PARTICIPATION AND REPRESENTATION:

DD+ IN NATIVE COMMUNITIES IN THE PERUVIAN AMAZ

MASTERS THESIS PRESENTATION
Carol Burga Cahuana

November 18th, 2013

Summary
I. Introduction
II. Literature Review
III. Hypothesis and Research Questions
IV. Methods
V. Results
VI. Conclusions

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

II. Literature Review

III. Hypothesis

III. Research Questions

Motivation and
process of
engagement in REDD

1. Why and how do local people end up

engaging with REDD+?

Representation and
consent

2. Who, to what degree, and by what

means, represents the people both in
their decision to consent and during the
preparatory activities?

Participation

3. Why and how do local people

participate (or not) in preparatory
activities?

Changes in rules and

institutions

4. What rules and institutions are being

created or changed as a result of REDD
activities at the village level?

IV. Methods
Site selection criteria
Fieldwork: June 15th -August 15th 2012
Research procedures:
Structured and semi-structured interviews
Community members, project developer staff,
regional government officials, indigenous
leaders, researchers, practitioners. Total: 58
respondents.

Limitations:

Brief duration of the study, getting

participants for interviews, truthfulness of responses,
limited womens participation.

V. Results (1)
Blgica
Why and how Consent given 2 times
do local
through meetings,
people end up
influenced by chief
engaging with
and advisers (2-3
REDD+?
meetings)
Benefits (HH &
What are
community)
peoples
Complementary
logic,
income
motives, and Material comfort, food
expectations
security and education
from REDD?
and health services
Climate goals are not
a motivation
Find information is
confusing
Inaccuracies in
understandings
No anti-REDD

Infierno
Consent given through
debate after several
meetings.
Land title
Economic benefits (HH &
community)
Complementary income
to sustain live in the city
Climate goals are not a
motivation
Feel they are not well
informed (mechanism and
activities)
Different positions
towards REDD
(supporters, opposers,
skeptics and people
forming opinion)

VI. Results (2)

Blgica
Who
Village level:
represents the
Represented by the
people both in
Council w/ strong
their decision
influence of the Chief
to consent
and facilitator.
and during
Assembly delegates
the
uncontested power to
preparatory
the chief
activities?
Meetings are mostly
informative
Authorities not
accountable: Poor public
reporting on finances /
they are not sanctioned
Elected authorities
(municipalities) not
representative / no
competences in land &
forests

Infierno
Community Council +
Project Coordinator +
Control Committee (new
level of representation
from the ecotourism
project)
Assembly makes
decisions
Public reporting is
constant
Authorities are
accountable
General agreement is
that authorities mostly
respect what the
Assembly decides.
Elected authorities
(municipalities) not
representative / no

V. Results (3)
Blgica
Why and
Participation: reduced to
through what
people attending
mechanisms
meetings/workshops
do local
Feel that following new
people
rules for social order and
participate (or
forest use is a way to
not) in
participate.
preparatory
People do not engage in
activities?
the design of project
activities
No control over the
process (Asesorandes)
Tend not to assume
control even if they can
(AIDER)
Blgica does not
participate in Mesa REDD

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

V. Results (4)
What rules and
institutions are
being created
or changed as
a result of
REDD activities
at the village
level?

Blgica

Infierno

Changes in rules for land

and forest use
Smaller farms, less
production
Slash/burn prohibited
Cattle ranching is
prohibited

Changes in land
allocation rules (not
only because of REDD)
10 hectares limit/clear
No new authority for
REDD has been
created, but the
Control Committee
(ecotourism) is
involved

Changes in rules for social

order:
Participation in REDD is
mandatory, people can
otherwise lose
membership
Cannot exit the
community for mote than
2 months.
Restrictions on marrying
to outsiders

IV. Conclusions (I)

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

IV. Conclusions (II)

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

Thank you