dependence for the NTC” because “it’s still largely under the wing of the MoAA [Ministry of Amerindian Affairs]” and the relationship seems “somewhat paternalistic”.

The auditor’s report found the way in which REDD+ funds going to communities would be spent would be “inappropriate,” as it would be based only on the approval of the MoAA, stating that—“it appears that any use of the funds is still to be made through the MoAA, in a rather paternalistic system. This does not seem to be adequate to meet the spirit of the MoU and JCN”. Their recommendation for fixing this problem is to “build capacity and leave communities in charge of their own affairs”. They recognize that the communities’ understanding of the issues is limited. “It’s far from clear that, despite the comprehensive consultation process, titled communities yet have the understanding re-quired to take informed decisions.”

In the report the auditors claim that land rights are not the “primary interest” of Amer-indians. After some conversations with Amerindian leaders (it’s not specified who), they found that some leaders thought that giving up some of their land used historically “was a fair price to pay for integration into wider society.” In the auditor’s view, the most com-mon Amerindian concern related to “the need for economic activity to encourage young people to remain in the community” and claim that, without this, “Amerindian culture would not survive regardless of land allocation.”

In this respect, the findings of the independent auditors are very strange. Had they looked at actual reports from the “LCDS Consultations” conducted in the interior, they would have seen that the number one issue indigenous communities are concerned with is land rights. It seems that, like with some of their other conclusions, they arrived at this conclusion by talking to only a few leaders. They did not survey sufficiently to understand the view of the majority of indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples in Guyana have already lost a lot of their traditional lands. The Amerindian Lands Com-mission Report of 1969 found that approximately 43,000 square miles of Guyana was indigenous lands, though in the end the Commission recommended only approximately 24,000 square miles for titling. And today the total of titled indigenous lands is still only approximately 12,000 square miles. “Integration into wider society” generally means losing some key aspects of culture. Economic viability and community sustainability are inextricably bound together with land, territorial and resource rights. Land titles which exclude all mineral rights and water rights do not help the economic situation of the in-digenous peoples, and furthermore are in violation of Guyana’s treaty obligations under international law. For more information on this situation, read the latest briefing on this last assessment elaborated by the APA.

Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Alberto Cesar Araujo/Greenpeace.

The Amerindian Lands Commission Report of 1969 found

that approximately 43,000 square miles of Guyana was

indigenous lands, though in the end the Commission

recommended only approximately 24,000 square miles for

titling. And today the total of titled indigenous lands is

still only approximately 12,000 square miles.

14 LCDS, GRIF and REDD+: What does it all mean? 1533

Middle Mazaruni River scene, Guyana/APA Archive.

THE GUYANA REDD+ INvESTMENT FUND (GRIF)

The Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund (GRIF), established in 2010, was created to channel all REDD+ financial support from Norway and other potential contributors. The GRIF is managed by the World Bank, which is known as the Trustee, and has the role of oversee-ing use of the money. Under the GRIF arrangement, the money that Norway gives to Guyana to keep its forest standing does not flow directly to the government of Guyana. Norway instead gives the money to the GRIF, and it makes payments for specific projects to “Partner Entities” based on the advice of the GRIF Steering Committee.

These “Partner Entities” are sort of “business partners”. So far, only big, multilateral or-ganizations are recognized as Partner Entities, such as the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the World Bank itself, and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). They are the only ones actually authorized to spend the money and to imple-ment the projects. The governments of Guyana and Norway form the Steering Com-mittee. The Partner Entities and other representatives of Guyanese and Norwegian civil society are observers to the Steering Committee. The trustee manages and disburses the money, and it also receives some money from the GRIF itself to cover its administra-tive costs.

It’s advantageous to have such Partner Entities managing REDD+ projects as they each have their own internal policies and safeguards that must be part of any of the projects being implemented with the GRIF money. Different organizations have different policies and safeguards, and some are better than others. For instance, the World Bank has a weaker policy than the UNDP regarding the consent of indigenous peoples. Since these organizations have made many mistakes in the past regarding indigenous peoples, they are now more careful when they release any money to be certain that they will not be criticized by indigenous peoples or their supporters. Moreover, each of the organizations serving as Partner Entities in Guyana has complaint mechanisms that can be used if it’s felt that the proper procedures have not been followed. For details about the policies/safeguards of these organizations, please check booklet 6 on safeguards.

Decision making process of proposals sent to the Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund (GRIF)

In Guyana, various safeguards and other such procedures were established in the MoU and the JCN, and signed by all parties, including the government. Yet the government has since voiced displeasure at the pace of the money’s disbursement, which it sees as having been slowed down by the application of the safeguards. Although governments eager to access funds for their programs may complain that safeguards make the process slow and bureaucratic, such safeguards are in place to protect everyone involved, includ-ing the government itself.

A specific example of this situation is with the UNDP land titling project. The MOAA and the UNDP applied to the GRIF for a project to title the land of all Amerindians in Guyana. The project is based on the Amerindian Act as the legal framework to regulate the pro-cess. However, the Amerindian Act of 2006, as has been pointed out on many occasions, including by the UN Committee to Eliminate Racial Discrimination (CERD) is inadequate in many regards and is not compliant with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The UNDP as part of the United Nations, must comply with the UNDRIP as well as with its own policies and guidelines, in this case the UNDG (United Nations Development Guidelines), and not just with the Amerindian Act. Again, for more details about social safeguards, check booklet 6.

Norway checks progress and

gives money to the trustee

World Bank (trustee) keeps

the money

Partner Entities get the money

(IBD, World Bank, UNDP)

Steering Committee

decides which projects to

fund

Partner entity submits

proposal to GRIF

Partner Entities implement the

project

16 LCDS, GRIF and REDD+: What does it all mean?

WHO IS PART OF THE GRIF? WHAT PROPOSALS HAS THE GRIF APPROvED?

The decision about what projects to grant is made by the GRIF Steering Committee. Members of the Steering Committee (with voting power) are the governments of Nor-way and Guyana. If any further donors should come along, they will also get a seat and be able to vote. In additional to the governmental officials from both countries, the Steering Committee also has observers. Observers are all the involved Partner Entities (IDB, UNDP, World Bank) as well as the GRIF Trustee (World Bank), and civil society observers from Norway (Rainforest Foundation Norway and World Wildlife Fund) and Guyana (4 observ-ers chosen by the MSSC for each Steering Committee meeting.)

It’s important to note that the GRIF Steering Committee has to date (October 2011) re-ceived 1 Project Proposal, on institutional strengthening and also 2 additional Project Concept Notes, on land titling and micro-projects. These project concept notes have not yet been developed into full project proposals.

LCDS, REDD+ AND AMERINDIANS

Many Amerindian communities have had some of their lands recognized by the govern-ment, and today almost 14% of Guyana’s land is currently under Amerindian control. Al-though the Amerindian Act has some serious limitations (as seen in booklet 5), it does at least recognize that communities can more or less decide what to do with their land, but only if they are titled. Ostensibly, communities should therefore be able to decide freely if they want to participate in a REDD+ program or not. The government has described this right as being able to “opt-in” to the LCDS, with no deadline on that ability. If individual communities decide that they do wish to participate, the government would act on be-half of those communities and place indigenous lands within the REDD+ framework (i.e. the current agreement with Norway). Theoretically, if a community ‘opts in’ it should get a share of the money that Norway gives to Guyana, based on proposals they submit. It remains unclear what would happen to untitled Amerindian lands, and if a community decides not to “opt in”. During the preparation of the second draft of the LCDS, Amerin-dian representatives argued that some portion of the payments might flow directly to the individual villages that opted-in, and the rest of the payments would fund a broader Amerindian Development Fund, which would be a grant-based program through which any indigenous group (not just those who live in the forest) could apply for funds for development programs.

However, indigenous communities face certain risks in choosing to participate in REDD+ or other LCDS programs, and unless these are taken into account, communities could suffer more than they benefit by participating. For example, under a REDD+ program, some areas of indigenous lands could be declared off-limits to cutting for logs, or even for farming or other similar purposes. Communities have to be clear about what the re-strictions of a REDD+ or LCDS program will be and ensure that measures are in place to prevent them from being negatively impacted. Communities also have to be clear about and participate in the design of the means by which they will benefit financially from REDD+ or LCDS programs. Unclear mechanisms could result in their having little or no control over determining the course of their own development. Security of land tenure

is also very important and problems could arise for communities living in non-titled land as REDD+ will provide new economic incentives to the government for keeping forested lands in its own hands. Essentially, under REDD+ the State has one more reason to keep more lands for itself and not recognize Amerindian land titles, as the more land it has, the more money it gets. This conflict of interests could cause land conflicts to increase, and could have a strong impact on Amerindians.

The LCDS recognizes that Amerindian land titling in Guyana is still an unresolved issue. It makes this issue a priority and recognizes that Amerindians must be free to decide if they want to participate in REDD+. However, the LCDS is guided by the provisions of the Amerindian Act which, as we know, has severe limitations. For example, the Amerindian Act does not address territorial and ancestral land rights, it gives unlimited decision mak-ing powers to the Minister of Amerindian Affairs and it does not give sub-surface rights or right to waters. More on the Act is discussed in the booklet “Indigenous Rights at the National and International Levels,” but for now it’s sufficient to say that application of the Act has often led to inequitable results in the past

Since Guyana is moving apace with seeking to attract funding through keeping its for-ests standing and much of what is being considered has implication for the indigenous peoples of this country, it’s important that you understand where you fit into all that is taking place and how you can make an impact for our benefits and to safeguard our rights. This booklet is one tool that can be used to advance your positions in this regard.

MORE INFORMATION

• For more information, you can read the following documents:

• Low Carbon Development Strategy, May 2010, Office of the President (http://www.lcds.gov.gy/images/stories/Documents/Low%20Carbon%20Development%20Strategy%20-%20May%202010.pdf)

• Memorandum of Understanding between Guyana and Norway regarding Co-operation on Issues related to the Fight against Climate Change, the Protection of Biodiversity and the Enhancement of Sustainable Development (http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/MD/2011/vedlegg/klima/klima_skogprosjektet/Guyana/JointConceptNote_31mars2011.pdf).

• Joint Concept Note of March 2011 between Guyana and Norway (http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/MD/2011/vedlegg/klima/klima_skogprosjektet/Guyana/JointConceptNote_31mars2011.pdf)

17

AMERINDIAN PEOPLES ASSOCIATION