political economy of redd+ in peru
DESCRIPTION
This presentation gives an overview of the political and economic context of the REDD+ process in Peru. Money flowing to/from REDD and the forestry sector represents a small fraction of that dedicated to key drivers of deforestation. Up against bigger players like mining and agriculture, there are some challenges inherent in making the REDD+ dreams match up with reality. CIFOR scientist Mary Menton gave this presentation on 18 June 2012 at a panel discussion organised by CIFOR and partners at the ISEE 2012 Conference at Rio, which convened under the topic "Ecological Economics and Rio+20: Challenges and Contributions for a Green Economy". The panel was titled ‘National strategies for reducing emissions from avoided deforestation and degradation – how much transformational change is possible in current political and economic realities? Part I – An overview’. For more information, visit http://www.cifor.org/events/rio20/TRANSCRIPT
Political Economy of REDD+ in PeruMary Menton, Hugo Che Piu, Javier Perla,
Daniela FreundtCIFOR, DAR, Libelula
Brief process overview in Peru: key REDD+ policy events
201020092008
MayGrupoREDD
AprilNestedApproach
JuneR-PIN sentto FCPF
MayCreation of theREDD TechnicalGroup within theCNCC (NationalCouncil on ClimateChange
March
FIP PilotCountry
2011
MarchR-PPApproved
AprilR-PPsubmitted
JanuaryFIP ExploratoryMission
DecemberNet ZeroDeforestationby 2021
Decemberconserve 54million ha of forest
2012
AprilDeclaration ofIquitos andFormation ofMesa-Indigena
JunePerujoins UN-REDD
July
PNCBNationalForestConservationProgram
MarchNationalSafeguardsWorkshop
MediaDiscourse(Perlaetalinpress)
ClimateChange
&Forests203
REDD33
Overlap=9articles
Drivers & Powerful Players
AnnualDeforestationRate=0.2%150,000ha
Economics of Key SectorsBased on 2010 National Statistics (INEI, UNODP)
[DFM1]Perhapsthescientificnamecouldbeaddednexttothecommonname?
Product Export %GDP
Mining $21.72billion 5.7%
Gold $7.76billion 2%
Petroleum&Gas $3.1billion 0.8%
Agricultureand
Livestock
$7.6billion 7.5%
Cocaine $10.7billion n/a
61,200ha
3,113,000ha
ForestrySector=1%ofGDP
58,000,000ha
Area under cultivationProduct Area,National
(hectares)
Area,LowerAmazonStates
(MDD,Loreto,Ucayali,SM)
Rice 388,532 85,403
Coffee 349,354 73,445
Banana 156,114 78,934
Maiz 542,657 62,621
Cassava 105,063 54,181
Cacau 77,147 36,800
Coca(legal&illegal) 61,200 6,558
Palmoil 19,055 19,055
Cattle ?? 191,000
Source:INEI,CattlebasedoncalculationsbasedonINEIandFAOstats
Region HectaresCultivated
Cusco 19391Huánuco 12759Ayacucho 10800Puno 4305Ucayali 2803Junín 3835Loreto 2015Pasco 1729SanMartín 1725LaLibertad 1061Amazonas 429Cajamarca 372MadredeDios 15
Coca and Cocaine
Source:UNODC2011www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crop_monitoring/index.html
<title>
Gold Mining – Madre de Dios
List1 List2
List3
Source:Swensenetal2011
Photo:SPDA,ActualidadAmbiental
Oil Palm~20,000 ha
(Guitierrez et al 2011)
Economics of Key SectorsBased on 2010 National Statistics (INEI, UNODP)
[DFM1]Perhapsthescientificnamecouldbeaddednexttothecommonname?
Product Export %GDP
Mining $21.72billion 5.7%
Gold $7.76billion 2%
Petroleum&Gas $3.1billion 0.8%
Agricultureand
Livestock
S/.20.2billion 7.5%
Cocaine $10.7billion n/a
ForestrySector=1%ofGDPREDDfundingtoPerugovt=~$127million+
ProposedInstitutionalArrangementsforREDD
OCBR
Gestores de fondos de REDD+
Donantes de REDD+
Moore
FONAM
Diseminación y Comunicación MRVDesarrollo
InstitucionalAspectos socio -
económica y SESA
Director Ejecutivo
Registro Nacional
Administración
Gobiernos Regionales
Comité DirectorMINAM (Presidente)
MINAG, MEF, MINEM, MINRERep. Gobiernos RegionalesRep. Donantes (voz sin voto)Dir. Ejecutivo (voz sin voto)
GTREDD (voz sin voto)
KfW FCPF FIP
PROFONANP E Otros
PCM
Comité Asesor (Grupo Técnico REDD)
Mesas REDD
Mesa REDD Indígena
PropuestaArreglosInstitucionalesCoordinaciónREDD+
Source:MINAMR‐PP
REDDDreamsvsREDDRealityDreams
• Multi‐sectorialcooperationandinvolvement
• Coordinatednationaltosub‐nationalimplementation
• Equitythroughparticipationofindigenousgroupsandcivilsociety
• Evidence‐baseddecisionmaking
Reality
• Lackofcooperationbetweensector&conflictinginitiatives
• Sub‐nationalprojectstakingoffwithlittlegovernmentinvolvement
• ExamplesofunfairdealsandlackoftrueFPICandconsultation
• Lackofconsistent,quantitativeinformationofhighquality
TheherepresenteddataandanalysisispartofthepolicycomponentofCIFOR’sglobalcomparativestudyonREDD(GCS)http://www.forestsclimatechange.org/global‐comparative‐study‐on‐redd.html,ledbyMariaBrockhaus.
ThemethodsandguidelinesusedinthisresearchcomponentweredesignedbyMariaBrockhaus,MonicaDiGregorioandSheilaWertz‐Kanounnikoff.PartsofthemethodologyareadaptedfromtheresearchprotocolformediaandnetworkanalysisdesignedbyCOMPON(‘ComparingClimateChangePolicyNetworks’).
Inadditiontothosewhohelpedwithmethods,weacknowledgecontributorstothisstudyfromDAR(JavierMartinez,TaniaGarcia)andLibelula(EduardoBurga,TaliaPostigo)aswellasthosewhoparticipatedininterview
WegratefullyacknowledgethesupportreceivedfromtheNorwegianAgencyforDevelopmentCooperation,theAustralianAgencyforInternationalDevelopment,theUKDepartmentforInternationalDevelopment,theEuropeanCommission,theMinistryforForeignAffairsofFinland,theDavidandLucilePackardFoundation,theProgramonForests,andtheUSAgencyforInternationalDevelopment.
Acknowledgements
