This presentation gives an overview of the political and economic context of the REDD+ process in Peru. Money flowing to/from REDD and the forestry sector represents a small fraction of that dedicated to key drivers of deforestation. Up against bigger players like mining and agriculture, there are some challenges inherent in making the REDD+ dreams match up with reality. CIFOR scientist Mary Menton gave this presentation on 18 June 2012 at a panel discussion organised by CIFOR and partners at the ISEE 2012 Conference at Rio, which convened under the topic "Ecological Economics and Rio+20: Challenges and Contributions for a Green Economy". The panel was titled ‘National strategies for reducing emissions from avoided deforestation and degradation – how much transformational change is possible in current political and economic realities? Part I – An overview’. For more information, visit http://www.cifor.org/events/rio20/

1. Political Economy of REDD+ in Peru
Mary Menton, Hugo Che Piu, Javier Perla,
Daniela Freundt
CIFOR, DAR, Libelula

2. Brief process overview in Peru: key REDD+ policy events
January
FIP Exploratory
Mission
April
Nested March
March
Approach FIP Pilot R-PP
May
Country Approved
Creation of the
REDD Technical April April
May March
Group within the R-PP Declaration of
Grupo CNCC (National submitted National
REDD Council on Climate Iquitos and Safeguards
Change Formation of Workshop
Mesa-Indigena
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
June July
R-PIN sent PNCB June
December
to FCPF National Peru
Net Zero
Forest joins UN-
December Deforestation Conservation
conserve 54 by 2021 REDD
Program
million ha of forest

3. Media Discourse
(Perla et al in press)
Overlap =
9 articles
Climate
Change
REDD &
33 Forests
203

4. Drivers & Powerful Players
Annual Deforestation Rate = 0.2%
150,000 ha

5. [DFM1]Perhaps the scientific name could be added next to the common name?
Economics of Key Sectors
Based on 2010 National Statistics (INEI, UNODP)
Product Export %GDP
Mining $21.72 billion 5.7%
Gold 58,000,000 ha
$7.76 billion 2%
Petroleum & Gas $3.1 billion 0.8%
Agriculture and $7.6 billion 7.5%
3,113,000 ha
Livestock
Cocaine $10.7 billion n/a
Forestry Sector = 1% of GDP
61,200 ha

6. Area under cultivation
Product Area, National Area, Lower Amazon States
(hectares) (MDD, Loreto, Ucayali, SM)
Rice 388,532 85,403
Coffee 349,354 73,445
Banana 156,114 78,934
Maiz 542,657 62,621
Cassava 105,063 54,181
Cacau 77,147 36,800
Coca (legal & illegal) 61,200 6,558
Palm oil 19,055 19,055
Cattle ?? 191,000
Source: INEI, Cattle based on calculations based on INEI and FAO stats

7. Coca and Cocaine
Region Hectares
Cultivated
Cusco 19391
Huánuco 12759
Ayacucho 10800
Puno 4305
Ucayali 2803
Junín 3835
Loreto 2015
Pasco 1729
San Martín 1725
La Libertad 1061
Amazonas 429
Cajamarca 372
Madre de Dios 15
Source: UNODC 2011
www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crop_monitoring/index.html

8. Gold Mining – Madre de Dios
<title>
Photo: SPDA,
Actualidad Ambiental
 List 1
 List 2
 List 3
Source: Swensen et al 2011

9. Oil Palm
~20,000 ha
(Guitierrez et al 2011)

10. [DFM1]Perhaps the scientific name could be added next to the common name?
Economics of Key Sectors
Based on 2010 National Statistics (INEI, UNODP)
Product Export %GDP
Mining $21.72 billion 5.7%
Gold $7.76 billion 2%
Petroleum & Gas $3.1 billion 0.8%
Agriculture and S/. 20.2 billion 7.5%
Livestock
Cocaine $10.7 billion n/a
Forestry Sector = 1% of GDP
REDD funding to Peru govt = ~$127 million+

11. Proposed Institutional Arrangements for REDD
Propuesta A rreglos Institucionales PCM
Coordinación REDD+
Comité Director Donantes de REDD+
MINAM (Presidente)
Moore KfW FCPF FIP
MINAG, MEF, MINEM, MINRE
Mesas REDD Gobiernos Regionales Rep. Gobiernos Regionales
Rep. Donantes (voz sin voto)
Dir. Ejecutivo (voz sin voto)
Mesa REDD GTREDD (voz sin voto) FONAM PROFONANP E Otros
Comité Asesor
Indígena
(Grupo Técnico REDD)
Gestores de fondos de REDD+
Director
OCBR Ejecutivo
Administración
Aspectos socio -
Diseminación y Desarrollo Registro
Comunicación Institucional económica y MRV
SESA Nacional
Source: MINAM R‐PP

12. REDD Dreams vs REDD Reality
Dreams Reality
• Multi‐sectorial cooperation • Lack of cooperation between
and involvement sector & conflicting
• Coordinated national to initiatives
sub‐national • Sub‐national projects taking
implementation off with little government
• Equity through participation involvement
of indigenous groups and • Examples of unfair deals and
civil society lack of true FPIC and
• Evidence‐based decision consultation
making • Lack of consistent,
quantitative information of
high quality

13. Acknowledgements
The here presented data and analysis is part of the policy component of CIFOR’s global
comparative study on REDD (GCS) http://www.forestsclimatechange.org/global‐
comparative‐study‐on‐redd.html, led by Maria Brockhaus.
The methods and guidelines used in this research component were designed by Maria
Brockhaus, Monica Di Gregorio and Sheila Wertz‐Kanounnikoff. Parts of the
methodology are adapted from the research protocol for media and network
analysis designed by COMPON (‘Comparing Climate Change Policy Networks’).
In addition to those who helped with methods, we acknowledge contributors to this
study from DAR (Javier Martinez, Tania Garcia) and Libelula (Eduardo Burga, Talia
Postigo) as well as those who participated in interview
We gratefully acknowledge the support received from the Norwegian Agency for
Development Cooperation, the Australian Agency for International Development,
the UK Department for International Development, the European Commission, the
Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation,
the Program on Forests, and the US Agency for International Development.