A participatory approach to elucidate the consequences of land invasions on REDD+ initiatives: A case study with Indigenous communities in Panama.

Land tenure and tenure security are among the most important factors determining the viability and success of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) initiatives. The premise of the present paper is that territorial conflicts lead to forest loss and compromise the successful implementation of REDD+. Within this context, the main objectives of this paper are to (i) document, relying on participatory methods, the extent to which land conflicts drive deforestation and (ii) reflect on the legal context of REDD+ examining if, from an Indigenous perspective, it offers tools to resolve such conflicts. We used the Upper Bayano Watershed in eastern Panama as a case study of complex land tenure dynamics, and their effects on forest conservation in the context of REDD+. Combining a range of participatory methods including participatory mapping and forest carbon stock assessment, we estimated the consequences of land invasions on forest carbon stocks. Our analysis shows that invasions of Indigenous territories amounted to 27.6% of the total deforestation for the period of 2001–2014. The situation is of paramount concern in the Embera territory of Majé where 95.4% of total deforestation was caused by colonist invaders. Using and validating the maps made freely available by the Global Forest Change initiative of the University of Maryland, we then developed a reference level for the watershed and carried out a back of the envelop estimation of likely REDD+ revenue, showing its potential to bring much needed income to Indigenous communities striving to protect their forest estate. Our analysis of current legislation in Panama highlights confusion and important legal voids and emphasizes the strong links between land tenure, carbon ownership, and territorial invasions. The options and shortcoming of implementing REDD+ in Indigenous territories is discussed in the conclusion taking our legal review into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]