Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/REDD+ in Indigenous Amazonia: What works and what doesn’t?

Positionality

First and foremost I am not Indigenous, and whilst there are a myriad of cultures, ontologies and epistemologies that are not sufficiently represented by simply stating ‘Indigenous’, it is commonly accepted that these worldviews are vastly different to those of the ‘Western’ world, which is the world in which I grew up and matured. I am therefore only understanding of Indigenous cultures, beliefs and customary laws based upon available online literature and those which I have learnt through life, in addition to those introduced to me in my Master’s degree. As such, I will never be able to fully relate to an Indigenous person; the best I can do is try to understand and learn. Only throughout this process am I able to work towards reconciliation and attempt to address the inequities experienced by Indigenous folk globally.

Additionally, I am yet to act as a carbon project proponent and so do not understand the nuances or stresses of undertaking such a task. Whilst an individual proponent may have the best intention of procuring a carbon project for its social and environmental benefits, there are a number of stakeholders involved throughout the entire process which influence its eventual outcome. Without experience acting as a project proponent I am naïve in understanding the process and its difficulties.

Acronyms / Terminology

Acronyms:

AFOLU: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land-Use

CCBS: Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard

ICVCM: Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market

IPLC: Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities

KMGBF: Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

LAC: Latin American Countries

MRV: Monitoring, Reporting and Verification

PD: Project Description

REDD+: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation

UNCBD: United Nations Convention on Biological Biodiversity

UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

VCM: Voluntary Carbon Market

VCMI: Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative

VCS: Verified Carbon Standard

Terminology:

Additionality: Additionality is the determination of whether the project will lead to the expected outcomes when compared to the baseline or ‘business as usual’ emissions.

Leakage: Refers to the shifting of emissions to outside the project boundary as a result of the project’s activities.

Permanence: Permanence refers to the degree to which a carbon credit is equivalent to a permanent removal or reduction in emissions.

Abstract

This case study illustrates two examples of Indigenous-led REDD+ projects on Indigenous territory in Colombia and Brazil. Both countries have a relatively long history of engaging with REDD+ but have slightly different legal structures pertaining to the rights of Indigenous peoples on their traditional territories, and specifically their ‘carbon’ rights. As such, the intention is to evaluate how these differing de jure rights translate on the ground. With respect to REDD+, do certain rights result in legitimately positive benefits to IPLCs, as well as the environment that these projects were originally intended to protect? The intention is such that the reader can evaluate the effectiveness and true benefit of REDD+ projects to IPLC’s, based upon the legal frameworks of the host country. A secondary intention is such that the reader is better equipped to conduct a prefeasibility assessment based upon available online literature, to evaluate the likelihood that REDD+ can be implemented in any chosen country, with the genuine intent of benefiting IPLC’s that are directly affected as a result of REDD+ project implementation.

REDD+ and the VCM in Brazil and Colombia

REDD+, originally introduced by the UNFCCC, is a market-based mechanism sitting within the VCM that aims to reverse the loss of forests and carbon stocks, specifically in developing countries. Simply put, an entity or an individual can voluntarily pay another that has engaged with REDD+ and subsequently sequestered carbon, to offset their own emissions using ‘credits’, sold as units of greenhouse gas equivalent to one ton of carbon dioxide (CO2e). Forestry and Land-Use remains the largest category of carbon credits traded by transaction volume on the VCM, with REDD+ being the most popular project type in this category, accounting for 78% of credits traded. Furthermore, over one-third of the credits sold within this category were sourced from projects that had been implemented in LAC and the Caribbean in 2024. Of the four largest standards issuing carbon credits, Verra accounts for roughly 80% of issuances in Latin America, and even in the face of recent scrutiny, REDD+ projects account for a significant proportion of the VCM with their continued application likely to persist. With the introduction of updated methodologies aimed at addressing these concerns, there is hope for renewed buyer confidence in the integrity of this market, though more work still needs to be done.

Both Colombia and Brazil have a relatively long history of implementing REDD+ projects, using both fund-based and market-based mechanisms. For example, both countries were participants in the ‘Amazon Indigenous REDD+ (RIA in Spanish) initiative, with the first pilot implementation project being initiated in Colombia’s Puiawai Natural Reserve. The relevance of these two countries with respect to REDD+ is simple. Much of the Amazon’s primary tropical rainforest falls within these countries' jurisdiction and this rainforest has been consistently under threat from external pressures and encroachment, whether that be in the form of land-clearing for commercial ranching, subsistence purposes, illicit drug production or illegal mining practices, to name a few.

In theory, REDD+ can be used to provide the economic incentive to promote sustained environmental protection of Indigenous lands, with a focus on the rights and livelihoods of IPLCs. Currently the overall funding to IPLCs tenure rights and forest management in tropical countries is low, receiving just $270 million per year between 2011-2020 from bilateral and multilateral donors and private philanthropies. REDD+ has the potential to channel funding as to promote Indigenous rights and autonomy, provided there is transparent and equitable benefit-sharing for those involved. Fundamentally, only with the inclusion of IPLC’s, or preferably with IPLC’s acting as project proponents, is REDD+ able to promote Indigenous agency and improve IPLC rights and governance. And only when the rights of those inhabiting the land are formally recognized can the land be effectively conserved. The inclusion of IPLCs in REDD+ project development is therefore considered to be essential for project success, and this is in theory embodied in the very nature of REDD+. Partially owing to a long history of dealing with REDD+, Colombia and Brazil are amongst just a few of the countries hosting tropical rainforests that explicitly recognise community rights to carbon and tie these rights to the legal ownership of lands and forests. In Colombia, carbon rights are tied to land rights, whereas in Brazil carbon rights are tied to forest rights.

Brazil: The Suruí Forest Carbon Project

Brazil's Amazon rainforest

Project description and location

The Surui Forest Carbon project (SFCP) was implemented in 2009 on the territory of the Surui people, which is situated in the southern part of Brazil’s Amazon between the states of Rondônia and Mato Grosso. Surui Indigenous territory covers an area of 2,481 km², though the intention of the SFCP was to protect a portion of this total area. According to the PD, the stated objective was to “prevent 13,575.3 hectares of tropical forest from being cleared by 2038, to avoid the emission of 7,258,352.3 tCO₂e to the atmosphere, and to contribute to the preservation of the Paiter Surui lifestyle and traditions.” This region sits within one of the Brazilian Amazon’s main ‘arcs of deforestation’ and pressure from loggers and ranchers is a matter of concern.

Notably, the SFCP was the first REDD+ project to be proposed by Indigenous peoples in the Brazilian Amazon on their own territory and was the first to receive certification by both the VCS and CCBS.. Metareilá, the Surui’s own Indigenous association, acted as project proponent and the Institute for Conservation and Sustainable Development of Amazonas (IDESAM) assisted with project development, alongside multiple other stakeholder groups. As an endogenous initiative procured and conducted by the Surui community, the SFCP had a ‘non-centralized model of governance’, which reflected the characteristics and traditions of the Surui people.

Only after two years of consultations between the 24 communities involved and the relevant governmental agencies (primarily FUNAI and the Ministry of Environment) was a Memorandum of Understanding signed, showing community consent to develop the project. In 2012 after verification from an independent third-party body, the Surui were able to sell carbon credits on the international market. Between 2009 and 2014 the project drastically helped limit the deforestation occurring within the project’s site, causing many to deem it a success.

National climate targets, policies and legislation

Rates of deforestation in Brazil’s legal Amazon are significantly impacted by the government in charge. This is evidenced in the decade between 2012 and 2021 whilst under the conservative Bolsonaro administration, deforestation in the Amazon increased 185% — from a loss of 4,571 km² in 2012 to 13,038 km² in 2021. However, since Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s appointment in 2022 there has been a steady decline in the rate of deforestation, which is now roughly half what it was in 2021. A significant proportion of emissions result from the clearing of rainforest and its subsequent conversion to ranching. To address these emissions Brazil has implemented various adaptation policies, legislation and targets which are summarized below:

Document name	Type	Publication year	Key takeaways
National Policy on Climate Change (NPCC)	Legislation	2009	Framework for addressing climate change
National Plan on Climate Change Adaptation	Policy	2016	Framework for addressing impacts of climate change
Nationally Determined Contribution	Target	2024	Reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 59 to 67 percent below 2005 levels by 2035
Federal Constitution, Article 225	Legislation	2006	The Amazon rainforest is considered as a ‘national heritage’.All levels of government have a shared responsibility to protect it and the environment
Relating to REDD+
Plan of Action for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAM)	Policy	2004	Aims to reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon
Forest code	Legislation	2012	Aimed at reducing deforestation, but no specific mention of REDD+
Amazon Indigenous REDD+ Initiative	Policy	2012	Incorporate Indigenous with REDD+ initiatives
National REDD+ Strategy (ENREDD+)	Policy	2016	REDD+ as a fund-based mechanism

Indigenous rights - Constitutional, tenure and bundle rights

In Brazil, Indigenous rights are robust and clearly defined according to the Brazilian Constitution. As a result, the Indigenous communities of the Brazilian Amazon have legal title to 13.8% of the national territory totalling 1.175 million km², with a total of 631 territories.

Laws
Article 231 of the 1988 Constitution	Indigenous peoples to have their exclusive right to use their territories to derive economic benefits. Grants indigenous peoples the right to land, prohibits eviction, and restricts mining without authorization from the federal government.
Indigenous Peoples statute (1973).	No acts restricting the full exercise of indigenous peoples’ permanent tenure over the land should be permitted.
Treaties
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007)	Requires States to obtain free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) for the approval of any projects affecting indigenous territories.
International Labour Organization Convention 169 (2019)	Ratified and incorporated under domestic law in 2002 through Decree 10.088/2019, endorsing UNDRIP
American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2016)	Supports and builds upon UNDRIP

Whilst Indigenous communities in Brazil have legal title to land, it is the State that owns it. Indigenous people simply exercise permanent tenure over lands that they traditionally occupy and have ‘original rights’ to these traditional lands, which no other rights can prevail over. Indigenous lands, though not classified as protected areas, “have the highest level of protection by law because they are regulated by the Constitution” and cannot be leased or restricted without violating their original rights. The Suruí's right to develop the SFCP is grounded in the Brazilian Constitution, which grants Indigenous peoples exclusive rights to use the ‘riches of the soil, rivers and lakes’ of their land, and these rights cannot be overridden. Thus, Indigenous people and only Indigenous people are legally allowed to engage in productive activities on their land, provided these activities are conducted according to their own customs and traditions and are necessary for the wellbeing and cultural expression of their own people. In Brazil, it is the armed forces and federal police that are responsible for enforcing these laws, and FUNAI is responsible for representing Indigenous communities in judicial disputes. As such, provided a REDD+ project does not violate the rights to territorial integrity, permanent land tenure and original rights, it is legally allowed.

Two Indigenous in Brazil

CARBON RIGHTS: In Brazil, carbon rights are tied to forest rights. Carbon credits from REDD+ projects are seen as part of the economic benefits derived from indigenous lands, and as such, Indigenous communities are entitled to own, control and distribute these revenues themselves. The carbon credits generated from the SFCP were wholly owned by the Suruí people through Metareilá, with the Suruí Fund (managed by the Brazilian Biodiversity Fund - FUNBIO) acting as recipient. This legality reinforces Indigenous control over both land and carbon rights, as whoever has rights to the forest land is usually recognized as the owner of carbon rights. Collectively these national and international laws provide an important safeguard to Indigenous peoples, making their consent a prerequisite for the establishment of REDD+ projects and recognizing their rights as the main beneficiaries of REDD+ revenues. However, as carbon rights are tied to forest rights in Brazil and not land rights, and carbon is considered to be an ‘environmental service’ (Article 41(I)(A) Brazilian Forestry Code), states as well as the federal government have the jurisdiction to exercise full legislative authority over carbon. As such, certain states have interpreted the law to imply that the title to carbon credits is attributable to the state. Hence, even when carbon rights are clearly defined and tied to forest title it is insufficient in itself, and only by legally recognizing the customary rights of IPLCs can a fair and equitable outcome be realised.

FPIC OBLIGATION: Brazilian law requires Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) for REDD+ projects affecting indigenous lands, ensuring that international standards such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and ILO Convention No. 169 are adhered to; Indigenous consent is, de jure, a necessity. Projects that violate these rights and fail to consult communities are therefore considered illegal. Notably there are no specific rules or procedures that have been written into the Brazilian constitution that provide guidance on how to achieve FPIC. However, this freedom reinforces Indigenous autonomy as it allows an Indigenous community to define the rules of consultation according to their customs and traditions.

Affected and interested stakeholders

Affected stakeholders
Stakeholders	Primary objective(s)	Secondary objective(s)	Relative power	Scope of influence
Metareilá Association of the Suruí Indigenous People	Project proponent Works to defend and preserve the cultural and territorial heritage of the Suruí people. Responsible for the Suruí Fund (FUNBIO). Ensure equitable distribution of funds	Ensure project longevity. Stick to the mandate; attempt not to be influenced by external actors	Powerful, though lacking technical knowhow. Have carbon rights and thus have ultimate control of project revenue; can decide how this revenue is distributed.	Local
Other Indigenous groups and associations	Support various aspects of proejct development	Aim to benefit from the project	Have the same rights as the Metareila with respect to land though are less involved with project development and have less say, nor derive economic benefits like the Metareila	Local
Campesinos (peasants)	Survive via subsistence.	Procure more land.	Have far fewer rights than Indigenous groups and no involvement with the project	Local
Interested stakeholders
IDESAM - Institute for Conservation and Sustainable Development of Amazonas	Maximise revenue from project. Ensure project longevity	Achieve completion of various technical aspects of project	Powerful: Required to complete various technical aspects of development.	National
Forest Trends	Supported formulation and implementation of the project. Uphold image of organization	Maximise environmental benefits of project	Powerful: Tasked with raising funds and fostering an international network; an integral part of project development	International
Amazon Conservation Team - ACT Brazil	Supports various aspect of project development as well as offering legal advice. Other technical assistance	Maximise environmental benefits of project	Powerful: An integral part of project development	International
Kanindé Association for Ethno-Environmental Defense – non-profit	Promote Metareilá views and beliefs	Involved with various aspects of project development	Mid-power. Has a say in project direction, though less weight than the Metareila.	National - International
Ministry of Environment (MMA)	Responsible for protection and conservation of natural environment	Ensure project adheres to national law	Powerful. Must be notified about project activities although cannot strictly alter decisions made by the Surui	National
National Indian Foundation (FUNAI)	Promote Indigenous rights	Represents Indignous organizations with judicial matters.	Powerful. Knowleadgeable of judicial system. Must be notified about project activities though is not involved with project governance.	National
Government of the State of Mato Grosso	Encourage development, and reduce poverty and crime in Mato Grosso	Ensure project adheres to regional law.	Powerful. Legilative control over regional police and municipalities	Regional

Discussion

Although originally successful in achieving its goal of reducing deforestation and degradation, in 2016 diamonds were discovered in Surui territory, leading to an increase in illegal logging and mining. By 2018 the project site had been completely overrun by garimpeiros (small-scale gold miners), ultimately leading to the project's suspension that year.

While the project had initially garnered support, divisions emerged within the community post-project implementation. Disputes arose over the unequal distribution of project revenues, leading to internal conflicts between different Suruí clans. These criticisms escalated in 2014 when the Catholic Indigenous Missionary Council supported calls for an end to the project due to mismanagement of revenues from carbon credit sales. Some Suruí members also argued that the REDD+ initiative harmed their way of life.

Further complicating the situation was the controversial role of Henrique Suruí, one of the Suruí tribal leaders. In 2011, it was revealed that Henrique had violated the tribe's logging moratorium, collaborating with loggers in illegal activities. While Henrique later denied responsibility for the project’s failure, his actions, combined with internal disagreements, illustrated the lack of consensus within the Suruí leadership on the project’s goals and outcomes. Both of the tribe’s leaders possessed dramatically different perspectives on how they believed they could ensure agency, autonomy, and economic benefits for the Suruí people. This fragmentation within the community, in combination with the discovery of diamonds and the state's failure to protect indigenous land rights led to the indefinite suspension of the REDD+ project.

The project's collapse highlights broader structural issues, particularly the state's inconsistent support for indigenous land rights, influenced by settler colonialism, which undermined the project’s long-term viability. Additionally, the project’s creation was shaped by external actors, including the collaboration between Almir Suruí and Borges from Forest Trends, a Washington-based NGO. This partnership introduced a Western perspective on viewing the Suruí peoples forest, in contrast with their own perspectives on land use and governance. Furthermore, despite Borges’ Brazilian background, the power dynamics between a global North organization and a developing, Indigenous community were apparent.

Summary

The Suruí Forest Carbon Project provides an interesting example of how, even when the rights of IPLC’s are relatively robust, challenges persist in ensuring REDD+ project longevity. As such, in its current state, REDD+ in the Brazilian Amazon may not be a suitable market-based option for Indigenous communities in the Amazon. Although initially successful in promoting Indigenous autonomy and reducing deforestation, the project resulted in failure due to of a myriad of factors. Divisions among Surui communities were exacerbated by a perceived unequal benefit-sharing, and the impact of imposing REDD+ seems to have complicated the traditional social structure that the Surui were dependent on. These issues were influenced by Brazil's settler state dynamics, where Indigenous land rights, although legally recognized, are often not upheld in practice due to insufficient enforcement. Ultimately, the Surui project reveals how settler colonialism's structural flaws make long-term project success difficult, despite initial progress in promoting Indigenous autonomy.

At the national and state level, complex institutional and legal land governance structures convolute and impede REDD+ in Brazil. Multiple institutions share responsibilities and there is no comprehensive, authoritative database of land ownership, which hampers efforts to protect Indigenous territories. As a result, land tenure disputes remain common and can be witnessed occurring between the public as well between public and state actors. For example, Brazil’s 1964 Land Statute (Law No. 4504) allows the government to take over unproductive farms and transfer those lands to landless peasants. This often results in the clearing of forest, as only when the land is cleared is it evidenced to be ‘productive’. Hence, not only does this law cause insecurity for Indigenous populations in Brazil, it also forces them to go against customary traditions of stewarding the land in an effort to maintain its control.

Whilst the aforementioned points to the futility of REDD+ in Brazil, there is reason to maintain optimism. In a recent landmark ruling Brazil’s supreme court voted in favour of the Xoleng peoples, and the decision will serve as a precedent for all cases involving Indigenous peoples. The Xokleng’s land dispute, settled in 2023, “rejected Santa Catarina state’s marco temporal (“time limit”) argument, which would have required Indigenous people to prove they occupied or legally contested the territory they claimed before the Brazilian Constitution came into force in 1988.  If successful, this argument would have led to disastrous repercussions, as many Indigenous peoples had been forcibly removed or are traditionally nomadic.” Evidently, whilst slow, progress has been made in Brazil in recent years with respect to Indigenous rights as well as the voluntary carbon market itself.

There are currently 159 AFOLU projects listed on the Verra database in Brazil, with only two specifically focused on REDD+ initiatives in collaboration with Indigenous groups. These are the Ka’a Pyahu project, initiated by the Guajajara Indigenous people in collaboration with external organizations and validated in 2021, and the ‘Together for the forest Awaete REDD+ project’ which is still under development. Both projects involve Indigenous groups working with Brazilian organizations to build technical capacity and expertise. This could signal a growing trend of Indigenous-led REDD+ projects in the future. To ensure a positive future for REDD+ in Brazil, the customary rights of IPLC’s must be formally recognized. IPLC should have legal ownership of their traditional lands, and in doing so the carbon rights of these communities would be less convoluted, leading to more equitable benefit-sharing and increased cohesion amongst these groups post-project implementation.

Colombia: REDD+ project Resguardo Indigena Unificado - Selva de Mataven (RUI-SM)

Project description and location

A view of the Mataven

According to the PD, the Resguardo Indígena Unificado – Selva de Matavén (RIU-SM) project is located east of the Colombian Orinoco high plain, in the eastern part of the Department of Vichada, municipality of Cumaribo. It resides on the formalized resguardo of the Sikuani, Piaroa, Puinave, Curripaco, Cubeo and Piapoco ethnic groups, spanning 1,856,836 hectares, with 1,477,115 hectares (79.6%) being forested. The PD states that it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with a total estimated net reduction of 108,670,562 tons of CO2 equivalent over thirty years, from years 2013 – 2042. By this metric, it is the 14th largest project on the Verra registry, out of over 1700 projects. There are 12,312 Indigenous people living in the RIU-SM, belonging to 2,517 families and 250 communities as of 2017.

The project was initiated by the Asociación de Cabildos y Autoridades Indígenas de la Selva de Matavén (ACETISMA), an Indigenous association, and developed by MEDIAMOS F&M, a Colombian consultancy firm. ACETISMA is comprised of Indigenous leaders that represent the 17 communities of the reservation in charge of governing the territory, and it has administrative autonomy, as well as “the capacity to acquire, to own and to dispose of property, to accept donations, to hold national and international conventions, scientific and cultural exchanges and generally, to celebrate all kinds of negotiations and agreements with which the Association can achieve its objectives.”

There is a stated focus on various means of improving the living conditions of the Indigenous peoples living within the project area. To summarise, the main objectives of the REDD+ project RIU-SM include:

·      Community development, in the form of improved education.

·      Community engagement with respect to the project; developing information channels to reveal project progress.

·      Support local initiatives for environmental education and waste management.

·      Developing an effective response system that addresses community proposals and concerns relating to the project.

·      Strengthening the governance of ACATISEMA.

National climate targets, policies and legislation

The Colombian Amazon makes up over one-third of Colombia’s national territory, and up until 2005 only 7.3% of the Colombian Amazon had been deforested, largely due to the country's 60-year armed conflict between the government, multiple left-wing guerillas such as FARC, and several far-right paramilitary groups. However, following the signing of the Peace Treaty in 2016 and demobilization of the FARC, limits to deforestation were weakened in the Colombian Amazon. Poor but opportunistic peasants began to encroach into previously unchartered territory and capitalize from the rainforest. Due to the poor economic integration of the Amazon, many were forced to engage with the traditional economies of cocoa and cattle ranching, as these markets were already well connected to regional and global markets. To address the drivers of deforestation and its associated emissions, the federal government has implemented various initiatives, which are summarized below:

Document name	Type	Publication year	Key takeaways
Nationally Determined Contribution(s)	Target	2020	Reduce GHG emissions by 51% by 2030 and net-zero by 2050
National Climate Change Policy (PNCC)	Policy	2018	Address climate change and foster sustainable development
National Forest Conservation Program	Policy	2011	Address deforestation
Law 1931 of 2018 – Climate Change Law	Legislation	2018	Establishes the framework for addressing climate change
Relating to REDD+:
National Strategy for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (ENREDD+)	Initiative	2009	Particular focus on the Amazon and Choco rainforests
Amazon Indigenous REDD+ Initiative	Initiative	2016	Respect Indigenous rights. FPIC focus.
BIOREDD+ program	Initiative	2012	Portfolio of 8 REDD+ projects in four geographic nodes covering over 700,000 hectares in the Colombian Pacific.
Vision Amazonia	Initiative	2015	Part of the REDD+ strategy, financed by three foreign countries: Germany, Norway and United Kingdom

As a result of the many fund and market-based initiatives that Colombia has engaged with, it hosts the second most REDD+ projects in the world. REDD+ projects now cover at least 56% of the area of legally recognized Indigenous territories in the Colombian Amazon, with an overwhelming majority of carbon projects located on Indigenous territories. Evidently REDD+ plays an integral part in the country’s efforts of environmental conservation, and incentives have been introduced to promote the development of such projects. For example, in 2016 the government adopted a higher tax that covered fossil fuels, but companies are able to avoid paying the tax by investing in carbon offsets that have been generated domestically. This led to a boost in the domestic REDD+ market in 2017, as Colombian companies invested to escape higher taxes. Notably, 23 of the 36 REDD+ projects currently under development in the Amazon region were initiated in or after 2018. Currently Colombia’s REDD+ program sits at over 45 pilot and voluntary carbon projects, as well as one large-scale jurisdictional approach in the Amazon.

Indigenous rights - Constitutional, tenure and bundle rights

De jure, the Indigenous peoples of Colombia have comprehensive tenure and bundle of rights that have been articulated in the national constitution. Collective land titles are granted to Indigenous communities by the Colombian government and as a result about 34 percent of Colombian land (almost 38 million hectares) is legally recognized as Indigenous territory or collective lands of Afro-descendent communities. These collective land tenure rights have been in effect since the implementation of the 1991 constitution, granting them the authority to exercise legal control over their territories in accordance with their own customs and procedures. Furthermore, the carbon rights of Indigenous peoples are explicitly defined in the constitution and tied specifically to the ownership of land of the communities. This in theory provides a solid legal basis for upholding the rights of Indigenous communities in Colombia, specifically relating to REDD+ activities, as it allows communities to define and negotiate the terms of said projects. A summary of the various laws relating to Indigenous rights have been summarized below:

Law (1991 constitution)
Article 63	Indigenous territories are considered collective property. Land is not owned by individuals but is shared by the community. The state must respect these collective rights and cannot alter land ownership without the consent of the Indigenous peoples.
Article 76 - Consulta previa.	Pertains to the right of Indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities; prior consultation must be undertaken before any entity undertakes activities that may affect their territories, culture, or way of life.
Article 330	Indigenous communities have the right to govern their territories.
Article 329	The Reservation is a collective, inalienable, and indefeasible property.
Decree 1386 of 1994, Article 10; Decree 2164 of 1995, Article 22) 39.	"The administration and management of these lands are subjected to uses and customs of the beneficiaries."

Whilst land and tenure rights are enshrined into the constitution, the precariousness of these rights persists due to a lack of resources to ensure enforcement, as well as the deeper issue of corruption. As previously stated, the rate of deforestation increased significantly in Colombia’s post-conflict era, evidencing the nation's inability to maintain control over unlawful acts of land-grabbing and disposition. Whilst this began with new peasants converting the Amazon for subsistence purposes, it ultimately led to new areas for the growth of cocoa, much to the benefit of narco-traffickers who could monopolize on this illegal surplus in ‘accumulation by dispossession’.

With respect to the legalities of consultation, Colombia has enshrined consulta previa into the constitution. Translating to ‘prior consultation’, this legal text provides the formal grounds for Indigenous engagement when any legislative or administrative measures are implemented on Indigenous territory. Importantly, consultation should be achieved in accordance with the customs of the ethnic group with which the project is being imposed upon. However, there have been recent cases of contestation specifically relating to how consulta previa applies to REDD+ on Indigenous lands, and the RIU – SM project was one that was involved with such a case.

Affected and interested stakeholders

Affected stakeholders
Stakeholders	Primary objective(s)	Secondary objective(s)	Relative power	Scope of influence
ACATISEMA - Asociación de Cabildos y Autoridades Indígenas de la Selva de Matavén	Primary and direct beneficiaries of project Foster the integral development, social and cultural preservation of the indigenous communities in the Mataven Jungle Consolidate the territory, and promote conservation and preservation of the environment and biodiversity of the Mataven Jungle	Maintain control over resguardos	Powerful, locally. Has the highest authority in the reguardo. Rights to the land and revenue generated from project	Local
Indigenous communities of the RIU-SM	Seek to maintain land rights Promote traditional and cultural beliefs	Increase benefits from the project	Mid-power, though little input into project activities in reality.	Local
Landless peasants	Survive via subsistence	Gain more access to land. Improve rights.	Low to none	Local
Interested stakeholders
MEDIAMOS F&M	Project developer Maximise project revenues	Develop the project in a way that is supporting of ACETISMA beliefs, for their benefit.	Powerful: involved with various technical aspects of project development	National
Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (Minisitry of Environment and Sustainable Development)	Environmental planning; sustainable development Form strategic alliances with social and institutional participants in different sectoral and territorial scenarios.	Ensure project activities are in agreement with ministry mandate	Powerful, though supporting of project	National
Dirección de Asuntos Indígenas, ROM y Minorías - Ministerio del Interior	Prepares policy in favour of Indigenous groups Supports ethnic and cultural rights of Indigenous		Not per se involved with project, though the policy the organization has introduced affects project outcomes	National
Corporinoquía	Environmental authority to ensure the proper use of natural resources in their area of jurisdiction. Ensure project abides by relevant regulations		Powerful, though supporting of project	Regional
Other government institutions: Governor ofice of Vichada, Mayor ofice Cumaribo	The Reservation for being part of the Cumaribo, Vichada, has territorial jurisdiction relations with the Governor’s office and the Mayor’s office.	Benefit from the project, if possible	Powerful, regionally	Regional - National
Fundación NATURA Civil organization	Conservation, use and management of biodiversity Maximise social and environmental benefits of project	Ensure suffienct IPLC inclusion	Mid-power. Can influence decisions regarding project activities though does not hold absolute power to define terms	International
Mining companies	Mine to generate revenue.	Compete with the project for the territory's resources.	Relatively powerful, though legally obstructed to achieve primary objective	International
Other indigenous communities neighboring RIU-SM	Ensure autonomy with respect to their own jurisdiction	Not involved with the project though potentially affected by it	Low, with respect to the project	Local
FONDO ACCIÓN	Facilitate private investment into project activities	Conservation and sustainable development; Protection/development of children.	Mid-power. Important as they raise funds for the project and benefit from it, though not primary beneficiaries.	National
Asocarbono – An industry association, including Verra, ProClima, Biofix, and ACATISEMA.	Promote the agenda of high-level actors of the VCM Promote integrity of market	Hide/argue cases of scandal	Powerful	International
OPIAC: National Oganization of the Indigenous Peoples of the Colombian Amazon	Promotes Indigenous rights in Colombia Exercises a political representation of the Indigenous peoples of the Colombian Amazon		Powerful. Legally knowledgeable.	National

Discussion

According to the official REDD+ Mataven website the project has resulted in a myriad of benefits to the Indigenous communities of the region. For example, as a result of the funds generated from the project's activities, there have been improvements in infrastructure, transportation and education, ultimately leading to the empowerment and improved governance of ACETISMA. However, the project has come under fire for multiple reasons.

For one, in 2015 some of the Indigenous communities filed a lawsuit referring to the violation of their right to consulta previa. However, the court ruled that their Indigenous rights had not been violated as it was ACETISMA that initially sought MEDIAMOS to develop the project, and that ACETISMA were the best representatives of those Indigenous communities. Furthermore, the project's main focus was the conservation of the rainforest and therefore did not threaten the cultural integrity of those communities. However, regardless of the outcome of this case, its occurrence points to internal disagreement amongst Indigenous participants of the RIU-SM project. In a study involving interviews with Indigenous members of the project, there was a significant proportion of interviewees that had little knowledge regarding various aspects of the project, such as responsibilities of participation, or the benefit-sharing mechanism in place. This further reinforces the point that, in the case of the RIU-SM project it may not be ‘bottom-up’ and points to the power imbalance experienced between MEDIAMOS, the project developer, and Indigenous community members. In the PD there is a breakdown of the distribution of income between ACETISMA and MEDIAMOS, which shows a significant proportion of revenue flowing to the former organisation throughout the project’s operations. However, there is currently no publicly available documentation supporting this initial claim as there is no obligation to provide this information, leading to a general lack of transparency in the market and between all of the relevant actors. Subsequent meetings with Indigenous leaders have however shown a marked support of the Mataven project, with one Indigenous leader explicitly stating “...the REDD+ project has brought resources that they never had before, which allowed them to open new school classrooms, 21 rural aqueducts, cocoa crops and even headquarters in Cumaribo and Inírida.” Clearly there have been benefits for IPLC’s involved with this project, though the details of this benefit-sharing remain a mystery.  

Secondly, the Mataven project has caused controversy due to its apparently inflated carbon credit issuance. One report states that this has been achieved by using a reference area that is not representative of the project area, as well as assuming an uncharacteristically high assumed rate of deforestation. The project used a baseline deforestation rate of 0.86% per year, which is significantly more than the Colombian government's national rate of 0.18%. Additionally, according to the report the reference area chosen is more easily accessed and therefore more prone to deforestation, making it an inaccurate comparison to the relatively remote project area. This has led to the creation of excess carbon credits, or “hot air” credits, which have been criticized for not reflecting real environmental benefits. To add further insult to injury these credits have been used by a Colombian fossil fuel distributor company to avoid paying taxes, as described earlier by Colombia’s change in policy in 2017. In doing so, the company avoided paying approximately $18.9 million in taxes. There has been subsequent back and forth between Verra and Carbon Market Watch, with Verra refuting the claims. Regardless of the science, Colombia recently introduced a resolution in 2018 (Resolution 1447 – 2018) that requires projects to use baselines that comply with national reference levels. Going forward, REDD+ projects that are being implemented in Colombia will have to abide by Colombia’s national legislation.

Summary

Colombia has a long history of engaging in REDD+ as it has been used to limit environmental degradation in the post-conflict era, in alignment with the country’s national peacebuilding agenda. Owing to the country’s comprehensive tenure and bundle of rights, IPLC’s have robust de jure rights to land as they collectively own it, and rights to carbon are tied to this ownership. This puts Colombia as one of the world leaders in legal terms relating to REDD+ project implementation, but due to a lack of resources to ensure enforcement, as well as corruption, historically these laws have not been adhered to. There are many documented cases showing the displacement on IPLC’s from traditional lands, poor efforts to adhere to consulta previa, and inequitable benefit sharing.

The case of the Mataven project provides an interesting example of how it is the market itself that is failing to address concerns regarding transparency, whether that be relating to benefit-sharing amongst relevant stakeholders, or Indigenous representation and engagement throughout the implementation of REDD+ projects. Some ACATISEMA members have explicitly stated their support for the Mataven project, and its benefits can be seen first-hand in the form of improved infrastructure in local communities involved with the project. However, an exact breakdown of how and where revenue is being distributed to IPLC’s remains elusive. Furthermore, the level of IPLC engagement has come into question, specifically with reference to consulta previa and the overall understanding that IPLC’s have regarding the project’s intended outcomes and activities. This is not a rare case in Colombia and has been witnessed occurring with other projects that have been implemented on Indigenous territories in the Colombian Amazon. However, a recent ruling by the Colombian Constitutional court voted in favour of Indigenous groups in Colombia, upholding “the rights to self-determination, autonomy, self-government, territory, identity, physical and cultural integrity, and free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous communities”. This review ultimately sets a legal precedent safeguarding the fundamental rights of IPLCs with REDD+ project implementation and shows that progress is being made to improve the likelihood that REDD+ will result in genuine benefits to those affected by project implementation.

To ensure a more authentic engagement with IPLC’s so as to result in legitimate and equitable benefit-sharing, improvements must be made by the Colombian government, as well as within the VCM itself. For the former, Colombia’s national registry for GHG mitigation activities must be updated; it has been offline since 2022. As a result, transparency is lacking. International finance could be utilized so as to alleviate this issue, and only with an accurate and reliable database may the market be regulated. In the broader sense, VCM registries must create stricter guidelines promoting transparency. Often PD’s refer to annexed documents that contain relevant information regarding benefit-sharing, though these are often not publicly available. This limits transparency and increases the likelihood of inequitable agreements being made between project proponents and developers, further exacerbating existing power asymmetries between the two groups and limiting the likelihood that consulta previa is honestly adhered to. This has led to conflict within Indigenous communities, rather than a strengthening of their social fabric.

Furthermore, the Mataven project calls into question the actual emissions reduction that REDD+ projects achieve. Whilst Colombia has since updated its regulations such that REDD+ must use baselines that comply with national reference levels, it is up in the air as to how representative these guidelines are. Reference areas must represent project areas and without the appropriate regulations in place project developers lack the incentive to create realistic baselines; ultimately they are aiming to produce the maximum number of credits so as to generate the greatest possible revenues.

Conclusion

As a market-based mechanism, REDD+ is shackled by the construct in which it operates; fundamentally it is a capitalist means of fixing a capitalist problem, which comes with limitations. Both Brazil and Colombia have relatively robust laws that have been written into their constitutions, ultimately promoting more equitable results of REDD+ project implementation. However, as in Colombia IPLC’s collectively own the land, whereas in Brazil these groups only own rights to use the land, Colombia can be considered better equipped for the establishment of REDD+ projects on traditional Indigenous territory. However, even with these laws in place enforcement remain a matter of concern. Furthermore, given the wide variety of ontological and epistemological perspectives of Indigenous communities, and how these views conflict with the Western worldview from which market-based REDD+ came to fruition, there is an inherent difficulty in implementing a system of governance in REDD+ on Indigenous lands.. Putting a price on nature conflicts with Indigenous perspectives and there have been instances where this has weakened the social and cultural fabric of IPLC’s. To avoid this REDD+ developers must have the genuine intent of understanding the perspective of the Indigenous group they are working with and aim to implement REDD+ with a bottom-up approach.

In both countries, transparency must be improved to ensure that FPIC is adhered to and subsequently ensure fair IPLC representation and engagement. This issue predominantly arises due to the poor requirements of standards in the VCM. As such, proponents are guided by developers which have little incentive to truly act in the interests of Indigenous groups; ultimately the organizations in charge of project development are interested in increasing project revenues. This has led to instances of over-crediting, as without a transparent framework in which to operate it is difficult to evaluate the legitimacy of the claims being made by project proponents and developers. However, with recent advances that address concerns of additionality there is hope for improved market integrity. Standards of the VCM must continue to be scrutinized to ensure that progress continues to be made.

Going forward, progress should be made to formalize the customary laws and traditional lands of IPLCs, and finance should be directed towards the enforcement of these laws. The environmental, economic, and social benefits of this have been researched and are well understood. By developing culturally appropriate frameworks for rights-based conservation regimes, that work with IPLCs in accordance with their worldviews, REDD+ could be used to promote Indigenous autonomy. However, progress still must be made to achieve this goal.