Jamie Pottern Restoration Ecology Prof. Glenn Adelson May 4, 2009

An Investigation into the Widespread Use of

Teak in Reforestation Efforts in Panama: Trends, Implications, and Alternative Strategies

Abstract

Since the introduction of teak (Tectona grandis) into the Republic of Panama in the early 20th century, this valuable exotic hardwood tree has been planted widely in plantations throughout the country. In the past two decades, teak has become the number one tree used in reforestation efforts, comprising over 75% of the area reforested nationwide. Despite causing widespread ecological degradation and being economically destructive for small farmers and landholders, the extensive use of teak for reforestation has persisted. Many economic and political factors account for this trend, most notably national legislation that provides tax incentives for foreign teak investment. Additionally, a lack of knowledge about native tree species—many of which have recently been demonstrated to perform better than teak—perpetuates an ideology that native tree species do not grow well in Panama. In an effort to improve reforestation efforts and increase the knowledge of native tree species throughout the country, many local and international efforts have been undertaken, including long-term native tree species research, collaborative efforts with local indigenous tribes, partnerships with international organizations, and community education efforts. Additional steps such as the promotion of agroforestry projects, further discussions with local landholders, and greater government involvement in international reforestation initiatives, will be key to ensuring the long-term health of Panama’s forest and the well being of its people. Introduction: Teak in Panama

The teak tree (Tectona grandis), a valuable hardwood species, has a played a

prominent role throughout the long and complex history of global trade in natural

resources. Native to southeast Asia, teak (Tectona grandis) is today the tree used most

widely in reforestation efforts in Mesoamerica. In Panama, which has been faced with

widespread deforestation in the past few decades due primarily to economic drivers,

1

approximately 77 percent of the reforested area nationwide is in teak plantations.1 In

some regions, such as the Bayano-Darién region, the agricultural frontier of eastern

Panama, teak comprises approximately 99 percent of the reforested area.2 Led

overwhelmingly by foreign timber interests, and prompted by national legislation

providing tax incentives, the ubiquitous trend toward land consolidation in teak

plantations has many alarming implications for the country. This trend jeopardizes not

only the health and integrity of Panama’s forests and natural systems, but has long-term

social and economic consequences for Panamanians. An analysis of these underlying

trends and their implications are critical for forging new and innovative solutions to the

many challenges posed by widespread teak production. Local initiatives, such as greater

research on native tree species, outreach and education, and the increased involvement of

actors such as indigenous communities and non-governmental organizations, will be key

drivers of change in the struggle to protect the land, and along with it, Panamanian

cultures and livelihoods.

I. A Brief History of Teak

For centuries, teak (Tectonis grandis) has been prized for its valuable timber and use

in high value wood products, such as ships, furniture, and other decorative items for

buildings.3 Today, teak ranks among the top five tropical hardwood species in terms of

its global plantation area4 (see Figure 1). Although endemic only to India, Myanmar, the

1 From ANAM, 2006. Indicadores Ambientales de la República de Panamá, 2006: Superficie Reforestada—Porcentaje de la Superficie Reforestada en la Repüblica de Panamá, Según Especie, Años 1992–2004, cited in Sloan, Sean. Reforestation amidst deforestation: Simultaneity and succession. (2008) Global Environmental Change. 18 (3), 425-441. 2 Ibid. 3 Panama Teak Forestry (2006). Teak: A Global Overview. 4 Panama Teak Forestry (2006). Introduction.

2

Lao People’s Democratic Republic, and Thailand, teak has been naturalized in Java,

Indonesia where it was introduced over 400 years ago, and has been established in other

tropical areas around the world.5 Other sites of teak introduction include tropical Asian

countries, tropical African countries on the eastern and western coasts, some islands in

the Pacific, such as Papua New Guinea, Fiji, and the Solomon Islands, as well as in

northern Australia.6 The planting of teak in Honduras, Costa Rica, and Panama began in

the late 1920s, and now covers over 33,000 hectares in Latin America and the Caribbean,

spread mostly across Costa Rica, Panama, El Salvador, Colombia, Guatemala,

Venezuela, Ecuador, and Trinidad and Tobago.7

Figure 1: Native to Southeast Asia, teak (Tectona grandis) is a valuable hardwood tree, widely planted

around the world’s tropics. In Panama, reforestation efforts since the early 1990s have predominantly taken the form of teak plantations, comprising 77% of the reforestation area nationwide. (Photo Credit: Center for

Tropical Forest Science, Web Atlas). 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Malana Impex Pvt Ltd: The Teak Timber Trading Company. The History of Teak.

3

Other exotic species, such as Acacia (Acacia spp.), Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.),

and Caribbean pine (Pinus caribaea), have also been used widely as plantation trees. In

fact, teak, acacia, and eucalyptus together represent more than 51% of all plantations

established in the Neotropics.8 Prior to 1990, the main plantation species in Panama was

Caribbean pine at 7,000 hectares, but by 1995, teak became the major species with

approximately 28,000 hectares of new plantations.9

II. Underlying Causes of Teak Production in Panama

The rise in teak production as a reforestation tree in Panama can be attributed to a

confluence of numerous historical, political, and socio-economic factors. As the global

demand for teak began to surpass the supply of natural sources of the valuable hardwoods

in the mid-20th century, many countries began to increase their production of teak

plantations. In Panama, which faced rapid deforestation throughout the second half of the

20th century due to similar pressures that encouraged the conversion of forests into lands

for ranching and agricultural purposes, teak production was seen as a way to

simultaneously reforest the landscape and bolster the economy through competition in the

global market for valuable hardwoods.

Beginning in 1992, the Panamanian government created a series of policies that

provided tax incentives to national and foreign investors to grow teak trees for external

markets. These policies resulted in land speculation and a resultant rise in land values,

8 M.H. Wishnie, D.H. Dent, E. Marisca, J. Deago, N. Cedeño, D. Ibarra, R. Condit and P.M.S. Ashton (2007). Initial performance and reforestation potential of 24 tropical tree species planted across a precipitation gradient in the Republic of Panama. Forest Ecology and Management. 241 (1). 39-49. 9 International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. p. 262

4

which prompted small landholders, who were struggling economically to keep their

ranches or had already abandoned their pastures to join the urban work force, to

capitalize on their land by selling it off to timber companies. As little scientific data have

been documented on native Panamanian trees, landowners have been perpetuating the

trend of growing familiar cash-crop trees, like teak, instead of using native alternatives

for reforestation.

Law 24 & Investment Schemes

In the early 1990s, the rate of deforestation in Panama was close to 50,000

hectares per year.10 In light of the visible havoc being wrought on the Panamanian

forests, the government sought to decrease the damage being done by providing

incentives for timber companies, local organizations, and other groups to start

reforestation programs.11 It was believed that this would not only increase forest cover,

but would also generate more jobs around the country.12 On November 23, 1992 the

Legislative Assembly passed the Panama Reforestation Incentive Law, commonly known

as “Law 24.”13

As can be inferred from the plain text of Law 24, its underlying objective was to

induce as much investment in high market value trees as possible in the shortest amount

10 Mariscal, Emilio. Personal email communication. April 21, 2009. (See Appendix) 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Panama Reforestation Incentive Law: Legislative Assembly Law 24 (November 23, 1992).

5

of time. Article 4 of the law exempts any person or company participating in the

commercialization of products from forest plantations, as long as the forest project is

carried out within 25 years. Similarly, Article 5 states that any direct or indirect forest

investment by a person or company will be 100% deductible from income tax, so long as

the invested money will be used for reforestation activities. Article 6 exempts import and

other duties from any equipment or materials relating to reforestation activities. The law

also encourages large-scale reforestation by exempting farms who use more than 50% of

their land for reforestation or that have a minimum of 200 hectares reforested from real

estate tax and transfer tax (Article 7). Any bond, shares, or assets dedicated to

reforestation activities and the profits from the sale of those bonds are exempt from

income tax (Article 8). Article 9 gives “Preferential Forest Loans" for reforestation,

which will have a "Preferential Bond" of 4 percentage points lower than the local market

interest rate. All of the interest on these loans is 100% deductible from income tax.

In what is another huge incentive for foreign investment in Panamanian

reforestation, Article 11 gives an immigrant visa to those who invest over $40,000 in

forest activities. However, this plantation only has to be maintained for a minimum of 10

years until the “final cut” of the forest plantation. Additionally, the law also encourages

legal mechanisms to exchange external public debt for reforestation (Article 12), and

makes squatting a felony on reforested lands (Article 13). While the squatting on

plantation lands is a felony, the failure to comply with the guidelines of Law 24 results in

what is a comparative slap on the wrist—the removal of the owner from the Forest

Register for up to 5 years and their rights to incentives and benefits of the law suspended

for that time (Article 19).

6

While this law “indicated the country’s political will to increase reforestation,”14

it lacks an ecological interpretation of the form that a successful reforestation effort

should ideally take. For example, while the 1992 law declares it necessary “To increase

all forms of reforestation in the Republic of Panamá” (Article 2, Section 1), it establishes

“a thirty (30) year period during which private reforestation is given priority and full

support” (Article 2, Section 3) and promotes the “establishment, development, and

improvement of the forest industry so that reforestation products are used as raw

materials” (Article 2, Section 5).15 The only environmental considerations it takes are the

protection of wild areas around the Panama Canal Watershed (Article 16), and minimum

requirements for areas around deforested lands, such as leaving a strip of forest no less

than 10 meters on both sides of rivers and streams (Article 17, Section 2). While such a

buffer is essential to the health of waterways, a minimum requirement of 10 meters will

not suffice to protect the water body from agricultural runoff and erosion (see section on

Environmental Implications).

Omitting ecology from the equation, the law neglects to specify a preference for

ecological functioning, and instead prioritizes those species from which companies and

corporations would profit. Thus, it is not difficult to see why teak, a valuable hardwood

species, would be utilized so widely in reforestation. While subsequent amendments to

Law 24 (namely Resolution Number AG-0151-2000, the Executive Decree 89 of June 8,

1993, Article 80-C of the Executive Decree 170 of October 27, 1993, and the Fiscal

Reform Law 6 of 2 February 2005) have slowed reforestation slightly, it is still a

14 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): The Forestry Department (2002). Teak (Tectona grandis) in Central America. 15 Panama Reforestation Incentive Law: Legislative Assembly Law 24 (November 23, 1992). emphasis added

7

persistent trend around Panama with teak as its number one species.16

The Role of Foreign Timber Companies & Corporations

According to a study in the Bayano-Darién, the predominant agents of plantation

reforestation between 1994 and 2007 were non-local and well-financed, specifically: 1)

international corporations or national international timber corporations, 2) reforestadoras

(i.e. a relatively smaller commercial interest that establishes and sells young plantations

as investments) or a non-forestry commercial interest (i.e. clients of the reforestadoras,

such as investment groups and insurance companies), or 3) an individual.17 The survey

found that during those years, commercial interests afforested 5241 hectares and 28

timber corporations alone afforested 4208 hectares.18 Additionally, it was found that

corporations established plantations on average15 times larger than those of individuals

and six times larger than those of reforestadoras.19 Plantations owned by those based in

urban areas were rarely greater than 20 hectares (often less than 10 hectares), while the

plantations operated by international corporations were regularly greater than 100

hectares, with the total scale of a single operation often measuring between several

hundred to over 1000 hectares.20 Such trends result in land consolidation and the rapid

inflation of land values. Small landholders, struggling economically, are enticed to

capitalize on their land by selling it off to the timber companies (see section on Socio-

economic Implications). 16 Sloan, Sean. Reforestation amidst deforestation: Simultaneity and succession. (2008) Global Environmental Change. 18 (3), 425-441. See http://www.anam.gob.pa/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31&Itemid=29 for legislation documents. 17 Sloan, Sean. Reforestation amidst deforestation: Simultaneity and succession. (2008) Global Environmental Change. 18 (3), 425-441. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid.

8

Unfortunately, websites and advertisements from timber companies extolling the

virtues of teak and their positive environmental and socio-economic effects are rampant.

These websites, directed at foreign businesses and wealthy individuals, couch teak

plantations as “growing sustainable investments for your future”21 and being

conservation oriented (see Figure 2). One timber company’s website explains:

Cleared land in Panamá can be bought for as little as $1,500 a hectare and is perfect for sustaining Teak trees in reforestation projects. Panamá real estate is an excellent value and the government has enacted many laws which encourage both business and foreign ownership. With an ideal climate and a supportive government, Panamá is a perfect location for reforestation projects such as Teak plantations.22

Figure 2: A saw milling operation in Panama City, run by United Timber Industries. This Indian, multi-national company has operations in over 15 major teak producing countries in Asia, West Africa, South

America and Central America.23 Timber companies like this one play a large role in controlling the global market for teak, often buying up land from small landholders (Photo credit: United Timber Industries,

2006).

21 United Teak Corporation. (2007). World Conservation- Why do we Need Reforestation Projects? http://www.unitedteak.com/content/view/13/14/ 22 Ibid. 23 United Timber Industries. (2006). Profile.

9

Additionally, another website claims that, “Properly done teak plantations are

socially and environmentally beneficial in addition to being very profitable.”24 While

some timber companies may well indeed be environmentally and socially minded, the

ecological fact is that teak plantations, planted on such a wide scale and with very little

environmental foresight are ultimately detrimental to the health and integrity of Panama’s

forests.

Local Politics

In addition to national laws and the widespread influence of timber companies

and foreign landowners, local politics also have an influence on reforestation efforts

throughout Panama. While the type and scale of reforestation inevitably varies among the

different provinces and districts throughout Panama, local governments can be very

“significant political units.” 25 As in the case of the District of Chepo, one of the eleven

districts in the Panama Province, where landowners must pay a fee to acquire “tree

permissions” to legally cut on their land, the local government has generated a lot of

income through this process.26 This struggle to obtain as much profit as possible from

reforestation induces “competing politics” between different districts, as well as between

those districts and the national government.27

24 Panama Teak Forestry (2006). Introduction. 25 Nathan Gray, co-Director of Earth Train. Personal communication on 3/12/09. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid.

10

Limited Research & Knowledge on Reforestation & Native Trees in Panama

Most observant landowners would notice the destructive nature of teak trees and

other exotics, which elicits the question of why they would still persist in utilizing it for

reforestation. Government policies and tax incentives aside, one plausible answer, posited

by Emilio Mariscal, one of Panama’s top forestry experts, is the lack of data on the

subject of appropriate reforestation trees in Panama.28 Analyzing the history of

restoration science, one finds that it has its origins in Europe, where their exploitation of

their forest resources dates back several thousand years, and was heaviest in the centuries

leading up to the industrial revolution in the 19th century, when the survival of human

society was dependant upon wood and timber.29 These forest products were used for

economic development, the construction of houses, bridges, ships, furniture, and fences,

and for charcoal (which fueled the beginning of industrialization) and tanning agents for

dyes.30 This long-term, unregulated use of Europe’s forests caused widespread

deforestation, and forest management was not instituted until the mid-18th century when

the idea took off and continues all around Europe until this day.31 32 Interestingly, pine

(Pinus spp.) and spruce (Picea spp.) were the trees used most heavily in forest

restoration, due to their large production of seeds, which were easy to harvest, transport,

and handle.33 Accordingly, much of the long-term, well-documented scientific data on

28 Emilio Mariscal. Personal interview on February 17, 2009. (See Appendix) 29 Fischer, A. & Fischer, H. (2006). Chapter 10: Restoration of Forests. In Jelte Van Andel and James Aronson (Eds.) Restoration Ecology: The New Frontier pp. 126. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 The first attempts at forest restoration were in the 14th century (the oldest managed forest in the world is the Nürnberger Reichswald). Hans Carl von Carlowitz (1645-1714), a member of the administration of the minding industry in Freiberg/Saxony who was also responsible for timber production wrote the first ever textbook on silviculture, calling for the management and sustainable utilization of Europe’s forests (Fischer, A. & Fischer, H., 2006, pp. 127). 33 Ibid.

11

trees for reforestation and forest restoration come from trees either native to Europe, or

those that can glean a high price in the global market economy.

In Panama, whose societies—prior to colonization and the forces of the western

market economy—were historically based upon a tribal lifestyle that did not exploit their

forests to the same magnitude as Europe, rampant deforestation is relatively recent.

Therefore, compared to Europe, there is little documentation of the native Panamanian

trees and little scientific knowledge about the appropriate trees and methodology to use

for silviculture. The ITTO also reports an “apparent lack of research and training

capacity” on the management of Panama’s natural forests.34 Due to this dearth of

knowledge, when Panamanians go to reforest their land, they often resort to planting trees

that they have heard of, such as teak, eucalyptus, Caribbean pine (Pinus caribaea), or

acacia, which are generally those that have a high market value.35

III. Implications of these trends Environmental Implications A teak plantation is fundamentally different than a productive and diverse native

forest. According to the National Environmental Authority (Autoridad Nacional del

Ambiente, or ANAM), between 1992 and 2004 approximately 46,000 hectares were

reforested in Panama, predominantly by international timber corporations with interests

in export markets.36 The approximately 33,000 hectares reforested between 1992 and

2000 represent about 9 percent of the total area deforested over the 10 years between

34 International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. p. 265 35 Emilio Mariscal. Personal interview on February 17, 2009. (See Appendix) 36 Sloan, Sean. Reforestation amidst deforestation: Simultaneity and succession. (2008) Global Environmental Change. 18 (3), 425-441.

12

1990 and 2000.37 A recent ANAM environmental management report from January 2009

indicated that since 2000, the amount of forest cover in Panama has increased by one

percent, while the rate of deforestation has decreased by half (from a rate of 47,000

hectares per year to 23,000 hectares this year)38 (see Figure 3).

However, reforestation cannot simply counter deforestation due to the lack of

environmental standards in typical reforestation. According to Law 24, “reforestation” is

defined only as the planting of “forest species,” and fails to differentiate between what

would ideally be a mixed stand of native species and a monoculture of an exotic species,

like teak.39 In addition to the vague, inadequate definition of reforestation, the statistics

from ANAM are simply calculating change in forest cover, without regard to the type of

trees that have been planted there. More monoculture plantations are not an adequate

indicator of forest health, and the neglect of this difference indicates how lacking

Panamanian reforestation policy is in terms of stewarding the protection of their forest

ecosystem and fostering principles of sustainability.

37 Ibid, ANAM 38 Zarate, Abdiel. ANAM study shows less deforestation in Panama: The ANAM manager attributes the success to a greater societal participation. January 30, 2009. La Estrella. 39 Panama Reforestation Incentive Law: Legislative Assembly Law 24 (November 23, 1992). Article 1, Section 1 of Law 24 defines reforestation as: “The action of planting FOREST SPECIES on land lacking trees, whether for purposes of commercial, scenic, environmental, tourism, agricultural, forestry, creation of forested pastureland, energetic pursuits, or for any other purposes.”

13

Figure 3: Land-cover maps for 1992 and 2000 for the Republic of Panama show the changes in forest

cover over an 8-year period. Overall, these maps indicate a loss of mature forests, an increase of rastrojo (secondary forest < 5 years), and the reduction of agricultural sites, which include row crops, pasture, subsistence agriculture, and tree plantations.40 While tree plantations were “virtually absent” in 1992,

encouraged by tax incentives, they composed 11% of the reduction in agricultural land cover in 2000.41 It should be noted that the accuracy of utilizing satellite images to differentiate between forest cover types may be questionable. (Photo Credit: Wright, S. J., and M. J. Samaniego (2008), derived from LandSat

image analyses conducted by the Autoridad Nacional de Ambiente (ANAM))

According to the Center for Tropical Forest Science (CTFS), in Panama, teak grows

fairly well in the “drier half of the isthmus,” is fast-growing, and produces a high quality

wood that is very resistant to rot.42 However, while there is generally a consistent market

for this tree, it has proven to produce low-quality timber in much of Panama, as it is most

40 Wright, S. J., and M. J. Samaniego (2008). Historical, demographic, and economic correlates of land-use change in the Republic of Panama. Ecology and Society 13(2): 17. (Labeled as Figure 2 in source) 41 Ibid. 42 Center for Tropical Forest Science (CTFS). Trees, Shrubs, and Palms of Panama: Tectona grandis L. f.

14

often planted in poor soils, such as on degraded pastures.43 Additionally, teak is a

deciduous tree, and loses all of its leaves for much of the dry season.44 When these

allelopathic45 leaves fall off, the tannins they release into the soil prevent any other plants

from growing there, further degrading the soil and depriving it of nutrients (see Figure

4). In a 2002 study done by Sean Healey and Robert Gara in southwestern Costa Rica

comparing the growth of native species between an abandoned pasture and a monoculture

of teak, the abandoned pasture did markedly better in growing more native forest

habitat.46

While a teak plantation may work well in one country, or on one site, it does imply

that it is appropriate to grow it everywhere. In fact, in terms of actually promoting

reforestation, teak has been highly unsuccessful in Panama because often perfectly good

parcels of diverse, forested land are cut down to plant a monoculture of teak. This

drastically reduces the biodiversity of the forest, making it susceptible to blights, and

causes forest fragmentation. Fragmentation can create islands of remaining forest

patches, and when these become too small, often ecosystems or species within those

ecosystems, can no longer sustain themselves. Increasingly, stimulated by Law 24, large

teak plantations are also being established over pastureland,47 which is often land that has

43 Emilio Mariscal. Personal interview on February 17, 2009. (See Appendix) 44 Center for Tropical Forest Science (CTFS). Trees, Shrubs, and Palms of Panama: Tectona grandis L. f. 45 al·le·lop·a·thy n: the release into the environment by one plant of a substance that inhibits the germination or growth of other potential competitor plants of the same or another species (Encarta World English Dictionary). 46 Healey, Sean P., Gara, Robert I (2003). The effect of teak plantation on the establishment of native species in an abandoned pasture in Costa Rica. Forest Ecology and Management 176: 497-507. 47 Sloan, Sean. Reforestation amidst deforestation: Simultaneity and succession. (2008) Global Environmental Change. 18 (3), 425-441.

15

already been degraded. In fact, in the Greater Bayano Region, all of the plantation lands

surveyed in 2000 were in pasture in 1990.48

Thus, instead of promoting the growth of a diversity of plants and tree species, a teak

plantation generates only low-quality teak trees, which are then cut down. Soil fertility is

lost, and “reforestation” efforts become a setback to regenerating productive forests. With

approximately 77 percent of Panama’s reforestation area in teak,49 and with about 1.2

million hectares of land still available for plantation development,50 it is absolutely

necessary to reconsider alternatives to this trend.

Figure 4: A teak plantation in Centro Madroño, Panama. An exotic species from Asia, monocultures of

Tectona grandis prevent the growth of native plant species in that location, while causing erosion and a loss of soil fertility. Despite the ecological degradation caused by teak, it has been used in the vast majority of

reforestation efforts throughout Panama. (Photo Credit: Author).

48 Ibid. 49 Sloan, Sean. Reforestation amidst deforestation: Simultaneity and succession. (2008) Global Environmental Change. 18 (3), 425-441. 50 International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. p. 261

16

With the loss of productive forest comes a subsequent loss in ecosystem services

normally provided by healthy forests, such as the protection of water resources (see

Figure 5) or a buffer against strong winds, erosion, and contamination from agricultural

and industrial sources. In the 518,000-hectare watershed of the Panama Canal,

approximately 326,000 hectares are managed for protection of soil and water cover.51

Management there is critical for protecting the Canal from siltation and for ensuring the

needed water supply for the locks.52 Most other areas around the country have not been

successful at forest management, resulting in degradation and habitat loss.

Figure 5: The River Mamoni in Centro Madroño is a vital water resource. Erosion from degraded

pastureland threatens the health of the river and the ecosystems throughout the entire watershed, while jeopardizing the quality of the areas drinking water. (Photo credit: Author)

51 Ibid, p. 263. 52 Ibid.

17

Although the total area of production forests in Panama with management plans is

approximately 63,000 hectares, “few if any of the existing concessions are thought to

manage their forests sustainably.”53 According to the ITTO’s 2005 Status of Tropical

Forest Management, ANAM has insufficient human and financial resources to carry out

the field-level monitoring and control of forestry operations necessary to ensure

adherence to forest-related laws and regulations.54 As a result, illegal logging is

widespread in the moist forest area, even in protected areas, creating a huge barrier to

long-term sustainable forest management (SFM).55

Socio-economic Implications: While the ITTO lists the contribution of the forest sector to GDP to be quite low

(less than 1% in 2002), it is a critically important economic factor on the local level,

specifically for indigenous communities.56 According to ITTO, the forest sector employs

over 6,500 people, many of whom are the rural poor.57 Tax incentives to reforest land

with teak plantations are a critical driver for landholders to cut down primary or

secondary forests on their land to plant teak. Not only does this perpetuate a loss of

connection to and a sense of ownership over the land—such an integral part of the many

cultures in Panama—but it also serves to direct what could have been products for a local

economy into hands of international timber companies or corporations.

Around Panama, the reforestation of plantation trees, such as teak, is creating a

growing disparity between local incomes and inflated land values, causing local people to

53 Ibid. 54 Ibid. 55 Ibid. 56 International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. p. 264 57 Ibid.

18

sell their land off to large-scale landholders instead of retain it.58 As large plantations

owned by timber companies and corporations expand and land values go up, small

landholders find that they cannot glean comparable prices on their land by ranching, and

find it difficult to create their own plantations due to factors such as the lack of land titles

and credits, short discount rates, an inability to take advantage of commercial and tax

incentives of Law 24, a lack of management skills, and a lack of land.59 As a result, many

small landowners decide to capitalize on the growing value of their land and sell it to a

large plantation operation looking to expand, contributing to more land consolidation and

the displacement of rural people.60

IV. What is being done to alter these trends & what can still be done? Scientific Research on Native Species:

Throughout Panama (and presumably throughout all of Mesoamerica), there

exists an ideology that native tree species do not grow well in Panama. Understanding the

overwhelming influence of the timber industry and the lack of published data on native

Panamanian trees, it is easy to see where this belief might have stemmed from. However,

from an ecological standpoint, it is illogical. Native trees are better adapted to local

environmental conditions, their seeds are locally available, and there tends to be local

knowledge and familiarity with them and their potential uses.61 Additionally, using native

tree species in plantations often produces high value wood, often comparable or superior

58 Sloan, Sean. Reforestation amidst deforestation: Simultaneity and succession. (2008) Global Environmental Change. 18 (3), 425-441. 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid. 61 Montagnini, Florencia and Jordan, Carl F. (2005). Tropical Forest Ecology: the basis for conservation and management. pp. 173.

19

to exotic species on the same site, which is becoming scarcer in commercial forests.62

One such native tree is Terminalia amazonia, which has a growth rate and value similar

to that of teak.63 However, the advantages of exotic species for reforestation often

outweigh the ecological benefits of using native species. Such advantages include more

silviculture information, easier access to seeds with a known genetic makeup and

certified origin, well-established markets, and initial resistance to local pests.64

In order shift the focus of reforestation from unviable, exotic tree species,

ecologists and restorationists must provide credible and compelling data in support of

native alternatives. In light of this necessity for further scientific information, the Native

Species Reforestation Project (PRORENA), a joint research and education project of the

Center for Tropical Forest Science and the Tropical Resources Institute at the Yale

School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, was started in 2001 65 (see Figure 6).

Based at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute facility in Panama City,

PRORENA’s mission is “the development of viable strategies for the restoration of

diverse, native forests in degraded tropical landscapes.”66 PRONENA runs 3 field

offices, 4 principal field research sites, and 3 native tree nurseries, monitors more than

60,000 trees and conducts on-farm trials with over 35 private landholders.67 Additionally

they work in participation with nearly two-dozen Latin and North American universit

government agencies, private companies, NGOs, and private individuals.

,

ies,

68 The founding

of this partnership, perhaps PRORENA’s most significant accomplishment, has created a

62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute: Center for Tropical Forest Science. PRORENA. 66 PRORENA (The Native Species Reforestation Project). 67 Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute: Center for Tropical Forest Science. PRORENA. 68 Ibid.

20

network of actors who previously worked in isolation from one another, who can now

easily share and disseminate information.69

Figure 6: PRORENA (the Native Species Reforestation Project), works in collaboration with the

Smithsonian Institute and over two dozen partner organizations to conduct studies on native species reforestation in various geographical conditions around Panama, using over 75 of the most promising but

poorly understood native Panamanian trees. (Photo credit: Author).

Data from PRORENA’s studies cover over 75 native tree species in 38

geographically distinct populations around Panama. Their network of Core Research

Sites spans a precipitation gradient of 1,000-2,700 mm per year ¯1, as well as various soil

conditions.70 With this data, PRORENA hopes to be able to demonstrate the species that

have the best survival and growth rates in each region, as well as providing biological

information, such as survivorship, morphology, and potential for restoration, for each of

the 75 species.71 Not only will this help to fill the knowledge gap for native Panamanian

trees, but because demonstration sites are purposefully located along well-trafficked sites,

69 Montagnini, Florencia and Jordan, Carl F. (2005). Tropical Forest Ecology: the basis for conservation and management. pp. 175. 70 Ibid. 71 Ibid.

21

it will also help to generate more community participation and awareness about the

positive effects and viability of native trees72 (see Figure 7).

Figure 7: Brandeis University students at the PRORENA study site in Los Santos. This mixed stand of

native trees has served as a demonstration site for the growth of native Panamanian tree species over a 5-year period, and can be used to persuade landholders of the economic viability of native tree species.

(Photo credit: Author). Findings & Recommendations

A 2006 paper written by PRORENA researchers and published in Forest Ecology

and Management (2007), analyzed 22 native and 2 exotic tree species at 3 sites

(Soberania, Los Santos, and Rio Hato) across a precipitation gradient (1100-2200 mm

year¯1) in Panama.73 Although the data is based on just the first 2 years of growth, the

results from these sites enabled the researchers to make recommendations for promising

species for use in forest reforestation, timber production, and on-farm systems. With this

72 Ibid. 73 Ibid.

22

knowledge, landholders will be able to base their species selection upon local site

conditions and their own specific reforestation objectives.

One encouraging finding for potential timber production, was that after only 2

years of growth, several native tree species developed wood volume indexes (VI) that

were as large, or larger than the two most commonly planted exotic timber species, teak

and acacia (Acacia mangium).74 While these exotic species tend to have fast initial

growth rates that slow over time, the comparative growth rates of several native species

over a short period of time, suggests they might be fast-growing timber species.75 The

native tree Pachira quinta, valued for its high quality timber and is the only native

species planted in large numbers in plantations in Panama (4.6% of plantations

established between 1992 and 2004), did consistently well and attained an average VI

“significantly greater” than that of teak.76 Other native species known for high timber

quality—Tabebuia rosea, Albizia guachapele and Samanea saman—all ranked highly.77

The report suggests that native species that grow well on dry sites may perform better

than species traditionally planted for timber production, namely teak.78

Carbon sequestration

Another measure that can be taken to promote the use of native species in forest

restoration is more research into how native tree species can be incorporated into

74 M.H. Wishnie, D.H. Dent, E. Marisca, J. Deago, N. Cedeño, D. Ibarra, R. Condit and P.M.S. Ashton (2007). Initial performance and reforestation potential of 24 tropical tree species planted across a precipitation gradient in the Republic of Panama. Forest Ecology and Management. 241 (1). 39-49. 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid. 78 Ibid.

23

international carbon sequestration markets.79 Between 20 and 25 percent of all carbon

dioxide (CO2) emissions come directly from tropical deforestation, which is greater than

the emissions from the entire global transportation sector.80 In light of impending threats

from global climate change due predominantly to the trapping of CO2 and other

anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, restoring healthy forest ecosystems is

of critical importance. As trees naturally sequester carbon81, they are useful not only for

mitigation—helping to stave off the worst effects of climate change—but also for

adaptation. Restoring natural habitats will help to strengthen populations of native species

and give them a greater chance of survival in an uncertain future.

Emilio Mariscal suggests that the Panamanian government might also take

advantage of the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from

Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD). Panama is one

of nine pilot countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America recently selected to be part of

this new program, which will provide developing countries with international support and

guidance to build capacity and reduce global emissions from deforestation and forest

degradation.82 The first Policy Board meeting was held in March 2009 in Panama, and an

in-depth report on the potential role of REDD in Panama was presented.83

79 Mariscal, Emilio. Personal email communication. April 21, 2009. (See Appendix). 80 Data from recent studies in Panama and Malaysia by the Center for Tropical Forest Science (CTFS) suggest that global warming is reducing the ability of tropical forests to store carbon. (see Tangley, Laura (Dec/Jan 2009). Saving the Forest for the Trees. National Wildlife Federation.) 81 Tangley, Laura (Dec/Jan 2009). Saving the Forest for the Trees. National Wildlife Federation. 82 United Nations Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (UN-REDD Programme). Country Actions. 83 REDD Strategies 2008-2012. Presented at the UN-REDD Programme 1st Policy Board meeting in Panama 9 -10 March 2009. Accessed April 22, 2009. http://www.un-redd.net/Portals/25/documents/events/20090309Panama/Presentations/UN%20REDD%20PB%20NJPD%20Panama%20Presentation.pdf

24

Local NGO Approach

Earth Train:

Earth Train is an environmental non-profit started in nearly 2 decades ago as a

youth leadership-based organization focused on training young, talented leaders from

around the world to call their peers to action around global environmental issues. In 2001,

Earth Train established its permanent international base in Centro Madroño, Panama,

adjacent to the semi-autonomous Kuna Yala Territory. For the past few years, they have

been focusing predominantly on buying up as much land as possible in the Mamoni

Valley Preserve. They have bought up 10,000 non-contiguous acres, and are now

focusing on restoring native tropical trees to the degraded lands (see Figure 8).

Figure 8: Earth Train has partnered with the Center for Biodiversity Research and Information of

the California Academy of Sciences to develop a digital mapping and technical skills program.84 Their focus has been on research for ecological restoration and for monitoring biological change over time.85

(Photo credit: Author).

Throughout Earth Train’s time in the area, they have worked alongside members

84 Gray, Nathan. Earth Train Briefing: 15 December 2008. 85 Ibid.

25

of the Kuna and Emberá tribes. In fact, Earth Train has forged a formal agreement with

the Kuna General and the Cultural Congress to work together to protect the Kuna

territory, as well as to develop educational opportunities for Kuna youth and youth-

directed ecotourism projects, such as the Pacific-to-Atlantic kayak river journeys from

Centro Madroño to the Kuna coast.86 Additionally, they have also worked to forge

partnerships with international organizations, such as Rainforest Capital, LLC., and the

Danilo Perez Foundation, which has enabled them to combine “international business

experience and working capital with on the ground knowledge of community

development and grassroots organization.”87 Preliminary discussions with the soon-to-be-

completed Panama Museum of Biodiversity have begun, with the intention of

collaborating on a variety of projects in the Mamoní Valley Preserve.88

In addition to working with indigenous tribe members and international actors

with a vested interest in the protection of the rainforest, Earth Train has worked to foster

relationships with local landholders. They have talked to all of the landholders in the

area, and while there are good relations overall, results have varied as there are many

different stakeholders with varying interests.89

Earth Train also conducts research on native tree species research and cultivates

native tree seedlings in their nursery (see Figure 9). Emilio Mariscal suggests that Earth

Train’s reforestation initiatives could be duplicated around the country with a high level

of success.90 Spreading research efforts around to different site locations would enable

more information to be gathered for new management techniques and reforestation and

86 Gray, Nathan. Earth Train Briefing: 15 December 2008. 87 Ibid. 88 Ibid. 89 Nathan Gray, co-Director of Earth Train. Personal communication on 3/12/09. 90 Mariscal, Emilio. Personal email communication. April 21, 2009. (See Appendix).

26

restoration models. Further data on agroforestry would also be beneficial, as this often a

more sustainable and preferred method (see Agroforesty Section, below).

Figure 8: Emilio Mariscal in Earth Train’s tree nursery in Centro Madroño, Panama. These seedlings can be sold to land owners trying to incorporate native trees into their plantations, or can be used for forest

restoration purposes. (Photo credit: Author).

The Azuero Earth Project:

Another organization doing reforestation and restoration work is the Azuero Earth

Project, located in the southern part of Panama, on the Azuero Peninsula. Their mission is

to protect and restore the tropical dry rainforest, which is the most threatened ecosystem

in the world, while simultaneously promoting healthy communities.91 Their work

includes preserving remaining forest fragments and connecting them with a “mosaic” of

new forests and farms dedicated to sustainable agriculture, in order to create a “biological

91 The Azuero Earth Project. http://azueroearthproject.org/

27

corridor.”92 The Azuero Earth Project is working to provide information and resources,

such as Sustainable Guides, to everyone who is interested in planting native trees, which

can be found on the organization’s new website.93 Native species plots owned by

members are used as demonstration sites to show the dramatic difference between teak

plantations and native plantings. According to Edwina von Gal, the president of the

Project, they also follow up with farmers who are new to native plantings, as these

individuals often need technical assistance and much encouragement and support for a

few years in order to ensure success.94 Like Earth Train, the Azuero Earth Project has

many partnerships with local and international landowners, researchers, experts, and

organizations, and conducts research on native tree species.

Agroforestry

According to the World Agroforestry Center, agroforestry is the integration of

trees into “agriculturally productive landscapes,” focusing on trees grown on farms and in

rural areas.95 These include trees that fertilize the land for land regeneration, timber and

fuelwood trees that provide shelter and energy, and those with medicinal properties that

combat disease.96 Added benefits of agroforestry are increased shade for crops, water

retention, erosion prevention, food security and improved nutrition, reduced pressure to

deforest by providing on-site fuelwood, and increased diversity of tree crops to hedge

against threats from disease and climate change.97

Data collected by the World Agroforestry Center also suggests that

92 Ibid. 93 von Gal, Edwina. Personal email communication. May 3, 2009 (See Appendix). 94 Ibid. 95 World Agroforestry Centre. Introduction to Agroforestry. 96 Ibid. 97 Ibid.

28

“intercropping” certain tree species can produce a more beneficial and ecologically sound

outcome than growing one species in a monoculture by itself. For example, using

mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla), a native tree species facing commercial extinction,

as an undercrop for teak can facilitate heavy thinning of teak without causing to soil to

dry up and become eroded.98 Such measures could be both economically and ecologically

advantageous throughout Panama.

Community Engagement & Education

While changing policies would be the most efficient and far-reaching method to

promote the use of native tree species in national reforestation efforts, it appears likely

that a business party will succeed the presidency, and continue to support the current

environmental and indigenous policies.99 Even local politics are difficult to influence,

and most often it is those being most affected by the results of government policies that

have the least role in the decision-making process. In light of such forces, perhaps wh

needed most is to foster the education and the empowerment of local people over their

land and livelihoods. Too often, foreign projects, despite good intentions, end up having

unforeseen consequences. One example is the $61 million given by USAID to increase

the use of herbicides and pesticides, which ended up causing widespread environmental

damage, as well as impairing the health and livelihoods of local people and locking them

into system where they must purchase ever greater quantities of chemical fertilizers and

hybrid seeds.

at is

100 Another example is the widespread promotion of specific agricultural

crops, like culantro, which was so successful that the supply of the vegetable skyrocketed

98 World Agroforestry Centre. A tree species reference and selection guide. 99 Gray, Nathan. Class lecture. March 12, 2009. (See Appendix). 100 Ibid.

29

and outweighed the demand, causing widespread economic hardship for farmers.

Co-Director of Earth Train, Nathan Gray, suggests that those working to restore

the forests in Panama focus on presenting a solid and rigorous analysis of the facts on the

ground—a picture of “what’s real.”101 Instead of creating a “recipe for action,” local

groups (as well as international agencies) can become empowered by being “invited into

the conversation” and feeling like they have a stake in what is going on.102

Conclusion: While the use of teak throughout Panama and much of Central America has

caused untold ecological damage and been a set back for true reforestation, an

understanding of the underlying factors and what is currently being done to address the

issue invites a discussion as to future courses of action. While changing government

policies is a necessary step to reducing the usage of non-native species in reforestation,

the current research and efforts of local actors are providing an alternative discourse that

has already begun to change the minds of landholders and have begun the slow reversal

of the usage of teak in reforestation efforts. Research into native tree species must

continue, as well the participation of Panama in alternative reforestation programs, such

as the UN-REDD, and the engagement of various stakeholders in the discussion through

local community-based initiatives like those begun by Earth Train and the Azuero Earth

Project.

101 Ibid. 102 Ibid.

30

WORKS CITED

Center for Tropical Forest Science (CTFS). Trees, Shrubs, and Palms of Panama: Tectona grandis L. f. Accessed April 16, 2009. https://ctfs.arnarb.harvard.edu/webatlas/findinfo.php?specid=8280&leng=english Fischer, A. & Fischer, H. (2006). Chapter 10: Restoration of Forests. In Jelte Van Andel and James Aronson (Eds.) Restoration Ecology: The New Frontier (pp. 124-140). Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd. Gray, Nathan. Earth Train Briefing: 15 December 2008. http://www.earthtrain.org/EarthTrain-Briefing.pdf. Gray, Nathan. Notes from class lecture. March 12, 2009. (See Appendix). Healey, Sean P., Gara, Robert I (2003). The effect of teak plantation on the establishment of native species in an abandoned pasture in Costa Rica. Forest Ecology and Management 176: 497-507. International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. p. 260-265. Accessed April 17, 2009. www.itto.int/direct/topics/topics_pdf_download/topics_id=12550000&no=1 Malana Impex Pvt Ltd: The Teak Timber Trading Company. The History of Teak. Accessed April 16, 2009

http://www.malana.com/index.php?view=article&catid=35%3ATeak%3A+a+global+overview&id=58%3AHistory+of+teak+plantations+&option=com_content&Itemid=83

Mariscal, Emilio. Personal interview. 17 February 2009. (See Appendix). Mariscal, Emilio. Personal email communication. April 21, 2009. (See Appendix). Montagnini, Florencia and Jordan, Carl F. (2005). Tropical Forest Ecology: the basis for conservation and management. Springer. Accessed April 18, 2009

http://books.google.com/books?id=myjOVhEqVAAC&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=plantation+species,+panama&source=bl&ots=LrG7YwJ4rM&sig=HPqBgE1

31

QbsUaiXFuxNKgLY5pJqU&hl=en&ei=ST3rScvmDcPktgenvNGRBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#PPA173,M1

Panama Teak Forestry (2006). Teak: A Global Overview. Accessed April 16, 2009 http://www.panamateakforestry.com/English/GTI/global.htm Panama Teak Forestry (2006). Teak information: Introduction. Accessed April 16, 2009

http://www.panamateakforestry.com/English/GTI/General-information-on-Teak.htm

Panama Reforestation Incentive Law: Legislative Assembly Law 24 (November

23, 1992). Retrieved March 23, 2009 http://www.fenixpanama.com/panama-reforestation-incentive-law.html

PRORENA (The Native Species Reforestation Project). Accessed March 23, 2009. http://research.yale.edu/prorena/home.htm REDD Strategies 2008-2012. Presented at the UN-REDD Programme 1st Policy Board meeting in Panama 9 -10 March 2009. Accessed April 22, 2009.

http://www.un-redd.net/Portals/25/documents/events/20090309Panama/Presentations/UN%20REDD%20PB%20NJPD%20Panama%20Presentation.pdf

Sloan, Sean. Reforestation amidst deforestation: Simultaneity and succession. (2008) Global Environmental Change. 18 (3), 425-441.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VFV-4T6KFB0-

Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute: Center for Tropical Forest Science. PRORENA. Accessed April 16, 2009 http://www.ctfs.si.edu/group/Panama+Canal+Watershed+Experiment/PRORENA Tangley, Laura (Dec/Jan 2009). Saving the Forest for the Trees. National Wildlife Federation.

http://www.nwf.org/NationalWildlife/article.cfm?issueID=126&articleID=1660 The Azuero Earth Project. Accessed May 3, 2009. http://azueroearthproject.org/aep/?page_id=336/ United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): The Forestry Department (2002). Teak (Tectona grandis) in Central America. Accessed April 22, 2009. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y7205E/y7205e08.htm United Nations Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (UN-REDD Programme). Country Actions. Accessed April 22, 2009.

32

http://www.un-redd.net/UNREDDProgramme/CountryActions/tabid/542/Default.aspx

United Teak Corporation. (2007). World Conservation- Why do we Need Reforestation Projects? Accessed April 16, 2009

http://www.unitedteak.com/content/view/13/14/ United Timber Industries. (2006). Operations. http://www.unitedtimberindustries.com/operations.htm United Timber Industries. (2006). Profile. http://www.unitedtimberindustries.com/profile.htm Von Gal, Edwina. Personal email communication. May 3, 2009. (See Appendix). Wright, S. J., and M. J. Samaniego (2008). Historical, demographic, and economic correlates of land-use change in the Republic of Panama. Ecology and Society 13(2): 17. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art17/ World Agroforestry Centre. A tree species reference and selection guide. Accessed May

3, 20093, 2009. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/sea/products/afdbases/af/asp/SpeciesInfo.asp?SpID=1566.

World Agroforestry Centre. Introduction to Agroforestry. Accessed May 3, 2009.

http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/Agroforestry.asp. Zarate, Abdiel. ANAM study shows less deforestation in Panama: The ANAM manager attributes the success to a greater societal participation. January 30, 2009. La Estrella. http://www.laestrella.com.pa/mensual/2009/01/30/contenido/58065.asp

33

Appendix: Personal Interview with Emilio Mariscal: February 17, 2009. Caribbean pine not native to Panama. Silviculture knowledge for native is not good, so people plant what they know of: teak, eucalyptus, acacia____, Caribbean pine When people go to do reforestation they use what has a good price in the market: teak (not so much pine) They don’t put teak in good soil. Native species can work better (Pronena’s study: 75 native species, how they grow in different conditions, locations) Pine can grow okay in acidic soil (less than 5), they can tolerate it. Teak can’t tolerate it. It’s too wet for pine—not appropriate…it grows better in dry conditions. People in Panama don’t use pine often. A little for building in rural areas, a little for furniture. Also, pine has sticky sap, hard to work with. People prefer using other wood. Why they use it: - people know they can use it for reforestation, it grows fast, but they don’t know what to do with it once it’s fully grown. There’s no high value for it in Panama (prob. doesn’t make sense to export it). - uses: a little for the market, also, to plant around other species to protect them from wind, etc. Reasons not to grow it:

- poor price in market - poor biodiversity. Planting native species will promote more species to grow on

that plot, while a plantation of just pine will not promote as much biodiversity. - People prefer to use agroforestry system—native species play best role in

agroforestry Recommendations:

- Earth Train should recommend specific species, according to PRORENA research, which grow better on the specific land owner’s site.

34

- Education - Outreach, “extension program”. Earth Train is beginning to do this—needs more

development! - Use local knowledge: local people know where their teak is not working, which is

useful information. Email Communication with Emilio Mariscal: Received April 22, 2009. 1) What factors prompted the decision to pass the 1992 reforestation incentive law? What were the environmental and socio-economic conditions like in the country at that time?

a. First of all, the high level of deforestation per year in the country at that time (close to 50,000 hectares per year)

b. To try to decrease of damage to the natural forest, using timber from reforestation programs,

c. To stimulate the companies, local organizations and other groups to do a reforestation program at different level and to have some incentive from the government doing it,

d. Contribute to guarantee job to the workers at different marginal communities

e. To contribute to increase the forest cover at the country. 2) Who does the law really help? Who does it hurt the most?

a. It helped a companies to not pay a tax and to some people to get a

Immigrant Visa because they were doing some reforestation project.

b. It helped a government to create new opportunities job to the people but at the same time reduced the income tax due an exception in the law

3) What are some internal factors for the trend towards teak plantations, instead of native trees? (tax incentives, lack of knowledge about use of native trees in reforestation, etc)

There are basically two aspects:

a. The lack of knowledge about natives species silvicultural management

b. High silvicultural information about the teak and the international market value of teak too

4) Where do you think the idea that "native trees don't grow well in Panama" comes from?

35

It was basically because the lack of knowledge about native species and what the knowledge of management, market, plantation, etc. of that species too 5) What are some external factors for the trend towards teak plantations (i.e. international free trade laws/market forces, etc)? I think that it is specially the international market value of the teak and that the technical issues about how it could be management in plantation. 6) What efforts have you been involved with to debunk the "natives don't grow well" idea? (i.e. PRORENA study) What has been the outcome of these efforts?

We did different effort to can know how the performance of the native species in different soils condition and gradient of precipitation across the country. In addition we incorporated different management technique using native species working with companies and farmers. Now they believe that native species can grow well and in some case faster that some not native species. In addition there are so many additionally factors to the biodiversity and cultural issues related with the use of the native species in the country. Also we worked with different NGOs too. 7) In what ways can local groups help to shift reforestation/restoration efforts toward native species? (i.e. what have Earth Train and others been doing?) What do you think would be the most successful strategies (talking to land owners, affecting policy, etc).

Right now different companies and new land owners are using native species in reforestation project.. PRORENA had provided good scientific information and it is available to the people and to ANAM too. In addition more research could be do using native species to incorporate it to the carbon sequestration markets. There the government can play interesting role and also can use the advantage of the REDD too. The Earth Train initiative could be duplicate in different part of the country with high level of success because we are looking for new information and adjust management techniques using natives species in different models of reforestation (Agroforestry too) 8) Any other thoughts on pros/cons of teak, native trees, or outreach efforts?

I think that we need to explore more a role of the native species in the market of carbon sequestration and how the government can support that. May be news incentives. In addition I would like to tell you that the law 24 of 1992 was modified and now the incentives change a little. You can see it at www.anam.org.pa Also we need to know more about the native species, there are so many and with different ecological role. --

36

Notes from Nathan Gray’s class lecture on March 12, 2009: “Huge increases in use of herbicides and pesticides…b/c of US AID, $61 million. Herbicide…nothing grows back on it… Denuded real estate, wait for wet season, wait for chemical fertilizer and hybrid seed (combination overpowers it)… Competing politics, district of chepo. Fee to cut trees on your land (legally), go to district of chepo office. Province of Panama. Very little political reality, but the district is a significant political unit. Significant income from tree permissions….. Teak policy, everyone planted teak…proved to be unviable….600 hectares ranch, now only 5 workers… Degradation factor How many of the landowners have you talked to? All of them, and there’s a pretty good relationship. Reaction to restoration? Young people susceptible to their image. Lots of diff. types of people: absentee landowners Some people are into it. Tying to sell land at high rate Suspicion How are you doing outreach, education to people?

- key is who the owners/associates are: most people there already have a stake in it. - Humor, humility, new here, - Dynamic of the conversation

Teak- any new policies?

- corrected the number of species, mahogany, but then took it off. Tax benefits. Some foreign investors..

- outgoing PRD party, administration. So, they are looking at other ways to stimulate reforestation. Temporary dissendency. Likely that a business party will succeed the presidency. Copy of his environmental and indigenous policies.

Earth Train. What are they doing at natl. and regional level to impact national policies?

- scale/size of reserve gives them clout/power. - Agenda/recipe for action—NOT what we are fighting to achieve. Instead, a

rigorous analysis, documented, on the ground data, a picture of WHAT’S SO. The future we will have, and the future can choose. Presented pictorially.

- Most concerned about mapping and projecting what’s so. Physical concrete terms. Contrasts, measurables, river flows, that’s what we’re about. To go beyond valley, b/c the battle is the ecoregion of the Darien hotspot. Why we feel such urgency. Fundamental difference between recipe for action.

37

- How you get away from dialectic traps. Engaging them in determining them what’s happening. A powerful way to radicalize somebody. B/c they have a stake in what’s going. Invite them into the conversation. If they have an alternative view, then just test it. The scientific method is the most powerful tool that radicals could possibly use!!! It’s how you use it and portray it and engage people.

o WHAT CAN WE MEASURE? (where are the optimal sites for measurement?)

The Columbians want “rose wood/cocoa bola”, mahogany, almendra (tropical almond)—substantial market value. WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO A NEW RENAISSANCE. AN OPPORTUNITY TO AFFIRM…FARM THE REAL VALUABLES. SOMETHING FAR MORE ENDURING. WHAT WE’RE ABOUT IS SO PROFOUND. CONCLUDE W/ THIS: STAY WITH “WHAT’S SO, WHAT’S REAL, WHAT WE CAN MEASURE.” STAY GROUNDED. THIS IS WHERE’S WE’RE REALLY GOING TO ACHIEVE THE CHANGE” -- Email Communication with Edwina von Gal: Received May 3, 2009. 1) What factors prompted the decision to pass the 1992 reforestation incentive law? What were the environmental and socio-economic conditions like in the country at that time? 2) Who does the law really help? Who does it hurt the most? 3) What are some internal factors for the trend towards teak plantations, instead of native trees? (tax incentives, lack of knowledge about use of native trees in reforestation, etc) I think that it is the market for teak that drives the supply. It is so well known and the market is well developed so it is easy to know how to sell. 4) Where do you think the idea that "native trees don't grow well in Panama" comes from? Some are hard to propagate. Some don’t grow very fast in the first couple of years so no one realized how well they could do. Possibly the alelopathic qualities of teak make it cheaper and easier to establish, the native species might need more clearing of competing vegetation. 5) What are some external factors for the trend towards teak plantations (i.e. international free trade laws/market forces, etc)? 6) What efforts have you been involved with to debunk the "natives don't grow well" idea? (i.e. PRORENA study) What has been the outcome of these efforts?

38

39

7) In what ways can local groups help to shift reforestation/restoration efforts toward native species? (i.e. what have Earth Train and others been doing?) What do you think would be the most successful strategies (talking to land owners, affecting policy, promoting agroforestry, etc). The Azuero Earth Project members (like Vern) have their own native species plantings which are planted and maintained by local guys, so the word gets around. We have encouraged other gringo owners to plant native species and they are generally receptive, especially when the dramatic difference in the habitat opportunities is so visible in the teak vs native plantings. Everyone likes the idea of having birds and monkeys live in their trees. We have been enthusiastically supporting a local small business man who grows and plants native trees. We are working to provide information and resources to everyone who is interested (see the website). 8) Any other thoughts on pros/cons of teak, native trees, or outreach efforts? Follow up! Farmers new to native plantings need technical assistance and encouraging support for a number of years to ensure success.