Forest Biodiversity Monitoring for REDD+: A Case Study of Actors’ Views in Peru

Forest Biodiversity Monitoring for REDD+: A Case Studyof Actors’ Views in Peru

Steffen K. Entenmann • Thomas A. M. Kaphegyi •

Christine B. Schmitt

Received: 15 January 2013 / Accepted: 11 October 2013 / Published online: 1 November 2013

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract The climate change mitigation mechanism

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Deg-

radation in developing countries (REDD?) is currently

being negotiated under the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Integrating

biodiversity monitoring into REDD? facilitates compli-

ance with the safeguards stipulated by the UNFCCC to

exclude environmental risks. Interviews with actors

engaged in REDD? implementation and biodiversity

conservation at the national and sub-national level in Peru

(n = 30) and a literature review (n = 58) were conducted

to pinpoint constraints and opportunities for monitoring

effects of REDD? management interventions on biodi-

versity, and to identify relevant biodiversity data and

indicators. It was found that particularly sub-national

actors, who were frequently involved in REDD? pilot

projects, acknowledge the availability of biodiversity data.

Actors at both the national and sub-national levels, how-

ever, criticized data gaps and data being scattered across

biodiversity research organizations. Most of the literature

reviewed (78 %) included indicators on the state of certain

biodiversity aspects, especially mammals. Indicators for

pressure on biodiversity, impacts on environmental func-

tions, or policy responses to environmental threats were

addressed less frequently (31, 21, and 10 %, respectively).

Integrating biodiversity concerns in carbon monitoring

schemes was considered to have potential, although few

specific examples were identified. The involvement of

biodiversity research organizations in sub-national

REDD? activities enhances monitoring capacities. It is

discussed how improvements in collaboration among

actors from the project to the national level could facilitate

the evaluation of existing information at the national level.

Monitoring changes in ecosystem services may increase

the ecological and socioeconomic viability of REDD?.

Keywords REDD? � Forest biodiversity �Ecological monitoring � Peru � Interviews � Capacity

Introduction

The climate change mitigation mechanism Reducing

Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

(REDD?) is currently being negotiated under the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC) to encourage developing countries to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions from the forest sector. REDD?

aims to create performance-based financial incentives for

actions that result in reducing emissions from deforesta-

tion and forest degradation, the conservation of forest

carbon stocks, sustainable management of forests, and

enhancement of forest carbon stocks (FCCC/CP/2010/7/

Add.1, paragraph 70, a–e). It has been designed by the

UNFCCC for the implementation through national

Electronic supplementary material The online version of thisarticle (doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0191-9) contains supplementarymaterial, which is available to authorized users.

S. K. Entenmann (&) � T. A. M. Kaphegyi � C. B. Schmitt

Institute for Earth and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of

Environment and Natural Resources, University of Freiburg,

Tennenbacher Straße 4, 79106 Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany

e-mail: [email protected]

T. A. M. Kaphegyi


C. B. Schmitt


123

Environmental Management (2014) 53:300–317

DOI 10.1007/s00267-013-0191-9

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0191-9

approaches (Phelps et al. 2010). National REDD? strat-

egies are still in an early phase in most countries and may

include improvement of forest governance or specific

forest management interventions (Corbera and Schroeder

2011). At the same time, there are initiatives that apply

forest management interventions to achieve emission

reductions in geographically defined project areas (Ko-

rhonen-Kurki et al. 2012). Such REDD? pilot projects,

which are often driven by non-government organizations

(NGOs) or private companies, sell carbon credits on the

voluntary carbon market and are thus not directly related

to REDD? under the UNFCCC. However, their devel-

opment has gained momentum through the UNFCCC

processes (Blom et al. 2010), and the experience gener-

ated by REDD? pilot projects facilitates national and

international REDD? implementation (Caplow et al.

2011). The REDD? process in Peru includes various

examples of such interactions between projects and

national authorities (Hajek et al. 2011).

Tropical forests support high levels of biodiversity

(Mittermeier et al. 1998). REDD? can, by protecting and

re-establishing forest cover, contribute to the conservation

of forest biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES). ES are

defined as ecological processes or functions that provide

benefits to humans (see, e.g., IPCC 2007) like, for example,

the provision of water, food, non-timber forest products,

and the pollination of plants. The provision of ES is thus

closely related to the maintenance of biodiversity and/or

the condition and type of ecosystems (Thompson et al.

2012). Such environmental benefits will, however, not

automatically be achieved and there may even be negative

ecological impacts if REDD? focuses exclusively on the

ES of carbon sequestration and storage (Putz and Redford

2009; Stickler et al. 2009). Specific biodiversity risks

include the displacement of deforestation to areas of lower

carbon stocks but possibly high biodiversity values, affor-

estation in high biodiversity areas and the conversion of

natural forests to plantations or other land uses with low

biodiversity value and resilience (UNEP/CBD/WS-REDD/

1/3, paragraph 6).

Safeguards were included in the UNFCCC decisions to

prevent such detrimental effects (Chhatre et al. 2012). The

UNFCCC also stipulates the implementation of systems for

providing information on how safeguards are being

addressed (FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1, paragraph 71 (d);

Boyle and Murphy 2012). Countries are required to

undertake environmental assessments of their implemen-

tation strategy to receive financial support for REDD?

implementation from World Bank’s Forest Carbon Part-

nership Facility (FCPF 2011). The UN-REDD Program,

another initiative providing financial support, stipulates

social and environmental principles and criteria (UN-

REDD 2011) to ensure that national REDD? programs are

in accordance with UN policies (Boyle and Murphy 2012).

Biodiversity conservation has also been considered at the

project level. The environmental performance of many

REDD? pilot projects is evaluated according to the Stan-

dards of the Climate Community and Biodiversity Alliance

to achieve higher prices on the voluntary carbon market

(Peters-Stanley and Yin 2013). This certification of the

projects’ environmental performance is made additionally

to a certification of the projects’ emission reductions, for

which the Verified Carbon Standard is commonly used.

Due to these various requirements and norms, national

REDD? activities and REDD? pilot projects need to

consider possible effects on forest biodiversity.

Therefore forest biodiversity monitoring is important

because it facilitates keeping track of how biodiversity

concerns are considered in national or project-level

REDD? management interventions (Schroth and McNe-

ely 2011) and of possible changes in ecological condi-

tions. Simpler forest biodiversity monitoring schemes

may be restricted to controlling the compliance of pro-

posed management interventions with recommended

management guidelines. More comprehensive schemes

may include monitoring trends in selected aspects of

biodiversity or ES. Ideally, monitoring schemes link

management interventions to changes in biodiversity and

ecological integrity to evaluate if the desired conserva-

tion management outcomes are—positively or nega-

tively—affected by the interventions undertaken (Gardner

2010).

Most biodiversity monitoring approaches require eco-

logical baselines, which can be derived from long-term

average data on particular aspects of biodiversity, or from

assessments conducted prior to the commencement of a

program (Kremen et al. 1994). The aspects of biodiversity

being monitored should be suitable for synthesizing the

complex ecological processes and for communicating

necessary conservation actions to project managers and

policy makers—i.e., they should be suitable biodiversity

indicators. From a socioeconomic point of view, partici-

pation of biodiversity research organizations and coopera-

tion between actors involved at different levels of forest

and biodiversity management is important for increasing

accessibility of already existing biodiversity information

(Lindenmayer et al. 2012). Being a performance-based

mechanism, systems for monitoring, reporting and verifi-

cation (MRV) of changes in forest carbon stocks are core

instruments of REDD? to account for emission reductions.

There are methods for monitoring carbon in REDD? pilot

projects (Estrada and Joseph 2012) and also norms and

guidelines on how to develop national-level MRV systems

(GOFC-GOLD 2012). The identification of synergies

between biodiversity monitoring and MRV of carbon is

considered to bear potential for improving the effectiveness

Environmental Management (2014) 53:300–317 301

123

of biodiversity monitoring in REDD? (Dickson and Kapos

2012; Gardner et al. 2012). In summary, there are various

technical and socioeconomic variables that determine the

capacities for implementing effective biodiversity moni-

toring schemes of the organizations implementing

REDD?. These variables also shape the focus and com-

prehensiveness of biodiversity monitoring in the context of

REDD?.

The overall establishment and design of biodiversity

monitoring schemes is strongly influenced by the percep-

tions of decision makers involved in biodiversity man-

agement (Pretty and Smith 2004; Lazdinis et al. 2007). In

the context of REDD?, an emphasis on particular envi-

ronmental concerns—and monitoring schemes designed

accordingly—are also often grounded in the priorities and

perceptions of central decision makers (see, e.g., McDer-

mott et al. 2012). Their evaluation of the existing options

for biodiversity monitoring need to be considered in the

design of broader conservation policies (Mayers and Bass

2004); and their perceptions are ultimately going to shape

how biodiversity concerns are integrated into the broader

national REDD? policies. In this explorative case study

interviews were conducted with experts actively engaged

in the Peruvian REDD? implementation process and bio-

diversity conservation (hereafter referred to as ‘‘actors’’).

The aim of the interviews was to identify what options

were considered available for biodiversity monitoring in

the context of REDD? in Peru. This included ascertaining

the perspectives of actors on the following aspects: data

availability, biodiversity indicators, and methods for bio-

diversity monitoring; participation of biodiversity research

organizations in REDD?; opportunities for harmonizing

existing biodiversity data; and synergies between REDD?

implementation and biodiversity monitoring. Based on the

interviews, the following research questions were

answered: What aspects of biodiversity are monitored in

the context of REDD? and at what scale?; What are the

constraints to REDD? related biodiversity monitoring?;

What options exist to improve biodiversity monitoring in

the context of REDD??

Statements from actors working at the national and the

sub-national levels were compared to identify group-spe-

cific views. The interview findings were contrasted with the

results of a systematic literature review. Biodiversity

indicators identified in the interviews and in the literature

review were analyzed to identify the kind of ecological

information they were able to communicate to decision

makers at the project and policy level. Peru was selected as

the case study country due to its relatively advanced

REDD? preparation process and the wide array of actors

involved in REDD? implementation at both the national

and sub-national level. The relevance of the study’s find-

ings to other countries is discussed.

Background and Methods

The Study Context: Implementation of REDD? in Peru

In Peru biological diversity is high with 84 different life

zones according to the Holdridge (1967) classification

(used in ONERN 1976) and a high degree of endemism

(Rodriguez and Young 2000). Its immense forests cover

more than 50 % of the national area and are predominantly

located in the Amazon basin (Brack 2008). The forests host

a large proportion of Peru’s total biodiversity (Pacheco

et al. 2009). Deforestation rates have increased in recent

years (0.22 % p.a. between 2005 and 2010, FAO 2010) and

emissions from the forest sector account for about 50 % of

the national greenhouse gas emissions (GoP 2011). To

reduce deforestation rates, the Peruvian Ministry of the

Environment (MINAM) is preparing to implement a

national REDD? strategy as part of the National Forest

Conservation Program for the Mitigation of Climate

Change (MINAM 2010d). A readiness preparation pro-

posal for REDD? implementation has been submitted to

the FCPF (GoP 2011; FCPF 2012), and a Lima-based

national REDD working group has been established com-

prising representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture,

the National Service of Natural Protected Areas (SER-

NANP), NGOs, indigenous people, and the private sector.

Many organizations working on biodiversity management

and monitoring (hereafter ‘‘research organizations’’) also

participate, including universities, other governmental

research organizations, and environmental NGOs. The

objectives of the REDD working group include information

exchange and contribution to MINAM’s policy-making

process for REDD? implementation.

Peru has opted for a decentralized and gradual REDD?

implementation strategy, which includes the implementa-

tion of REDD? activities in individual departments under

the auspices of local governments. Therefore sub-national

REDD working groups have been established in many

departments. The Department Madre de Dios in south-

eastern Peru (covered mostly with lowland tropical rain-

forest) and the north-central Department San Martın

(highland tropical rainforest) are very advanced depart-

ments with regards to the development of deforestation

baselines and monitoring schemes. Environmental NGOs

and private forestry enterprises have developed REDD?

pilot projects in these departments, some of which have

already generated certificates for the voluntary carbon

market. Many projects are being implemented in protected

areas (PAs) by actors who have been working in conser-

vation concessions or who have signed administration

contracts with the SERNANP to manage national PAs.

While these projects mainly aim to avoid deforestation and

forest degradation, there are also projects which are

302 Environmental Management (2014) 53:300–317

123

designed to reduce emissions by applying sustainable forest

management in forestry concessions (Online Resource,

Table OR-1; Fig. OR-1). Most of the proponents of the

REDD? pilot projects participate in REDD working

groups and thus have influence on REDD? implementation

at the national and sub-national levels.

Data Collection and Analysis

Interview Survey

Interview surveys with experts and actors in a particular

field are a common tool in social research (Meuser and

Nagel 2005) and are increasingly used in environmental

research (e.g., Vuohelainen et al. 2012). They are more

effective than questionnaires in making sure that responses

relate to the intended question (Goldman et al. 2008). A

semi-structured interview survey was conducted in Lima,

the Department of Madre de Dios and the Department of

San Martın between August and December 2010. Actors

engaged in the REDD? implementation process and bio-

diversity conservation were selected for the interviews

using the snowballing technique: first, three actors from

three different sectors (NGO, private, and government)

were identified from the draft of the Peruvian readiness

preparation proposal (GoP 2010) and were invited to be

interviewed. In the interviews, the actors were asked to

identify other actors who were then contacted. Virtually all

actors were willing to be interviewed. Sampling continued

until saturation occurred in the naming of new actors.

Interviews with 30 actors were analyzed in this study

(Table 1). Most actors were active in REDD working

groups and had more than two years of working experience

in REDD? implementation, forest management, and bio-

diversity conservation in Peru (see Online Resource, Table

OR-2 for additional information on stakeholder sampling,

data collection, interview protocols and analysis). Actors

were grouped into those working at the national level

(n = 15) and at the sub-national level (project or depart-

mental level, n = 15, Table 1). Sub-national-level actors

worked on the implementation of REDD? pilot projects or

sub-national REDD? activities, whereas the national-level

actors were mostly working with the development of the

national REDD? activities. Due to high intra-group vari-

ation, further grouping of the actors was not attempted.

Interview protocols were used to increase the thematic

comparability of actors’ statements. First, open questions

were asked about the expertise and the involvement of the

actor in the REDD? process. Later questions covering

more technical aspects relating to the research questions

were asked (Online Resource, Table OR-2). Actors were

also asked to share literature relevant to their work (see

below). The interviewer made an effort to raise all topics

consistently and in the order outlined in the protocol. The

questions were adapted to the working area of the actors,

and interviewees were never interrupted during their

responses. All interviews were conducted by the same

interviewer and in the language preferred by the actors,

which, with two exceptions (one in English and one in

German), was Spanish. The average duration of interviews

was 49 min. Interviews were recorded with prior consent

of the actors.

During the data collection period, the interviewer par-

ticipated in various national and local level workshops and

conferences in Peru, which were related to biodiversity

monitoring and REDD? implementation. He also visited

three REDD? pilot project sites (two in Madre de Dios,

one in San Martın). During these field visits the monitoring

staff explained the site-specific conditions under which

biodiversity monitoring is carried out. Information and

observations collected during these field trips were used for

conducting and analyzing the formal interviews.

Table 1 Actors interviewed in the study

Actors at the national level (15) Actors at the sub-national level

(15)

Governmental actors

Federal Ministry of the

Environment (3)

Government of the Department

of San Martın (1)

Federal Ministry of Agriculture

(2)

National Service of Natural

Protected Areas (Lima head

office) (2)

National Service of Natural

Protected Areas (regional

offices of the Departments San

Martın and Madre de Dios) (2)

NGOs

Environmental NGOs working

with REDD? implementation

(5)a

NGOs primarily working with

the implementation of REDD?

pilot projects (6)

NGOs working primarily on

forest biodiversity monitoring

and having a supportive

function in REDD? activities

(4)

Private sector

Forestry enterprise (1) Forestry enterprise (1)

Governmental research organizations

Governmental research

organizations (2)bGovernmental research

organization (1)

The actors were grouped according to their geographical influence

and affiliations (n of actors for each section in parentheses). Most

actors were active in the national working group and/or in sub-

national REDD working groupsa Two actors were active at both the national and the sub-national

levelsb Only one actor participated in the national REDD working group


123

Interview Analysis

Interviews were transcribed verbatim and prepared for

qualitative content analysis according to Mayring (2007)

with qualitative data analysis software (MAXQDA, Ver-

sion 10, Verbi). Analyzing the scripts line-by-line, relevant

statements were identified and coded, i.e., assigned to

paraphrases which reflected the meaning of the statements

(=codes). The creation and analysis of codes were guided

by the research objectives. During the course of the ana-

lysis, the names of the codes were constantly revised and

adapted to fit the content of all individual statements

assigned to a given code (=codings). For this study, 276

codings were evaluated and assigned to 25 codes. The

codes were allocated to five categories—each of which had

two sub-category levels (Table 2). Additionally, biodiver-

sity indicators mentioned by the actors were marked in the

transcripts (Table 3). Although a qualitative approach to

data collection was adopted, quantitative methods were

included to further consolidate the large body of textual

data. To analyze whether categories were mentioned more

often by national or sub-national actors, the crosstab

function of MAXQDA was used, which calculates the

number of coded text segments in the transcripts by actor

group (Kuckartz 2010).

Literature Review

Complementary to the interviews, a literature review was

conducted to gather additional data and to increase the

reliability of the study by triangulating the statements of

the actors. In the interviews, the actors were asked to

identify literature containing biodiversity data or otherwise

relevant to their work. Only literature with a geographical

scope corresponding broadly to (sub-)national REDD?

activities or pilot projects in Peru or containing either a

description of monitoring methods in the region or data on

forest biodiversity, or both, was analyzed. The literature

was reviewed regarding (1) geographical focus (i.e., whe-

ther the content was related to the national level, the

departmental level, smaller areas within a department (sub-

departmental level), or the Amazon rainforest), (2) the-

matic scope, (3) monitoring objectives described, (4)

monitoring methods used, and (5) biodiversity indicators

used.

Classification of Biodiversity Indicators

Biodiversity indicators are important tools for quantifying

complex ecological processes and for communicating

information on selected environmental aspects (Delbaere

2002). Suitable biodiversity indicators in the context of

REDD? may include aspects of biodiversity like

individual or groups of species (biological indicators), or

spatial patters of forest habitat (structural indicators). Other

biodiversity-related indicators are used to quantify the

implementation of policy actions for biodiversity conser-

vation. This study analyzed which kinds of biodiversity

indicators were available to monitor the ecological func-

tions and aspects of biodiversity possibly affected by

REDD? in Peru. Therefore the biodiversity indicators

identified in the literature review and interviews were

classified deductively according to the Driving forces–

Pressures–State–Impacts–Responses (DPSIR) framework

(Smeets and Weterings 1999). This framework enables a

clear classification of different groups of biodiversity

indicators and highlights which environmental processes

can be monitored with the different indicators (Giupponi

2007). Maxim et al. (2009) propose the following defini-

tions for each element of the DPSIR framework: ‘‘Driving

forces are changes in the social, economic, and institutional

systems (…) which are triggering (…) pressures on bio-

diversity’’. ‘‘Pressures are consequences of human activi-

ties (…) which have the potential to cause or contribute to

adverse effects (impacts)’’. ‘‘The state of biodiversity is the

quantity of biological features (…), of physical and

chemical features of ecosystems, and/or of environmental

functions, vulnerable to (a) pressure(s), in a certain area’’.

‘‘Impacts are changes in the environmental functions,

affecting the social, economic, and environmental dimen-

sions’’. Response is defined as ‘‘(…) a policy action, ini-

tiated by institutions or groups (…) which is directly or

indirectly triggered by [the societal perception of] impacts

and which attempts to prevent, eliminate, compensate,

reduce, or adapt to them and their consequences’’ (Maxim

et al. 2009, pp. 19–20).

Results

Interview Survey

Codes developed during the analysis of the interviews were

allocated to five categories related to (1) availability of

biodiversity data, (2) availability of monitoring methods,

(3) participation of biodiversity research organizations in

REDD?, (4) harmonization of biodiversity data, and (5)

synergies between REDD? implementation and biodiver-

sity monitoring (Table 2). Statements from actors at the

national level generally related to biodiversity management

and REDD? implementation at the national level, while

the statements from sub-national actors were mostly related

to REDD? pilot projects or the implementation of sub-

national REDD? activities (see Online Resource, Table

OR-3 for a detailed description of the codes and examples

of codings).


123

Table 2 Summary of

statements on availability of

biodiversity data, monitoring

methods, participation of

biodiversity research

organizations, harmonization of

biodiversity data, and synergies

between REDD?

implementation and biodiversity

monitoring


123

Availability of Data and Biodiversity Indicators

There were only small differences between the numbers of

interviews in which actors affirmed the existence of suffi-

cient data (sub-category 1.1) and those in which actors

stressed lack of data (20 and 17 interviews respectively;

sub-category 1.2, Table 2). There were, however, some

actor group-specific differences: sub-national actors made

more than twice as many statements confirming data

availability than national actors (19 and 9, respectively).

Twelve sub-national actors affirmed the availability and

applicability of data for biodiversity monitoring (sub-cat-

egory 1.1), whereas this was affirmed by only eight

national actors. Also the proportion of actors who did not

mention any restrictions on data availability was higher for

sub-national actors than for national actors (7 and 4,

respectively; pie charts for category 1, Table 2).

Actors frequently stated that biodiversity data were

being collected in PAs or REDD? pilot projects (sub-

category 1.1). They indicated that data were available

especially for mammals or birds, mostly for charismatic

species considered to encourage conservation actions (i.e.,

flagship species). These data also included hunting rates. In

addition to species-related data, actors indicated that forest

cover data were available (i.e., structural biodiversity

measurements). Actors judged that the quality and quantity

of biodiversity information had improved over recent

years, for instance in the course of the ecological–eco-

nomical zoning activities at the departmental level, which

are part of land use planning initiatives. Most actors

mentioned that data were collected in repeated monitoring

schemes, whereas fewer actors mentioned that available

data consisted of individual assessments of certain species.

National-level actors within the MINAM stated that bio-

diversity was not considered a pressing topic in the

REDD? implementation process. However, they stated

that maps with biodiversity information that can be used to

identify priority areas for national-level REDD? actions

were available.

There were few group-specific differences in statements

on restrictions for data availability (pie charts for category

1, Table 2). Generally, statements included the absence of

important biodiversity data, a lack of data on the output of

ES (e.g., water discharge), the non-comparability of data,

discontinuity of data collection, or unequal availability of

biodiversity data across Peru.

Most biodiversity indicators mentioned in the interviews

related to fauna, i.e., different taxa or species communities

Table 2 continued

Codes were developed during

the analysis of interviews with

actors in the REDD?

implementation process and

biodiversity management at the

national (n = 15) and sub-

national level (n = 5) in Peru.

The actor group-specific

numbers of interviews and

numbers of codings (i.e., coded

text segments) assigned to each

code and sub-category are

shown (in parentheses). Online

Resource 1 provides exemplary

codings for the codes (Table

OR-3)


123

(mentioned by 73 % of the actors, Table 3). Biodiversity

indicators that measure structural characteristics on an

ecosystem and landscape scale were mentioned by fewer

actors (53 %). No differences between statements from

actors at the national and the sub-national levels were

observed. The classification of biodiversity indicators

according to Maxim et al. (2009) showed that most bio-

diversity indicators mentioned by the actors were state

indicators (Table 3). To a lesser extent, indicators for

pressure on biodiversity, indicators for impacts on eco-

logical functions, or response indicators were considered to

be in place by the actors (Table 3).

Availability of Biodiversity Monitoring Methods

Comparable to the codes related to biodiversity data, the

number of actors confirming the availability of biodiversity

monitoring methods (sub-category 2.1, Table 2) and the

Table 3 Biodiversity indicators

as mentioned by actors in the

REDD? implementation

process and biodiversity

management in Peru (n = 30)

Classification of the biodiversity

indicators (right column) was

conducted deductively

according to the DPSIR

framework (Maxim et al. 2009)

Biodiversity indicators

mentioned by the actors

Examples n of interviews

with the code (%

of all interviews)

Indicator class

according to the

DPSIR

framework

At species level 22 (73 %)

Mammals Giant otter (Pteronura brasiliensis),

tapir (Tapirus terrestris), jaguar

(Panthera onca), spectacled bear

(Tremarctos ornatus), yellow-tailed

woolly monkey (Oreonax

flavicauda), mammal communities

21 State

Birds Curassow (Crax globulosa), oilbirds

(Steatornis caripensis), long-

whiskered owlet (Xenoglaux

loweryi), bird communities

4 State

Amphibians Amphibian communities 4 State

Fish Fish communities 3 State

Insects Dung beetles, butterflies, mosquitos 2

Reptiles Reptile communities 2

Use of timber and non-

timber forest products

Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa),

mahogany (Swietenia

macrophylla), Spanish cedar

(Cedrela odorata), fruits of buriti

palm (Mauritia flexuosa), hunting

of game species

3 Pressure

At ecosystem level 16 (53 %)

Ecosystem related Extent (area) of ecosystems

(wetlands, forest types),

deforestation rates, fragmentation

of forest habitat

12 State, pressure

Protected areas Extent (area) of protected areas 2 State, response

Water Water discharge, water from forest

areas

4 Impact, state

At policy level 5 (17 %)

Implementation of

conservation policies at

the local and national

level

Number of control posts,

implementation of the ecological

economical zonification, quality of

decisions made by policy makers

regarding biodiversity

conservation; capacity of protected

area staff

5 Response

Conservation

agreements

Number of conservation agreements

made with local settlers to reduce

pressure on the natural resources

1

Total 27 (90 %)


123

number of actors complaining about deficient methods

were similar (sub-category 2.2). Sub-national-level actors

affirmed the availability of appropriate biodiversity moni-

toring methods (pie charts for category 2, Table 2). Remote

sensing was considered an available tool for monitoring

structural indices of forest cover (e.g., extent, connectivity)

by both actor groups. Field-based monitoring methods,

including ranger-based monitoring of large mammals or

birds, were considered available mostly by sub-national-

level actors.

Most statements on problems regarding the existing

monitoring schemes (sub-category 2.2) were related to a

general lack of standardized methods in different projects.

Especially actors at the national level emphasized that

biodiversity issues were not yet very prominent in the

REDD? implementation process. Actors working at the

sub-national level predominantly acknowledged problems

related to the lack of human capacity. The issue of high

costs associated with monitoring was mentioned by rela-

tively few actors (sub-category 2.2, Table 2).

Participation of Biodiversity Research Organizations

in REDD?

Almost all sub-national actors provided examples where

biodiversity research organizations were involved in

REDD? pilot projects (sub-category 3.1, Table 2).

Examples included collaboration between environmental

NGOs (some of which maintained own research centers),

universities, and other research organizations. No sub-

national-level actor mentioned insufficient participation of

biodiversity research organizations in REDD? (pie charts

for category 3, Table 2). In contrast, one third of the

national-level actors complained about insufficient coop-

eration between national-level organizations involved in

REDD? and biodiversity research organizations (sub-cat-

egory 3.2). This was noted in particular by actors from

public research institutes like the Center for Data Conser-

vation, which is a key national institution in biodiversity

monitoring and management in Peru.

Harmonization and Exchange of Biodiversity Data

Actors at both the national and the sub-national level

identified cases where biodiversity data were exchanged

between different biodiversity management organizations.

Data collected by different organizations were being har-

monized, e.g., by creating databases to which biodiversity

data can be added (sub-category 4.1, Table 2). Although

actors mentioned initiatives to harmonize biodiversity data,

even more actors identified barriers to data harmonization.

Examples were restricted access to, and comparability of

the information managed by different organizations (sub-

category 4.2).

Synergies Between REDD? Implementation

and Biodiversity Monitoring

Two-thirds of the actors saw direct or indirect synergies

between REDD? implementation and biodiversity moni-

toring (sub-category 5.1, Table 2), while only one third

found that such synergies were difficult to achieve (sub-

category 5.2). Given the standards and guidelines that had

been developed to account for biodiversity in REDD?,

actors felt that consideration of biodiversity would become

more accountable and transparent. Especially actors at the

sub-national level mentioned that, in REDD? pilot pro-

jects, it was either intended or possible to collect biodi-

versity data while collecting carbon data. However, only

few specific examples where biodiversity monitoring had

already been systematically integrated into carbon moni-

toring were mentioned. On the other hand, actors men-

tioned examples where existing databases with biodiversity

data were harmonized in the preparation process for

REDD?. It was noted that additional regulations and

efforts for the inclusion of biodiversity monitoring in

REDD? were necessary given that data collected for car-

bon is of little use for biodiversity monitoring. National-

level actors directly involved in both biodiversity data

management and carbon monitoring noted that synergies

were difficult to obtain, not just because of technical

problems: they mentioned that many actors see REDD? as

a possibility to earn money rather than a tool for biodi-

versity conservation, and thus there was no real interest in

biodiversity conservation.

Literature Review

Fifty eight publications, including governmental docu-

ments, scientific publications, management plans and

reports were identified in the interview survey (mean

number of pages = 108; min = 5; max = 364; references

and short descriptions are provided in the Online Resource,

Table OR-4).

Geographical Focus of the Literature

Most of the literature reviewed (53 %) contained analyses

covering a relatively small geographical area, including

REDD? pilot project design documents, management

plans of PAs or other areas within the departments of San

Martın and Madre de Dios (hereafter referred to as ‘‘sub-

departmental’’). The largest share of the literature focusing

on the sub-departmental level was related to PAs or other

areas under protection. Fewer publications contained


123

information covering the whole country (24 %), the

departmental scale (16 %), or the Amazon rainforest region

(7 %, Table 4).

Thematic Scope of the Literature

Species inventories and ecosystem assessments were the

largest thematic groups, each group accounting for 26 % of

the literature. 80 % of the species inventories were carried

out in areas at the sub-departmental level (Table 4a).

Ecosystem assessments showed a broader geographical

focus. They consisted mostly of singular assessments

(87 %) and not of continuous monitoring schemes. Man-

agement plans and project descriptions at the sub-depart-

mental level contained predominantly biodiversity

information for REDD? pilot project areas or PAs. Man-

agement plans at the departmental level comprised exclu-

sively documents written for ecological–economical

zoning processes. 62 % of all management plans contained

descriptions for perpetual monitoring in specific areas.

Conservation evaluation studies and biodiversity conser-

vation strategies were identified to a lesser extent only (14

and 12 % of all the literature respectively, Table 4a).

Methods Described in the Literature

In most publications a range of different monitoring

methods were used. Field survey was the most common

method used (52 % of all publications, 77 % of which were

related to areas at the sub-departmental level, Table 4b).

The use of remote sensing was described in 40 % of all

literature reviewed. 22 % of the publications defined stra-

tegic biodiversity monitoring objectives, mostly at the

national and departmental level. Stakeholder surveys,

reviews, economic calculations, or monitored outcomes of

conservation programs were used less frequently in litera-

ture (14, 10 and 9 %, respectively).

Biodiversity Indicators Presented in the Literature

Classification of the biodiversity indicators showed that

most publications contained biodiversity indicators from

more than one indicator class. Indicators describing the

state of biodiversity were used most often (in 78 % of the

literature; mostly related to areas at the sub-departmental

level, Table 4c). Indicators for pressures on biodiversity

were described to a lesser extent (in 31 % of the literature,

also mostly related to the sub-departmental level). Half of

the literature focusing on the national level included indi-

cators related to political responses to environmental

problems. Only 10 % of the literature contained indicators

for the impacts on environmental functions (Table 4c). No

indicators for driving forces were identified.

Discussion

Aspects of Biodiversity Monitored in the Context

of REDD? in Peru

Availability of Biodiversity Data at Different Scales

A substantial body of data upon which biodiversity moni-

toring could be based was identified in the study. Most

actors judged that data needed for biodiversity monitoring

in the context of REDD? were available. Although some

restrictions regarding data availability were mentioned,

availability of data from biodiversity inventories or repe-

ated monitoring schemes was acknowledged especially by

sub-national actors. This was supported by the literature

review that showed an availability of data relevant to

biodiversity monitoring in REDD? pilot projects and

governmental REDD? activities at the sub-national level.

The data availability can partly be explained by the active

involvement of environmental NGOs in REDD? pilot

projects and the REDD? implementation process at the

sub-national level. Furthermore, many REDD? pilot pro-

jects are – or have been—established in PAs and conser-

vation concessions (Thompson et al. 2013) by NGOs who

have had experience in managing these areas and main-

tained individual biodiversity databases already before they

get involved in REDD? (e.g., Ruiz 2009; AMPA 2010).

Additionally, most REDD? pilot project proponents,

including environmental NGOs and commercial project

developers, plan to certify the projects’ environmental

performance according to the Standard of the Climate

Community and Biodiversity Alliance, for which biodi-

versity information is required (CCBA 2008). In PA

management plans and project design documents written

for the certification process, monitoring schemes and

conservation management objectives for the respective

areas were defined. These included, in many cases, flagship

species. In addition to species-related information, data on

the extent of forest cover was considered available by

actors for the national and sub-national level. Extent of

natural forest is an important biodiversity indicator (Sheil

2001; Thompson et al. 2012), especially when combined

with other structural measurements such as forest frag-

mentation (Turner et al. 2007; Kapos et al. 2012) and

biological indicators like species richness.

Global data sets on the distribution of certain species

and forest ecosystems are provided by a range of different

organizations (Schmitt 2011; Gardner et al. 2012; Kapos

et al. 2012). Therefore most countries have to some

degree—and at varying resolutions—access to biodiversity

data for assessing the state of biodiversity in the context of

REDD?. Biodiversity data can also be assumed to be

available at finer resolutions at the sub-national level in


123

Table 4 Classification of

literature relevant for

biodiversity monitoring

(n = 58) according to the

geographical scope and

(a) thematic scope; (b) methods

used in the literature; and

(c) biodiversity indicators used

The literature was identified in

an interview survey with actors

in biodiversity conservation and

REDD? implementation in

Peru

a

b

c


123

many other REDD? countries where environmental NGOs

carry out biodiversity monitoring at the project level

(Sommerville et al. 2011; Estrada and Joseph 2012).

Applicability of Data and Methods

In contrast to many REDD? pilot projects, repeated

monitoring schemes are often not yet in place in (sub-)

national REDD? activities. However, the available biodi-

versity data for the state of both forest structure and

selected species can serve as a baseline upon which con-

sequent monitoring activities can be built. A combined use

of biological and structural indicators is especially impor-

tant to highlight the development of ‘‘empty forests’’, i.e.,

forests with a good forest structure that are at the same time

under threat of losing essential species and ecological

functions (Gardner 2010). Such empty forests can develop,

e.g., through hunting, isolation, or pollution. In Peru, actors

identified areas in Madre de Dios as empty forests, and they

are also described in the literature (Terborgh et al. 2008).

The available biodiversity monitoring methods and indi-

cators identified in this study can facilitate the verification

of achievements of particular conservation management

objectives or reporting general trends in the status of

selected biodiversity aspects.

In addition to indicators of the state of certain aspects of

biodiversity, pressure indicators were monitored in

REDD? pilot project areas to keep track of forest

encroachment, over-extraction of non-timber forest pro-

ducts and forest fragmentation. This also allows for mon-

itoring the pressures of ecotourism (Kirkby et al. 2010),

hunting (Endo et al. 2009), or road construction (Barbieri

2006) on forest biodiversity in the areas under REDD?

management.

Constraints to Biodiversity Monitoring

Availability of biodiversity data notwithstanding, biodi-

versity monitoring schemes were often not considered in

REDD?, especially in national REDD? activities. This is

partly because carbon monitoring and social aspects were

often considered more urgent by the actors. Besides, spe-

cific restrictions to biodiversity monitoring were identified

in the interviews, which were also implicit in the findings

of the literature review.

Restricted Availability of Data

The literature review showed that biodiversity data were

mostly available for specific project areas at the sub-national

level. Furthermore, there was evidence that data were not

equally distributed across the different departments in Peru.

Sub-national actors working in San Martın and Madre de

Dios stated that availability of biodiversity data was above

average in these departments. This is affirmed by recent

reviews on the geographic distribution of ecological

research across the Amazon region. Pitman et al. (2011)

found that ecological research in Peru is restricted mostly to

the south-eastern part of the country. This includes the

research centers in Madre de Dios mentioned by sub-

national actors. It is thus likely that fewer biodiversity data,

appropriate methods, and less human capacity are available

for other Peruvian departments with tropical rainforest

cover (i.e., Amazonas, Loreto, Huanuco, Ucayali, Pasco,

Junın, Cusco, and Puno). Furthermore, the finding that

actors have identified problems in the coordination among

actors at the national level reduces the potential for the data

to be evaluated in a broader, national context.

Lack of Information on Ecosystem Responses

and Provision of ES

Another constraint is that the potential impacts of REDD?

on ES are difficult to monitor with the biodiversity infor-

mation mentioned by the actors. For this, there is a need to

confirm that the indicators used in the REDD? pilot pro-

jects are actually related to the key ecological functions

behind ES, and that they facilitate monitoring changes in

ecological functions and the output of ES in the areas of

concern. However, little information on such impact indi-

cators was identified in the literature survey. Most of the

biodiversity indicators identified are species with special

conservation interest, mostly because they are endemic,

threatened, or have unique characteristics. Such flagship

species are capable of drawing attention and funding to

conservation (Gardner 2010) and are thus appealing for

market-based conservation activities, including REDD?

pilot projects. However, evidence that the presence of

flagship species leads to the presence of other species or is

related to the ecological integrity of a certain area is not

always available (Caro et al. 2004; Stickler et al. 2009).

Many actors were aware of the lack of information on the

output of ES, but assumed that a focus on the conservation

of forest cover would automatically deliver additional non-

targeted benefits for biodiversity conservation and sus-

tained provision of ES. The lack of indicators for potential

impacts of REDD? on ecological functions might com-

plicate the integration of ES as additional environmental

benefits into the design of REDD? initiatives. However,

securing sustained access to natural resources and ES as a

form of benefit sharing with local people might prove

critical for REDD? (Luttrell et al. 2012). Monitoring the

potential impacts of REDD? management interventions on

ES and biodiversity use values is universally important in

all REDD? countries since hydrological services, food,

and other non-timber forest products are essential to the


123

livelihoods of many people in Peru (MINAM 2010d;

Entenmann and Schmitt 2013), and in many other devel-

oping countries (Schroth and McNeely 2011; Christie et al.

2012).

Given the large extent of existing forest cover in Peru,

national REDD? activities and projects were aiming fre-

quently at avoided deforestation and forests degradation.

These most likely deliver essentially positive biodiversity

benefits (Kapos et al. 2012). In contrast, positive environ-

mental benefits from activities to enhance forest carbon

stocks are much more predetermined by the specific design

of the management intervention applied. Such interven-

tions are likely to be applied in countries that have large

areas of degraded forest land (Barr and Sayer 2012) like,

e.g., Kenya (GoK 2010). In general, management inter-

ventions for enhancement of carbon stocks e.g., through

reforestation or afforestation actions, are more likely to

generate trade-offs with biodiversity conservation or non-

carbon ES, like the provision of freshwater (Larsen et al.

2011). This makes monitoring schemes that can link

management interventions to changes in biodiversity and

ecological integrity highly desirable. However, restricted

knowledge about ecological functions and intensive efforts

associated with monitoring are potentially limiting factors.

Cost Issues Related to Biodiversity Monitoring

The presumably high costs associated with biodiversity

monitoring can prevent the implementation of biodiversity

monitoring schemes in REDD? and in other payment

schemes for specific ES (Sommerville et al. 2011). Costs as

a restricting factor for biodiversity monitoring were men-

tioned by relatively few actors in this study. One expla-

nation is that actors had not yet considered biodiversity

issues in depth. Furthermore, actors involved in REDD?

pilot projects saw no need to carry out biodiversity moni-

toring since they expected automatic biodiversity benefits

from REDD? or already had some kind of biodiversity-

related monitoring scheme in place.

Costs of biodiversity monitoring in payment schemes for

ES may vary significantly, depending on the monitoring

schemes applied (Sommerville et al. 2011). Area-specific

monitoring costs for Peru could be derived from four pub-

lications identified in the literature review, resulting in

average monitoring costs of US$ 0.64 ha-1 year-1 (Online

Resource, Table OR-5). Other studies estimated costs for

field-based biodiversity monitoring of five flagship species

in a REDD? pilot project in Madre de Dios, including

camera traps, data analyses, and part-time salaries for a

biologist, to about US$ 0.19 ha-1 year-1 (Dinerstein et al.

2013). Relating monitoring costs to other cost types in the

REDD? context can give some indication of the economic

viability of biodiversity monitoring in REDD?. Opportunity

costs, i.e., profits from alternative forms of land use that are

foregone through forest conservation activities are consid-

ered to be the most significant cost factors (Pagiola and

Bosquet 2009). Monitoring costs, in contrast, are part of a

suite of costs incurred through the implementation of actions

to reduce forest-based emissions; including the reporting of

emission reductions (i.e., transaction costs, Thompson et al.

2013).

Opportunity costs may range from US$ 123 to US$

2,247 ha-1 (Bottcher et al. 2009), depending on the location

and the approach used to estimate the costs. Kindermann

et al. (2008) estimated that carbon payments of US$

20–252 ha-1 year-1 would provide reasonable economic

incentives to reduce deforestation in many deforestation

hotspots. No estimates of compensation for avoided defor-

estation under a future UNFCCC REDD? mechanism are

available (Lubowski and Rose 2013). There is, however,

information about carbon prices on voluntary carbon mar-

kets. Multiplying average carbon prices of US$ 7.4 t-1

CO2-e-1 avoided in REDD? pilot projects in 2012 (Peters-

Stanley and Yin 2013) with expected emission reductions of

REDD? pilot projects in Peru, Bolivia, and Brazil results in

revenues between US$ 1.32 and 49.32 ha-1 (median value

US$ 8.85 ha-1, Online Resource, Table OR-6). While there

is a high uncertainty in all these figures, and they must thus

be treated with caution, there is evidence that REDD? pilot

projects are often not economically viable if they only rely

on carbon revenues. This is supported by findings from other

case studies in the Democratic Republic of Congo,

Columbia and Tanzania (Kapp and Lotsch, in prep). Bio-

diversity monitoring costs account for a relatively small

share of the overall costs for implementing REDD?.

Although coping with opportunity costs and institutional

hurdles may be greater challenges than covering biodiver-

sity monitoring costs, cost-saving considerations could still

prevent decision makers from integrating biodiversity

monitoring schemes in REDD? activities.

Options to Improve Efficiency of Biodiversity

Monitoring

Developing countries are often restricted in their capacity

to repeatedly monitor changes in biodiversity (Yamasaki

and Tyrrell 2012). However, some options were identified

in the interviews to improve efficiency of biodiversity

monitoring in the context of REDD? in Peru, which are

also applicable to other REDD? countries.

Synergies Between Biodiversity Monitoring and REDD?

Implementation

Two thirds of the actors confirmed the assumption that

there are options to obtain synergies and reduce overall


123

monitoring costs by integrating some aspects of forest

biodiversity monitoring into carbon monitoring. While

carbon MRV systems may differ across countries, all of

them will include schemes to monitor repeated changes in

forest cover. Such carbon monitoring schemes rely largely

on remote sensing, but will also require forest biomass data

collected in the field to increase the precision of mea-

surement (Dickson and Kapos 2012; GOFC-GOLD 2012).

Even though actors were aware of the possibility of com-

bining carbon and biodiversity monitoring, there were only

a few examples where biodiversity monitoring had already

been systematically integrated into carbon monitoring

schemes. For instance, data on the presence of specific

indicator species were collected while measuring trees in

permanent parcels for carbon monitoring in Madre de Dios.

Furthermore, remote sensing data for forest cover were

used in monitoring the extent of the area of certain forest

types classified as conservation targets by visually inter-

preting satellite images (e.g., AMPA 2008). However,

apart from these examples, possible synergies between

carbon monitoring and biodiversity monitoring have not

been strongly developed. This was most likely because

actors were mainly concerned with the determination of

carbon stocks and calculation of reference scenarios in the

areas. Furthermore, site-specific approaches are likely to be

required for carrying out biodiversity monitoring (Harrison

et al. 2012), which contrasts with the standardized carbon

monitoring approaches. Moreover, forest inventories and

biodiversity monitoring are carried out by different orga-

nizations in Peru. According to the actors, synergies in

carbon and biodiversity monitoring could thus be achieved

by improving cooperation among actors.

Harmonization of Data and Increasing Collaboration

Between Actors

Improving collaboration between governmental biodiver-

sity research organizations and experienced NGOs

involved in REDD? pilot projects and national REDD?

implementation may help harmonize biodiversity data and

evaluate impacts of REDD?-related forest management

activities on biodiversity at the national level. This can be

based on the experiences of environmental NGOs in bio-

diversity monitoring in REDD? actions, as mentioned by

sub-national level actors in the interviews and documented

in the existing REDD? pilot project design documents.

Many environmental NGOs involved in biodiversity

monitoring have already contributed to the preparation of

REDD? project design documents (e.g., Schroeder 2009),

the Peruvian REDD? readiness preparation proposal (GoP

2011) or the MRV systems in Peru. In Madre de Dios, there

are initiatives to consolidate and harmonize (published and

unpublished) biodiversity studies from different NGOs and

governmental research organizations (e.g., AIDER 2010).

Such initiatives have emerged in anticipation of REDD?

implementation to establish biodiversity baselines for the

areas in which the REDD? pilot projects are being

implemented. Despite this, actors at the national level have

identified a deficiency in the participation of biodiversity

research organizations, for instance those that were

involved in the design of the national gap analysis for the

CBD and biodiversity policies. Such organizations inclu-

ded the Biodiversity Department in the MINAM and the

Center for Conservation Data at the National Agrarian

University. They have a broad overview of the biodiversity

resources on the national scale (CDC-UNALM 2006;

MINAM 2010c), but were not yet consulted regularly in

the REDD? process. This also applies to initiatives at the

national level to develop guidelines for replicable methods

for monitoring biodiversity indicators (fauna and flora)

(MINAM 2010a, b). Integrating such actors in the national-

level REDD? process, like national REDD working

groups, would help in the systematic collection and eval-

uation of experiences with biodiversity monitoring in

REDD? pilot projects and potential impacts of REDD? on

biodiversity and ES at the national level.

There are different options for reporting the experiences

in biodiversity monitoring in REDD? pilot projects and

evaluating possible impacts on biodiversity and ES at the

departmental and national level. Environmental NGOs,

private companies, and research organizations involved in

REDD? implementation and biodiversity conservation at

the sub-national and project level often participate in

REDD working groups. Site specific biodiversity infor-

mation in areas under REDD? management could be

summarized in the REDD working groups in a form

analogous to the documents produced for the ecological–

economical zoning in the different departments in Peru

(e.g., Encarnacion 2005). These documents are part of land

use planning efforts in Peru and have similar structures

across the different departments. They are also important

sources of information for the national evaluation of bio-

diversity in Peru (MINAM 2013), and the national

REDD? implementation strategy explicitly mentions the

link between REDD? implementation and the govern-

mental institutions involved in land use planning (GoP

2011). The work of sub-national REDD working groups is

often based on geographic information of natural resources

generated in the course of the ecological and economical

zoning processes. Since sub-national working groups are

chaired by representatives of regional governments (GoP

2011), there is a potential link to national REDD working

groups and the national government.

Integration of actors involved at different levels in

conservation and environmental research into REDD?

would potentially enhance capacities for monitoring


123

biodiversity also in other countries (Di Gregorio et al.

2012; Lindenmayer et al. 2012). Panels such as the (sub-)

national REDD working groups in Peru are currently being

formed in many other countries (FONAFIFO et al. 2012).

Using such panels for harmonizing and evaluating the

experience of sub-national REDD? management inter-

ventions with biodiversity monitoring in REDD? at the

national level may reduce costs and efforts for the estab-

lishment of safeguards information systems, the imple-

mentation of which is requested by the UNFCCC

(UNFCCC 2011) and foreseen in many national REDD?

strategies. It would also streamline the efforts that need to

be undertaken by the countries in compliance with national

forest or biodiversity conservation programs (e.g., SER-

NANP 2009; MINAM 2010d in the case of Peru). Fur-

thermore, it can help with the countries’ commitments

toward multilateral agreements, like the Convention on

Biological Diversity.

Specification of Biodiversity Objectives

In all countries, REDD? is a multi-level endeavor in which

the flow of information across different levels is considered

crucial for success. Communicating achievements of

additional social and environmental co-benefits and linking

possible impacts of REDD? management interventions to

changes in the provision of certain ES (e.g., hydrological

services, non-timber forest products, and pollination of

Brazil nut trees) might increase the motivation of local

stakeholders to participate in REDD?. Moreover, moni-

toring schemes that are able to document positive effects of

REDD?-related management interventions on biodiversity

or other ES may facilitate the combination of other pay-

ments for ES in REDD? (Karousakis 2009; Pfund et al.

2011). This, however, requires a clear specification of

additional objectives for ES and biodiversity in REDD?.

Lack of clear monitoring objectives, and the general

assumption that REDD? automatically provides a wide

range of non-target biodiversity and ES benefits are per-

sistent obstacles in many REDD? countries (FONAFIFO

et al. 2012). Dinerstein et al. (2013) discuss the integration

of payment schemes for biodiversity conservation (e.g.,

Wildlife Premium Mechanism) into REDD? and conclude

that robust monitoring increases investors’ confidence and

facilitates access to additional funding for national level

and project level implementation.

Conclusions

Robust and transparent biodiversity monitoring schemes in

national REDD? activities can support compliance with

UNFCCC safeguards, multilateral funding initiatives, and

commitments to other conventions. Furthermore, there is

an increasing demand for the integration of biodiversity

concerns in the development and implementation of

REDD? pilot projects. The need to integrate biodiversity

monitoring into the design of REDD? is recognized by the

decision makers in Peru, but other non-biodiversity-related

problems related to REDD? implementation are often

more pressing.

In Peru, changes in the populations of selected species

and extent of forest cover can often be monitored with the

available monitoring schemes in REDD? management

actions, especially at the project level. The participation of

environmental NGOs enhances the capacity for biodiver-

sity monitoring in REDD?-related forest management

interventions at the sub-national level. Furthermore

increasing collaboration between actors involved in biodi-

versity monitoring across sectors and geographical scales

facilitate the evaluation of impacts of REDD? on eco-

logical functions and biodiversity at the national level. This

can be achieved, e.g., through the integration of key gov-

ernmental biodiversity research organizations in (sub-)

national REDD? panels such as the (sub-) national REDD

working groups in Peru. Such panels could also be used to

collate and manage biodiversity data to make biodiversity

assessment and monitoring more independent of short-term

projects driven by NGOs or the private sector.

The support of local people for REDD? is crucial for its

long-term success. Specifying and integrating non-carbon

ES important to local people into monitoring schemes is

important for monitoring and ensuring the people’s sus-

tained access to these ES. Integrating indicators for impacts

on the ecological functions behind ES would help to

facilitate the integration of non-carbon ES and biodiversity

conservation in REDD?, which potentially increases the

ecological and socioeconomic viability of REDD?.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank all individuals

and organizations that supported this project by providing information

during data collection in Peru. They would like to thank Prof. Dr.

Gerald Kapp for his comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

This study was carried out as part of the research project ‘‘The Pro-

tection of Forests under Global Biodiversity and Climate Policy,’’

financed by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation with

funds from the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature

Conservation, and Nuclear Safety.

References

AIDER (2010) Investigacion en la Reserva Nacional Tambopata y el

Parque Nacional Bahuaja Sonene en el ambito de Madre de Dios.

(Investigation in Tambopata National Reserve and in Bahuaja-

Sonene National Park within the Department Madre de Dios).

Asociacion para la investigacion y desarrollo integral (AIDER),

Lima


123

AMPA (2008) Plan de manejo de la concesion para conservacion

‘‘Alto Huayabamba’’. Anexo 10: plan de monitoreo. Amazonicos

por la Amazonıa (AMPA), CI, SPDA, Blue Moon Fund,

Moyobamba

AMPA (2010) Proyecto de Reduccion de Emisiones por Degradacion

y Deforestacion—REDD en la Concesion para conservacion

‘‘Alto Huayabamba’’—CCAH. Ecosistemas de Jalca y Yungas.

Amazonıa Andina Norte del Peru. Asociacion Amayonicos por

la Amazonıa (AMPA), Moyobamba

Barbieri PG (2006) Inventario rapido de los cuerpos de agua en la

Carretera Interoceanica, tramo Acre-Masuco, antes de la

pavimentacion. Informe final. (Rapid inventory of water bodies

along the Interoceanic Highway, sector Acre-Masuco, prior to

paving. Final report). ACCA, Puerto Maldonado

Barr CM, Sayer JA (2012) The political economy of reforestation and

forest restoration in Asia–Pacific: critical issues for REDD?.

Biol Conserv 154:9–19. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.03.020

Blom B, Sunderland T, Murdiyarso D (2010) Getting REDD to work

locally: lessons learned from integrated conservation and

development projects. Environ Sci Policy 13(2):164–172.

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.01.002

Bottcher H, Eisbrenner K, Fritz S, Kindermann G, Kraxner F,

McCallum I, Obersteiner M (2009) An assessment of monitoring

requirements and costs of ‘Reduced Emissions from Deforesta-

tion and Degradation’. Carbon Balance Manag 4:7. doi:10.1186/

1750-0680-4-7

Boyle J, Murphy D (2012) Designing effective REDD? safeguard

information systems: building on existing systems and country

experiences. ASB, IISD, Winnipeg

Brack A (2008) Peru, land of forests. Graph Ediciones, Lima

Caplow S, Jagger P, Lawlor K, Sills E (2011) Evaluating land use and

livelihood impacts of early forest carbon projects: lessons for

learning about REDD?. Environ Sci Policy 14(2):152–167.

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.10.003

Caro T, Engilis A, Fitzherbert E, Gardner T (2004) Preliminary

assessment of the flagship species concept at a small scale. Anim

Conserv 7:63–70. doi:10.1017/S136794300300115x

CCBA (2008) Climate, Community & Biodiversity Project Design

Standards, 2nd edn. Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alli-

ance (CCBA), Arlington

CDC-UNALM (2006) Analisis del cobertura ecologica del sistema

nacional de areas naturales protegidas por el estado (Analysis of

the ecological coverage of the national system of protected

areas). Centro de Datos para la Conservacion de la Universidad

Agraria de La Molina (CDC-UNALM), TNC, Lima

Chhatre A, Lakhanpal S, Larson AM, Nelson F, Ojha H, Rao J (2012)

Social safeguards and co-benefits in REDD?: a review of the

adjacent possible. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4(6):654–660.

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.08.006Christie M, Fazey I, Cooper R, Hyde T, Kenter JO (2012) An

evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for

assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services

to people in countries with developing economies. Ecol Econ

83:67–78. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.012

Corbera E, Schroeder H (2011) Governing and implementing

REDD?. Environ Sci Policy 14(2):89–99. doi:10.1016/j.

envsci.2010.11.002

Delbaere (2002) An inventory of biodiversity indicators in Europe,

2002. Technical report No 92. EEA, Luxembourg

Di Gregorio M, Brockhaus M, Cronin T, Muharrom E (2012) Politics

and power in national REDD? policy processes. In: Angelsen A,

Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD, Verchot L (eds) Analysing

REDD?: challenges and choices. CIFOR, Bogor Barat, pp 69–90

Dickson B, Kapos V (2012) Biodiversity monitoring for REDD?.

Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4(6):717–725. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.

2012.09.017

Dinerstein E, Varma K, Wikramanayake E, Powell G, Lumpkin S,

Naidoo R, Korchinsky M, Del Valle C, Lohani S, Seidensticker

J, Joldersma D, Lovejoy T, Kushlin A (2013) Enhancing

conservation, ecosystem services, and local livelihoods through

a wildlife premium mechanism. Conserv Biol 27(1):14–23.

doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01959.x

Encarnacion F (2005) Zonificacion ecologica y economica de la

Region San Martın. Vegetacion (Ecological and economical

zoning of the Department San Martın. Vegetation). GORESAM,

IIAP, Moyobamba

Endo W, Peres CA, Salas E, Mori S, Sanchez-Vega J-L, Shepard GH,

Pacheco V, Yu DW (2009) Game vertebrate densities in hunted

and nonhunted forest sites in Manu National Park, Peru. Biotropi

42(2):251–261. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00546.x

Entenmann SK, Schmitt CB (2013) Actors’ perceptions of forest

biodiversity values and policy issues related to REDD?

implementation in Peru. Biodiv Conserv 22(5):1229–1254.

doi:10.1007/s10531-013-0477-5

Estrada M, Joseph S (2012) Baselines and monitoring in local

REDD? projects. In: Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD,

Verchot L (eds) Analysing REDD?: challenges and choices.

CIFOR, Bogor Barat, pp 247–260

FAO (2010) Global forest resources assessment—key findings. Food

and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO),

Rome

FCPF (2011) Common approach to environmental and social

safeguards for multiple delivery partners. Final Version, 9 June

2011. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Readiness

Fund, Washington, DC

FCPF (2012) REDD readiness progress fact sheet of Peru, October

2012. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), Washington,

DC

FONAFIFO, CONAFOR, Ministry of Environment (2012) Lessons

learned for REDD? from PES and conservation incentive

programs. Examples from Costa Rica, Mexico, and Ecuador. The

World Bank, Washington, DC

Gardner T (2010) Monitoring forest biodiversity. Earthscan, London

Gardner TA, Burgess ND, Aguilar-Amuchastegui N, Barlow J,

Berenguer E, Clements T, Danielsen F, Ferreira J, Foden W,

Kapos V, Khan SM, Lees AC, Parry L, Roman-Cuesta RM,

Schmitt CB, Strange N, Theilade I, Vieira ICG (2012) A

framework for integrating biodiversity concerns into national

REDD? programmes. Biol Conserv 154:61–71. doi:10.1016/j.

biocon.2011.11.018

Giupponi C (2007) Decision support systems for implementing the

European Water Framework Directive: the MULINO approach.

Environ Model Softw 22(2):248–258. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.

2005.07.024

GOFC-GOLD (2012) A sourcebook of methods and procedures for

monitoring and reporting anthropogenic greenhouse gas emis-

sions and removals caused by deforestation, gains and losses of

carbon stocks in forests, remaining forests and forestation.

GOFC-GOLD Report version COP18-1. GOFC-GOLD Land

Cover Project Office, Wageningen

GoK (2010) REDD readiness preparation proposal: Kenya. Version

August 2010. Government of Kenya (GoK), Nairobi

Goldman RL, Tallis H, Kareiva P, Daily GC (2008) Field evidence

that ecosystem service projects support biodiversity and diver-

sify options. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(27):9445–9448.

doi:10.1073/pnas.0800208105

GoP (2010) Draft REDD readiness preparation proposal: Peru.

Version, September 2010. Government of Peru (GoP), Lima

GoP (2011) REDD readiness preparation proposal: Peru. Version,

March 2011. Government of Peru (GoP), Lima

Hajek F, Ventresca MJ, Scriven J, Castro A (2011) Regime-building

for REDD?: evidence from a cluster of local initiatives in south-


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.03.020

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.01.002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-4-7

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-4-7


http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S136794300300115x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.08.006

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.012





http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01959.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00546.x



http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.07.024

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.07.024

http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0800208105

eastern Peru. Environ Sci Policy 14(2):201–215. doi:10.1016/j.

envsci.2010.12.007

Harrison ME, Boonman A, Cheyne SM, Husson SJ, Marchant NC,

Struebig MJ (2012) Biodiversity monitoring protocols for

REDD?: can a one-size-fits-all approach really work? Trop

Conserv Sci 5(1):1–11

Holdridge LR (1967) Life zone ecology. Tropical Science Center, San

Jose

IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: climate change impacts, adapta-

tion and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of

Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge

Kapos V, Kurz WA, Gardner T, Ferreira J, Guariguata MR, Koh LP,

Mansourian S, Parrotta A, Sasaki H, Schmitt CB (2012) Impacts

of forest and land management on biodiversity and carbon. In:

Parrotta A, Wildburger C, Mansourian S (eds) Understanding

relationships between biodiversity, carbon, forests and people:

the key to achieving REDD? objectives. IUFRO World Series,

vol 31. IUFRO, Vienna, pp 53–73

Kapp G, Lotsch A (in prep) Full-cost assessment of REDD?

activities. The World Bank, Washington, DC

Karousakis K (2009) Promoting biodiversity co-benefits in REDD.

OECD Environ Work Pap 11:3–25. doi:10.1787/220188577008

Kindermann G, Obersteiner M, Sohngen B, Sathaye J, Andrasko K,

Rametsteiner E, Schlamadinger B, Wunder S, Beach R (2008)

Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through

avoided deforestation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA

105(30):10302–10307. doi:10.1073/pnas.0710616105

Kirkby CA, Giudice R, Day B, Turner K, Soares-Filho BS, Oliveira-

Rodriguez H, Yu DW (2010) Closing the ecotourism-conserva-

tion loop in the Peruvian Amazon. Environ Conserv 38:6–17.

doi:10.1017/S0376892911000099

Korhonen-Kurki K, Brockhaus M, Duchelle AE, Atmadja S, Thu

Thuy P (2012) Multiple levels and multiple challenges for

REDD?. In: Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD, Verchot

L (eds) Analysing REDD?: challenges and choices. CIFOR,

Bogor Barat, pp 91–110

Kremen C, Merenlender AM, Murphy DD (1994) Ecological

monitoring—a vital need for integrated conservation and devel-

opment programs in the Tropics. Conserv Biol 8(2):388–397.

doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08020388.x

Kuckartz U (2010) Realizing mixed-methods approaches with

MAXQDA. Philipps-Universitat, Marburg

Larsen FW, Londono-Murcia MC, Turner WR (2011) Global

priorities for conservation of threatened species, carbon storage,

and freshwater services: scope for synergy? Conserv Lett

4(5):355–363. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00183.x

Lazdinis M, Angelstam P, Lazdinis I (2007) Maintenance of forest

biodiversity in a post-Soviet governance model: perceptions by

local actors in Lithuania. Environ Manag 40(1):20–33. doi:10.

1007/s00267-005-0387-8

Lindenmayer DB, Gibbons P, Bourke MAX, Burgman M, Dickman

CR, Ferrier S, Fitzsimons J, Freudenberger D, Garnett ST,

Groves C, Hobbs RJ, Kingsford RT, Krebs C, Legge S, Lowe

AJ, McLean ROB, Montambault J, Possingham H, Radford JIM,

Robinson D, Smallbone L, Thomas D, Varcoe T, Vardon M,

Wardle G, Woinarski J, Zerger A (2012) Improving biodiversity

monitoring. Austral Ecol 37(3):285–294. doi:10.1111/j.1442-

9993.2011.02314.x

Lubowski RN, Rose SK (2013) The potential for REDD plus : key

economic modeling insights and issues. Rev Environ Econ

Policy 7(1):67–90. doi:10.1093/Reep/Res024

Luttrell C, Loft L, Gebara MF, Kweka D (2012) Who should benefit

and why? Discourses on REDD? benefit sharing. In: Angelsen

A, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD, Verchot L (eds) Analysing

REDD?: challenges and choices. CIFOR, Bogor Barat,

pp 129–151

Maxim L, Spangenberg JH, O’Connor M (2009) An analysis of risks

for biodiversity under the DPSIR framework. Ecol Econ

69(1):12–23. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.03.017

Mayers J, Bass S (2004) Policy that works for forests and people: real

prospects for governance and livelihoods, vol 7. Earthscan, London

Mayring P (2007) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. (Qualitative content

analysis), 9th edn. Beltz, Weinheim

McDermott CL, Coad L, Helfgott A, Schroeder H (2012) Operation-

alizing social safeguards in REDD?: actors, interests and ideas.

Environ Sci Policy 21:63–72. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.02.007

Meuser M, Nagel U (2005) ExpertInneninterviews—vielfach erprobt,

wenig bedacht (Expert interviews—often proven, rarely consid-

ered). In: Bogner A, Littig B, Menz W (eds) Das Expertenin-

terviews—Theorie, Methode, Anwendung, 2nd edn. VS Verlag

fur Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp 71–93

MINAM (2010a) Guıa de evalucaion de fauna silvestre (Guide for

wildlife evaluation). Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM), Direc-

cion General de Evaluacion, Valoracion y Financiamiento del

Patrimonio Natural, Lima

MINAM (2010b) Guıa de evalucaion de flora silvestre (Guide for the

evaluation of flora). Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM), Direc-

cion General de Evaluacion, Valoracion y Financiamiento del

Patrimonio Natural, Lima

MINAM (2010c) Lista de ecosistemas fragiles y areas prioritarias

para la conservacion en el Peru. (List of fragile ecosystems and

priority areas for the conservation in Peru). Ministerio del

Ambiente (MINAM), Lima

MINAM (2010d) Programa Nacional de Conservacion de Bosques

para la mitigacion del Cambio Climatico. Manual de operaci-

ones. (National forest conservation program for the mitigation of

climate change. Manual for operations). Ministerio del Ambiente

(MINAM), Lima

MINAM (2013) Guıa metodologica para la elaboracion de los

instrumentos tecnicos sustentorios para el ordenamiento territo-

rial (Methodological guide for the elaboration of technical

instruments fur land use planning). Ministerio del Ambiente

(MINAM), Lima

Mittermeier RA, Myers N, Thomsen JB, Da Fonseca GAB, Olivieri S

(1998) Biodiversity hotspots and major tropical wilderness areas:

approaches to setting conservation priorities. Conserv Biol

12(3):516–520. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.012003516.x

ONERN (1976) Mapa ecologico del Peru: guıa explicativa (Ecolog-

ical map of Peru: guide for explanation). Oficina Nacional de

Evaluacion de Recursos Naturales (ONERN), Lima

Pacheco V, Cadenillas R, Salas E, Tello C, Zeballos H (2009)

Diversidad y endemismo de los mamıferos del Peru (Diversity

and endemism of Peruvian mammals). Rev Peru Biol 61(1):5–32

Pagiola S, Bosquet B (2009) Estimating the costs of REDD at the

country level. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, Washington,

DC

Peters-Stanley M, Yin D (2013) Maneuvering the mosaic. State of the

voluntary carbon markets 2013. Ecosystem Marketplace, Bloom-

berg New Energy Finance, Washington, DC

Pfund J-L, Watts J, Boissiere M, Boucard A, Bullock R, Ekadinata A,

Dewi S, Feintrenie L, Levang P, Rantala S, Sheil D, Sunderland T,

Urech Z (2011) Understanding and integrating local perceptions of

tees and forests into incentives for sustainable landscape manage-

ment. Environ Manag 48(2):334–349. doi:10.1007/s00267-011-

9689-1

Phelps J, Webb EL, Agrawal A (2010) Does REDD? threaten to

recentralize forest governance? Science 328(5976):312–313.

doi:10.1126/science.1187774

Pitman NCA, Widmer J, Jenkins CN, Stocks G, Seales L, Paniagua F,

Bruna EM (2011) Volume and geographical distribution of


123



http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/220188577008

http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710616105

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000099

http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08020388.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00183.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0387-8

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0387-8

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02314.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02314.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/Reep/Res024

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.03.017


http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.012003516.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9689-1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9689-1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1187774

ecological research in the Andes and the Amazon, 1995–2008.

Trop Conserv Sci 4(1):64–81

Pretty J, Smith D (2004) Social capital in biodiversity conservation

and management. Conserv Biol 18(3):631–638. doi:10.1111/j.

1523-1739.2004.00126.x

Putz FE, Redford KH (2009) Dangers of carbon-based conservation.

Glob Environ Chang 19(4):400–401. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.

2009.07.005

Rodriguez LO, Young KR (2000) Biological diversity of Peru:

determining priority areas for conservation. Ambio 29(6):

329–337. doi:10.1579/0044-7447-29.6.329

Ruiz L (2009) Case study: developing a REDD project in Peru’s

Cordillera Azul National Park. CIMA, Lima

Schmitt CB (2011) A tough choice: approaches towards the setting of

global conservation priorities. In: Zachos FE, Habel JC (eds)

Biodiversity hotspots. Springer, Berlin, pp 23–42

Schroeder A (2009) Madre de Dios Amazon REDD Project (P-DD for

CCBS). Greenoxx, Montevideo

Schroth G, McNeely JA (2011) Biodiversity conservation, ecosystem

services and livelihoods in tropical landscapes: towards a

common agenda. Environ Manag 48(2):229–236. doi:10.1007/

s00267-011-9708-2

SERNANP (2009) Aplicacion del programa de trabajo de Areas

Naturales Protegidas del Convenio sobre Diversidad Biologica.

Servicio Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas por el Estado

(SERNANP), Lima

Sheil D (2001) Conservation and biodiversity monitoring in the

tropics: realities, priorities, and distractions. Conserv Biol

15(4):1179–1182. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.0150041179.x

Smeets E, Weterings R (1999) Environmental indicators: typology

and overview. Technical report No. 25. EEA, Copenhagen

Sommerville MM, Milner-Gulland EJ, Jones JPG (2011) The

challenge of monitoring biodiversity in payment for environ-

mental service interventions. Biol Conserv 144(12):2832–2841.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.07.036

Stickler CM, Nepstad DC, Coe MT, McGrath DG, Rodrigues HO,

Walker WS, Soares-Filho BS, Davidson EA (2009) The potential

ecological costs and cobenefits of REDD: a critical review and

case study from the Amazon region. Glob Change Biol

15:2803–2824. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02109.x

Terborgh J, Nunez-Iturri G, Pitman NCA, Valverde FHC, Alvarez P,

Swamy V, Pringle EG, Paine CET (2008) Tree recruitment in an

empty forest. Ecology 89(6):1757–1768. doi:10.1890/07-0479.1

Thompson ID, Ferreira J, Gardner T, Guariguata MR, Koh LP, Okabe

K, Pan Y, Schmitt CB, Tylianakis J (2012) Forest biodiversity,

carbon and other ecosystem services: relationships and impacts

of deforestation and forest degradation. In: Parrotta A, Wild-

burger C, Mansourian S (eds) Understanding relationships

between biodiversity, carbon, forests and people: the key to

achieving REDD? objectives. IUFRO World Series, vol 31.

IUFRO, Vienna, pp 21–52

Thompson ORR, Paavola J, Healey JR, Jones JPG, Baker TR, Torres

J (2013) Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest

degradation (REDD?): transaction costs of six Peruvian pro-

jects. Ecol Soc 18(1):17. doi:10.5751/ES-05239-180117

Turner WR, Brandon K, Brooks TM, Costanza R, Da Fonseca GAB,

Portela R (2007) Global conservation of biodiversity and

ecosystem services. BioScience 57(10):868–873. doi:10.1641/

B571009

UNFCCC (2011) Guidance on systems for providing information on

how safeguards are addressed and respected and modalities

relating to forest reference emission levels and forest reference

levels as referred to in decision 1/CP.16. Draft decision -/CP17.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC), Bonn

UN-REDD (2011) UN-REDD programme social & environmental

principles and criteria. UN-REDD Programme, Asuncion

Vuohelainen A, Coad L, Marthews T, Malhi Y, Killeen T (2012) The

effectiveness of contrasting protected areas in preventing

deforestation in Madre de Dios, Peru. Environ Manag

50(4):645–663. doi:10.1007/s00267-012-9901-y

Yamasaki SH, Tyrrell TD (2012) A background report on improving

forest biodiversity monitoring and reporting. UNEP/CBD/

SBSTTA/16/INF/25. SCBD, Montreal


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00126.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00126.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.07.005

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.07.005

http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-29.6.329

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9708-2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9708-2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.0150041179.x


http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02109.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/07-0479.1

http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05239-180117

http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/B571009

http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/B571009

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9901-y

Documents

Forest Biodiversity Monitoring for REDD+: A Case Study of Actors’ Views in Peru