12

years of professional experience

forthcoming

​

2020

Community-based forest monitoring is seen as a way both to improve community engagement and participation in national environmental payment schemes and climate mitigation priorities and to implement reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and foster conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (REDD+). There is a strong assumption among community-based monitoring advocates that community monitoring is a desirable approach. However, it is unclear why community members would want to participate in their own surveillance or be involved in a program likely to limit livelihood uses of forest areas and possibly even sanction them based on the data provided. This paper explores these issues by examining three communities involved in Peru’s Conditional Direct Transfer Program, in which indigenous communities are compensated for protecting communal forests through various mechanisms, including forest monitoring. The case studies focus specifically on communities that received smartphones and were trained in their use for monitoring. The results affirm the importance that benefits outweigh the costs of local participation to sustain motivation. They also point to key factors supporting the legitimacy of the program, specifically to overcome historical tensions between the state and indigenous communities. These include the nature of engagement by program implementers and the importance of building trust over time.

2018

REDD+ is an inherently multilevel process that requires attention across diverse levels and sectors of governance to bring about change on the ground. REDD+ strategies often focus on direct drivers of deforestation (and local actors). Effectively addressing the underlying causes likely requires challenging more powerful actors and development trajectories. Despite tensions over roles and responsibilities, subnational governments are engaging in important land-use debates and local decision making as new opportunities and innovations in multilevel governance emerge. Top-down solutions need to meet bottom-up realities with greater accountability, for example, by recognizing indigenous peoples and local communities as substantive rights-holders. Coordination across levels and sectors cannot always be achieved through negotiation: REDD+ and similar initiatives must go beyond technical criteria, engage with politics and support social movements to strengthen transformative coalitions.

2018

Key messages:

Subnational governments are key players in land and forest governance and are expected to meet demands for informed decision-making and transparency, particularly in the context of the emphasis on transparency in climate governance.
All three approaches reviewed are experiments in transparency, based on different understandings. The Sustainable Landscapes Rating Tool (SLRT) provides a comparative assessment of jurisdictions to be made publicly available; the Multilevel Governance Monitoring Process (MLGMP) aims to align interests and set targets around a landscape goal, through open, collective agreement; and the Participatory Governance Monitoring Process (PGMP) aims to provide collective reflection, creating transparency in opening male-dominated spaces to women’s participation.
Monitoring governance can become a political tool through which to reflect on local priorities and open or strengthen spaces for discussion.
As both governance and transparency may be locally determined, monitoring tools and approaches should be developed with the participation of local stakeholders or be adaptable to their experiences and priorities.

2016

​

2014

Key points:

Local governments, indigenous organizations, producer groups and government agriculture offices are noticeably absent from broad regional REDD+ discussions about benefit sharing.
The legitimacy of project-level benefit-sharing arrangements may be compromised if existing locally recognized institutions and actors are not integrated into both the design and implementation of benefit-sharing schemes.
Non-monetary benefits are currently more important than direct cash payments in existing benefit-sharing arrangements in Peru, especially because of the absence or delay of carbon payments.

2013

​