20
ORIGINAL ARTICLE A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a national REDD+ readiness process in Peru Douglas White Received: 4 April 2013 / Accepted: 17 October 2013 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013 Abstract Recurring disagreements during national preparations to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) are contributing to policy reform at multiple scales. The objectives of this study are to (i) develop a general framework to characterise diverse stakeholder perspectives on REDD+ programme objectives and governance arrangements, and (ii) apply this framework to analyse key stakeholders involved in REDD+ readiness process of Peru: the Inter-ethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest (Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana, AIDESEP), the Peruvian government and the World Bank. As indigenous peoples strive to maintain their own traditions and priorities, a turbulent readiness process is helping to resolve long-ignored issues of indigenous rights and to make REDD+ programme governance structures more inclusive. The Peruvian government/World Bank approach to REDD+ is incompatible with that of AIDESEP, therefore parallel implementation will be required for them to co-exist. Although a diversity of participants has helped to check and balance the centralization of decision-making power over REDD+ programme development, a history of failed assurances and agreements point to a need to maintain vigilance as new laws, regulations and safeguards are implemented. Key Words Climate change mitigation . FCPF . Forests . Governance . Safeguards . Tenure 1 Introduction In 2008, the Peruvian Ministry of the Environment (Ministerio del Ambiente, MINAM) proposed to voluntarily prevent the deforestation of 54 million hectares (MINAM 2010). As part of this effort, preparations of a national REDD+ (Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) programme have been advancing within the framework provided by the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) with additional support from the Forest Investment Program (FIP) both of the World Bank, United Nations (UN)-REDD, and other public and private agencies. In 2011, the FCPF approved the assignation of funding based on a national readiness preparation proposal (R-PP). Nevertheless, signature of the $3.6 million grant was made contingent upon additional agreements being reached between the Peruvian government and the Inter-ethnic Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change DOI 10.1007/s11027-013-9523-6 D. White (*) R4D&C, CIAT and ASB, 55 Oakledge Dr, Burlington, VT 05401, USA e-mail: [email protected]

A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a national REDD+ readiness process in Peru

  • Upload
    douglas

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a national REDD+ readiness process in Peru

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a nationalREDD+ readiness process in Peru

Douglas White

Received: 4 April 2013 /Accepted: 17 October 2013# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Recurring disagreements during national preparations to reduce emissions fromdeforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) are contributing to policy reform at multiple scales.The objectives of this study are to (i) develop a general framework to characterise diversestakeholder perspectives on REDD+ programme objectives and governance arrangements, and(ii) apply this framework to analyse key stakeholders involved in REDD+ readiness process ofPeru: the Inter-ethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest (AsociaciónInterétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana, AIDESEP), the Peruvian government and theWorld Bank. As indigenous peoples strive to maintain their own traditions and priorities, aturbulent readiness process is helping to resolve long-ignored issues of indigenous rights and tomake REDD+ programme governance structuresmore inclusive. The Peruvian government/WorldBank approach to REDD+ is incompatible with that of AIDESEP, therefore parallelimplementation will be required for them to co-exist. Although a diversity of participants hashelped to check and balance the centralization of decision-making power over REDD+ programmedevelopment, a history of failed assurances and agreements point to a need tomaintain vigilance asnew laws, regulations and safeguards are implemented.

Key Words Climate change mitigation . FCPF. Forests . Governance . Safeguards . Tenure

1 Introduction

In 2008, the PeruvianMinistry of the Environment (Ministerio del Ambiente,MINAM) proposedto voluntarily prevent the deforestation of 54 million hectares (MINAM 2010). As part of thiseffort, preparations of a national REDD+ (Reducing emissions from deforestation and forestdegradation) programme have been advancing within the framework provided by the ForestCarbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) with additional support from the Forest Investment Program(FIP) both of theWorld Bank, United Nations (UN)-REDD, and other public and private agencies.In 2011, the FCPF approved the assignation of funding based on a national readiness preparationproposal (R-PP). Nevertheless, signature of the $3.6 million grant was made contingent uponadditional agreements being reached between the Peruvian government and the Inter-ethnic

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob ChangeDOI 10.1007/s11027-013-9523-6

D. White (*)R4D&C, CIAT and ASB, 55 Oakledge Dr, Burlington, VT 05401, USAe-mail: [email protected]

Page 2: A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a national REDD+ readiness process in Peru

Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest (AIDESEP), an indigenousorganization representing 1500 indigenous communities and 67 local organizations, and the PeruREDD Group, a roundtable comprised of other civil society organizations (Che Pui and Garcia2011; FCPF 2012). In 2013, approval of a related plan Forest Investment Program of $30 to $50million, comprised of grants and concessional loans, has also required a lengthy process ofconsultation and critique (Forest Investment Program 2011; AIDESEP 2013b, e).

Indigenous peoples, who have a mix of formalized and disputed claims to at least 40 % ofAmazon forests in Peru, have proposed an alternative approach to REDD+. Opposed to the use ofcarbon offsets and market mechanisms, AIDESEP developed Indigenous REDD+, based onprinciples of territorial and human rights, self-determination, a holistic approach to valuing forestsand a global obligation to address climate change (Rengifo 2010; Espinoza and Feather 2012;Rengifo 2012).

International pressures to advance REDD+ programmes (Griffiths 2009; BIC 2011;McDermott, et al. 2012) can conflict with the prolonged time periods typically required for diversenational and sub-national stakeholders to discuss and agree on programme objectives anddecision-making authority. In Peru, REDD+ preparations have generated confusion, distrust anddissent. This stormy context, however, has stimulated dialogues that are changing institutionalpolicies on indigenous rights at national and international levels. By synthesizing a diverse array ofdocumentation, the objectives of this study are to: (i) characterise general stakeholder perspectivesregarding the objectives and governance arrangements of REDD+ programs, and (ii) contrast theroles, stakes at risk, and REDD+ perspectives of three stakeholders at the centre of significantdebate in Peru: AIDESEP, the Peruvian government and the World Bank. Documenting theseaspects of REDD+ readiness in Peru contribute to a larger goal of enabling all rural people in othertropical countries to achieve efficient, effective and equitable REDD+ programmes.

Many efforts to develop social and environmental policy are transitioning away from mereinformation-sharing and consultation, and are moving towards active citizen participation andprogrammatic control (Arnstein 1969; Foti, et al. 2008). Enhanced capacities of localorganisations, information transparency and frequency of communication all help to make suchinclusive processes possible. In Peru, disagreements and protests over REDD+ preparations havebeen recurrent, however, diverse actors have contributed to an extensive dialogue with nationaland international authorities (BIC 2012b). A variety of non-government organizations (NGO),which operate at the national level (i.e., indigenous and other rural communities) and internationalwith human rights with environmental objectives, are pressuring both national and internationalauthorities to reform policies and regulations. Thus, a multi-scale system of REDD+ programmegovernance is emerging as: (i) top-down REDD+ approaches are challenged with alternativemodels of forest protection that aim to guarantee the rights of indigenous and local people, and (ii)participation of diverse REDD+ stakeholder organizations both check and balance a tendency tocentralise decision-making power over REDD+ programme development and authority. Despitethe recent agreements, the implementation of the distinct REDD+ approaches will requireadditional dialogue, negotiation and coordination for their co-existence. Furthermore, in a contextof government decentralisation and policy reform, vigilance and timely actions byNGOswill needto continue their efforts in order to assure equitable REDD+ programme implementation in Peru.

2 REDD+ stakeholder perspectives on carbon, forests and climate change

Individual actors and organizations involved in the formulation of REDD+ programmepolicies often have distinct perspectives on programme objectives and managementresponsibilities. Such stakeholders can be diverse, including international organizations such

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Page 3: A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a national REDD+ readiness process in Peru

as the World Bank and UN-REDD, investors, NGOs, civil society organizations (CSOs),private businesses and landowners. By adapting a framework of McDermott, et al. (2012),varied stakeholder perspectives on REDD+ objectives and governance can be grouped intosix general, and sometimes overlapping, descriptions (i.e., carbon-pure, safeguards/do-no-harm, co-benefits, rights-based, indigenous REDD+ and no-REDD+). While a Carbon-pureperspective largely pertains to specific REDD+ projects, the Safeguards, Co-benefits andNo-REDD+ perspective can be used to describe either projects or larger-scale programmes.The two characterizations of Rights-based and Indigenous REDD+ pertain to programmes.

One, a Carbon-pure perspective maintains that forest carbon is the focus commodity. Themeans by which to achieve increased forest carbon can be either the avoidance of emissionsor increase of carbon stocks. Other social and environmental impacts may be generated asby-products, but do not affect decisions regarding investments or implementation. ThisREDD+ perspective can be driven by (i) environmental concerns reflecting climateexceptionalism (Nagle 2010), a view that climate change is the most critical global threat,or (ii) economic motivations to achieve project simplicity and efficiency with minimalregulatory constraints.

Two, a Safeguards/Do-no-harm/Risk-based perspective emphasizes forest carbon whilealso recognizing the potential risks of negative social and environmental impacts associatedwith REDD+ interventions. A set of principles and criteria are used to determine REDD+risks and associated programme actions; these safeguards are developed largely byinternational organizations with varying levels of national and local participation andconsultation. Approaches to risk management could be based on: (i) the fiduciaryresponsibility of investors in REDD+ programmes to practice due diligence with theirinvestments, as with corporate social responsibility efforts, or (ii) the selection andimplementation of specific standards by associated forest carbon agents/brokers (e.g., FCPF,UN-REDD) or those third-party certification entities (e.g., the Climate, Community andBiodiversity Alliance—CCBA, Gold Standard).

Three, a Co-benefits perspective, while highlighting forest carbon, also considersREDD+ as generating positive externalities with win-win-win impacts for carbon stocksand other environmental and social benefits associated with forests. Specific co-benefits caninclude biodiversity conservation, downstream water quality and flow regulation, andpoverty alleviation with rural development (Brown, et al. 2008; Pagiola and Bosquet2009). Nevertheless, policies that attempt to achieve multiple benefits typically confronttradeoffs amongst different objectives (Phelps, et al. 2012). Co-benefits can affect REDD+programme decisions by (i) acting as a qualitative decision criteria with which to prioritizeparticular regions or beneficiaries within a context of limited carbon funding or institutionalcapacities, or (ii) being an additional marketable attribute to be compensated separately (e.g. viapayment for ecosystem services), or (iii) determining minimum performance standards fornational REDD+ projects and policies. Although a co-benefits perspective may seek minimizerisks, specific safeguards preventing negative externalities may not be included. The term co-benefit is often included within World Bank and UN-REDD documentation at a conceptuallevel (FCPF and UN-REDD 2012), but has yet to be systematically operationalised at aprogrammatic level.

Four, a Rights-based perspective emphasises both moral and legal entitlements to notonly carbon, but also forests and land. Origins of the rights-based perspective stem fromlocal development and forest conservation efforts, including community forest management(Colchester 1994; Mayers and Vermeulen 2002; Mikkelsen 2005; Ashie Kotey et al. 2008).This perspective is similar to that of a Safeguards perspective in that both may aim toestablish performance criteria and safeguards with which to guide REDD+ programme

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Page 4: A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a national REDD+ readiness process in Peru

management decisions; however, a Rights-based perspective explicitly calls for clarificationof rights to forest ownership, management and use. Specific components of rights include:(i) forest governance by forest-dwelling communities, (ii) enhanced local participation inREDD+ programme development and implementation, (iii) free, prior and informed consent(FPIC), and (iv) equitable sharing of benefits (Fenton, 2010; Thompson, et al. 2011;Springer 2012). Overcoming regressive biases against vulnerable, marginalized and poorcommunities is typically seen as a necessary precondition to implementing REDD+programmes (Ribot and Larson 2012).

Five, an Indigenous REDD+ perspective can be considered a special case of a Rights-based perspective. Originally developed by indigenous organizations in Peru, theperspective challenges top-down models of REDD+ in order to ensure that indigenousrights are guaranteed (Rengifo 2010; AIDESEP 2011a; Espinoza and Feather 2012). Oneaim is to implement alternative models of forest protection by highlighting local forestmanagement. While the perspective is also based on moral and legal entitlements,Indigenous REDD+ further emphasizes the broader links between nature and society. Acentral issue calls for the clarification of land and forest tenure of indigenous peoples per theUN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Self-determination is to beensured by each town or community determining their own “life plans” from which the logicand utility of different REDD+ initiatives are assessed. Access or control of forests is not tobe ceded. In addition, any agreements or contracts should be short-term, adjustable andapply the national laws of the communities–not of the financiers. In order to recognizeholistic forest management the past and future, REDD+ programmes are to allocate fundingaccording to the quantity of standing forest, not avoided future carbon emissions as projectedfrom past deforestation rates. Furthermore, natural forests are not to be converted to treeplantations, which are less biodiverse but can be more effective in storing carbon. Unlikeother perspectives, Indigenous REDD+ calls for action to mitigate climate change not at anational but a global level. Since carbon offset programmes are seen to be insufficient inachieving required climate impacts, a carbon trading approach, which can erase incentives todecrease fossil fuel emissions by developed countries, should be conditioned upon domesticemissions reductions within industrialized countries (Espinoza Llanos and Feather 2012;COICA 2012a).

Six, a No-REDD+ perspective is much like that of Indigenous REDD+ in viewing carbonoffset programmes as evading climate change obligations and jeopardizing the rights offorest-dependent peoples. Thus, the perspective calls for the exclusion of offset mechanismsand for local control over forest resources within climate agreements (Durban Group 2010;Espinoza and Feather 2012).

It is important to note that the principles and specifics of all the REDD+ perspectivescontinue to evolve. Furthermore, stakeholder groups may also alter their perspectives,partially or entirely, as policy discussions advance.

3 Compromise, co-exist or conflict?

Comparison across different stakeholder perspectives can reveal commonalities amongstthem, which in turn may enable alliances to be formed in the formulation of REDD+ policy.Meanwhile, identification of stark contrasts can help prioritise key areas for deliberatenegotiation. In the following analysis, two dimensions of stakeholder perspectives arecompared (Figure 1). The first dimension, scope of objectives can range from a narrowfocus on the reduction carbon emissions, to expanded aims of enhancing multiple forest

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Page 5: A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a national REDD+ readiness process in Peru

benefits and even addressing climate change mitigation at an international scale. The seconddimension refers to REDD+ project/programme governance and whether external or localactors have the ultimate decision-making authority for the management and use of forestproducts and services. While related to government, governance refers to activities backedby shared goals among citizens and organizations that may or may not derive from legal andformally-prescribed responsibilities (Rosenau 1992).

In the case of Peru, the rights to the management, use and sale of specific resources andenvironmental services, such as below ground minerals and above-ground timber and carbon,typically depend on an array of national laws and regulations, which often conflict and are notimplemented (Dourojeanni et al. 2009; Munilla 2010; EIA 2012a; Gavaldá 2012). Externalactors can be purchasers (e.g., private corporations or public agencies from other countries) orbrokers (FCPF, Peruvian government) of REDD+ carbon credits. Financial investments wouldlikely require performance criteria or expect some sort of rights to specific resources andservices. Although international NGOs operate in specific locations and could be consideredexternal actors, such NGOs typically serve a supporting role to local organizations and do nottake own an ownership role of land or associated resources.

Figure 1 demonstrates how the six characterisations relate with each other. While aCarbon-pure perspective has a singular focus on carbon, a Safeguard perspective may alsocall for REDD+ actions to emphasize only forest carbon with greater environmental andsocial concerns to be addressed according to a do-no-harm criterion. Nevertheless, aSafeguard perspective can also include incentives to generate other products and servicesfrom forests–as with a Co-benefits perspective.

A Rights-based perspective also recognizes the values of multiple forest products andservices; however, other cultural and spiritual aspects of forests are of great importance.Similarly, the Indigenous REDD+ and No-REDD+ perspectives emphasize the standingforest and its contribution to nature and society, but at both local and global levels (Espinozaand Feather 2012). By calling for the in-country actions of industrialized countries tomitigate climate change, these two perspectives go beyond the developing country contextof REDD+ by highlighting the principle of common-but-differentiated responsibilities(Article 3 of the UNFCCC).

Perspectives on governance and management responsibilities of REDD+ projects andprogrammes range from external to local control. With a Carbon-pure perspective, the ownershipof forest carbon can pass to the investor by virtue of a contract agreement, depending on contract

Scope of objectives:

GHG reductions in industrialised countries

Holistic benefits of standing forest

Carbon & other products/services

Carbon Carbon-pure

Safeguards/ Do-no-harm

(Risk-based)

Rights-based

Indigenous REDD+

No-REDD+

Project/programme & forest governance: External Local

Co-benefits

Fig. 1 REDD+ programme perspectives: scope and governance

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Page 6: A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a national REDD+ readiness process in Peru

particulars. Other forest products such as non-timber forest products and services, such as spiritualand cultural benefits, are typically of lesser or no concern. Although rights to carbon aretransferred to external actors, governance and use of other goods and services of the forest, whichdo not affect carbon stocks, may tend to be local and thus locally controlled in a usufruct manner.A Co-benefits perspective may have a similar separation of ownership rights between carbon andother forest goods and services. Nevertheless, decisions regarding the relative importance ofcarbon and other co-benefits may be made externally, locally or any combination of the two,depending on programme particulars.

Governance arrangements associated a with Safeguards/do-no-harm REDD+ perspectiveare constructed upon a series of principles and specific safeguards, typically developed andmanaged externally with differing levels of participation and decision-making power of localforest-dwelling peoples. In contrast, the Rights-based, Indigenous REDD+ and No-REDD+perspectives call for local control and management of carbon and others services from forestlands. No matter the extent that REDD+ perspectives also intend to affect internationalclimate change, the Rights-based, Indigenous REDD+ and No-REDD+ perspectivesemphasize local governance over forests.

General observations can be made by considering programme scope and managementresponsibilities together. Safeguard-based approaches to REDD+ programmes tend to beexternally conceived and managed while taking into account fewer forest products andservices. In contrast, Rights-based approaches to REDD+ programmes emphasize localcontrol of a full spectrum of goods and services from the forest. This contrast leads to thequestion of whether the two approaches (i) can compromise and become unified, wherebynegotiation amongst stakeholders can produce a common approach satisfactory to all, (ii)can co-exist with the two approaches functioning simultaneously but separately, or (iii) areirreconcilable with basic principles of carbon, governance and climate change preventingagreement.

4 Peru case study: roles, stakes and perspectives

Although many stakeholders are involved in developing the national REDD+ programme ofPeru, typically via sub-national and national REDD+ roundtables, three organizations are atthe centre of a significant debate regarding policies and their implementation: AIDESEP,Peruvian government, and World Bank (i.e., FCPF and Forest Investment Program). Thissection analyzes these organizations with respect to their roles, their stakes involved andtheir associated REDD+ perspectives.

4.1 World Bank

4.1.1 Guiding and supporting REDD+ readiness and forest management

The World Bank, with cooperation from G8 countries, developing countries, the privatesector, NGOs and other partners, began development of the FCPF in 2007. Havingobjectives of supporting preparation, investment and evaluation of performance-basedcarbon payments, the FCPF was launched at the 13th session of the Conference of theParties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bali(FCPF 2010). The FCPF has created a framework and procedures for REDD+ programs,assisting 37 countries in preparation for implementing REDD+ (FCPF 2012). The FCPF isbased on a multi-organization and multi-country governance structure. As the main decision-

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Page 7: A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a national REDD+ readiness process in Peru

making body of the FCPF, the Participants Committee reviews country submissions,allocates grant resources, and approves budgets. Comprised of an equal number of REDD+countries and financial contributors, the Participants Committee also has observersrepresenting indigenous peoples, civil society, international organizations, the UN-REDDProgramme, the UNFCCC Secretariat and the private sector.

The World Bank is the trustee and administrating unit of the Forest Investment Program,which is one of the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) implemented through the MultilateralDevelopment Banks (MDBs, i.e., the World Bank Group, the African Development Bank,the Asian Development Bank, the European Development Bank, and the Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank-IADB) and supported by numerous development partners (ClimateFunds Update 2013; CIF 2013). The objective of the Forest Investment Program is tosupport the development of national policies and investments, including sustainable forestmanagement, that lead to reduced emissions, protection of carbon stocks and povertyreduction. The Forest Investment Program assists processes of national reforms to the forestsector and other sectors affecting forests and provides large-scale up-front financing for suchreforms along with other public and private forest investments (FIP 2012).

4.1.2 Stakes

The World Bank is positioning itself to be the primary financial intermediary for climate changeaid. Given potential competition from other organisations such as the UN-REDD and theAmazonFund (in Brazil), the World Bank is striving to demonstrate FCPF capacities to generateprogrammatic and on-the-ground achievements in piloting REDD (BIC 2010). Nevertheless,the FCPF is typified by rushed decision-making, non-inclusiveness, and a narrow focus on carbonstocks. Problems of the FCPF are largely attributable to the combined challenges of requiringsubstantial, and often lengthy, policy reforms in REDD+ countries that resist stringentenvironmental and social standards, while meeting key donor expectations of timelyprogrammatic advances and associated disbursement of funds (Dooley, et al. 2011). In addition,setting precedents with REDD+ programme approval can be inherently risky: if the FCPF is seento support poorly-designed REDD+ efforts in countries with significant forest governanceproblems, not only public confidence in the FCPF could diminish, but also the rationale of theREDD+ programme approach to mitigating climate change could also be questioned (BIC 2010).

4.1.3 Safeguards

TheWorld Bank can be characterized as having a REDD+ perspective Safeguards/Do-no-harmwhile emphasising carbon and other co-benefit of forests. To prevent and mitigate undue harmto people and their environment, the World Bank works under ten environmental and socialsafeguard policies and an open-access to information policy. Safeguards intend to manage andreduce risk associated with environmental and social issues of Bank-financed programmes andprojects. Safeguard policies are also to provide a mechanism for stakeholders to participate inproject design and to serve as an instrument for building local ownership of Bank-financedactivities (World Bank 2012b). Although theWorld Bank safeguard policies were developed forproject-based lending mechanisms rather than strategic planning processes, they are beingapplied to the Readiness Planning process. For REDD+, five Operational Policies (OP) BankProcedures (BP) are the most relevant: Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01), NaturalHabitats (OP/BP 4.04), Forests (OP/BP 4.36), Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) andInvoluntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12). Risks are to be managed by ensuring compliance withsafeguard policies during both REDD+ programme preparation and implementation.

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Page 8: A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a national REDD+ readiness process in Peru

Following the experiences of other World Bank associated reform processes, such asthose of mining and forestry, the FCPF is adapting and refining a series of safeguardsassociated with REDD+, termed Strategic Environmental and Social Assessments (SESAs).Environmental and social concerns are to be incorporated into a national REDD+ strategyprocess in order to ensure that readiness activities comply with World Bank policies. AnEnvironmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), the specific output of a SESA,aims to avoid and/or mitigate and manage potential risks arising from the adoption of futureREDD+ projects, activities, and policies. By combining analytical and participatoryapproaches in an iterative manner throughout the preparation process, a SESA intends tointegrate environmental and social considerations relevant to REDD+ at the earliest stages ofdecision making (Moss and Nussbaum 2011).

4.2 Peru government

4.2.1 Balancing pressures: within and outside

The main government agencies involved in REDD+ strategy development are the Ministryof Environment and Ministry of Agriculture. Although the Ministry of Environment is thenational focal point to the UNFCCC, the Ministry of Agriculture comprises the nationalforestry authority responsible for forest sector policies and granting forest concessions.Other national government agencies and several sub-national governments (i.e., departmentof the Amazon region) participate in the national REDD+ preparations, including theMinistry of Economy and Finance (MEF), and the Ministry of External Relations (MINRE;Che Pui and Garcia 2011). an Órgano de Coordinación de Bosques y REDD+ (OCBR,Forest and REDD Coordination Agency) is to be responsible for establishing functional andthematic links in order to develop a coherent national REDD+ strategy. Upon its creation,the initial tasks of the OCBR are to provide structure and coherence to REDD+ earlyimplementation actions, within the framework of the implementation of the national REDD+strategy, and to provide a link to international support and improvement initiatives forREDD+ (MINAM 2011).

Outside pressures on the Peruvian government process of REDD+ readiness includeregulations and requirements of various World Bank and United Nations agencies,feedback from civil society and indigenous REDD roundtables, and internationalNGOs. Despite consultations and multiple drafts, reviews from the FCPF ParticipantsCommittee of the Peru R-PP have been negative. The latest critiques highlighted thatthe roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in the preparation of REDD+ wereinsufficiently specific with regards to (i) ensuring that participation is not limited totechnical experts, but also including local people, (ii) meeting obligations of theInternational Labor Organization (ILO) convention 169 on Indigenous and TribalPeoples, and (iii) links between the R-PP and the processes of draft an investment strategyfor Forest Investment Program funding. As a consequence, funds disbursement has not yet beenapproved (FCPF 2011).

Factions within the Peruvian government, especially with interest in agriculture, miningand energy, have hampered efforts to implement measures to advance REDD+ preparations.For example, deceptive claims of an agreement by indigenous people were made regardingthe revised forestry law (AIDESEP 2013e). In addition, confrontations regarding theimplementation of FPIC and have led to the departure of three vice ministers of InterculturalAgency, which oversees issues related to FPIC and the International Labour Organizationconvention169 (Jiménez 2013).

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Page 9: A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a national REDD+ readiness process in Peru

4.2.2 Stakes

In addition to efforts establishing a REDD+ program, the Peruvian government is apromoting economic growth and seeking foreign investment. With over 60 % of the valueof exports coming from the mineral and energy sectors (Gurmendi 2011), the less-developedAmazon region is seen to have great economic potential. Nevertheless, difficulties persist inmitigating and managing impacts to forest ecosystems from major infrastructure investments(Dourojeanni, et al. 2009).

Peru has valuable oil and gas reserves in much of the Amazon region. Although revenuesfrom petroleum production represent approximately 10 % of the revenues generated bysilver, copper and gold industries (Revenue Watch 2007); substantial production increasesare expected. Petroleum production is forecast to more than double over the next 5 years,from 153,000 barrels/day in 2011 to 350,000 by 2016, and with new discoveries, productionis expected to exceed 500,000 barrels/day by 2021. In addition, Peru has proven natural gasreserves of 12.5 trillion cubic feet, the fifth largest reserves in South America. Output of themain natural gas reserve in Peruvian Amazon has grown by an average of 37 % per year(EIA 2012b).

The extraction of minerals and energy not only helps growth of the private business butalso benefits the public sector. The government obtains a substantial share from mineralrevenues by imposing a 30 % corporate income tax. Half of the taxes are being transferred tosub-national governments, both departmental and municipal (Sandoval 2010) representingtheir largest source of revenue (Revenue Watch 2007).

4.2.3 REDD+, forest and carbon policies

The Peruvian government has been maintaining a REDD+ perspective similar to the WorldBank of Safeguards/Do-no-harm with recognition of the various co-benefits of forests. On arange of REDD+ programme topics, including safeguards, and capacity building activities,the government facilitates the coordination between civil society and indigenous peoplesgroups via national, regional and indigenous REDD+ Roundtables, (WRI 2011; FIP 2012;MINAM 2012). In addition, consultations have occurred regarding the new Forest andWildlife Law, which also addresses rights to environmental services from forests.

Although the R-PP in development states the intention of incorporating social andenvironmental safeguard principles of the World Bank and the UNFCCC (MINAM 2011),the decision-making authority of organizations outside of government agencies appears tohave been restricted, resulting in a contentious and slow approval process. The issue ofgovernance has been a major focus in the discourse of governmental and non-governmentalorganizations (Piu et al. 2011). Consequently, the FCPF has required that agreements bereached with civil society and indigenous organizations before disbursement of the R-PPfunding (BIC 2012b).

4.3 Indigenous peoples (AIDESEP)

4.3.1 Defending rights

AIDESEP is a non-profit organization with legal status in Peru. AIDESEP has the followingobjectives, to: (i) represent the immediate and historical interests of all indigenous peoples ofthe Amazon, (ii) guarantee the conservation and development of cultural identity, territoryand the values of each community of indigenous peoples of the Amazon, (iii) enable the

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Page 10: A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a national REDD+ readiness process in Peru

right of self-determination of indigenous communities within the Peruvian national law andinternational law, (iv) promote sustainable human development of indigenous peoples. As anational organization, AIDESEP is presided over by a National Council that is based on ninedecentralized agencies. At present, 64 federations represent 500 communities of 650,000indigenous men and women. AIDESEP coordinates four roundtables in the Loreto, Madrede Dios, San Martin and Ucayali (AIDESEP 2013f).

A general categorization such as indigenous people is often politically sensitive(Thompson, et al. 2011), thus generalisations can be inaccurate. Given the diversity ofindigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by anyagency of the United Nations. Instead, an understanding of this term has been developedbased on the following: (i) self-identification as indigenous peoples at the individual leveland accepted by the community as their member, (ii) historical continuity with pre-colonialand/or pre-settler societies, (iii) strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources,(iv) distinct social, economic or political systems, (v) distinct language, culture and beliefs,(vi) form non-dominant groups of society, (vii) resolve to maintain and reproduce theirancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities (UnitedNations—UN 2007). In addition, difficulties may arise with regards to representation ofindigenous peoples, since not only cultural traditions may differ, but also their level ofassimilation with western/industrialised society. While some indigenous communities mayconsider themselves pertaining to both societies, others may maintain complete isolation.Consequently indigenous organizations such as AIDESEP, while serving as a nationalorganization, do not necessarily represent the perspectives of all indigenous people. Diverseviews exist regarding REDD+ and other policies. For example, AIDESEP and theConfederación de Nacionalidades Amazónicas del Perú (CONAP, Confederation ofAmazon Nationalities of Peru) have had differing political views on engaging with thePeruvian government (CNR 2009), and some indigenous communities have shown interestin payment mechanisms for ecosystems services (Tegel 2010).

4.3.2 Stakes

Indigenous peoples have endured a long history of biased and ineffective governmentregulations leading to land encroachments by settlers and extractive industries (EIA 2012a;Gavaldá 2012). Since 2005, more than 200 people have died in clashes with governmentsecurity forces over issues of rights (Human Rights Watch 2012; Cabitza 2012). For decades,the government legislative frameworks on forests, wildlife conservation and land ownership hasweakened the rights of indigenous peoples. Meanwhile, policies of other government agenciesoverseeing mining, energy, agriculture, and infrastructure have not been coordinated, thusleading to contradictions and confusion (Dourojeanni, et al. 2009). For example, numerousprivate companies have obtained concession leases for petroleum and gas drilling covering over70 % of the Peruvian Amazon region, including lands that are officially owned by indigenouspeople (Gavaldá 2012). Conflicts also have persistently arisen from both legal and illegal timberharvesting (AIDESEP 2007; Putzel 2009; Alca Castillo 2010) and livelihoods damaged fromoil exploration and production (Hill 2010; CAAAP 2011; Amazon Watch 2011). Moreover,despite numerous laws regarding land management and tenure, a combination of institutionalweaknesses and insufficient resources prevent their enforcement (Endo 2010). Associateduncertainties over land and forest resource governance coupled with millions of hectares ofunresolved land claims could lead to large-scale losses of territorial land if national REDD+programme were to be approved without adequate clarification of roles and responsibilities(Espinoza and Feather 2012).

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Page 11: A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a national REDD+ readiness process in Peru

4.3.3 Indigenous REDD+

Indigenous REDD+ is based on principles of territorial and human rights, self-determination, a holistic approach to valuing forests and a global obligation to addressclimate change (Rengifo 2010; Espinoza and Feather 2012; Rengifo 2012). To address thecrucial role of land tenure being a precondition to REDD+ agreements (Cotula and Mayers2009), the Indigenous REDD+ approach calls for full recognition of land and territorialrights and alignment of national legislation with international obligations in recognizingthe rights of indigenous people (Espinoza and Feather 2012). In addition to these twopreconditions, 17 stipulations of Indigenous REDD+ are summarized in Table 1, alongwith possible steps to resolve differences briefly outlined. Below three of the keyconditions are discussed, which would require additional clarification before an agreementcould be reached.

A first key condition calls for the exclusion of financial exchanges within carbon offsetmechanisms and for domestic emission reductions by industrialized countries. This two-partcondition would require negotiation to (a) reach agreement that finances can be used in non-indigenous REDD+ mechanisms, and (b) identify specific emissions reductions ofindustrialized countries and limits to offsets with REDD+ market mechanisms, potentiallypart of the principle of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR) of the UNFCCCconvention. The stipulation for emissions reductions by industrialized countries, however,would require further discussion not only at a national level but also international level. theIndigenous REDD+ principles of CBDR to climate change and disagreement with carbonoffsets would require financing mechanisms to be fund-based.

A second key condition refers to the strengthening of indigenous territorial managementand opposition to the control of forests by third parties or financiers. With clear land tenurerights, levels of illegal use (e.g., timber extraction, mining) that cause deforestation andforest degradation are likely to decrease. The explicit prohibition of non-indigenousownership of forest carbon resources, however, could limit external financial support toIndigenous REDD+. Nevertheless, the associated implications from potential restrictions tofinancing options could be examined, including review of performance criteria and penaltymechanisms, if any are to be included. In addition, the accounting relationship betweencarbon, other co-benefits and forests would also require discussion and clarification.

A third key condition requests that REDD+ contracts be shorter than multi-year or multi-decade time periods, with the right of being renewed annually by participating localcommunities. Given a lack of assured forest carbon permanence, however, and perhaps alack of consequences for non-performance, this condition could limit the interest in someinvestors to fund short-term, non-collateralised agreements. Although the use of forest stockbuffers, insurance mechanisms and dispute-resolution clauses may provide acceptable legalsolutions to reduce liabilities (Costenbader 2009),

If REDD+ programmes demonstrate fair implementation and management, general andparticular objectives of contracts could change if both parties were in agreement. IndigenousREDD+ is an evolving concept. AIDESEP collaboration with indigenous organizations inother South American countries has led to further conceptual refinements and adoption ofIndigenous REDD+ principles by the Coordinadora de las Organizaciones Indígenas de laCuenca Amazónica (COICA, Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon RiverBasin). With a greater geographic coverage, the Amazonian Indigenous REDD+ (REDD+Indígena Amazónico) also emphases the principles associated with Indigenous Territories ofFull Life (Territorios Indígenas de Vida Plena), which correspond to life plans of IndigenousREDD+ (Reategui Silva 2012; COICA 2012a, b; Reategui Silva and Espinoza Llanos 2012).

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Page 12: A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a national REDD+ readiness process in Peru

Table 1 Stipulations of an Indigenous REDD+ approach and proposed steps for resolution

Before REDD+ programme implementation,government reforms land tenure include:

Potential steps to attain agreement/resolution

(1) recognition and demarcation of applicationsoutstanding for indigenous land and territory.

Negotiation case-by-case basis and consideration ofall claims, to be adjudicated by a third partynational organization such as the Ombudsman ofPeru, with observation by a UN Agency, is alsonegotiable.

(2) alignment of national laws with obligations torespect international laws on the fundamentalrights of indigenous peoples.

FPIC law requires revision per FCPF review, alsospecifics of grievance procedures needdevelopment

Climate integrity and social justice ofREDD+ policies

Potential steps to attain agreement/resolution

(1) value forests in a holistic manner such aswater, climate, biodiversity, soil and spiritualvalues.

Require text within R-PP and contractdocumentation.

(2) ensure respect of traditional practicesincluding rotational farming systems and othersubsistence activities.

Require text within R-PP and contractdocumentation.

(3) exclude biofuel production and otherplantations from REDD+ programs.

Negotiation point: establishment limited tonon-forest lands, definition of which requiresnegotiation and identification of baseline year.

(4) exclude finance from carbon offsetmechanisms and effective emission reductionsby industrialized countries.

1rdkey negotiation point: limit to offsets withREDD+ market mechanisms, and stipulatedomestic reductions by industrialized countries aspart of CBDR.

(5) involve simplified measurements of forestcoverage and associated services.

Negotiate criteria to determine forest quality such as:percentage of canopy cover, age of stand, speciesdiversity, carbon content, and negotiate weightingbetween local and remote/external measures.

(6) promote a socially inclusive [land managementand policy] system

Negotiate rules of engagement with respect to: (i)meetings frequency, representation, structure,reporting and grievance procedures; (ii) forms andtiming of associated informational materials.

(7) prioritize low intensity [harvesting] of forestresources.

Negotiate definition of low intensity managementand expected restrictions (area, timeframe).

(8) strengthen indigenous territorial managementand avoid the control of forests by third parties orfinanciers.

2nd key negotiation point. Co-existence of marketand offset financing approaches. Full discussionof financing options available to both approaches,including review of performance criteria andpenalty mechanisms, if any.

Recognition of indigenous autonomy by nationaland international REDD+ programs:

Potential steps to attain agreement/resolution

(1) establish decision making spaces forindigenous peoples

Clarify authority, responsibilities, funding forindigenous REDD+ roundtables. Availablegrievance procedures.

(2) respect the autonomy of indigenousorganizations

Assure coordination with associated representativeorganizations (local, regional and national).

(3) provide information and capacity building Provide training for indigenous organizations onlegal financial and procedural matters.Dissemination of results and training workshops.

(4) disseminate and learn lessons from conflictscaused by REDD+

Commission a review of international cases on landinvasions, unfulfilled contracts and internalcommunity divisions.

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Page 13: A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a national REDD+ readiness process in Peru

5 Protest for institutional change

Although the Peruvian government and World Bank have been developing proceduresto provide social and environmental safeguards for REDD+ programs, their processeshave been lengthy and uncertain. In Peru, implementation of the revised national lawon free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) has been inconsistent. On the negativeside, Peruvian government efforts to facilitate participation in the formulation of theconsultation law were perceived as merely sharing information. In a joint statement,the AIDESEP, the National Confederation of Communities Affected by Mining,(CONACAMI), the National Agrarian Confederation (CNA), and the NationalOrganization of Andean and Amazonian Indigenous Women of Peru (ONAMIAP)claimed that recommendations of indigenous leaders who participated in regionalworkshops were not taken into account. Consequently, regulations were written byeighteen government agencies and only two civil society organizations (LatinamericaPress 2012). Furthermore, the new law has not abided by Convention 169 of theInternational Labor Organization. Contrary to the Convention 169, the new lawmaintained that decisions of indigenous people were to remain non-binding as thegovernment holds the right of final decision if agreement were not reached(Rodriguez-Ferrand 2011; CEPES 2012; Cabitza 2012). On the positive side, theConstitutional Court of Peru has upheld a few specific cases of indigenous communityto control their lands. For example, the Shipibo and Ese-eja, in southeast Peru, whohad attempted to use legal process to stop illegal logging and gold mining in theirterritory, faced challenges in regional courts. The high court case reversal of the lowercourt decision has potentially far-reaching implications for indigenous land rights(Survival International 2012). In addition, the Vice-Ministry of Inter-Culturality hashalted a planned expansion of the Camisea natural gas project, which would haveseverely impacted the health and livelihoods of indigenous peoples in living in“voluntary isolation.” Despite these positive examples, consistent implementation ofFPIC and ability to halt small and large-scale extractive timber, gold, oil and gasactivities remains uncertain (Survival International 2012; Jiménez 2013; FPP 2013)

Table 1 (continued)

Regulation of REDD+ projects Potential steps to attain agreement/resolution

(1) No signing of carbon contracts withcommunities until guarantee of fundamentalrights

Confirm existence of indigenous safeguards.

(2) REDD+ projects to prioritize coordination withrepresentative indigenous organizations

Define frequency and content of communications.Confirm governance procedures.

(3) Potential REDD+ contracts to include clausesthat specify the pre-eminence of UNDRIP.

Identify specific aspects of contracts potentiallysupported by UNDRIP.

(4) REDD+ contracts to be shorter and annuallyrenewable by communities.

3rd key negotiation point. Short-term responsibilitymay affect contract conditions and capability/willingness to invest.

(5) Potential REDD+ projects to ensure equality inpotential benefits and transparency in thedisclosure of costs and incomes.

Specific benefit-sharing and human welfare policiesrequire clarification and negotiation.

Source: Adapted from Espinoza Llanos and Feather (2012)

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Page 14: A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a national REDD+ readiness process in Peru

The ability of the World Bank to develop and implement adequate safeguards has alsobeen inconsistent (Dooley, et al. 2011; BIC 2012a; Crippa 2012). While internal reviews ofWorld Bank policies and processes relevant to REDD+ programmes have been provokinginstitutional change (e.g., World Bank 2010; World Bank 2012a), numerous internationalNGOs critique the centralized approach to the development and control of safeguards(Global Witness 2012; Civil Society Organizations 2012). In response to numerous publiccriticisms, the FCPF has altered the R-PP approval process by providing an option toidentify specific conditions before funds are disbursed. In response to protests fromAIDESEP and the Confederation of Amazon Nationalities of Peru, the Forest InvestmentProgram has extended in-country consultations with stakeholders. Although discussionshave not ensured adequate environmental and social safeguards, enhanced dialogue hasimproved participation for their development.

The persistent AIDESEP objections to MINAM, FCPF, Forest Investment Program andother organizations promoting REDD+ have led to the recognition of indigenous rightswithin the national REDD+ policy development process (AIDESEP 2012; AIDESEP 2013a, b).In August 2013, an agreement was reached between AIDESEP, Confederation of AmazonNationalities of Peru, MINAM and Forest Investment Program that allocates funds to establishlegal title for indigenous territories and support forest governance by indigenous communities andorganizations. In addition, AIDESEP and Confederation of Amazon Nationalities of Peru are tobe included within the National Forest Programme andDirective Committee of Forest InvestmentProgram in Peru (AIDESEP 2013c; Teixeira 2013). A total of 40 wide-ranging points ofcontention were addressed (AIDESEP 2013d), making final approval of FCPF R-PP andassociated funds disbursement imminent.

5.1 Incompatible but equal co-existence?

Despite the agreement, the Safeguards/Do-no-harm governance approach being advancedby the World Bank and Peruvian government is effectively incompatible with the IndigenousREDD+ approach. Not only is a national REDD+ programme emphasising carboncontradictory to a holistic view forests, but also an external governance mechanism conflictswith stipulations for local control of indigenous forests and territories. Consequently, aunified programme is not viable. Nevertheless, the two approaches are expected to co-exist. Improved clarity on two topics, the diversification of REDD+ programme authority andsafeguard mechanisms, are likely to be central to achieving additional agreements required forconcurrent implementation of Indigenous REDD+ and Peruvian government REDD+programmes. Also, at an international level, more dialogue will be needed to address the issueof global obligations to climate change.

5.2 Diversification of authority

A diversity of participants has contributed to the development of a REDD+ programme in Peru.Operating at different scales ranging from local to international, they include sub-nationalgovernments, different branches of national government (executive, legislative, judicial), alongwith interested CSO and NGO groups. Their various forms of communication, ranging fromdialogue and discussion to critique and protest, have served to check and balance thecentralization of decision-making power of national and international authorities. Althoughthe co-existence of the two REDD+ approaches is a obvious sign of diversified authority, theirparallel implementation will require additional dialogue and negotiation in order to coordinateroles, responsibilities and benefit-sharing mechanisms within Peru.

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Page 15: A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a national REDD+ readiness process in Peru

It also important to recognize a changing national context of authority in Peru, which is ina process of decentralising government functions from national to sub-nationalresponsibilities. Although decentralisation provides increased opportunity for localisedresource management, indigenous and other organizations already have concerns regardinghow the new national forest and wildlife service (Servicio Nacional Forestal y de FaunaSilvestre, SERFOR) will coordinate with sub-national forestry and wildlife authorities,which have the tasks of administration, management, and monitoring their respective forests(AIDESEP 2013c; Cappela 2013). Thus, the coordination of responsibilities across scaleswill pose additional challenges for a coordinated implementation of the two REDD+approaches.

5.3 Safeguards remain essential

A history of failed assurances and agreements between the Peruvian government andindigenous peoples point to a need to maintain caution as new laws, regulations andsafeguards are implemented. While Indigenous REDD+ would likely be largely autonomousfrom REDD+ activities in the rest of Peru, effective safeguards and associated grievancemechanisms will be essential to establishing conditions needed for programme viability. Aset of performance indicators could assist national governments, civil society, indigenouspeoples and the international donor community in identifying obstacles and gaps that wouldprevent full and effective implementation of safeguards (FPP 2011). Despite the useof over thirty standards to safeguard forest carbon initiatives (Roe, et al. 2013), a lackof a common safeguard framework may create significant challenges both in terms ofaccountability and consistency of organizations guiding and supporting REDD+ programmes.Since many national governments are reticent to meet safeguard-related obligations(Martone and Griffiths 2013), the assurance of equitable, efficient and effect REDD+implementation will require the continued vigilance and timely action by NGOs, both nationaland international.

6 Conclusion: Vigilance within emerging web of governance

Despite claims of REDD+ programmes threatening to reverse decentralised management of forests(Phelps, et al. 2010), collective action of diverse participants in decision-making processes atmultiplelevels can affect government policies and authority (Agrawal and Ostrom 2001). For a nationalREDD+ programme to be applicable to diverse sub-national contexts, global level processes willtend to focus on issues of moral entitlement and rights that are both general and flexible, whilenational level activities emphasise the establishment of more specific legal relationships andprocedures (Sikor et al. 2010; Corbera and Schroeder 2011; Peskett and Todd 2013).

In Peru, participatory REDD+ preparation processes are contributing to the developmentof equitable governance structures and mechanisms. Characterisation of the stakeholderperspectives on REDD+ reveals stark differences regarding programme objectives andgovernance arrangements. Although the Peruvian government/World Bank approach toREDD+ is incompatible with that of AIDESEP, parallel implementation is possible for co-existing programmes. A diverse web of participants is emerging to influence thedevelopment of policies and their implementation at different administrative scales. Althoughthe storm of REDD+ readiness in Peru appears to be resolving a long-ignored issue ofindigenous land and resource rights, how perfect the storm will be in resolving internationalobligations global climate remains to be seen.

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Page 16: A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a national REDD+ readiness process in Peru

Acknowledgments The authors are grateful for financial support for this work from the EU under theReducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation from Alternative Land Uses in Rainforests of theTropics (REDD-ALERT) project, Grant Agreement number 226310.

References

Agrawal A, Ostrom E (2001) Collective action, property rights and decentralization in resource use in Indiaand Nepal. Politics and Society 29(4):485–514

Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana—AIDESEP (2007) Peru’s mahogany exportsthreaten survival of indigenous tribes and violate international environmental law. Available http://www.illegal-logging.info/uploads/Mahogany_Briefingnote.pdf Cited 29 July 2011

AIDESEP (2011a) Construyendo REDD Indígena: Adecuación Intercultural del REDD+Perú a los derechosde los Pueblos Indígenas. Dalat. Vietnam. 24–25 March. Available: http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2011/03/aidesepreddindigenasp.pdf Cited 01 August 2013

AIDESEP (2011b) ¿Falsificar actas es la “buena fe” de la “consulta” para una ley forestal que viola losderechos de los pueblos indígenas. 10 March. Claveverde. Available http://claveverde.blogspot.com/2011/03/falsificar-actas-es-la-buena-fe-de-la.html Cited 28 March 2013

AIDESEP (2012) Carta No. 045–2012. (AIDESEP letter to FIP and FCPF) Lima, Peru. 27 March. Availablehttp://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/news/2012/03/Carta%20AIDESEP_FIP_FCPF.pdf Cited 15November 2012

AIDESEP (2013a) Letter No 021-2013-AIDESEP. 15 February. AIDESEP, Lima. https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/FIP_Peru_IEDAPA_English.pdfCited 28 March 2013

AIDESEP (2013b) Análisis y propuestas Indígenas sobre el PIF-Perú: Respetar los derechos y territoriosindígenas y reducir el privatismo empresarial para lograr el éxito del PIF-Perú. July. 14p. Availablehttp://www.aidesep.org.pe/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/02-Informe-AIDESEP-An+%C3%ADlisis-y-Propuestas-PIF-12.07.13.pdf Cited 28 March 2013

AIDESEP (2013c) Acta del Taller Nacional del Programa de Inversión Forestal con los líderes de las basesde CONAP y AIDESEP. 1,2 August Lima. Available http://www.aidesep.org.pe/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Acta-1-y-2-de-agosto-Taller-Lima.pdf Cited 5 August 2013

AIDESEP (2013d) Revisión de las Respuestas del CD-FIP a las Observaciones de las OrganizacionesIndígenas al Documento PI FIP-PERÚ y Resultados del Taller de Trabajo en Lima entre losDelegados y Técnicos de las OOII y Equipo Técnico FIP PERÚ. 1,2, August, Lima http://www.aidesep.org.pe/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Matriz-de-acuerdos-base-para-trabajo-taller-1-y-2-ag.-Nuevo-aportes-Org-Ind-CD-FIP-020813-integrada.pdf Cited 28 March 2013

AIDESEP (2013e) AIDESEP saluda el importante avance de la lucha del Redd+Indígena Amazónico en laincorporación del FIP. AIDESEP. 8 August. http://www.aidesep.org.pe/aidesep-saluda-el-importante-avance-de-la-lucha-del-redd-indigena-amazonico-en-la-incorporacion-del-fip/ Cited 10 August 2013.

AIDESEP (2013f) Organización Política and Historia. AIDESEP. Available http://www.aidesep.org.pe/organizacion-politica/ Cited 8 August 2013

Alca Castillo J (2010) Los conflictos por la extracción maderera y sus implicancias en la construcción delterritorio amazónico interregional Kcosñipata-Salvación” (Cusco-Madre de Dios). In: Ames P, CaballeroV (eds) Perú: El Problema Agrario en Debate. SEPIA XIII. Seminario Permanente de InvestigaciónAgraria, Lima. Available http://www.infoandina.org/sites/default/files/recursos/Los_conflictos_por_la_extraccion_maderera.pdf Cited 2 February 2013

Amazon Watch (2011) Oil rush in the Peruvian Amazon: Peru auctions off Amazon despite potential humanrights violations, social unrest and environmental devastation. Available http://amazonwatch.org/news/2011/0202-oil-rush-in-the-peruvian-amazon Cited 2 February 2011

Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J American Institute of Planners 35(4):216–224Ashie Kotey N, de Tarso de Lara Pires P, Greiber T (2008) Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest

degradation: The need for a rights based approach. Arborvitae 36:15Bank Information Center—BIC (2010) 2009 annual report. Available http://www.bicusa.org/wp-content/

uploads/2013/01/BIC_AnnualReport_2009.pdf Cited 12 August 1013BIC (2011) Democratizing development: Putting people and planet first. Strategic plan from 2012 to 2015.

Available www.bicusa.org/en/Document.102849.aspx Cited 15 November 2012

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Page 17: A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a national REDD+ readiness process in Peru

BIC (2012a) CSOs signal to president Kim that world bank safeguard policy reforms are off track. 7September. Available http://www.bicusa.org/en/Article.12686.aspx Cited 15 November 2012

BIC (2012b) Highlights of FCPF eighth participants committee meeting (PC8). Available http://www.bicusa.org/en/Document.102631.pdf Cited 15 November 2012

Brown D, Seymour F, Peskett L (2008) How do we achieve REDD co-benefits and avoid doing harm? In:Angelsen A (ed) Moving ahead with REDD: Issues, options and implications. CIFOR, Bogor

Centro Amazonico de Antropologia y Aplicacion Practica - CAAAP (2011) Indígenas Shipibos denuncian aMaple Energy por nuevo derrame de petróleo en provincia de Ucayali. 15 July. Available http://www.caaap.org.pe/home/noticias/135-indigenas-shipibos-denuncian-a-maple-energy-por-nuevo-derrame-de-petroleo-en-provincia-de-ucayali.html Cited 15 November 2012

Cabitza M (2012) Peru's indigenous people: From García to Humala their battle goes on. Poverty MattersBlog. The Guardian. 5 June. Available http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/jun/05/peru-indigenous-people-garcia-humala?newsfeed Cited 15 November 2012

Cappela JS (2013) Servicio Nacional Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre (SERFOR): un gran paso y un reto aúnmayor. Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental. 23 July. http://www.actualidadambiental.pe/?p=19713Cited 12 August 1013

Civil Society Organizations (2012) Initial comments by civil society organizations on the world bank’ssafeguard policies review and update. November. Available http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSAFEPOL/Resources/584434-1306431390058/InitialCommentsbyCivilSocietyOrganizationsontheWorldBankSafeguardsReviewNovember142012rev1.pdf Cited 19 December 2012

Climate Funds Update (2013) Forest Investment Program. Available http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/listing/forest-investment-program Cited 12 August 1013

Climate Investment Fund—CIF (2013) About the CIF. Available https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/node/1 Cited 18 July 2013

COICA (2012b) Territorios Amazónicos de Vida Plena: Plan de Implementación de pilotos de Redd+Indígena. Propuesta preliminar, V4a, 1 October. Available http://www.care.org.ec/webcare/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/REDD-Indigena-COICA.pdf Cited 12 August 1013

Colchester M (1994) Salvaging nature: indigenous peoples, protected areas and biodiversity conservation.United Nations Research Institute for Social Development with the World Rainforest Movement andWorldWide Fund for Nature. Available http://www.wrm.org.uy/subjects/PA/nature.html Cited 16November 2012

Corbera E, Schroeder H (2011) Governing and implementing REDD+. Env Sci Policy 14(2):89–99Costenbader J (2009) Legal Frameworks for REDD. Design and Implementation at the National Level. IUCN,

Gland, Switzerland. Available http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/eplp_77.pdfCotula L, Mayers J (2009) Tenure in REDD—Start-point or afterthought? Natural Resource Issues No. 15.

International Institute for Environment and Development, LondonCrippa L (2012) Statement of the Indian Law Resource Center. Eleventh Session of the United Nations

Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 15 May. Supported by the Latin American and Global IndigenousCaucus. The World Bank’s safeguards policy review. Available http://www.indianlaw.org/sites/default/files/2012-05-11%20PFII%20Statement%20ENG.pdf Cited 15 November 2012

Centro Peruano de Estudios Sociales—CEPES (2012) Consulta Previa. ¿Según el reglamento, la concesión seconsultará? 12 April. Available http://www.cepes.org.pe/portal/node/11538 Cited 15 November 2012

Coordinadora de Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica—COICA (2012a) COP 17 COICAPresenta Alternativa de REDD+Indígena: Territorios de Vida Plena para enfriar el planeta. p 13.Available http://www.diplomaciaindigena.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/COP-17-COICA-Presenta-Alternativa-de-REDD-Nov-2011.pdf Cited 15 November 2012

Coordinadora Nacional de Radio—CNR (2009) AIDESEP y CONAP coinciden en que se debe derogardecretos legislativos: Líderes de ambas organizaciones dialogan por primera vez luego de ruptura. 21May. Available http://www.deigualaigual.net/pt/actualidad/peru/3579-aidesep-conap-derogar-decretos?format=pdf Cited 15 November 2012

Dooley K, Griffiths T, Martone F, Ozinga S (2011). Smoke and Mirrors. A critical assessment of the Forest CarbonPartnership Facility. FERN and Forest Peoples Programme. May version. Available http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2011/03/smokeandmirrorsinternet_1.pdf Ccited 16 November 2012

Dourojeanni M, Barandiarán A, Dourojeanni D (2009) Amazonía Peruana en 2021. Explotación de recursosnaturales e infraestructuras: ¿Qué está pasando? ¿Qué es lo que significan para el futuro?.ProNaturaleza - Fundación Peruana para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, Lima. Available http://www.bicusa.org/en/Article.11748.aspx Cited 15 November 2012

Durban Group (2010) No REDD! No REDD Plus! Global Sign-On Campaign against Schemes for ReducingEmissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. Available http://www.durbanclimatejustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/durbanREDDstatement_en.pdf Cited 15 November 2012

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Page 18: A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a national REDD+ readiness process in Peru

EIA (2012a) The Laundering Machine How Fraud and Corruption in Peru’s Concession System AreDestroying The Future of Its Forests. EIA, Washington & London. Available http://www.eia-global.org/PDF/PeruReportEnglish.pdf Cited 15 November 2012

Energy Information Administration - EIA (2012b) Peru Country Analysis Available http://www.eia.gov/EMEU/cabs/Peru/pdf.pdf Cited 15 November 2012

Endo V (2010) Applying The Land Governance Assessment Framework In A Middle-Income Economy: The CaseOf Peru. Chapter 7 In: Deininger K, Augustinus C, Enemark S,Munro-Faure P (eds) Innovations in Land RightsRecognition, Administration, and Governance. Available http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/335807-1174581646324/InnovLandRightsRecog.pdf Cited 16 November 2012

Espinoza Llanos R, Feather C (2012). The reality of REDD+in Peru: Between theory and practice.Indigenous Amazonian Peoples’ analyses and alternatives. Revised edition. February. AIDESEP &FPP, Lima. Available http://illegal-logging.info/uploads/realityreddperubetweentheoryandpracticewebsite.pdf Cited 15 November 2012

Fenton E (ed) (2010) Realising Rights, Protecting Forests: An Alternative Vision for Reducing Deforestation.June. Accra Caucus on Forests and Climate Change. p 39

Forest Carbon Partnership Facility – FCPF (2010)Harvesting Knowledge. Early Lessons from the FCPF Initiativeand Beyond FMT. Working Paper #1. Revised 19 November. World Bank, Washington DC. Available http://wbi.worldbank.org/wbi/document/harvesting-knowledge-reddearly-lessons-fcpf-initiative-and-beyond Cited15 November 2012

FCPF (2011) PC Synthesis Review. Readiness Mechanism Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP) ExternalReview: Peru. 11 February. World Bank, Washington DC. Available http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/PDF/Feb2011/PERU_R-PP_Assessment_PC8_consolidated.pdf Cited 15 November 2012

FCPF (2012) DRAFT REDD Readiness Progress Fact Sheet Country: Peru. October. World Bank,Washington DC. Available http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/PDF/Oct2012/PERU%20FCPF%20REDD%20Readiness%20Progress%20Sheet_final.pdf Cited 15 November 2012

FCPF, UN-REDD (2012) Guidelines on Stakeholder Engagement in REDD+Readiness with a Focus on theParticipation of Indigenous Peoples and Other Forest-Dependent Communities. 25 March. World Bank,Washington DC. Available http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/PDF/Mar2012/SE_GUIDELINES_25March2012_FINAL%20clean.pdf Cited 15November 2012

Forest Investment Program - FIP (2011) Summary - Preparation Grant Request for Investment Plan. Peru. p 4.Available http://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/Preparation_Grant_for_the_Investment_Plan_FIP_Peru_Summary.pdf Cited 16 November 2012

FIP (2012) Peru Forest Investment Program. Terms of Reference—Second Joint Mission. Lima, October 3–5.Available http://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/FIP_Peru_Joint_Mission_October_2012_TOR_0.pdf Cited 18 July 2013

Foti J, de Silva L, McGray H, Shaffer L, Talbot J, Werksman J (2008) Voice and Choice: Opening the Door toEnvironmental Democracy. World Resources Institute, Washington DC. Available http://www.wri.org/publication/voice-and-choice

Forest Peoples Programme - FPP (2011) Submission to the SBSTA regarding a System of Information forSafeguards in REDD. 17 September. 10p. Available http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/smsn/ngo/323.pdf Cited 11 August 2013

FPP (2013) Peru’s Culture Ministry blocks expansion of Camisea gas project in the Amazon, warning thatisolated peoples could become extinct. 31 July. Available http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/news/2013/07/FPP%20PR%20Camisea%20Final.pdf Cited 12 August 2013

Gavaldá M (2012) Perú: El avance de la frontera petrolera amenaza a los pueblos en aislamiento voluntario.Etnocidio en las nuevas fronteras de los hidrocarburos. Servindi. Available http://servindi.org/actualidad/64860 Cited 14 November 2012

Global Witness (2012) Safeguarding REDD+Finance: Ensuring transparent and accountable internationalfinancial flows. Available http://www.globalwitness.org/sites/default/files/library/Safeguarding%20REDD+%20Finance.pdf Cited 13 November 2012

Griffiths T (2009) Seeing REDD? Avoided Deforestation and the Rights of Indigenous People and LocalCommunities. Updated version. May. Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton in Marsh UK. Available http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/smsn/ngo/242.pdf Cited 15 November 2012

Gurmendi AF (2011) Mineral Industry of Peru. United States Geological Service. Available http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/country/2009/myb3-2009-pe.pdf Cited 15 November 2012

Hill D (2010) Oil spill devastate Amazon region in Peru. 7 July. Available http://upsidedownworld.org/main/peru-archives-76/2582-oil-spill-devastates-amazon-region-in-peru Cited 7 July 2011

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Page 19: A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a national REDD+ readiness process in Peru

Human Rights Watch (2012) Peru: Prevent Unlawful Killings of Protesters: Uphold International Norms forUse of Force and Military Jurisdiction. 20 September. Available http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/20/peru-prevent-unlawful-killings-protesters cited 15 November 2012

Jiménez B (2013) Consulta previa entrampada al no reconocerse a pueblos andinos. La República 9 August.http://www.larepublica.pe/09-08-2013/consulta-previa-entrampada-al-no-reconocerse-a-pueblos-andinosCited 12 August 2013

Latinamerica Press (2012) Indigenous consultation law implemented. Questions remain over how law will beapplied and enforced. Available http://www.lapress.org/articles.asp?item=3&art=6600 Cited 15 November2012

Martone F, Griffiths T (2013) Safeguards in REDD+financing schemes. Chapter 10 in FPP E-NewsletterSpecial: Safeguarding Human Rights in International Finance. April. Forest Peoples Program. Availablehttp://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2013/04/e-newsletter-april-2013-colour-english.pdf

Mayers J, Vermeulen S (2002) Power from the Trees: How Good Forest Governance Can Help ReducePoverty. World Summit on Sustainable Development Opinion Series. International Institute for EconomicDevelopment, London. Available http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/11027IIED.pdf Cited 14 November 2012

McDermott C, Coad L, Schroeder H, Helfgott A (2012) Operationalizing social safeguards in REDD+:Actors, interests and ideas. Environmental Science & Policy 21:63–72

Mikkelsen B (2005) Methods for development work and research: A new guide for practitioners. SAGEPublications, Thousand Oaks

MINAM (2011) Peru Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP) Form Forest Carbon Partnership Fund (FCPF)Date of Submission: March 7. Available http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/PDF/Mar2011/Peru%20R-PP%20Final%20Clean%20Version%204-%20March%207%2C%202011_0.pdf Cited 15 November 2012

Ministerio del Ambiente—MINAM (2010)Gobierno Peruano Asume Trascendental Compromiso al Conservar 54Millones de Hectáreas de Bosques. Unidad de Comunicaciones MINAM, San Isidro Peru. 15 July. Availablehttp://www.minam.gob.pe/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=788:gobierno-peruano-asume-trascendental-compromiso-al-conservar-54-millones-de-hectareas-de-bosques&catid=1:noticias&Itemid=21Cited 15 November 2012

MINAM (2012) Presentaciones Primer Taller de Salvaguardas para REDD+en el Perú. Available http://cambioclimatico.minam.gob.pe/presentaciones-primer-taller-de-salvaguardas-para-redd-en-el-peru/ Cited15 November 2012

Moss N, Nussbaum R (2011) A Review of Three REDD+Safeguard Initiatives. FCPF and UNREDD. 1 June.Available http://www.unredd.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=5578&Itemid=53Cited 15 November 2012

Munilla I (2010) People, Power, and Pipelines: Lessons from Peru in the Governance of Gas ProductionRevenues. World Resources Institute, Oxfam America, Bank Information Center, and Grupo PropuestaCiudadana. Available http://pdf.wri.org/people_power_and_pipelines.pdf Cited 15 November 2012

Nagle JC (2010) Climate Exceptionalism. Environmental Law 40(1):53–88Pagiola S, Bosquet B (2009) Estimating the Costs of REDD+at the Country Level. Version 2.2. Forest Carbon

Partnership Facility, World Bank, Washington DC. Available http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/PDF/REDD-Costs-22.pdf cited 10 March 2010. Cited12 June 2011

Peskett L, Todd K (2013) Putting REDD+Safeguards and Safeguard Information Systems into Practice. UN-REDD Policy Brief Issue 03. Available http://www.unredd.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=9167&Itemid=53. Cited 12 August 2013

Phelps J, Webb EL, Agrawal A (2010) Does REDD+threaten to recentralize forest governance? Science 326:312–313

Phelps J, Webb EL, Adams WM (2012) Biodiversity co-benefits of policies to reduce forest-carbon emissions.Nature Climate Change 2:497–503

Piu HC, García T (2011). Estudio REDD PERÚ: La Situación de REDD en el Perú. Derecho Ambiente yRecursos Naturales (DAR), Lima, p 73

Putzel L (2009) Upside-down: Global forestry politics reverses directions of ownership in Peru-China timbercommodity chains. XIII World Forestry Congress. Buenos Aires, Argentina, 18–23 October. Availablehttp://illegal-logging.info/uploads/WFC2009LouisPutzelthesupplyoftimberfromPerutoChina.pdf cited 5May 2011. Cited 12 November 2012

Reategui Silva J (2012) Construcción de REDD+Indígena Amazónico y Gestión Holística de Territorios deVida Plena y sus Lecciones. COICA/BID. Moyobamba-Perú, 18 September. 3p. http://www.amazonia-andina.org/sites/default/files/construccion_redd_indigena_amazonico_coica.pdf Cited 12 August 2013

Reategui Silva J, Espinoza Llanos R (2012). La perspectiva del contexto indigena frente a programas deiniciativas económicas para la conservación. Taller Regional: Mejores Prácticas en el diseño e

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Page 20: A perfect storm? Indigenous rights within a national REDD+ readiness process in Peru

implementación de iniciativas económicas para la conservación. 29 and 30 March. Lima, Perú. Available:http://www.amazonia-andina.org/sites/default/files/perspectiva_contexto_indigena_frente_a_programas_de_ie.pdf Cited 12 August 2013

Rengifo H (2010) ¿GEI [Gases efecto invernadero] ó Mercado Carbono? Construyendo un REDD+Indígena.27 October http://www.bicusa.org/en/Document.102796.pdf Cited 12 August 2013

Rengifo H (2012) REDD Indígena es Gestión Holística de Territorios de Vida Plena. AIDESEP, Lima. 24January. Available https://community.iucn.org/cihr/Documents/Roberto-Espinoza-AIDESEP%20Redd%20Indigena%20es%20Territorios%20de%20Vida%20Plena.pdf cited 15 November 2012. Cited 12 August2013

Revenue Watch (2007) Peru: Extractive Industries. Available http://www.revenuewatch.org/countries/latin-america/peru/extractive-industries Cited 14 November 2012

Ribot J, Larson AM (2012) Reducing REDD risks: affirmative policy on an uneven playing field.International Journal of the Commons 6(2):233–254

Rodriguez-Ferrand G (2011) Peru: New Law Granting Right of Consultation to Indigenous Peoples. GlobalLegal Monitor. Library of Congress, Washington DC. Available http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205402819_text Cited 15 November 2012

Roe S, Streck C, Pritchard L, Costenbader J (2013) Safeguards in REDD+and Forest Carbon Standards: AReview of Social, Environmental and Procedural Concepts and Application. Climate Focus. Available athttp://www.climatefocus.com/documents/files/safeguards.pdf Cited 19 July 2013

Rosenau JN (1992) Governance, Order, and Change in World Politics. In Chapter 1, Governance withoutGovernment: Order and Change in World Politics. JN Rosenau & EO Czempiel (eds). CambridgeUniversity Press

Sandoval M (2010) Oil and gas tax revenue in Peru regions increases by 51.8 percent. 26 October Peru thisweek. Available http://archive.peruthisweek.com/news-13421-oil-and-gas-tax-revenue-in-peru-regions-increases-by-51-8-percent/ Cited 15 November 2012

Sikor T, Stahl J, Enters T, Ribot JC, Singh N, Sunderlin WD, Wollenberg L (2010) REDD-plus, forestpeople’s rights and nested climate governance. Global Environmental Change 20(3):4–7

Springer J (2012) Rights-Based Approaches to REDD+. Workshop Report. Conservation Initiative on HumanRights. 24–26 January, Lima, Peru. Available http://assets.worldwildlife.org/publications/365/files/original/17_Rights_based_Approaches_to_REDD__.pdf?1345736705 Cited 15 November 2012.

Survival International (2012) Amazon Indians in legal victory. 27 September. Available http://www.survivalinternational.org/news/8700 Cited 16 November 2012

Tegel S (2010) Peruvians Hope Nested Approach Today Will Halt Deforestation Tomorrow. EcosystemMarketplace. Available http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/article.page.php?page_id=7676&section=home Cited 15 November 2012

Teixeira M (2013) Land ownership disputes hamper Latin American carbon projects. Reuters Point Carbon,Thomson Reuters Foundation 11 March. Available: http://www.trust.org/item/?map=land-ownership-disputes-hamper-latin-american-carbon-projects Cited 10 July 2013

Thompson MC, Baruah M, Carr ER (2011) Seeing REDD+as a project of environmental governance.Environmental Science & Policy 14(2):100–110

United Nations – UN (2007) State of the World’s indigenous peoples. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues,United Nations Available http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf Cited12 August 2013

World Bank (2010) Safeguards and Sustainability Policies in a Changing World an Independent Evaluation ofWorld Bank Group Experience. Independent Evaluation. World Bank, Washington DC. Availablehttp://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSAFANDSUS/Resources/Safeguards_eval.pdf Cited 3 Februrary2011

World Bank (2012) Strengthening governance: Tackling corruption the World Bank group’s updated strategyand implementation plan. 6 March World Bank, Washington DC. Available http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PUBLICSECTORANDGOVERNANCE/Resources/285741-1326816182754/GACStrategyImplementationPlan.pdf Cited 15 November 2012

World Bank (2012) Safeguard policies. Last updated: 22 October. World Bank, Washington DC. Available http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/EXTPOLICIES/EXTSAFEPOL/0,,menuPK:584441~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~theSitePK:584435,00.html Cited 15 November 2012

World Resources Institute—WRI (2011) Getting Ready. R-PPAnalysis Peru. WRI, Washington DC. Availablehttp://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/PDF/May2011/3g.WRI_Peru%20R-PP%20Analysis.pdf Cited 14 November 2012

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change