Is
a
cultural
approach
to
REDD+
enough
on
the
local
level?

7.2.3
Is
a
cultural
approach
to
REDD+
enough
on
the
local
level?


As
mentioned,
villagers
expressed
great
value
attached
to
the
standing
forest
for
very
 different
reasons,
which
imply
that
their
incentives
for
protecting
the
forest
is
complex.
It


soon
become
obvious
that
the
 villagers
in
Ipetí‐Emberá
see
the
 forest
as
their
livelihood
with
all
 the
cultural,
traditional
and
 social
factors
this
includes,
 which
creates
incentives
to
 protect
the
forest.
This
indicate
 that
a
cultural
approach
to
 REDD+
has
a
potential
in
Ipetí‐

Emberá
by
for
example


supporting
indigenous
peoples
 in
being
recognised
through
 self‐determination,
rights
to
 their
land
and
forest
resources
and
support
for
their
traditional
political
structures.
But
it
also
 seems
as
if
the
cultural
and
traditional
incentives
do
not
always
have
much
importance


against
economic
incentives
that
can
generate
income
for
an
easier
life⁴⁶,
with
more
material
 prosperity
and
economic
security
with
a
gas
cooker,
electricity,
refined
sugar,
cattle
ranging
 etc.
Therefore,
one
can
argue
that
neither
cultural
incentives
nor
economic
incentives
on
their
 own
can
solve
the
issue
of
deforestation
and
forest
degradation
in
communities
threatened
by
 deforestation.
Both
a
cultural
and
an
economical
approach
to
behaviour
are
important
to
 include
when
analysing
what
REDD+
could
provide
in
order
to
promote
sustainable
forest
 management.
This
is
in
line
with
the
certainty
of
the
answers
when
we
asked
the
villagers
 about
their
hopes
and
worries
regarding
both
the
existing
local
REDD+
project
and
potential
 







46
This
description
of
their
life
was
used
several
times
by
the
villagers.
They
expressed
that
life
today
is
easier
 but
not
necessarily
better
than
before


Illustration
27:
Picture
of
villagers
in
their
field
in
the
forest
planting
 trees



new
ones.
The
villagers’
expressed
a
hope
for
a
potential
win‐win
situation,
where
REDD+


could
be
a
solution
both
to
protect
the
forest
and
to
support
the
prosperity
of
their
 livelihoods.
One
could
argue
that
there
could
be
a
potential
synergy
between
economic
 development
in
the
community
and
forest
protection.
REDD+
could
generate
economic


possibilities
that
support
the
cosmovision,
tradition,
culture
and
knowledge
of
the
community
 in
favour
of
protecting
the
standing
forest
and
by
that
not
push
the
villagers
into
generating
 income
from
cutting
down
the
forest.
However,
on
the
other
hand,
based
on
the
examples
 from
Ipetí‐Emberá
it
is
also
evident
that
some
villagers
in
the
community
most
likely
would
 not
rely
much
on
the
cosmovision,
tradition,
culture
and
knowledge
in
order
to
develop
 REDD+
actions.
Instead
they
would
focus
on
the
income
generating
activities
of
REDD+,
even
 though
these
income
generation
activities
would
include
cutting
down
the
standing
forest.



7.3
Conclusion


All
in
all
this
discussion
shows
that
a
cultural
approach
to
REDD+
is
important
both
on
the
 national
and
the
local
level,
but
that
it
cannot
stand‐alone
as
economic
incentives
are
also
 important
among
indigenous
people.
The
cultural
approach
has
the
potential
to
drive
 cooperation
between
stakeholders
and
to
create
a
political
framework
that
support
 indigenous
local
stakeholders
in
maintaining
their
cosmovison,
traditions
and
culture
in
 favour
of
forest
protection.
However,
indigenous
peoples
also
call
for
economic
resources
to
 be
part
of
the
REDD+
negotiations
and
on
the
local
level
as
new
developments
are
happening
 towards
a
dependency
on
income,
which
also
dictate
the
behaviour
of
the
indigenous
peoples
 and
indicate
that
the
cultural
approach
to
REDD+
cannot
stand‐alone.



8
Conclusion



REDD+
is
a
programme
initiated
by
the
UNFCCC
that
aims
at
creating
positive
incentives
in
 developing
countries
in
order
to
reduce
emissions
from
deforestation
and
forest
degradation.


This
encourages
a
discussion
about
what
behavioural
approach
to
REDD+
can
ensure
the
aim
 of
REDD+
through
sustainable
forest
management:
a
restrictive,
an
economic
or
a
cultural
 approach.


Based
on
theoretical
and
empirical
perspectives
and
arguments
we
have
chosen
a
cultural
 approach
as
the
focus
of
analysis
for
this
thesis.






We
have
therefore
analysed
the
challenges
that
a
cultural
approach
to
REDD+
meets
in
the
 context
of
indigenous
peoples
in
Panama,
both
on
the
national
and
the
local
level.
To
do
this
 we
have
developed
an
Ideal
Bottom‐up
Model
for
REDD+
that
is
to
be
implemented
in
the
 REDD+
readiness
phase
in
order
to
ensure
indigenous
peoples’
involvement.
It
consists
of
the
 three
components:
An
early
consultation
process,
Clarifying
the
legal
framework
and
A
system
 for
ensuring
participation.
Based
on
empirical
findings
we
can
conclude
that
the
main


challenges
to
a
cultural
approach
to
REDD+
in
Panama
are:
a)
Different
understandings
of
 REDD+
concepts
and
issues,
b)
Challenges
with
political
structures
and
decision‐making
 arrangements
and
c)
Mistrust
between
stakeholders.
These
challenges
jeopardise
the


participation
of
indigenous
people
and
indigenous
peoples
rights
to
land,
forest
resources
and
 cultural
integrity.
Among
other
things,
this
could
mean
that
indigenous
peoples
cosmovision,
 traditions,
culture
and
knowledge
that
could
act
in
favour
of
sustainable
forest
management
 will
not
contribute
to
REDD+.
Moreover,
there
is
a
risk
that
their
forested
land
will
not
be
 included
in
REDD+
and
that
it
could
be
invaded
by
outsiders
to
carry
out
activities
that
could
 drive
deforestation
and
forest
degradation.
A
last
consequence
is
that
it
could
jeopardise
the
 opportunity
for
creating
face‐to‐face
communication
and
the
bridging
of
relations,
both
on
the
 national
and
local
level
that
could
support
cooperation
on
how
to
establish
sustainable
forest
 management
through
REDD+.
Therefore,
these
challenges
can
be
seen
as
indirect
drivers
of
 deforestation.
This
indicates
that
a
cultural
approach
to
REDD+
is
important
to
the
success
of
 REDD+.






However,
the
question
is
if
a
cultural
approach
to
REDD+
in
itself
can
prevent
deforestation
 and
forest
degradation
through
sustainable
forest
management
on
the
national
and
the
local
 level?
Based
on
our
empirical
findings
we
will
conclude
that
the
cultural
approach
to
REDD+


is
important
for
the
implementation
both
on
the
national
and
the
local
level,
as
it
encourage
 cooperation
between
stakeholders
and
a
political
framework
that
support
both
national
and
 local
indigenous
stakeholders
in
maintaining
their
cosmovision,
traditions,
culture
and
 knowledge
in
favour
of
forest
protection.
However
the
cultural
approach
to
REDD+
cannot
 stand
alone,
as
we
also
found
indications
that
economic
incentives
drive
indigenous
peoples’


behaviour
as
well.
On
the
national
level
indigenous
stakeholders
call
for
economic
resources
 to
carry
out
activities
and
participate
in
REDD+
and
for
economic
benefits
from
REDD+.
On
 the
local
level
we
saw
indications
that
cultural
incentives
do
not
always
or
for
all
villagers
 have
much
importance
compared
to
economic
incentives,
as
indigenous
people
are
becoming
 more
dependent
on
income.



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 


References






Accra
Caucus
(2011):
Is
REDD­readiness
taking
us
in
the
right
direction?
Case
studies
from
the
 Accra
Caucus






AIPP
&
IWGIA
(2010):
REDD+
and
Indigenous
Peoples
–
a
Briefing
Paper
for
Policy
Makers,
 Chiang
Mai
Thailand,
Published
by
Asia
Indigenous
Peoples’
Pact
(AIPP)
and
the
International
 Work
Group
for
Indigenous
Affairs
(IWGIA)
Chiang
Mai





AIPP
&
IWGIA
(2012):
What
is
REDD+?
A
guide
for
indigenous
communities,
Chiang
Mai
 Thailand,
Published
by
Asia
Indigenous
Peoples’
Pact
(AIPP)
and
the
International
Work
 Group
for
Indigenous
Affairs
(IWGIA)
Chiang
Mai





Agrawal,
A.
&
Angelsen,
A.
(2009):
Using
community
forest
management
to
achieve
REDD+


goals,
In
A.
Angelsen
(eds.):
Realising
REDD+,
National
strategy
and
policy
options,
CIFOR
 


Agrawal,
A.

Fred
Nelson,
William
M.
Adams
&
Sandbrook,
C.
(2010):
Governance
and
REDD:
a

 reply
to
Wunder,
Oryx,
44,
pp
337‐338











Alvarado,
L.X.R.
&
Wertz‐Kanounnikoff,
S.
(2007):
Why
are
we
seeing
´REDD´?
An
analysis
of
 the
international
debate
of
reducing
emissions
from
deforestation
and
degradation
in


developing
countries.
Analysis,
Institute
dud
éveloppment
durable
et
des
relations
 internationals,
Paris





ANAM
(2011):
Atlas
Ambiental
de
la
Rebública
de
Panama
(2010),
Gobierno
Nacional
 Rebública
de
Panama
y
Autoridad
Nacional
del
Ambiente





anati.gob.pa
(2013):
Autoridad
Nacional
de
Administración
de
Tierras
(The
national
authority
 of
land
administration),
Downloaded
10.01.13


http://www.anati.gob.pa/mquienessomos/mvisionymision
 


Andreve,
J.,
Diaz,
E.
&
Masardule,
O.
(unknown):
Kuna
Yala:
self­Governance
and
FPIC,
 Downloaded
17.11.12


http://www.thai‐ips.org/Documents/Panama‐case‐study‐on‐FPIC.pdf

 


Appleton,
S.
&
Booth,
D.
(2005):
Strong
fences
make
good
neighbours:
survey
and
 participatory
appraisal
methods
in
poverty
assessment
and
poverty
reduction
strategy
 monitoring,
In
J.
Holland
&
J.
Campbell
(ed):
Methods
in
Development
Research:
Combining
 Qualitative
and
Quantitative
Approaches,
pp.
119‐135,
Practical
Action
Publishing





Baccini,
A.,
Goetz,
S.J.,
Walker,
W.S.,
Laporte,
N.T.,
Sun,
M.,
Sulla‐Manashe,
D.,
Hackler,
J.,
Beck,
 P.S.A.,
Dubayah,
R.,
Friedl,
M.A.
(2012):
Estimated
carbon
dioxide
emissions
from
tropical
 deforestation
improved
by
carbon
density
maps.
Nature
Climate
Change
2:
182‐185.





Barry,
B.
&
Hardin,
R.
(1982):
Rational
Man
and
Irrational
society?
An
Introduction
and
 sourcebook,
London,
Sage
Publications





Bernard,
R.
(2006):
Research
methods
in
anthropology,
Qualitative
and
quantitative
 approaches,
AltaMira
Press





Brown,
D.,
Seymour,
F.
&
Peskett,
L.
(2008):
How
do
we
achieve
REDD
co‐benefits
and
avoid
 doing
harm?
In:
A.
Angelsen
(eds.)
Moving
ahead
with
REDD:
issues,
options
and
implications,
 107‐118.
CIFOR.





Bryman
(2004):
Social
Research
Methods,
second
edition,
Oxford
University
Press
Inc,
New
 York,
the
United
States



Busch,
J.,
Lubowski
R.N.,
Godoy
F.,
Steininger
M.,
Yusuf
A.A.,
Austin
K.,
Hewsona
J.,
Juhna
D.,
 Faride
M.
&
Boltzf,
F.
(2011):
Structuring
economic
incentives
to
reduce
emissions
from
 deforestation
within
Indonesia,
PNAS,
January
24,
vol.
19,
no
4





Boserup,
E.
(1965):
The
Conditions
of
Agricultural
Growth,
The
Economics
of
Agrarian
Change
 under
Population
Pressure,
George
Allen
&
Unwin
LTD,
Ruskin
House
Museum
Street,
London
 


Börner,
J.,
Wunder,
S.,
Wertz‐Kanounnikoff,
S.,
Tito,
M.R.,
Pereira,
L.
&
Nascimento,
N.
(2010):


Direct
conservation
payments
in
the
Brazilian
Amazon:
scope
and
equity
implications,
 Ecological
Economics
69(6):
1272‐1282.





Casse,
T.
(2012):
The
international
debate
on
forest
management
transfer
and
our
contribution,
 Les
Cahiers
d’Outre‐Mer,
n°
257





Chambers,
R.
(2008):
Revolutions
in
Development
Inquiry,
Earthscan
 


Charapa
Consult,
Legal
Assistance
Center,
Mainyito
Pastoralist
Organisation
&
Rainforest
 Foundation
UK
(2012):
Methodological
manual,
Case
studies
on
indigenous
peoples
and
climate
 change
in
Africa





CIA
–
The
World
factbook
(2012):
The
World
factbook,
Panama


https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the‐world‐factbook/geos/pm.html
 


Ciudad
del
Saber
(2012):
Ciudad
del
Saber
Panama,
The
City
of
Knowledge

 http://www.ciudaddelsaber.org/panama‐city/population






clubofrome.org
(2013):
The
Club
of
Rome
 www.clubofrome.org





Cohen,
P.
(1987):
Participant
Observation.
In
R.
F.
Ellen
Ethnographic
Research,
A
Guide
to
 General
Conduct,
Academic
Press,
London





Cornwall,
A.
&
Bruck,
K.
(2005):
Beyond
Buzzwords
“Poverty
Reduction”,
“Participation”
and


“Empowerment”
in
Development
Policy,
United
Nations
Research
Institute
for
Social
 Development






COONAPIP
(2009):
Balu
Wala
Methodology
 


COONAPIP
(2011a):
Estatuto
de
COONAPIP
(articles
of
association
of
COONAPIP),
Panama
 


COONAPIP
(2011b):
Plan
Estratégico
de
Incidencia
Política
2011‐2015
(strategic
plan
for
 political
influence
2011‐2015),
Panama






COONAPIP
(2012):
Indigenous
Peoples
and
REDD,
Annex
1.4
INDIGENOUS
PEOPLES
AND
 REDD,
Letter
to
ANAM
and
UN‐REDD
20.06.12,
COONAPIP





Corbin,
J.
&
Strauss,
A.
(2008):
Introduction.
In
Corbin,
J.
&
A.
Strauss,
Basics
of
Qualitative
 Research
pp.
1‐17,
SAGE
Publications





Dam,
C.
V.
(2011):
Indigenous
Territories
and
REDD
in
Latin
America:
Opportunity
or
Threat?


Forests
2011,
2,
394‐414
 


Davenport,
D.,
Bulkan,
J.,
Hajjar,
R.
&
and
Hardcastle,
P.
(2010):
Forest
and
sustainability.
In
J.


Rayner,
A.
Buck
&
P.
Katila
(eds.):
Embracing
complexity:
Meeting
the
challenges
of


international
forest
governance,
A
Global
Assessment
Report
Prepared
by
the
Global
Forest
 Expert
Panel
on
the
International
Forest
Regime,
IUFRO
World
Series
Vol.
28



DeWalt,
K.M.
&
DeWalt,
D.
(2002):
Participant
Observation,
A
guide
for
fieldworkers,
AltaMira
 Press






Dietz,
P.,
Ostrom,
E
&
Stern,
P.C.
(2003):
The
struggle
to
Govern
the
Commons,
Published
in
 Science
302,
1907;
DOI:
10.1126/science.1091015





Dooley,
K.
(2013):
FW
Special
Report
–
Doha
climate
talks,
November
26
–
December
7,
EU
 Forest
Watch
2012






FERN
et
al.
(2012):
REDD+:
An
incentive
structure
for
long­term
performance,
A
discussion
 paper
for
the
UNFCCC
session
in
Bangkok.





FERN
(2012):
The
Story
of
REDD
–
a
real
solution
to
deforestation?
30.04.12

 http://www.fern.org/storyofREDD





Ferraro,
P.
&
Hanauer,
M.
(2011):
Protecting
ecosystems
and
alleviating
poverty
with
parks
and
 reserves:
‘win­win’
or
tradeoffs?
Environmental
and
Resource
Economics
48(2):
269‐286.





Forests
of
the
World
(2012):
Verdens
Skoves
klimaposition,
13.01.2012
 


Forest
peoples
Programme
(2011):
REDD+
systems
on
providing
information
on
safeguards
 (SIS):
Inclusion
of
data
relevant
for
indigenous
peoples,
Forest
Peoples
Programme






Gaskell,
G.
(2000):
Individual
and
Group
Interviewing.
In
Bauer,
M.V.
&
Gaskell,
G.:
Qualitative
 Researching
with
Text,
Image
and
Sound,
SAGE
Research
Methods





Gillenwater,
M.,
Broekhoff,
D.,
Trexler,
M.,
Hyman,
J.
&
Fowler,
R.
(2007):
Policing
the
 Voluntary
Carbon
Marked,
Nature
reports
Climate
Change,
Vol.
6





Gokah,
T.
(2006):
The
Naïve
Researcher:
Doing
Social
Research
in
Africa,
International
Journal
 of
Social
Research
Methodology
Vol.
9,
No.
1





Griffiths,
T.
(2007):
Seeing
‘RED’?
‘Avoided
deforestation’
and
the
rights
of
indigenous
peoples
 and
local
communities,
Forest
Peoples
Programme.





guardian.co.uk
(2012):
The
Guardian,
Panama's
village
leader
Silvia
Carrera
defies
a
 president,
19.12.12


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/19/panama‐protest‐silvia‐carrera
 


Hansen,
F.
&
Simonsen,
K.
(2004):
Geografiens
Videnskabsteori
–
en
introducerende
discussion,
 Roskilde
Universitetsforlag,
Denmark






Hagen,
R.
(2005):
Rational
choice.
In
H.
Andersen
&
L.
B.
Kaspersen:
Klassisk
og
moderne
 samfundsteori,
Hans
Rietzels
Forlag






Hardin,
G.
(1968):
Tragedy
of
the
commons,
Science
13
December
1968:
Vol.
162
no.
3859
 
Harp,
W.
(1994):
Ecology
and
cosmology:
rain
forest
exploitation
among
the
Emberá,
Nature
&


Ressources,
Traditional
Knowledge
in
Tropical
environments,
UNESCO,
Vol.
30,
No
1
 


Harrington,
W.
&
Morgenstern,
R.
D.
(2004):
Economic
Incentives
versus
Command
and
Control,
 What’s
the
best
approach
for
solving
environmental
problems?






Harvey,
C.A.,
Zerbock,
O.,
Papageorgiou,
S.
and
Parra,
A.
(2010):
What
is
needed
to
make
 REDD+
work
on
the
ground?
Lessons
learned
from
pilot
forest
carbon
initiatives,
Conservation
 International,
Arlington,
VA,
USA.






Helvetas
Swiss
Intercooperation,
Ecole
Supérieure
des
Sciences
Agronomiques
&


Département
des
Eaux
et
Forêts
Madagascar
(2011):
REDD+
from
a
bottom­up
perspective:


tools
for
implementing
REDD+
with
a
mechanism
for
direct
incentives,
Swiss
Agency
for
 Development
&
Cooperation
Bern,
Switzerland.





Herrera,
F.
(2000):
Las
lecciones
de
Bayano.
La
otra
cuenca
del
Canal?
Oportunidad
o
amenaza?


Panamá
Hoy
8:48–55

 


Heynig,
K.
(1982):
The
principal
schools
of
thought
on
the
peasant
economy,
CEPAL
Review
16,
 p
113‐139.





Holmes,
I.,
Brunet,
P.
&
Potvin,
C.
(unpublished):
The
ipetí­Emberá
Carbon
Project
–
Interim
 report
on
the
implementation
of
the
STRI­OUDCIE
carbon
project,
September
2012,
Neotropical
 Ecology
Laboratory
(McGill
University,
Department
of
Biology),
Smithsonian
Tropical


Research
Institute.







Hutton,
J.
M.,
Adams,
W.
M.
&
Murombedzi,
J.
C.
(2005):
Back
to
the
barriers?
Changing
 narratives
in
biodiversity
conservation,
Forum
for
Development
Studies
17:
365‐380.





ILO
(2009):
Indigenous
&
Tribal
peoples´
rights
in
practice
–
a
guide
to
ILO
convention
No.
169,
 Programme
to
promote
ILO
convention
no.
169
(PRO
169)
International
Labour
Standards
 Department.





IPCC
(2007):
IPCC
Fourth
Assessment
Report
­
Climate
Change
2007:
Synthesis
Report,
The
 Intergovernmental
Panel
on
Climate
Change,
Geneve,
Switzerland





Karky,
B.S.
(2008):
The
economics
of
reducing
emissions
from
community
managed
forest
in
 Nepal
Himalaya,
PhD
Thesis,
University
of
Twente,
Enschede,
Netherlands.





Kirby
K.R.,
Laurance
W.
F.,
Albernaz
A.
K.,
Schroth
G.,
Fearnside
P.
M.,
Bergen
S.,
Venticinque
E.


M.
&
Costa,
C.
(2006):
The
future
of
deforestation
in
the
Brazilian
Amazon,
Futures
38(4):
432–

453

 


Kissinger,
G.,
M.
Herold
&
V.
De
Sy
(2012):
Drivers
of
Deforestation
and
Forest
Degradation:
A
 Synthesis
Report
for
REDD+
Policymaker,
Lexeme
Consulting,
Vancouver
Canada.





Lambrechts,
C.,
Wilkie,
M.
L.,
Rucevska,
L.
&
Sen,
M.
(eds.)
(2009):
Vital
Forest
Graphics,
 Stopping
the
Downswing?
UNEP
&
FAO
&
UNFF,
Produced
by
UNEP/GRIP‐Arendal
 


La
Rose,
J.
(2012):
Guyana
‐
Indigenous
Peoples
and
Inadequate
Consultation
on
REDD+,
In
 Accra
Caucus:
National
REDD+
processes:
a
complication
of
case
studies
to
inform
negotiations
 at
COP
18






Larson,
A.M.
(2011):
Forest
tenure
reform
in
the
age
of
climate
change:
lessons
for
REDD+,
 Global
Environmental
Change
21(2):
540‐549.





Larson,
A.M.
&
Ribot,
J.C.
(2009):
Lessons
from
forestry
decentralisation.
In
A.
Angelsen
(eds.)
 Realising
REDD+,
national
strategy
and
policy
options.
Center
for
International
Forestry
 Research
CIFOR,
Bogor,
Indonesia.





Larson,
A.,
Brockhaus,
M.
&
Sunderlin
D.W.
(2012):
Tenure
matters
in
REDD+,
Lessons
from
the
 field.
In
A.
Angelsen,
M.
Brockhaus,
D.W
Sunderlin
&
L.V.
Verchot
(eds.):
Analysing
REDD+,
 Challenges
and
choices,
CIFOR





Lawlor,
K.,
Olander,
L.P.
&
Weinthal,
E.
(2009):
Sustaining
Livelihoods
while
Reducing


Emissions
from
Deforestation:
options
for
policymakers.
Working
paper,
Nicholas
Institute
for
 Environmental
Policy
Solutions,
Durham,
NC,
USA





Malthus,
T.R.
(1798):
An
Essay
on
the
Principle
of
Population,
London
 


May,
P.H.,
Boyd,
E.,
Veiga,
F.
and
Chang,
M.
(2004):
Local
sustainable
development
effects
of
 forest
carbon
projects
in
Brazil
and
Bolivia:
a
view
from
the
field,
International
Institute
for
 Environment
and
Development,
London.






Meadows,
D.,
Randers,
J.
&
Meadows,
D.
(1972):
Limits
to
Growth,
The
30­Year
Update,
Chelsea
 Green
(United
States
&
Canada)
Earthscan
(United
Kingdom
and
Commonwealth)
Diamond,
 Inc
(Japan)
Kossoth
Publishing
Company
(Hungary)





Meridian
Institute
(2009a):
REDD+
Institutional
Options
Assessment,
Developing
an
Efficient,
 Effective,
and
Equitable
Institutional
Framework
for
REDD+
under
the
UNFCCC





Meridian
Institute
(2009b):
Reducing
emissions
from
deforestation
and
forest
degradation:
an
 options
assessment
report,
Prepared
for
the
Government
of
Norway,
by
Angelsen,
A.,
Brown,
S.,
 Loisel,
C.,
Peskett,
L.,
Streck,
C.
&
Zarin,
D.






Mikkelsen,
B.
(eds.)(2005):
Participatory
Methods
in
Use,
In
Methods
for
Development
Work
 and
Research:
A
New
guide
for
Practitioners
pp.
87‐123,
SAGE
Publications





Mik‐Meyer
&
Järvinen
(2005):
Indledning,
Kvalitative
metoder
i
et
interaktionistisk
 perspektiv,


In
M.
Järvinen
&
N.
Mik‐Meyer
(eds):
Kvalitative
metoder
i
et
interaktionistisk
perspektiv,
Hans
 Reitzels
Forlag





Mogaka,
H.,
Simons,
G.,
Turpie,
J.,
Emerton,
L.
&

Karanja,
F.
(2011):
Economic
aspects
of


community
involvement
in
Sustainable
Forest
Management
in
Eastern
and
Southern
Africa,
NRI


&
IUCN
 


Montello,
D.R.
(2001):
Scale
in
Geography.
In
N.
J.
Smelser
&
P.
B.
Baltes
(eds),
International
 Encyklopedia
of
the
Social
and
Behavioural
sciences,
pp
13501‐13504,
Oxford,
Pergamon
Press
 


Mosse,
D.
(2005):
Cultivating
Development.
An
Ethnography
of
Aid
Policy
and
Practice,
 Anthropology
Culture
Society,
Pluto
Press





Mukungu,
J.
(2012):
Democratic
Republic
of
Congo
(DRC)
–
Civil
society
problems
related
to
 participation
and
consultations
on
REDD+,
In
Accra
Caucus:
National
REDD+
processes:
a
 complication
of
case
studies
to
inform
negotiations
at
COP
18





Müller,
R.,
Müller,
D.,
Schierhorn,
F.,
Gerold,
G.,
&
Pacheco,
P.
(2012):
Proximate
causes
of
 deforestation
in
the
Bolivian
lowlands:
an
analysis
of
spatial
dynamics,
Reg
Environ
Change
 (2012)
12:445–459





Noredd
(2012):
No
REDD
 http://noredd.makenoise.org
 


Ostrom,
E.
(1990):
Governing
the
Commons:
The
Evolution
of
Institutions
for
Collective
Action,
 Cambridge
University
Press.





Ostrom,
E.
(1998):
A
Behavial
Approach
to
the
Rational
Choice
Theory
of
Collective
Action,
 Presidential
Address
American
Political
Science
Association,
1997
in
The
American
Political
 Science
Review,
Vol.
92,
No.
1
(Mar.
1998),
pp
1‐22






Ostrom,
E.
(2006):
The
value­added
of
laboratory
experiments
for
the
study
of
institutions
and
 common­pool
resources,
Journal
of
Economic
Behavior
&
Organization
Vol.
61
(2006)
149–163

 


Ostrom,
E.
(2008):
Building
trust
to
solve
commons
dilemmas:
Taking
small
steps
to
test
an
 envolving
theory
of
collective
action,
Workshop
in
Political
Theory
and
Policy
Analysis

 Indiana
University
&
Center
for
the
Study
of
Institutional
Diversity
Arizona
State
University
 


Ostrom,
E.
(2010):
Beyond
markets
and
states:
Polycentric
governance
of
complex
economic
 systems.
American
Economic
Review
100(June
2010):
641‐672.




Ostrom,
E.
&
Nagendra,
H.
(2006):
Insights
on
linking
forests,
trees,
and
people
from
the
air,
on
 the
ground,
and
in
the
laboratory,
Proceedings
of
the
National
Academy
of
Sciences
103(51):


19224‐19231
 


Ostrom,
E.
&
Walker,
J.
(1991):
Communication
in
a
Commons:
Cooperation
without
External
 Enforcement.
In
T.
R.
Palfrey
(eds.)
Laboratory
Research
in
Political
Economy,
287–322,
Ann
 Arbor,
University
of
Michigan
Press.






Rainforest
Foundation
UK,
FERN,
Friends
of
the
Earth
(2010):
Civil
Society
supports
growing
 rejection
of
carbon
trading
to
finance
REDD,
Press
release
09.12.2010





Parker,
C.,
Mitchell,
A.,
Trivedi,
M.
&
Mardas,
N.
(2008):
The
Little
REDD
Book
­
A
guide
to
 governmental
and
non­governmental
proposals
for
reducing
emissions
from
deforestation
and
 degradation,
Global
Canopy
Programme,
Oxford,
England





Pelletier,
J.,
Ramankutty,
N.
&
Potvin,
C.
(2011):
Diagnosing
the
uncertainty
and
detectability
of
 emission
reductions
for
REDD
+
under
current
capabilities:
an
example
for
Panama,


Environmental
Research
Letters
6
(2011)
 


Peskett,
L.
(2010):
Benefit
Sharing
in
REDD+.
Exploring
the
implications
for
Poor
and
 Vulnerable
People,
REDD
net,
The
World
Bank





Peskett,
L.,
Schreckenberg,
K.
&
Brown,
J.
(2011):
Institutional
approaches
for
carbon
financing
 in
the
forest
sector:
learning
lessons
for
REDD+
from
forest
carbon
projects
in
Uganda,


Environmental
Science
&
Policy
14
(2011)
216‐229

 


Phelps,
Jacob;
Edward,
Webb
L.
&
Koh,
Lian
P.
(2010a):
Risky
business:
an
uncertain
future
for
 biodiversity
conservation
finance
through
REDD,
Institute
biology
and
ecology






Phelps,
Jacob;
Webb,
Edward
L.
&
Agrawal,
Arun
(2010b):
Does
REDD+
Threaten
to
 Redecentralize
Forest
Governance?,
Policy
Forum,
SceinceVol.
328






Potvin,
C.,
Tschakert,
P.,
Lebel,
F.,
Kirby,
K.,
Barrios,
H.,
Bocariza,
J.,
Caisamo,
J.,
Caisamo,
L.,

 Cansari,
C.,
Casamá,
J.,
Casamá,
M.,
Chamorra,
L.,
Dumasa,
N.,
Goldenberg,
S.,
Guainora,
V.,
 Hayes,
P.,
Moore,
T.
&
Ruíz
J.
(2007):
Participatory
approach
to
the
establishment
of
a
baseline


scenario
for
a
reforestation
Clean
Development
Mechanism
project,
Springer
Science
and
 Business
Media
B.V.
2006






Putnam,
R.D.
(2007):
E
Pluribus
Unum:
Diversity
and
Community
in
the
Twenty­first
Century,
 Scandinavian
Political
Studies,
Vol.
30
–
No.
2,
2007,
p.
137‐74






pulitzercenter.org
(2012):
Pulitzer
Center
on
Crisis
reporting,
Panama:
The
New
 Conquistadors,
04.11.12


http://pulitzercenter.org/projects/panama‐canada‐gold‐copper‐mining‐protests‐

environmental‐destruction




Rayner
J.,
Buck,
A.
&
Katila,
P.
(eds.)
(2010):
Embracing
Complexity:
Meeting
the
challenges
of
 international
forest
governance,
A
Global
Assessment,
International
Union
of
Forest
Research
 Organizations,
IUFRO
World
Series
Vol.
28





Reed,
P.
(2011):
REDD+
and
the
Indigenous
Question:
A
Case
Study
from
Ecuador,
Forests
2011,
 2,
525‐549





Resosudarmo,
I.,
Duchelle,
A.,
Ekaputri,
A.
&
Sunderlin,
W.
(2012):
Local
hopes
and
worries
 about
REDD+
projects.
In
A.
Angelsen,
M.
Brockhaus,
D.W
Sunderlin
&
L.V.
Verchot
(eds.):


Resosudarmo,
I.,
Duchelle,
A.,
Ekaputri,
A.
&
Sunderlin,
W.
(2012):
Local
hopes
and
worries
 about
REDD+
projects.
In
A.
Angelsen,
M.
Brockhaus,
D.W
Sunderlin
&
L.V.
Verchot
(eds.):


In document REDD+ Becoming Reality - A case study of indigenous peoples' involvement in the REDD+ readiness process in Panama (Page 102-137)