One of the key issues in Copenhagen climate change negotiations in December will be the creation of an international superstructure to provide incentives, and ultimately payments, to combat deforestation in tropical countries.  As delegates from around the world gathered in Bonn last week to discuss the so-called "REDD issue" (e.g., reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation), violence erupted in the rainforests of Peru between indigenous groups and the government about plans to step up oil and gas exploration, mining, and logging in the Amazon.  

The lack of consultation about new laws affecting their lands and resources led to a 50 day peaceful protest by indigenous people.  They were met first with indifference, then silence, and then on June 5, 2009 in the town of Bagua with firearms from the Peruvian Government that left dozens dead on both sides.  Under international pressure, the Peruvian Government temporarily suspended two of the most controversial laws, but only for 90 days.  There is yet to be a meaningful dialogue in Peru, or a public response from the US.

The conflict in Peru is a cautionary tale for all of us working to protect tropical forests. Although resource extraction and forest preservation may sound like polar opposites they in fact raise the same set of worries and concerns about forest management. The take home points here are that if we ignore the rights of forest peoples, rush processes related to land use allocation, and turn a blind eye to bad governance, we will fail to achieve our goals to reduce deforestation.  And here is the kicker...it will happen even if you've got the perfect scheme written down on paper and the most advanced satellites up in the sky keeping an eye on things. 

So what exactly went wrong in Peru? The country has made numerous commitments to improve forest governance, crack down on illegal timber trade, and even to reach zero deforestation by 2019.

In April 2006, Peru signed a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States which was re-negotiated in 2007 to include unprecedented specific steps Peru had to take to enhance forest sector governance and combat illegal logging and trade.  The agreement had detailed language on the need for transparency and public participation, monitoring and enforcement, weeding out corruption, and consultation with forest and indigenous peoples.  On top of that, in May 2008, the US Congress amended the Lacey Act making it illegal to import wood acquired illegally overseas.  The structure appeared to be in place for Peru to transform a long history of illegal logging and deforestation in favor of forest protection.  

So what went wrong?

1.      Changes in Administration

First, there was a change in Administration in Peru and with it a loss of political will to protect the country's forests.  In June, 2006, Mr. Alan Garcia became President of Peru and brought with him an aggressive policy for resource use in the Amazon. He began using the FTA as an excuse to dismantle Peru's forest institutions and laws and pass 99 new legislative decrees to effectively open up the Amazon to investment and weaken indigenous rights to their lands. Furthermore, while the Ministry of Environment was seeking funds for REDD abroad, the Ministry of Energy and Mines was leasing oil and gas concessions throughout the country's entire Amazon region (see map) and the Ministry of Agriculture was promoting biofuels (see map).

2. Rushed process

Second, with US elections and a pending change in administration in January 2009, the U.S. Trade Representative was under pressure to certify the trade agreement before President Bush left office.  Certification meant that Peru was deemed ready to uphold its commitments under the FTA and that lowered barriers to trade would come into effect.  Despite clear evidence that Peru did not have its house in order -- and outcry from US and Peruvian citizen groups --the rushed process was pushed forward and President Bush certified the FTA the day before he left office - a final piece of his "legacy".  

3. Lack of real and meaningful consultations with forest peoples

Third, the rushed process due to political deadlines and the desire of Peru  to cash in on the incentive (in this case, trade and US markets) left little or almost no space for Peru to consult with civil society, especially with forest peoples who live in remote areas of the Amazon rainforest.  The Peruvian Government largely ignored or sidelined indigenous groups despite the trade agreement and international laws.  

And the US is doing very little about it all, saying Peru is a sovereign country and it is none of our business. Even with dozens dead in a conflict brought about by implementation of the FTA, the US has remained largely aloof and disinterested in getting involved in "Peru's" politics.

We are very eager to see REDD work - to provide real incentives to preserve tropical forests.  However, we need to heed the lessons of the conflict in Peru.

Lesson #1: Rushing when it comes to complex matters such as rights to resources and land use is a recipe for disaster.  In our mad dash to reduce carbon emissions from tropical deforestation we should be aware that if we rush to meet self-imposed deadlines (such as the Copenhagen meeting or the World Bank's timetable for providing funding to countries through its Forest Carbon Partnership Facility) without due process we will likely fail to avoid deforestation.  We need to take the time to get this right and invest significant energy in supporting countries to be ready for REDD. 

Lesson #2: Meaningful consultation with forest communities is not a quick or easy task and governments sitting in far away capitals are largely not interested in going to remote forest regions to talk to their indigenous populations.  Yet they must.  We need more than a box for governments to "check off" saying they will consult forest communities....we need much more and this too will take time to create and implement effectively.

Lesson #3: Even with environmental safeguards in our bi-national and multinational agreements it is very difficult to police foreign governments that lack the political will to protect forests and human rights.  Providing incentives to countries does not create or make up for good forest governance and political will.

One final note: in an ironic twist, the Peruvian Government is lobbying to host the next big meeting of UN climate talks in Lima.  Perhaps they should talk with their own people about forests before inviting the rest of the world to the table.