Upload
christine-b
View
214
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
e-mail: [email protected]
C. B. Schmitt
e-mail: [email protected]
123
Environmental Management (2014) 53:300–317
DOI 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
Environmental Management (2014) 53:300–317 303
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).
304 Environmental Management (2014) 53:300–317
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
Environmental Management (2014) 53:300–317 305
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)
306 Environmental Management (2014) 53:300–317
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 %)
Environmental Management (2014) 53:300–317 307
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
308 Environmental Management (2014) 53:300–317
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
Environmental Management (2014) 53:300–317 309
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
310 Environmental Management (2014) 53:300–317
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
Environmental Management (2014) 53:300–317 311
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
312 Environmental Management (2014) 53:300–317
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
Environmental Management (2014) 53:300–317 313
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
314 Environmental Management (2014) 53:300–317
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-
Environmental Management (2014) 53:300–317 315
123
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
316 Environmental Management (2014) 53:300–317
123
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
Environmental Management (2014) 53:300–317 317
123