Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The climate change mitigation mechanism Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in developing countries (REDD+) is currently being negotiated under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Integrating biodiversity monitoring into REDD+ facilitates compliance 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 biodiversity, 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, however, 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 functions, 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+.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AIDER (2010) Investigación en la Reserva Nacional Tambopata y el Parque Nacional Bahuaja Sonene en el ámbito de Madre de Dios. (Investigation in Tambopata National Reserve and in Bahuaja-Sonene National Park within the Department Madre de Dios). Asociación para la investigación y desarrollo integral (AIDER), Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • AMPA (2008) Plan de manejo de la concesión para conservación “Alto Huayabamba”. Anexo 10: plan de monitoreo. Amazónicos por la Amazonía (AMPA), CI, SPDA, Blue Moon Fund, Moyobamba

  • AMPA (2010) Proyecto de Reducción de Emisiones por Degradación y Deforestación—REDD en la Concesión para conservación “Alto Huayabamba”—CCAH. Ecosistemas de Jalca y Yungas. Amazonía Andina Norte del Perú. Asociación Amayónicos por la Amazonía (AMPA), Moyobamba

  • Barbieri PG (2006) Inventario rápido de los cuerpos de agua en la Carretera Interoceánica, tramo Acre-Masuco, antes de la pavimentación. Informe final. (Rapid inventory of water bodies along the Interoceanic Highway, sector Acre-Masuco, prior to paving. Final report). ACCA, Puerto Maldonado

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böttcher 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 Deforestation and Degradation’. Carbon Balance Manag 4:7. doi:10.1186/1750-0680-4-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle J, Murphy D (2012) Designing effective REDD+ safeguard information systems: building on existing systems and country experiences. ASB, IISD, Winnipeg

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CCBA (2008) Climate, Community & Biodiversity Project Design Standards, 2nd edn. Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA), Arlington

    Google Scholar 

  • CDC-UNALM (2006) Analisis del cobertura ecológica del sistema nacional de áreas naturales protegidas por el estado (Analysis of the ecological coverage of the national system of protected areas). Centro de Datos para la Conservación de la Universidad Agraria de La Molina (CDC-UNALM), TNC, Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.2012.08.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christie 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbera E, Schroeder H (2011) Governing and implementing REDD+. Environ Sci Policy 14(2):89–99. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delbaere (2002) An inventory of biodiversity indicators in Europe, 2002. Technical report No 92. EEA, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Encarnación F (2005) Zonificación ecológica y económica de la Región San Martín. Vegetación (Ecological and economical zoning of the Department San Martín. Vegetation). GORESAM, IIAP, Moyobamba

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2010) Global forest resources assessment—key findings. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • FCPF (2012) REDD readiness progress fact sheet of Peru, October 2012. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GOFC-GOLD (2012) A sourcebook of methods and procedures for monitoring and reporting anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman RL, Tallis H, Kareiva P, Daily GC (2008) Field evidence that ecosystem service projects support biodiversity and diversify options. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(27):9445–9448. doi:10.1073/pnas.0800208105

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • GoP (2010) Draft REDD readiness preparation proposal: Peru. Version, September 2010. Government of Peru (GoP), Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • GoP (2011) REDD readiness preparation proposal: Peru. Version, March 2011. Government of Peru (GoP), Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajek F, Ventresca MJ, Scriven J, Castro A (2011) Regime-building for REDD+: evidence from a cluster of local initiatives in south-eastern Peru. Environ Sci Policy 14(2):201–215. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.12.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: climate change impacts, adaptation 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkby CA, Giudice R, Day B, Turner K, Soares-Filho BS, Oliveira-Rodriguez H, Yu DW (2010) Closing the ecotourism-conservation loop in the Peruvian Amazon. Environ Conserv 38:6–17. doi:10.1017/S0376892911000099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C, Merenlender AM, Murphy DD (1994) Ecological monitoring—a vital need for integrated conservation and development programs in the Tropics. Conserv Biol 8(2):388–397. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08020388.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuckartz U (2010) Realizing mixed-methods approaches with MAXQDA. Philipps-Universität, Marburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen FW, Londoño-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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayers J, Bass S (2004) Policy that works for forests and people: real prospects for governance and livelihoods, vol 7. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayring P (2007) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. (Qualitative content analysis), 9th edn. Beltz, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott CL, Coad L, Helfgott A, Schroeder H (2012) Operationalizing social safeguards in REDD+: actors, interests and ideas. Environ Sci Policy 21:63–72. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.02.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meuser M, Nagel U (2005) ExpertInneninterviews—vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht (Expert interviews—often proven, rarely considered). In: Bogner A, Littig B, Menz W (eds) Das Experteninterviews—Theorie, Methode, Anwendung, 2nd edn. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp 71–93

    Google Scholar 

  • MINAM (2010a) Guía de evalucaión de fauna silvestre (Guide for wildlife evaluation). Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM), Dirección General de Evaluación, Valoración y Financiamiento del Patrimonio Natural, Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • MINAM (2010b) Guía de evalucaión de flora silvestre (Guide for the evaluation of flora). Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM), Dirección General de Evaluación, Valoración y Financiamiento del Patrimonio Natural, Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • MINAM (2010c) Lista de ecosistemas frágiles y areas prioritarias para la conservación en el Perú. (List of fragile ecosystems and priority areas for the conservation in Peru). Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM), Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • MINAM (2010d) Programa Nacional de Conservacion de Bosques para la mitigacion del Cambio Climatico. Manual de operaciones. (National forest conservation program for the mitigation of climate change. Manual for operations). Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM), Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • MINAM (2013) Guía metodológica para la elaboración de los instrumentos técnicos sustentorios para el ordenamiento territorial (Methodological guide for the elaboration of technical instruments für land use planning). Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM), Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ONERN (1976) Mapa ecológico del Perú: guía explicativa (Ecological map of Peru: guide for explanation). Oficina Nacional de Evaluacion de Recursos Naturales (ONERN), Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacheco V, Cadenillas R, Salas E, Tello C, Zeballos H (2009) Diversidad y endemismo de los mamíferos del Perú (Diversity and endemism of Peruvian mammals). Rev Peru Biol 61(1):5–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagiola S, Bosquet B (2009) Estimating the costs of REDD at the country level. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters-Stanley M, Yin D (2013) Maneuvering the mosaic. State of the voluntary carbon markets 2013. Ecosystem Marketplace, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfund J-L, Watts J, Boissière 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 management. Environ Manag 48(2):334–349. doi:10.1007/s00267-011-9689-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phelps J, Webb EL, Agrawal A (2010) Does REDD+ threaten to recentralize forest governance? Science 328(5976):312–313. doi:10.1126/science.1187774

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pitman NCA, Widmer J, Jenkins CN, Stocks G, Seales L, Paniagua F, Bruna EM (2011) Volume and geographical distribution of ecological research in the Andes and the Amazon, 1995–2008. Trop Conserv Sci 4(1):64–81

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz L (2009) Case study: developing a REDD project in Peru’s Cordillera Azul National Park. CIMA, Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder A (2009) Madre de Dios Amazon REDD Project (P-DD for CCBS). Greenoxx, Montevideo

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SERNANP (2009) Aplicación del programa de trabajo de Áreas Naturales Protegidas del Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica. Servicio Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas por el Estado (SERNANP), Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smeets E, Weterings R (1999) Environmental indicators: typology and overview. Technical report No. 25. EEA, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommerville MM, Milner-Gulland EJ, Jones JPG (2011) The challenge of monitoring biodiversity in payment for environmental service interventions. Biol Conserv 144(12):2832–2841. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.07.036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terborgh J, Nuñez-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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 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 21–52

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • UN-REDD (2011) UN-REDD programme social & environmental principles and criteria. UN-REDD Programme, Asunción

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamasaki SH, Tyrrell TD (2012) A background report on improving forest biodiversity monitoring and reporting. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/25. SCBD, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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 Protection 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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Earth and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Straße 4, 79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany

    Steffen K. Entenmann, Thomas A. M. Kaphegyi & Christine B. Schmitt

Authors
  1. Steffen K. Entenmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas A. M. Kaphegyi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christine B. Schmitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steffen K. Entenmann.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Online Resource 1

Additional information on REDD+ pilot projects in Peru (Table OR-1), the locations of the projects and the Departments San Martín and Madre de Dios (Fig. OR-1), additional information on the methods used in the paper (Table OR-2), examples of the statements of the actors (Table OR-3), descriptions of the publications identified in the interview survey (Table OR-4), costs (Table OR-5) and area-specific revenues from carbon projects (Table OR-6) (PDF 906 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Entenmann, S.K., Kaphegyi, T.A.M. & Schmitt, C.B. Forest Biodiversity Monitoring for REDD+: A Case Study of Actors’ Views in Peru. Environmental Management 53, 300–317 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0191-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0191-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation