Todo o nada: Cómo las tierras indígenas y comunitarias pueden llevar las contribuciones determinadas a nivel nacional al éxito o al fracaso

The report argues that the climate goals of Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru are heavily dependent on the carbon sequestration provided by IPLC lands, yet these lands are insufficiently recognized in national climate policies and face severe threats from illegal activities and governance gaps.

• IPLC forest lands in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru are highly efficient carbon sinks, with 92% acting as net sinks and capturing an average of 30 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per hectare annually, which is more than double the capture rate of non-IPLC lands.
• The annual carbon capture of IPLC lands in the four studied countries represents an average of 30% of their unconditional 2030 NDC targets. Losing these services would require drastic measures in other sectors, such as removing 80% of passenger vehicle fleets in Brazil and Colombia, 35% in Mexico, and 100% in Peru (if capture services decreased by 50%).
• Current NDCs and climate policies in the four countries fail to adequately integrate IPLC roles, with limited references to these communities and a total absence of specific targets for protecting IPLC lands.
• Legal recognition of land rights is a critical driver for forest protection; for example, titling indigenous lands in the Brazilian Amazon between 1982 and 2016 reduced deforestation by 66%, and titling afro-descendant lands in Colombia reduced it by an average of 30% between 1990 and 2010.
• Despite national laws, the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is often reduced to a mere consultation process and is frequently ignored or applied inconsistently, particularly regarding mining and infrastructure projects.
• IPLCs and environmental defenders in these countries face extreme violence and criminalization, often with government complicity or negligence. In Mexico, the government was involved in 39% of attacks on environmental defenders.
• Existing financial mechanisms like Payments for Environmental Services (PES) and REDD+ have significant flaws: Mexico drastically cut PES funding from $63 million in 2016 to $8 million in 2020, and REDD+ programs in Colombia and Brazil are criticized for failing to address land grabbing or lacking effective benefit-sharing mechanisms.

APA

Forest Declaration Assessment (2022). Todo o nada: Cómo las tierras indígenas y comunitarias pueden llevar las contribuciones determinadas a nivel nacional al éxito o al fracaso. https://forestdeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Todo-o-nada-tierras-de-los-PICL-y-NDC.pdf

Chicago

Forest Declaration Assessment. Todo o nada: Cómo las tierras indígenas y comunitarias pueden llevar las contribuciones determinadas a nivel nacional al éxito o al fracaso. 2022. https://forestdeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Todo-o-nada-tierras-de-los-PICL-y-NDC.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Forest Declaration Assessment |title=Todo o nada: Cómo las tierras indígenas y comunitarias pueden llevar las contribuciones determinadas a nivel nacional al éxito o al fracaso |date=March 2022 |url=https://forestdeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Todo-o-nada-tierras-de-los-PICL-y-NDC.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{forestdeclarationassessment2022todo, author = {{Forest Declaration Assessment}}, title = {{Todo o nada: Cómo las tierras indígenas y comunitarias pueden llevar las contribuciones determinadas a nivel nacional al éxito o al fracaso}}, institution = {Forest Declaration Assessment}, year = {2022}, month = mar, url = {https://forestdeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Todo-o-nada-tierras-de-los-PICL-y-NDC.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }