Environment, Development and Sustainability

, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp 745–765 | Cite as

Developing REDD+ policies and measures from the bottom-up for the buffer zones of Amazonian protected areas

Article

Abstract

A key activity in Phase 1 of REDD+—the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) forestry mitigation mechanism—is the development of policies and measures (PAMs) to define where and how emissions reductions and carbon stock enhancements and conservation will be achieved. This paper provides contextual data and information for the development of PAMs specifically for the buffer zones of protected areas in the Peruvian Amazon, sites where REDD+ has the potential to generate considerable social and ecological co-benefits. The study sites are the buffer zones of two national parks, Yanachaga-Chemillen (YChNP) in central Peru and Manu (MNP) in the south-east. Data were collected through smallholder household surveys (n = 200), covering livelihood strategies, land use practices and preference rankings of five REDD+ criteria. The findings suggest that PAMs in buffer zones could realistically achieve an additional ~10 % conservation of remaining forest and between 25 and 70 % additional reforestation of non-forest areas on private lands. The paper argues that in areas where agricultural co-operatives exist, such as MNP, these should be engaged in national REDD+ PAMs and supported by an international NGO; in areas where smallholders operate individually, such as YChNP, international NGOs may be best placed to gain local trust and thereby raise participation rates. The environmental effectiveness of REDD+ conservation PAMs could be greater in areas of intense agricultural production, yet financial and technical support for reforestation may offer the most effective avenue for carbon mitigation in these areas.

Keywords

Peru Amazon Buffer zone Smallholders REDD+ Policies and measures Preferences 

References

  1. Alvarez, J. (2007). Reserva Nacional Allpahuayo Mishana: Una Joya Natural al Lado de Iquitos. Iquitos: BIODAMAZ.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez, J., & Whitney, B. M. (2001). A new ZimmeriusTyrannulet (Aves: Tyrannidae) from white sand forests of northern Amazonian Peru. Wilson Bulletin, 103, 1–9.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, L. O., Malhi, Y., Ladle, R. J., Aragão, L. E. O. C., Shimabukuro, Y., Phillips, O. L., et al. (2009). Influence of landscape heterogeneity on spatial patterns of wood productivity, wood specific density and above ground biomass in Amazonia. Biogeosciences Discussions, 6, 2039–2083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aramburú, C. E., & Garland, E. B. (Eds.). (2003). Amazonía: Procesos demograficos y ambientales. Lima: Consorcio de Investigación Económica y Social.Google Scholar
  5. Ayele, K., & Tefera, H. (1999). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) for resource management in Oromia, Ethiopia. Montpellier: Institut de recherche pour le developpement.Google Scholar
  6. Bruner, A. G., Gullison, R. E., Rice, R. E., & da Fonseca, G. A. B. (2001). Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science, 291, 125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Capella, J. L., & Sandoval, M. (2010). REDD en el Peru: Consideraciones juridicas para su implementacion. Lima: Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental (SPDA).Google Scholar
  8. Castro, E., Santillan, I., & Ato, C. (2010). La politica forestall y la Amazonia Peruana: Avances y obstaculos en el camino hacia la sostenibilidad. Serie Informes Defensoriales No 151, Defensoria del Pueblo, Lima.Google Scholar
  9. Chambers, R. (1994a). The origins and practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal. World Development, 22, 953–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chambers, R. (1994b). Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Analysis of experience. World Development, 22, 1253–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chomitz, K. M., Brenes, E., & Constantino, L. (1999). Financing environmental services: The Costa Rican experience and its implication. The Science of the Total Environment, 240, 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coomes, O. T., Grimard, F., & Burt, G. J. (2000). Tropical forests and shifting cultivation: Secondary forest fallow dynamics among traditional farmers of the Peruvian Amazon. Ecological Economics, 32, 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Corbera, E., Kosoy, N., & Martínez Tuna, M. (2007). Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: Case studies from Meso-America. Global Environmental Change, 17, 365–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Curran, L. M., Trigg, S. N., McDonald, A. K., Astiani, D., Hardiono, Y. M., Siregar, P., et al. (2004). Lowland forest loss in protected areas of Indonesian Borneo. Science, 303, 1000–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamilton, K., Chokkalingam, U., Bendana, M. (2010). State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2009: Taking root and branching out. Washington, DC, USA: Ecosystem Marketplace.Google Scholar
  16. de Koning, F., Aguiñaga, M., Bravo, M., Chiu, M., Lascano, M., Tannya, L., et al. (2011). Bridging the gap between forest conservation and poverty alleviation: The Ecuadorian Socio Bosque Program. Environmental Science & Policy,. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.007.Google Scholar
  17. DeFries, R., Hansen, A., Newton, A. C., & Hansen, M. C. (2005). Increasing isolation of protected areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years. Ecological Applications, 15, 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Earl, L., & Pratt, B. (2009). Indigenous social movements and international NGOs in the Peruvian Amazon. Occasional Paper Series No: 49, International NGO Training and Research Centre (INTRAC), Oxford.Google Scholar
  19. Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics, 65, 663–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fielding, W. J., & Riley, J. (2000). Preference ranking: A cautionary tale from Papua New Guinea. Participatory Learning and Action Notes, 37, 113–117.Google Scholar
  21. Fine, P., Mesones, I., & Coley, P. (2004). Herbivores promote habitat specialization by trees in Amazonian forests. Science, 305, 663–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Finer, M., & Orta-Martinez, M. (2010). A second hydrocarbon boom threatens the Peruvian Amazon: Trends, projections, and policy implications. Environmental Research Letters, 5, 014012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fraser, B. (2009). Peruvian gold rush threatens health and the environment. Environmental Science and Technology, 43, 7162–7164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gavin, M. C., & Anderson, G. J. (2007). Socioeconomic predictors of forest use values in the Peruvian Amazon: A potential tool for biodiversity conservation. Ecological Economics, 60, 752–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Godoy, R., Brokaw, N., Wilkie, D., Colón, D., Palermo, A., Lye, S., et al. (1998). Of trade and cognition: Markets and the loss of folk knowledge among the Tawahka Indians of the Honduran rain forest. Journal of Anthropological Research, 54, 219–233.Google Scholar
  26. Greenoxx. (2009). The Madeacre and Maderyja Madre de Dios Amazon REDD Project. Montevideo: Greenoxx.Google Scholar
  27. Grieg-Gran, M., Porras, I., & Wunder, S. (2005). How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? World Development, 33, 1511–1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hajek, F., Ventresca, M. J., Scriven, J. N. H., & Castro, A. (2011). Regime-building for REDD+: Evidence from a cluster of local initiatives in south-eastern Peru. Environmental Science & Policy, 14, 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hope, R. A., Borgoyary, M., & Agarwal, C. (2005). Designing a choice experiment to evaluate adoption of organic farming for improved catchment environmental services & poverty reduction. Technical report for DFID FRP R8174: Socio-economic Opportunities from Upland Catchment Environmental Services: A Negotiation Support System. Department for International Development (DfID), London.Google Scholar
  30. Houghton, R., Lawrence, K., Hackler, J., & Brown, S. (2001). The spatial distribution of forest biomass in the Brazilian Amazon: A comparison of estimates. Global Change Biology, 7, 731–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Malhi, Y., Wood, D., Baker, T. R., Wright, J., Phillips, O. L., Cochrane, T., et al. (2006). The regional variation of aboveground live biomass in old-growth Amazonian forests. Global Change Biology, 12, 1107–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MINAM. (2009). Mapa de deforestacion de la Amazonia Peruana—2000. Lima: Ministerio del Ambiente.Google Scholar
  33. MINAM (2010). Gobierno peruano asume trascendental compromiso al conservar 54 millones de hectáreas de bosques. 16th July 2010. Ministerio del Ambiente, Lima.Google Scholar
  34. Mourato, S., & Smith, J. (2002). Can carbon trading reduce deforestation by slash-and-burn farmers evidence from the Peruvian Amazon. In D. Pearce, C. Pearce, & C. Palmer (Eds.), Valuing the environment in developing countries: Case studies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. Mukherjee, A., & Chambers, R. (Eds.). (2004). Participatory rural appraisal: Methods and applications in rural planning. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.Google Scholar
  36. Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., & May, P. H. (2010). Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 69, 1102–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Narayanasamy, N. (2009). Participatory rural appraisal: Principles, methods and application. New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Nepstad, D., Schwartzman, S., Bamberger, B., Santilli, M., Ray, D., Schlesinger, P., et al. (2006). Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Conservation Biology, 20, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oliveira, P. J. C., Asner, G. P., Knapp, D. E., Almeyda, A., Galvan-Gildemeister, R., Keene, S., et al. (2007). Land-use allocation protects the Peruvian Amazon. Science, 317, 1233–1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Palm, C., Tomich, T., van Noordwijk, M., Vosti, S., Gockowski, J., Alegre, J., et al. (2004). Mitigating GHG emissions in the humid tropics: Case studies from the Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn Program (ASB). Environment, Development and Sustainability, 6, 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pascual, U., Muradian, R., Rodriguez, L. C., & Duraiappah, L. C. (2010). Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: A conceptual approach. Ecological Economics, 69, 1237–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pavlikakis, G. E., & Tsihrintzis, V. A. (2003). A quantitative method for accounting human opinion, preferences and perceptions in ecosystem management. Journal of Environmental Management, 68, 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pfaff, A., Robalino, J., Sanchez-Azofeifa, G. A., Andam, K. S., & Ferraro, P. J. (2009). Park location affects forest protection: Land characteristics cause differences in park impacts across Costa Rica. The B. E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 9, 5.Google Scholar
  44. Porras, I., Grieg-Gran, M., Meijerink, G., & Dent, D. L. (2007). Farmers’ adoption of soil and water conservation: Potential role of payments for watershed services. Wageningen: International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC).Google Scholar
  45. Potvin, C., Owen, C., Melzi, S., & Beaucage, P. (2005). Ecological and socioeconomic analyses of four coffee producing villages of Mexico. Ecology and Society, 10, 18.Google Scholar
  46. Potvin, C., Tschakert, P., Lebel, F., Kirby, K., Barrios, H., Bocariza, J., et al. (2007). A participatory approach to the establishment of a baseline scenario for a reforestation Clean Development Mechanism project. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 1341–1362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ricketts, T. H., Soares-Filho, B., da Fonseca, G. A. B., Nepstad, D., Pfaff, A., Petsonk, A., et al. (2010). Indigenous Lands, Protected Areas, and Slowing Climate Change. Public Library of Science: Biology, 8, e1000331.Google Scholar
  48. Ricse, A., Barbaran, J., Alegre, J., & Woomer, P. (1996). Carbon dynamics in slash-and-burn and alternative land uses at the ASB Benchmark Site in Peru. Pucallpa: Instituto Nacional de Inovacion Agraria (INIA).Google Scholar
  49. Rodriguez, L. O., & Young, K. R. (2000). Biological diversity of Peru: Determining priority areas for conservation. Ambio, 29, 329–337.Google Scholar
  50. Russo, R. O., & Candela, G. (2006). Payment of environmental services in Costa Rica: Evaluating the impact and possibilities. Tierra Tropical, 2, 1–13.Google Scholar
  51. Saatchi, S. S., Houghton, R. A., Dos Santos Avala, R. C., Soares, J. V., & Yu, Y. (2007). Distribution of aboveground live biomass in the Amazon basin. Global Change Biology, 13, 816–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Samra, J. S., & Mishra, A. S. (Eds.). (1998). Participatory rural appraisal for watershed management (case studies). Dehradun: Central Soil and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute.Google Scholar
  53. Seymour, F., & Angelsen, A. (2009). Summary and conclusions: REDD wine in old wineskins? In A. Angelsen, M. Brockhaus, M. Kanninen, E. Sills, W. D. Sunderlin, & S. Wertz-Kanounnikoff (Eds.), Realising REDD+: National strategy and policy options (pp. 293–304). Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).Google Scholar
  54. Smith, R. C. (1981). Colonización y tenencia de tierras en la cuenca del Palcazu. Washington, DC: United States Agency for International Development (USAID).Google Scholar
  55. Strassburg, B., Turner, R. K., Fisher, B., Schaeffer, R., & Lovett, A. (2009). Reducing emissions from deforestation—The “combined incentives” mechanism and empirical simulations. Global Environmental Change, 19, 265–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Swallow, B., van Noordwijk, M., Dewi, S., Murdiyarso, D., White, D., Gockowski, J., et al. (2007). Opportunities for avoided deforestation with sustainable benefits: An interim report by the ASB partnership for the Tropical Forest margins. Nairobi: ICRAF.Google Scholar
  57. Swenson, J. J., Cater, C. E., Domec, J. C., & Delgado, C. I. (2011). Gold mining in the Peruvian Amazon: Global prices, deforestation, and mercury imports. Proceedings of the Library of Science (PLoS) One, 6, e18875.Google Scholar
  58. UNFCCC. (2010). Decision 1/CP.16: The Cancun agreements: Outcome of the ad hoc working group on long-term cooperative action under the convention. Bonn: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.Google Scholar
  59. Valadeau, C., Castillo, J. A., Sauvain, M., Lores, A. F., & Bourdy, G. (2010). The rainbow hurts my skin: Medicinal concepts and plant uses among the Yanesha (Amuesha), an Amazonian Peruvian ethnic group. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 127, 175–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wessendorf, K. (Ed.). (2008). The indigenous world 2008. Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Change Institute, School of Geography and the EnvironmentUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations