Fiu Mata’ese Elisara-Laulu, O Le Siosiomaga Society, described lessons learned in developing the country’s National Adaptation Programme for Action, emphasizing the importance of pre-synthesis sectoral reports for establishing baseline information and the role of country-wide community consultation in criteria prioritization. He lamented that the five-year programme of work on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change, adopted by COP 11, focuses on research and not on tangible action.

Marcial Arias, Fundación para la Promoción del Conoscimiento Indígena, Panama, described the negative health impacts of sea-level rise on indigenous communities in the coastal regions of Panama. Highlighting lessons learned from adaptation projects, he said: identification of vulnerability should be organized in a bottom-up manner; traditional knowledge regarding climate change should be identified; and more consultations and workshops between indigenous peoples and national governments should be organized.

Johnson Cerda, Asociación Indígena de Limoncocha, outlined the conflict that exists between indigenous peoples and oil companies in the Ecuadorian Amazon. He described the work of two organizations that help indigenous communities to map their land use. Cerda explained that the maps help indigenous peoples to demonstrate to the government that they are using their lands, which in turn strengthens their land-use case against the oil companies.

Participants discussed the need to recognize and document indigenous knowledge. One participant argued that indigenous peoples will continue to be affected by climate change until use of fossil fuels in the North is reduced.

Andrew Mitchell, Global Canopy Program, introduced the “biosphere - atmosphere hotspots” concept, which mimics the IUCN biodiversity hot-spot concept for protecting forests through environmental services. He highlighted some of the services provided by canopy ecosystems to humanity, including carbon storage, water storage, temperature buffering and rainfall generation. Underlining the conditions needed to attract capital for payment for ecosystem services, Mitchell presented the VivoCarbon fund that has been expanded to purchase ecosystem services. He reported on the Brazil/London dialogue for developing the necessary framework to implement such a fund. He stressed that the fund will not involve purchasing of land but of environmental services.

Adilson Vieira, Amazon Working Group (GTA), explained that GTA is an organization whose membership includes river population, indigenous peoples and others, and that works on creating opportunities for forest communities while protecting the Amazon’s natural resources. Emphasizing that preserving the forest and improving livelihoods are “part of the same story,” Vieira expressed support for the Amazonas Initiative and the Brazilian Federal Government proposal to reduce deforestation and poverty.

Noting the dependency of local communities on forests, Vieira said that “what many see as an opportunity to develop businesses, GTA see as a means to survive.” He noted that Brazil’s position in the climate negotiations is maturing but said “there is still room for improvements.”

Participants discussed ways to duplicate Amazonas’ work, including the establishment of a network to “maintain momentum” and further engagement in South-South collaboration. Responding to a question on payments for ecosystem services, Viana said Amazonas examined successful experiences in Costa Rica and Colombia that make direct and indirect payments to local communities.