Political economy of REDD+ in Peru

Post on 21-Jun-2015

1,155 views 3 download

Tags:

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