PARTICIPATION AND REPRESENTATION: REDD+ IN NATIVE COMMUNITIES IN THE PERUVIAN AMAZON MASTERS THESIS PRESENTATION

Carol Burga CahuanaNovember 18th, 2013

SummaryI. IntroductionII. Literature ReviewIII. Hypothesis and Research QuestionsIV. MethodsV. ResultsVI. Conclusions

I. IntroductionREDD: creation of a broad set of policies that will affect the entire set of rights and institutions of local forest dependent communities. REDD will bring changes in: a) forest and land tenure rights b) local representation c) distributional equity d) access to resources and the ability to benefitREDD produces optimism and fears Peru is participating in REDD.

II. Literature Review

III. Hypothesis

III. Research Questions

Motivation and process of engagement in REDD1. Why and how do local people end up engaging with REDD+? Representation and consent2. Who, to what degree, and by what means, represents the people both in their decision to consent and during the preparatory activities? Participation3. Why and how do local people participate (or not) in preparatory activities? Changes in rules and institutions4. What rules and institutions are being created or changed as a result of REDD activities at the village level?

IV. MethodsSite selection criteriaFieldwork: June 15th -August 15th 2012Research procedures: Structured and semi-structured interviews Community members, project developer staff, regional government officials, indigenous leaders, researchers, practitioners. Total: 58 respondents.Limitations: Brief duration of the study, getting participants for interviews, truthfulness of responses, limited womens participation.

V. Results (1)

BlgicaInfiernoWhy and how do local people end up engaging with REDD+?

What are peoples logic, motives, and expectations from REDD? Consent given 2 times through meetings, influenced by chief and advisers (2-3 meetings)Benefits (HH & community)Complementary incomeMaterial comfort, food security and education and health servicesClimate goals are not a motivationFind information is confusingInaccuracies in understandingsNo anti-REDD discourseConsent given through debate after several meetings.Land titleEconomic benefits (HH & community)Complementary income to sustain live in the cityClimate goals are not a motivationFeel they are not well informed (mechanism and activities)Different positions towards REDD (supporters, opposers, skeptics and people forming opinion)

VI. Results (2)

BlgicaInfiernoWho represents the people both in their decision to consent and during the preparatory activities? Village level: Represented by the Council w/ strong influence of the Chief and facilitator.Assembly delegates uncontested power to the chiefMeetings are mostly informativeAuthorities not accountable: Poor public reporting on finances / they are not sanctionedElected authorities (municipalities) not representative / no competences in land & forestsCommunity Council + Project Coordinator + Control Committee (new level of representation from the ecotourism project)Assembly makes decisionsPublic reporting is constantAuthorities are accountableGeneral agreement is that authorities mostly respect what the Assembly decides.Elected authorities (municipalities) not representative / no competences in land & forests

V. Results (3)

BlgicaInfiernoWhy and through what mechanisms do local people participate (or not) in preparatory activities? Participation: reduced to people attending meetings/workshopsFeel that following new rules for social order and forest use is a way to participate.People do not engage in the design of project activitiesNo control over the process (Asesorandes)Tend not to assume control even if they can (AIDER)Blgica does not participate in Mesa REDD

Constant coordination between AIDER and authoritiesLow attendance to meetingsFeel that project does not allow for their participation: Do no benefit from project activities / they have not been properly informed / people are not convinced that REDD will work.Participated in Mesa REDD through AIDER.

V. Results (4)

BlgicaInfiernoWhat rules and institutions are being created or changed as a result of REDD activities at the village level? Changes in rules for land and forest useSmaller farms, less productionSlash/burn prohibitedCattle ranching is prohibited

Changes in rules for social order: Participation in REDD is mandatory, people can otherwise lose membershipCannot exit the community for mote than 2 months.Restrictions on marrying to outsidersSigned written undertakingsChanges in land allocation rules (not only because of REDD)10 hectares limit/clearNo new authority for REDD has been created, but the Control Committee (ecotourism) is involved

IV. Conclusions (I)Titling and additional economic benefits are two distinct reasons why communities engage in REDD. Communities present important differences in the way local people make decisions and participate in REDD+. This study also reveals patterns of inequality in access to benefits and labor opportunities in ongoing economic activities in the communities, that might continue under REDD.

IV. Conclusions (II)Local elected authorities (municipalitiesthe local most level of government) and Indigenous Federations do not represent communities in the process of REDD+s preparatory projects.At the community level, forms of representation are similar in structure, but different in how democratic they are. Communities have experienced changes in rules and institutions at the advent of REDD+

Thank you

***