Governing the diverse forest: Polycentric climate governance in the Amazon

Go e ning he di e se o es : Polycen ic clima e go e nance in he Amazon F onika de Wi ⇑ , João Mou a o Ins i u e o Social Sciences, Uni e si y o Lisbon, Po ugal a icle in o A icle his o y: Accep ed 5 May 2022 A ailable online 19 May 2022 Keywo ds: Amazon Clima e change In e cul u al jus ice Knowledge go e nance Polycen ic go e nance abs ac The Amazon is apidly app oaching i s ipping poin , which could u n a once enchan ed opical ain o es in o a d y, ca bon-emi ing sa annah. This will ha e ca as ophic impac s well beyond he Sou h-Ame ican con inen and i s inhabi an s. The egion is acing a nowadays amilia challenge o comba ing clima e change and p omo ing social jus ice. In e na ional clima e go e nance is p o ing ine - ec i e, as i ails o inco po a e he long e m wellbeing o local communi ies. Demands o jus ice ha e led o calls o mo e polycen ic clima e go e nance. This app oach aims o p o ide a cul u e-speci ic and place-based app oach o dealing wi h he possible consequences o clima e change o social jus ice and sus ainable li elihoods. This a icle examines he scope o in oducing In e cul u al Polycen ic Clima e Go e nance (IPCG) o he Amazon. We selec wo examples o subna ional clima e go e nance and indigenous peoples’ pa icipa ion in he Amazon as ou case s udies: he S a e o Ac e in B azil and he egional depa men o Ucayali in Pe u. Bo h a e seen as pionee s o in e cul u al clima e go e nance in hei na ional con ex s, and bo h ha e es ablished indigenous wo king g oups gea ed o p omo e he p o ision o in e cul u al ai ness wi hin hei egional go e nance mechanisms. We conduc ed a quali a i e con en analysis, bo h o ou in e iews and ele an policy documen s. Ou s udy highligh s h ee challenges o success ul IPCG: 1) o e coming in e cul u al injus ices; 2) inc easing meaning ul pa icipa ion; and 3) illing go e nance gaps. Ou indings e eal ha he e is s ill some way o go o mee hese ou comes. B idging polycen ici y and in e cul u ali y, di e se sys ems o knowledge and hei adhe en s need o be be e app ecia ed and inco po a ed as pa o he p ocess o eassessing he pu - pose o IPCG. Only hen, will we see he handling o he u u e o he enchan ing Amazon in a holis ic way: so much mo e han me e ca bon s o age. Ó2022 The Au ho s. Published by Else ie L d. This is an openaccessa icle unde he CC BY-NC-ND license (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). 1. In oduc ion ‘‘The whi e people do no ask hemsel es whe e he o es ’s alue o g ow h we call ne ope comes om. They p obably hink ha plan s g ow alone, wi hou a eason. O else hey ake hemsel es o g ea wo ke s, able o make plan s g ow solely h ough hei own e o s. They e en call us lazy because we do no des oy as many ees as hey do.” (Kopenawa & Albe , 2013, p. 382) Da i Kopenawa is a shaman and spokesman o he Yanomami people li ing in he B azilian Amazon. His wo k embodies a plea o local ac ion and people-cen e ed de elopmen ha espec s indigenous igh s o p ese e he Amazon. The Amazonian ain- o es is a so-called ‘ ipping elemen ’ in he wo ld’s ea h clima e sys em (Len on e al., 2008): A combina ion o egional de o es a- ion quasi-pe manen g ound i es and ising global emissions will likely ans o m i in o a d y sa annah and ne ca bon emi e (IPCC, 2014). Recen ly, Lo ejoy and Nob e (2019) wa ned ha he Amazon is ‘ ee e ing on he edge o unc ional des uc ion’. Unp eceden ed d ough s o 2005, 2010 and 2015 he ald upcoming ipping poin s (Sampaio e al., 2019). Pe sis en de o es a ion endange s he ain o es ’s esilience: The Amazon ipping poin is expec ed o be igge ed when i s de o es a ion eaches a o al o 20% o 25%, a me e 5% inc ease o cu en de o es a ion le els (Ca alho e al., 2020; Lo ejoy & Nob e, 2019; Nob e e al., 2016). A ipping poin ansg ession will ha e ca as ophic impac s, no only h ough he loss o i al ecological se ices wi h a loss o biodi e si y and an ex eme dec ease o he o es ’s ca bon seques a ion po en ial. I will also educe wa e secu i y o he Sou h Ame ican con inen (Walke , 2021). Especially ulne able o his ca as ophe a e he o e 400 indigenous peoples, whose h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.wo ldde .2022.105955 0305-750X/Ó2022 The Au ho s. Published by Else ie L d. This is an open access a icle unde he CC BY-NC-ND license (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). ⇑ Co esponding au ho a : Uni e si y o Lisbon, Ins i u e o Social Sciences, A . P o esso Anibal de Be encou 9, 1600-189 Lisbon, Po ugal. E-mail add esses: [email p o ec ed] (F. de Wi ), joao.mou a o@ics. ulisboa.p (J. Mou a o). Wo ld De elopmen 157 (2022) 105955 Con en s lis s a ailable a ScienceDi ec Wo ld De elopmen jou nal homepage: www.else ie .com/loca e/wo ldde li elihoods depend on he ecosys em se ices p o ided by he opical ain o es (K onik & Ve ne , 2010). These peoples play a c ucial ole in p e en ing he Amazon’s unc ional des uc ion. Indigenous e i o ies ha e p o en o be an impo an bu ess agains de o es a ion (Alenca e al., 2016; Fo d e al., 2020). I i ma e ializes, his socio-en i onmen al disas e will ende useless much o he mobilizing e o s o he Agenda 2030 and i s Sus ain- able De elopmen Goals (SDGs) (Richa dson & E delen, 2020; S e en e al., 2018). Tipping elemen s, such as he Amazon, a e o g ea conce n o global clima e go e nance and equi e a undamen al es uc u ing o go e nance a angemen s (Galaz, C ona, Ös e blom, Olsson, & Folke, 2012; Rocks om e al., 2009). Decades o in e na ional en i- onmen al conse a ion e o s show ha nei he he in e na ional communi y no na ional go e nmen s can ensu e he necessa y conse a ion e o s (E. Os om, 2010a). The wo king al e na i e is ha go e ning clima e change and educing emissions om de o es a ion and o es deg ada ion (REDD) is a collec i e ac ion p oblem ha needs a polycen ic app oach (Ag awal, Neps ad, & Chha e, 2011; Duchelle e al., 2014; Nagend a & Os om, 2012; Neps ad, Boyd, S ickle , Beze a, & Aze edo, 2013). Polycen ic go - e nance (PG) s ands o ‘‘many cen e s o decision-making which a e o mally independen o each o he [...] o he ex en ha hey ake each o he in o accoun [...]” (V. Os om, Tiebou , & Wa en, 1961, p. 831). Resea ch on PG a angemen s is apidly inc easing, highligh ing he impo ance o local ac ion, si e-speci ic condi ions, mu ual adjus men , expe imen a ion and lea ning, and us build- ing (Do sch & Flachsland, 2017; Jo dan, Hui ema, Assel , & Fo s e , 2018). Recen esea ch has poin ed o he mul iple dimensions o powe , and he many in e sec ions be ween powe and ins i u ions in PG (Kashwan, MacLean, & Ga cía-López, 2019). Powe dynamics and asymme ies a e o en a ‘black box’ (Mo ison e al., 2017, 2019). This esea ch s eam on ‘Powe and Ins i u ions’ (See Ag awal & Gibson, 1999; Ag awal & Ribo , 1999; Ande sson, Gibson, & Lehoucq, 2006; Ande sson & Os om, 2008; Clemen , 2010; Kashwan, 2016) mainly ocuses on he dis ibu ional dimen- sion o jus ice in eme ging o ms o PG. Howe e , like powe , jus- ice is also a mul idimensional concep . Nex o dis ibu i e jus ice, i also emb aces p ocedu al jus ice, which looks a how decisions a e made and by who, and jus ice in e ms o cul u al and poli ical ecogni ion (Ma in, 2017; Schlosbe g, 2013). Jus ice as ecogni ion is mo e di icul o concep ualize and less equen ly add essed in he li e a u e. I e e s o he poli ical and cul u al s a us a o ded o iden i y g oups de ined by social cha ac e is ics such as gende , e hnici y, o wo ld iew, in e sec - ing wi h spa ial and his o ical con ex s (Ma in e al., 2016). ‘Mis- ecogni ion’ e e s o lack o espec o di e ence, whe eby some people a e domina ed o a bi a y easons such as hei gende , colo , o belie s (F ase , 1997). An example o a ecogni ion injus- ice is he in e io s a us gi en o di e se non-Wes e n wo ld pe - spec i es and sys ems o knowledge (Ma in, 2017). Al hough he e ogenei y in PG a angemen s has been explo ed in empi ical esea ch, oo li le wo k has ocused on i s e olu ion and i s consequences (Po ee e, Janssen, & Os om, 2010). In pa ic- ula , he concep o cul u al di e si y is s ill unde - esea ched (Aligica, 2014; Aligica & Ta ko, 2013). This has ine i able nega i e implica ions as ‘‘[...] we li e in a wo ld in which di e se alues, iden i ies, p inciples, and cul u es a e en angled wi h unp ece- den ed in ensi y” (Aligica, 2014, p. 26). Resea ch is e ealing he impo ance o emb acing di e si y o knowledge sys ems (Tengö, B ondizio, Elmq is , Malme , & Spie enbu g, 2014), and o es ab- lishing a meaning ul in e cul u al dialogue wi h pa icipa ion by indigenous peoples and local communi ies (Goldman, Tu ne , & Daly, 2018; Sch oede , 2010; Sch oede & González, 2019). Ne e heless, inc easing indigenous pa icipa ion and he in e - cul u ali y o PG a angemen s is no wi hou i s p oblems. The eme ging ields o La in Ame ican poli ical ecology (Le , 2015) and poli ical on ology (Blase , 2009, 2013; de la Cadena, 2010) highligh he need o e hink i s neocolonial pe spec i e on PG and challenge i s in e cul u al de ici . Con adic ing he hegemonic One-Wo ld Wo ld (OWW) pe spec i e (Law, 2015), hey poin o a wo ld o many wo lds: he Plu i e se (Escoba , 2018, 2020; Ko ha i, Salleh, Escoba , Dema ia, & Acos a, 2019). Whe e he OWW po ays mode ni y and de elopmen as he only way o wa d, ma ginalizing o he o ms o knowledge, he Plu i e se aims o go beyond he on o-epis emic limi s o mode ni y and s ands o ‘ ewo king an imagina y o poli ics’ (de la Cadena & Blase , 2018, p. 24). Taking s ock o he eme ging li e a u e on he Plu i e se, his pape c i ically analyses he na u e o indigenous pa icipa ion in PG a angemen s. I challenges wha cu en PG a angemen s ac ually deli e and how di e en s akeholde pe spec i es and knowledge sys ems a e ac o ed in such p ocesses. We s uc u e ou analysis a ound he concep o in e cul u ali y and how i in luences powe sha ing dynamics behind de elopmen decisions in polycen ic con ex s. In sho , his pape seeks o connec poly- cen ici y o he concep o in e cul u ali y and concep ualizes In e cul u al Polycen ic Clima e Go e nance (IPCG). To do so, i looks a wo examples o o ums o in e cul u al go e nance and indigenous pa icipa ion in he Amazon in he o m o Indigenous Wo king G oups (IWGs). We s uc u e ou analysis o IPCG a ound h ee co e ques ions: 1) To wha ex en a e IWGs able o challenge he es ablished clima e change knowledge poli ics?; 2) To wha ex en do IWGs p o ide any eal powe o local people?; and 3) How can we imp o e he way in which di e en pe spec i es and sys ems o knowledge in o m IPCG solu ions? Ou analysis o IPCG is di ided in o h ee pa s. Fi s , we e iew cu en deba es on bo h polycen ici y and in e cul u ali y. Focus- ing on ounda ional componen s o PG a angemen s, we highligh he challenges o in e cul u al knowledge go e nance ac oss le els. Second, we ocus on he p ac ice o IPCG, by looking a wo IWG in he B azilian and Pe u ian Amazon. We assess he po en ials and isks o IWG o inco po a ing indigenous knowledge and wo ld- iews h ough compa a i e analysis. Finally, we ou line h ee key issues ha a e p o ing ins umen al in de e mining he impac o IPCG solu ions: 1) in e cul u al injus ices; 2) lack o meaning ul pa icipa ion; and 3) go e nance gaps. The pape concludes by p oposing a se o policy ecommenda ions o os e imp o ed IPCG o sus aining he Amazon biome. 2. Linking polycen ici y o in e cul u ali y 2.1. Polycen ic go e nance The concep o Polycen ic Go e nance (PG) was i s in o- duced in he 60s as ‘many cen e s o decision-making which ope - a e independen ly o each o he ’ (Os om e al., 1961). Almos i y yea s a e i s incep ion, Elino Os om (2010b) poin ed o eme g- ing polycen ic sys ems as c ucial o coping wi h clima e change, highligh ing he need o align di e se le els, sec o s, and ac o s o enable he de ini ion o collec i e goals. Polycen ic Clima e Go e - nance (PCG) – in con as wi h he monocen ic Uni ed Na ions F amewo k Con en ion on Clima e Change (UNFCCC) o s a e-led clima e change go e nance sys ems – is hus cha ac e ized by mul- iple go e ning au ho i ies (e.g. subna ional go e nmen s, ne - wo ks o go e nmen s, companies, communi y o ganiza ions) ha ha e conside able independence o make no ms and ules ega ding clima e ac ion. Os om (2010b) u ged he need o c i ically s udy he s eng hs and weaknesses o PCG, wa ning ha polycen ic sys ems a e no a F. de Wi and João Mou a o Wo ld De elopmen 157 (2022) 105955 2 panacea, as ‘‘ he e a e no panaceas (...) o complex p oblems such as global wa ming” (p.555). Wi h his in mind, and o explain he apidly changing landscape o clima e go e nance, Jo dan e al. (2018) summa ize PCG’s essen ial ea u es a ound i e key p opo- si ions d awn om polycen ic heo y: 1) Local ac ion: go e nance ini ia i es a e likely o ake o a a local le el, h ough p ocesses o sel -o ganiza ion; 2) Mu ual adjus men : go e ning uni s a e likely o spon aneously de elop collabo a ions wi h one ano he ; 3) Expe imen a ion: he willingness and capaci y o expe imen is likely o acili a e go e nance inno a ion; 4) T us : enhanced di ec communica ion posi i ely a ec s us le els and consequen ly inc eases coope a ion; and 5) Adop ion o o e a ching ules: local ini ia i es a e likely o wo k bes when bound by a se o o e a ch- ing ules ha ensh ine he b oade goals o be achie ed and allow any con lic s o be sa is ac o ily esol ed. Thiel, Blomquis and Ga ick (2019) in oduced he idea o ‘ hinking polycen ically’. In hei iew, polycen ic hinking: 1) implies no accep ing bluep in s, bu equi es deepe sc u iny and empi ical ooesea ch in o ins i u ional design and human beha io ; 2) accep s con ex -speci ic ac o s and e ec s o go e - nance a angemen s; 3) ecognizes he use o mul i-me hod esea ch o i e a i e heo y de elopmen ; 4) implies he exis ence o ansac ion cos s and ade-o s in o de o u he he e ec i e- ness o go e nance a angemen s; and 5) sugges s ce ain expec a- ions ela ed o agency and i s ela ion o ins i u ions. Howe e , polycen ic a angemen s do no necessa ily ‘‘gua an ee sound go e nance o assu e e iciency, equi y, eliabili y, and esponsi e- ness” (Thiel e al., 2019, p. 267). Hence, hey should be seen as a bo om-up compe i i e p ocess whe e in insically agonis ic wo ld iews o en collide. 2.2. Go e ning in e cul u ally In e cul u ali y has been inc easingly men ioned among sup a- na ional bodies as being a co e-concep o hei policies (e.g. CoE- Council o Eu ope, UNESCO-Uni ed Na ions Educa ional, Scien i ic and Cul u al O ganiza ion). In e cul u al app oaches a e o en used in con as o adi ional s a egies o assimila ion and mul icul u - alism o discuss he challenges o mig a ion- ela ed cul u al di e - si y in Wes e n con empo a y socie ies (Zapa a-Ba e o, 2015). Al hough domina ed by Anglo-Ame ican discou ses, he concep o in e cul u ali y is a om homogeneous. Aman (2015) d aws a en ion o La in-Ame ican pe spec i es s essing ha ‘in e cul u ali y’ is no he same as i s Spanish ansla ion ‘in e cul- u alidad’,as‘‘... ansla ion o hese somewha con lic ing no ions equi es an unde s anding o he socio-poli ical ci cums ances unde which hey p e ailed” (p.226). In La in Ame ica, in e cul u alidad eme ged in he la e 80s as a co e-componen o s uggle by indigenous peoples o he pu sui o ye un inished decoloniza ion p ocesses oge he wi h indige- nous poli ical emancipa ion and ci il igh s’ ecogni ion. I he e- o e exp esses an al e na i e amewo k o deba es on mode ni y, de elopmen , and mo e sus ainable ways o li e (Solano-Campos, 2013; Walsh, 2009). Mo ing beyond cul u al di e si y, in e cul u alidad also s i es owa ds ans o ming p e- sen s uc u es o socie y ha embody deeply oo ed colonial lega- cies (Aman, 2015). I se es as an ins umen and ool o decoloniali y’s p axis (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018). D awing on Mignolo (2007),in e cul u alidad can be heo ized as an ac o esis ance o he es iges o colonialism, o delink om he he o ic o mode ni y and he logic o coloniali y, by emb acing ‘ he Plu i e se’ (Escoba , 2018, 2020). In e cul u alidad e eals how cul u al hie a chy has been in e nalized as pa o ou concep ual amewo k o unde s anding and ac ing upon eali y. I ques ions mode ni y’s dualis on ology ha di ides ou wo ld in o subjec s and objec s, human and non-human, scien i ic knowledge and cul u al belie s. I sheds ligh on he ela ions o powe and ecog- ni ion ha ha e occu ed be ween cul u es h oughou his o y. 2.3. Towa ds in e cul u al polycen ic go e nance Polycen ici y can be used as a concep ual amewo k o any complex sys em, such as economic ma ke s o democ acies (Aligica & Ta ko, 2012). I is especially well-sui ed o mul icul u al socie ies, p o ided hose g oups ha e a i ed a an unde s anding o he na u e o hei cons i u ional ounda ions (Aligica, 2014). Vincen Os om (1992) emphasizes ‘me a-cons i u ional condi- ions’ as undamen ally signi ican o achie ing and sus aining PG solu ions ha enable ci izenship and ice e sa. To be e unde s and how cul u al di e ences impac hese p ocesses, Thiel and Mose (2019) ocus on h ee ounda ional componen s o PG (see Table 1): 1) O e a ching ules – ins i u ional ules a e de ined as p e- sc ip i e s a emen s ha o bid, equi e, o pe mi some ac ion o ou come (Os om, 1986). These o e a ching ules, o ‘‘ he ins i u ional sca olding ha s uc u es sel - o ganiza ion” (Thiel & Mose , 2019, p. 82), di e ac oss ju is- dic ions, which leads o di e en o ms o go e nance. Os om (1990, p. 14) poin s ou ha ‘‘ge ing he ins i u ions igh ’ is a di icul , ime-consuming, and con lic -e oking Table 1 Polycen ic Go e nance ounda ional componen s applied o in e cul u ali y. De ined in ela ion o he concep o In e cul u ali y Examples om he Clima e Go e nance li e a u e 1. O e a ching Rules Cul u ally-bound ules a e de ined as p esc ip i e s a emen s ha o bid, equi e, o pe mi some ac ion o ou come Indigenous/non-wes e n pa icipa ion in global clima e go e nance and clima e nego ia ions (Bel e , Fo d, Maille , A aos, & Flynn, 2019; Claeys & Delgado Pugley, 2017; Wamsle e al., 2020) 2. Social P oblem Cha ac e is ics Cul u al alues, a i udes, belie s, o ien a ions, and unde lying assump ions co-de e mine he way people add ess social p oblems A cul u al app oach o clima e change (Hulme, 2017; Nash e al., 2020) Clima e change na a i es (Fa bo ko & Laz us, 2012; Flø um & Gje s ad, 2017; Sco ille-Simonds, 2018) Clima e go e nmen ali y (Bäcks and & Lö b and, 2006, 2019; S ipple & Bulkeley, 2013) 3. Communi y He e ogenei y Cul u al di e si y in e ms o capabili ies, in e es s, belie s, alues, no ms and men al models Indigenous knowledge inco po a ion in clima e go e nance (B ace & Geoghegan, 2011; Goldman e al., 2018; Rice, Bu ke, & Heynen, 2015) Poli ical on ology o cli- ma e change (Bu man, 2017; Esbjö n-Ha gens, 2010) Clima e jus ice, ecogni- ion and capabili ies (Oke eke, 2018; Schlosbe g, 2012; Schlosbe g & Collins, 2014) F. de Wi and João Mou a o Wo ld De elopmen 157 (2022) 105955 3 p ocess. I is a p ocess ha equi es eliable in o ma ion abou ime and place a iables as well as a b oad epe oi e o cul u ally accep able ules”. 2) Social p oblems’ cha ac e is ics – Social p oblems a e cul u - ally and his o ically co-de e mined as a e he ways people add ess hem (Blomquis & Sch ode , 2019). Al hough i is b oadly accep ed ha his co-de e mines public decision- making in di e en geog aphies (Kicke , 2003), he na u e o he ela ions be ween cul u es and go e nance has la gely been neglec ed. 3) Communi y he e ogenei y – polycen ici y o e s an oppo u- ni y o deal wi h he e ogeneous ac o s and ac o g oups, in e ms o hei capabili ies, in e es s, belie s, alues, no ms and men al models (Po ee e e al., 2010; an Ripe e al., 2018). Acco ding o Aligica (2014), homogenei y o human agen s is assumed o expec ed by ou cu en heo ies and models and, in o de no o miss ou on socie y’s plu alism and cul u al di e si y, he di e se pe spec i es and he e o- geneous communi ies o ac o s a e c i ically impo an o polycen ici y. Howe e , o wha ex en do hese ounda ional componen s o PG challenge hegemonic poli ics and lead o he in e wea ing o knowledge sys ems and wo ld iews? Cash e al. (2006) poin o he ‘plu ali y challenge’ esul ing om di e ences ac oss le els abou wha is pe cei ed as salien , c edible, and legi ima e knowl- edge, and wha is pe cei ed as he impo an scale o le el o add essing he p oblem. A g owing body o e idence highligh s c i ical knowledge go e nance as essen ial o eaching sus ain- abili y (Van Ke kho , 2014; an Ke kho & Pilbeam, 2017). In his sense, in e cul u al go e nance, as an Ke kho (2014) s a es, equi es a e aming o knowledge as an inpu o go e nance o en i onmen al issues, o ensu e ha unde s anding and inco po- a ing di e se knowledge is a i al p ocess o polycen ic go e - nance. This is a key componen o ou esea ch design. Recen ly, schola s ha e ocused on he challenges o in e cul- u al knowledge exchange and he isk o c ea ing ‘‘ unc ional in e cul u ali y” and he eby pe pe ua ing neocolonial ela ions and powe imbalances (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018, p. 58). Ya es and Núñez Núñez (2020) unde line he impossibili y o ins i u ional s anda dizing di e gen on ologies and epis emologies and ‘‘in e cul u al dialogues” in o echnical go e nance c i e ia. They highligh he impo ance o ‘decolonial expe imen a ion’ and he ‘‘e e yday and ex a-ins i u ional dynamics o in e cul u al knowl- edge exchange and he geolinguis ic p axis en ailed” (2020: p.13). In line wi h his, Rod íguez e al. (2018) unde line he need o go beyond sha ed knowledge p oduc ion, bu o c ea e condi ions o e lexi e go e nance, o ‘‘c i ically conside di e en ways o unde s anding, aluing, and in e p e ing speci ic p oblems and hei possible solu ions” (p.693). Ano he challenge o IPCG is ha o powe imbalances. C ea - ing ins i u ional spaces o in e cul u al dialogue uns he isk o disempowe ing al eady ma ginalized g oups (Rod íguez e al., 2018). Mo isson e al (2019) poin o ypes o powe ha shape PG sys ems. Fo IPCG, aming powe , empowe ed o ame p ob- lems se no ms and in luence discou se ac oss decision-making cen e s, is o special impo ance. The way powe ul ac o s objec i y a complex go e nance challenge, such as clima e change, h ough a neolibe al pe spec i e, c ea es i s ‘clima e go e nmen ali y’ (S ipple & Bulkeley, 2013) and ames he p ocess o go e ning and inancial alloca ion. The eby i ails o achie e a edis ibu ion o powe and adical change in he hegemonic clima e poli ics pa adigm and ‘‘[...] become unc ional o he sys ems o domina- ion and he ma ices o mode n/colonial/capi alis powe ” (W. Mignolo & Walsh, 2018, p. 93). 3. Me hodological ou line 3.1. Case s udy esea ch Due o i s high cul u al di e si y and global impo ance o cli- ma e go e nance, he Amazon o e s a c ucial s age o IPCG. This pape builds on wo s a egically selec ed subna ional Amazonian IPCG case s udies: he S a e o Ac e in B azil, and he egional depa men o Ucayali in Pe u (Fig.1). These case s udies can be unde s ood as ‘pa adigma ic cases’: ha se e ‘‘ o de elop a me a- pho o es ablish a school o he domain ha he case conce ns.” (Fly bje g, 2011, p. 307). Bo h subna ional case s udies we e he i s in hei espec i e coun ies o es ablish Indigenous Wo king G oups (IWGs) o s imula e he dialogue be ween go e nmen and indigenous peoples on go e nance issues, such as clima e change. They a e conside ed pionee ing examples o subna ional indigenous pa icipa o y go e nance in hei na ional con ex s (see DiGiano e al (2018) o Ac e and Rod iguez-Wa d and Del Aguila (2014) o Ucayali). 3.1.1. Case s udy 1: The s a e o Ac e-B azil In he 1980s, Ac e, one o B azil’s nine Amazon S a es, became in e na ionally known because o he mu de o Chico Mendes, ub- be appe , who ough o o es p ese a ion and he igh s o he ‘Po os da Flo es a’ (People o he Fo es ). In he 1990s, inspi ed by Mendes’s ideals, Ac e’s mo emen o social jus ice and o es con- se a ion, poli ically allied wi h he egional Wo ke ’s Pa y (PT), elec ed Jo ge Viana, a o es enginee , as Ac e’s Go e no (1998). Vianainaugu a edhisGo e nodaFlo es a(Fo es Go e nmen ),wi h a se ies o inno a i e policies in suppo o sus ainable o es ex ac- i ism and social inclusion. Ac e’s expe imen s wi h o es -based de elopmen and o es ci izenship, he so-called Flo es ania, led o a comp ehensi e app oach ha links policies ac oss sec o s, in ol es ci il socie y, and con inuously builds ins i u ional capaci y (Schminck, Duchelle, Hoelle, Lei e, & Vinício, 2014). The Flo es ania-model holds a special posi ion o Ac e’s indige- nous peoples. I ini ia ed a p ocess o ‘e hno-mapping’ o indigenous e i o ies as pa o i s spa ial planning policy and c ea ed he S a e Sec e a y o Indigenous A ai s. In 2010, Ac e consolida ed i s Flo es ania model h ough a p og essi e law ha es ablished he S a e Sys em o Incen i es o En i onmen al Se ices – SISA. Ac e ´s SISA c ea ed, amongs o he s, he S a e Ins i u e o Clima e Change and Regula ion o En i onmen al Se ices (Ins i u o das Mudanças Climá icas – IMC), esponsible o egula ion, egis y o p og am pa icipan s, and o issuing o ca bon c edi s. I also es ablished he Commission o Valida ion and Accompanimen (CEVA), espon- sible o moni o ing SISA. An impo an componen o CEVA is i s Indigenous Peoples Technical Ad iso y Chambe . 3.1.2. Case s udy 2: he egional depa men o Ucayali-Pe u Ucayali is one o Pe u’s i e egional depa men s ha a e si u- a ed in he Pe u ian sel a (Amazon o es ). Al hough Ucayali bo - de s he B azilian s a e o Ac e, i s socio-poli ical con ex is e y di e en . Compa ed o Ac e, he egional depa men does no ha e long-s anding expe ience wi h clima e go e nance. On he con a y, esea ch shows he depa men ’s land con lic s wi h i s indigenous popula ions, ep esen ing 12% o he egion’s o al pop- ula ion (Minis e io de Cul u a, 2020), and pa icula go e nance s uc u es whe e un i led communi ies a e ‘hidden’ unde in es - men oppo uni ies (Leal Pe ei a e al., 2015). Due o success ul lobbying by Pe u’s na ional and egional indigenous o ganiza ions, Ucayali’s egional policies enjoy a s on- ge ocus on in e cul u ali y. In 2000, Ucayali was he i s Pe u ian egion o c ea e an in e cul u al uni e si y, UNIA (Uni e sidad Nacional In e cul u al de la Amazonía – he Na ional In e cul u al F. de Wi and João Mou a o Wo ld De elopmen 157 (2022) 105955 4 Uni e si y o he Amazon). In 2015, Ucayali c ea ed i s Regional Wo king G oup on Indigenous Policies (RWGIP), wi h he objec i e o gua an eeing he ull igh s and equal oppo uni ies o indigenous peoples wi hin i s ju isdic ion o pa icipa e in he decision-making p ocesses o any policies and p og ams ha con- ce n hem. One o he main esul s s emming om RWGIP’s wo k has been he c ea ion o he Regional Depa men o he De elop- men o Indigenous Peoples (RDDIP) in June 2018, led by he indigenous Diana Mo i. 3.1.3. Indigenous wo king g oups Bo h case egions es ablished Indigenous Wo king G oups (IWGs) as pa o hei pa icipa o y go e nance mechanisms (See Table 2). Bo h IWGs we e c ea ed and a e coo dina ed by hei espec i e egional go e nmen s, wi h he aim o allow o ins i u- ionalized and con inuous dialogue, in con as wi h s and-alone p ojec -speci ic consul a ion p ocesses. In 2012, Ac e’s IWG s a ed o as a empo a y wo king g oup bu was ins i u ionalized in 2017 o gua an ee inde ini e indigenous pa icipa ion. Ucayali’s IWG was c ea ed ollowing he na ional example o Pe u’s IWG es ab- lished by he coun y’s Vice Minis y o In e cul u al A ai s in 2014. Bo h egional go e nmen s highligh hei coun y’s a i ica- ion o he In e na ional Labo O ganiza ion (ILO)’s 169 Con en ion on Indigenous and T ibal Peoples 1 and he Uni ed Na ion Decla a- ion on he Righ s o Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) 2 , as he Legal Basis o hei IWG es ablishmen , emphasizing ILO 169 A . 6 on app op ia e p ocedu es o indigenous pa icipa ion h ough hei own ins i u ions, and UNDRIP A .19 on ‘‘[...] ob aining ee, p io and in o med consen be o e adop ing and implemen ing legisla i e o adminis a i e measu es”. The main di e ence be ween he wo case s udy a eas is ha Ac e’s IWG is only ocused on ecosys em se ices and clima e change while i s s a e go e nmen ep esen a i es a e all om en i onmen -o ien ed depa men s. Ucayali’s IWG, on he o he hand, discusses a much b oade spec um o issues and b ings oge he ep esen a i es o all he six depa men s o he Ucayali egional go e nmen . Also, he idea o c ea e an IWG in Ac e came om he s a e go e nmen and se ed as an example o he elab- o a ion o B azil’s na ional REDD s a egy. In Ucayali, i was he o he way a ound: he na ional le el se he example o i s egio- nal depa men s. Finally, whe e Ac e’s IWG p o ides ad ice o CEVA (SISA’s Commission o Valida ion and Accompanimen ) and does no make decisions, Ucayali’s IWG o es upon p oposals ela ed o indigenous policies. 3.2. Me hods 3.2.1. Semi-s uc u ed in e iews Ac i e membe s o bo h IWGs we e in e iewed. In Ac e, we we e able o in e iew 9 IWG membe s, 5 indigenous and 4 non- indigenous ep esen a i es. Al hough Ac e’s IWG coun s 19 egio- nal indigenous o ganiza ions as membe s (see Table 2), he majo - i y a e new membe s and, a he ime o ou ieldwo k, had no (ye ) pa icipa ed in IWG mee ings. In Ucayali, we in e iewed 11 IWG membe s, 6 indigenous and 5 non-indigenous. In bo h o ou case s udy a eas, IWG membe s we e asked o indica e o he ele an IPCG s akeholde s o be in e iewed, including (sub)na ional go e nmen , (I)NGOs, p i a e sec o , indigenous o ganiza ions, and uni e si y ep esen a i es. To include Fig. 1. Ou wo case s udies o in e cul u al polycen ic clima e go e nance in he Amazon: he depa men o Ucayali-Pe u (in yellow) and he S a e o Ac e-B azil (in blue), sepa a ed by he B azil/Pe u-bo de (da k line). The igu e in he uppe igh co ne shows hei loca ion wi hin he Amazon biome (in g een). (Fo in e p e a ion o he e e ences o colo in his igu e legend, he eade is e e ed o he web e sion o his a icle.) 1 The 1989 Indigenous and T ibal Peoples Con en ion, known as ILO169, is he majo binding in e na ional con en ion ega ding indigenous and ibal peoples. I en e ed in o o ce on Sep embe 5, 1991 and was a i ied by B azil on 25 July 2002 and by Pe u on 2 Feb ua y 1994. 2 The 2007 Uni ed Na ions Decla a ion on Righ s o Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is a non-legally binding esolu ion ha delinea es indigenous collec i e and indi idual igh s. The Decla a ion’s goal is o encou age collabo a ion be ween go e nmen and indigenous peoples on p essing global issues. Bo h B azil and Pe u a e among he 144 coun ies ha o ed in a ou o he Decla a ion. F. de Wi and João Mou a o Wo ld De elopmen 157 (2022) 105955 5 al e na i e (an i-go e nmen ) oices, we also in e iewed 2 ep e- sen a i es o Ac e’s an i-REDD mo emen and 3 ep esen a i es o Ucayali’s indigenous mo emen o he Shipibo-people owa ds au onomy and sel -go e nance. We conduc ed a o al o 45 semi-s uc u ed in e iews, be ween Augus and Oc obe 2018 in Ucayali (n = 25), and be ween No embe 2018 and Janua y 2019 in Ac e (n = 20). The in e iews we e semi-s uc u ed as he opic and ques ion o mula ion we e ixed, bu he ques ion sequence and in e iewe beha io depended on he si ua ion and in e iewee’s answe s, as some o he in e iews we e conduc ed in a mo e o mal, go e nmen al se ing and o he s in a mo e in o mal se ing. The in e iews had open, p e- o mula ed ques ions and we e conduc ed in he Po - uguese (Ac e) and Spanish (Ucayali) languages. An impo an de ail is ha he i s au ho who conduc ed he in e iews used o li e and wo k in he S a e o Ac e in he ield o socio-en i onmen al go e nance. This inside -pe spec i e has bo h ad an ages and disad an ages o quali a i e esea ch; On he one hand, he esea che was amilia wi h he language and ins i u ional cul u e, which inc eased he pa icipan s’ accep ance, us , and openness. A disad an age is ha being pa o he con- ex migh aise issues o undue in luence o he esea che ’s pe - spec i e, such as ole con usion and no being able o see he wide pe spec i e (Asselin, 2003). Howe e , being an inside does no necessa ily nega i ely in luence he esea ch p ocess: con inu- ous e lec ion and close awa eness o pe sonal biases can educe po en ial ha ms o inside membe ship (Dwye & Buckle, 2009). I should also be no ed ha he in e iews we e conduc ed du - ing a ola ile ins i u ional pe iod, possibly in luencing he esea ch p ocess (Kacen & Chai in, 2015). Bo h egions had poli ical elec- ions in Oc obe 2018: ede al and s a e-le el elec ions in B azil and egional and municipal elec ions in Pe u. The go e nmen s in bo h case s udies aced unce ain ies ega ding he con inua ion o hei poli ical p og ams and s a egies. Also, many o he in e - iewed go e nmen al ep esen a i es we e in ‘‘commissioned posi ions”, and hence we e no su e i hey would be able o s ay inside he go e nmen , possibly in luencing hei pe spec i es. The p ime pu pose o he in e iews was o be e unde s and he po en ial and isks o in oducing and p omo ing in e cul u al clima e go e nance in bo h egions. The in e iews, which las ed be ween 40 and 90 min, we e conduc ed h ough an in e iew p o- ocol (see Appendix), s a ing o wi h a sho desc ip ion o he esea ch p ojec and highligh ing he esponden ’s olun a y pa - icipa ion and da a con iden iali y. All pa icipan s signed an in o med consen o m. The in e iews we e di ided in o ou sec- ions: 1) ins i u ional wo k on clima e change; 2) clima e collabo- a ions and go e nance; 3) clima e jus ice and indigenous pa icipa ion; and 4) ecommenda ions o imp o ed clima e go e nance. 3.2.2. (Policy) documen analysis We quali a i ely analyzed he ins i u ional documen s and he mee ing’s minu es o he IWGs in Ac e (n = 10) and Ucayali (n = 17), as well as o he ele an (policy) documen s (see Table 3). Pa o hese we e documen s on pa ne ships be ween subna- ional go e nmen s and indigenous peoples, pu o wa d by he Go e no ’s Clima e and Fo es Task o ce (GCF), o which bo h he go e nmen o Ac e and Ucayali a e membe s. Es ablished in 2008, GCF is a ne wo k o subna ional collabo a- ion on opical o es and clima e p o ec ion, wi h 38 membe s a es and p o inces o 9 coun ies. One o GCF’s spea heads is he es ablishmen o pa ne ships and collabo a ion be ween sub- na ional go e nmen s and indigenous peoples, o which i ecei es inancing by he No wegian de elopmen agency NORAD. This ocus on indigenous pa icipa ion has esul ed in a se o guid- ing p inciples o collabo a ion and pa ne ship be ween subna- ional go e nmen s, indigenous peoples, and local communi ies, which we e made public a he 2018 Global Clima e Ac ion Summi . Table 2 Indigenous Wo king G oups in Ac e-B azil and Ucayali-Pe u. Ac e’s Indigenous Peoples Technical Ad iso y Chambe Ucayali’s Regional Wo king G oup on Indigenous Policies Local Abb e ia ion CTI (Cama a Técnica Indígena) GRTPI (G upo Regional de T abajo con Poli icas Indigenas) C ea ion Augus 20, 2012, Resolu ion No. 001 Augus 27, 2015 by he Regional Execu i e Resolu ion No. 0714- 2015-GRU-GR Ins i u ional se - up Pa o he Commission o Valida ion and Moni o ing (CEVA) o he 2010 Ac e S a e Law on Incen i es o En i onmen al Se ices (SISA) Following he 2014 Na ional example and call o he c ea ion o Wo king G oups on Indigenous Policies (GTPIs) Na u e A o um o dialogue be ween SISA ac o s, indigenous communi ies, and ci il socie y. A space o in e cul u al dialogue, analysis, and p oposals Objec i es Ad ice on egula ing en i onmen al se ices on indigenous-held lands; Assis consul a ion p ocesses wi h he s a e’s indigenous peoples; Opinion on indigenous issues and egula ing en i onmen al se ices on indigenous-hold lands; De ine speci ic ac ions and p ojec s. Adop measu es o coo dina ion mechanisms be ween public and p i a e ins i u ions, and indigenous o ganiza ions, and gene a e ac ions aimed a espec ing collec i e igh s and p omo ing he sus ainable de elopmen o indigenous communi ies and peoples Membe s 3 s a e go e nmen ins i u ions, 1 egional NGO, B azil’s Na ional Indian Founda ion (FUNAI) and 19 egional indigenous o ganiza ions, All 6 depa men s o he Ucayali’s Regional Go e nmen , 8 egional indigenous o ganiza ions Themes discussed Ecosys em se ices, clima e change Te i o ial o ganiza ion; ood secu i y; clima e change; bilingual educa ion; in e cul u al jus ice DESIGN Hos Ins i u ion Ac e’s Clima e Change Ins i u e (Ins i u o de Mudanças Climá icas – IMC) Regional En i onmen al Au ho i y (Au o idad Regional de Ambien e - ARA) P esiden P esiden o Ac e’s IMC Regional Go e no o ep esen a i e Sec e a y CEVA’s Execu i e Sec e a ia Manage o he Regional En i onmen al Au ho i y o ep esen a i e PROCEDURES Mee ings App oxima ely wice a yea ; Ex ao dina y mee ings when necessa y O dina ily (e e y wo mon hs) and Ex ao dina y Sessions eco ded in he espec i e Minu es which a e hen signed and sha ed among all i s membe s. Vo ing NA All o ganiza ions ha e one o e. Decision-making Mee ings’ minu es se e as inpu o CEVA ha makes he inal decisions. P esen s and analyses p oposals ha a e o ed upon h ough consensus decision-making. F. de Wi and João Mou a o Wo ld De elopmen 157 (2022) 105955 6 One o ou analyzed GCF documen s is he ansc ip ion o he wo kshop ‘‘Pa hs o Dialogue be ween Indigenous Peoples and Subna ional Go e nmen s o he B azil’’, o ganized by GCF B azil in collabo a ion wi h Ea h Inno a ion Ins i u e (EII), which ook place on Ma ch 2, 2018 in he ci y o Rio B anco. The wo kshop’s main objec i e was o exchange expe iences be ween indigenous leade s and ep esen a i es o B azil’s subna ional and na ional go e nmen s and i s o ganized ci il socie y, and o es ablish join s a egies o he de elopmen o subna ional policies aimed a he B azilian Amazon’s indigenous peoples. The wo kshop, which coun ed wi h bo h indigenous and s a e go e nmen ep esen a- i es o B azil’s nine Amazon s a es, was a ollow-up o he GCF annual mee ing in 2016, o ganized o discuss he challenges o se ing up he dialogue be ween indigenous peoples and go e nmen s. Howe e , as his i s mee ing was jus o GCF membe -s a es, he e we e no indigenous peoples p esen and GCF membe s a es asked o a ollow-up wi h ep esen a i es o indigenous o ganiza ions. 3.2.3. Quali a i e da a analysis Bo h he in e iews and (policy) documen s we e coded using MaxQDA so wa e o quali a i e da a analysis h ough an induc- i e, da a-d i en app oach (Kucka z & Rädike , 2019). Du ing he quali a i e da a analysis s age, he ollowing h ee ca ego ies o ‘ hemes’ we e o med in he wake o ou e iew: 1) in e cul u al jus ice; 2) le el o pa icipa ion; and 3) go e nance gaps. The i s ca ego y ela es o in e wea ing indigenous knowledge sys ems wi h scien i ic knowledge and ecogni ion o he indigenous on ol- ogy. The second ca ego y is ela ed o A ns ein’s (1969) ladde o pa icipa ion, which shows how pa icipa ion anges om solely in o ming ci il socie y abou plans and p ojec s, o p o iding hem decision making powe and con ol o e he inal decision. The las ca ego y o go e nance gaps ela es o he mul ile el ailu es o add essing global issues, such as clima e change, on he local le el as well as e ec i ely linking a di e si y o s akeholde s and hei knowledge sys ems owa ds ansdisciplina y go e nance. 4. In e cul u al polycen ic clima e go e nance in he amazon 4.1. Ac e’s Flo es ania 4.1.1. Challenging hegemonic clima e poli ics? S akeholde in e iews in Ac e indica ed ha es ablishing a mo e holis ic and sys emic pe spec i e was he main ou come o SISA’s IWG. Indigenous pa icipa ion in oduced new opics o he clima e agenda, such as espec o indigenous cul u es and e - i o ial igh s. The e o e, 10% o he o al unding o indigenous peoples om he Ge man unded Redd o Ea ly Mo e s p og am (REM) is now going o he o ganiza ion o indigenous cul u al es- i als. As s a ed by a go e nmen al in e iewee: Ac e’s dialogue be ween he subna ional go e nmen and he indigenous peoples has shown us o look a he indigenous lands no as a p oblem o de elopmen , bu ac ually as a s a egy owa ds sus ainable de elopmen . (In e iew #A12) Ano he go e nmen ep esen a i e emphasized Ac e’s pionee ing posi ion in compa ison o o he B azilian Amazon S a es: SISA is no only ocused on emission educ ion, bu also on social inclusion and quali y o li ing. (In e iew #A2) Ac e’s Flo es ania-expe ience se ed as an example o he Na ional P og am o Te i o ial Managemen Plans o Indigenous Te i o ies (PNGATI). An IMC ep esen a i e emphasized how hei collabo a ion wi h indigenous peoples h ough he IWG is also pionee ing wi hin he s a e i sel , as his kind o collabo a ion does no happen wi h any o he depa men o he Ac e go e nmen . 4.1.2. Meaning ul indigenous pa icipa ion? An indigenous membe o he IWG highligh ed ha hei pa ic- ipa ion in SISA has also s eng hened hei ole in e nally: Now we a e no only looking a wha he go e nmen should do, bu ha e become p o agonis s o imp o emen s inside ou lands. (In e iew #A4) Since 2015, h ough SISA, he Indigenous Ag o o es y Agen s (IAA) p og am ecei es suppo o he sala ies o 149 IAAs, who a e ained o p o ide echnical assis ance on ag o o es y sys ems and en i onmen al educa ion inside hei communi y. Ano he indigenous membe o he IWG, highligh ed how pa - icipa ion in SISA has also uni ied he indigenous mo emen and ein o ced hei oice. Be o e he c ea ion o he Indigenous Wo king G oup, he s a e was ou enemy. Now he e is an in e cul u al dialogue and mo e espec . (In e iew #A18) An impo an esul o he subna ional dialogue be ween IMC and he S a e’s indigenous peoples is he elabo a ion o he 2013 Indigenous Cha e o P inciples. This se es as inpu o Ac e’s REDD+ Social and En i onmen al Sa egua ds (SES), and places a s ong emphasis on ‘‘ ee, p io and in o med consen ” o he con- sul a ion o indigenous peoples. In 2015, Ac e, among he i s ju isdic ions in he wo ld o use he REDD+ SES, was he i s o ha e an in e na ional REDD+ SES e iew on i s pa icipa o y, mul i-s akeholde es ablishmen o REDD+ SES, pe o med by he REDD+ SES Ini ia i e. The e iew’s objec i es we e h ee- old: 1) assessing he quali y o he mul i- s akeholde p ocess; 2) assessing he ex en o which he in e na- ional REDD+ SES Guidelines had been ollowed; and 3) lea ning om Ac e’s pionee ing p ocess and epo ing o he dono (NORAD). The e iew’s gene al conclusion s a ed ha Ac e has been ‘‘la gely success ul [...], wi h only mino a ia ions ha a e unlikely o a ec he quali y o he sa egua ds in o ma ion” (REDD+ SES Ini ia i e, 2015, p. 10). One weakness is SISA’s lack o cohe ence wi h o he ele an policies and plans con ibu ing o sus ainable de elopmen . Table 3 Analyzed (Policy) Documen s. Ac e-B azil Ucayali-Pe u GCF-Task o ce Wo kshop ‘Unde s anding SISA and he clima e change con ex (IMC, 2014) Ucayali Regional Clima e Change S a egy (GOREU, 2014) The Rio B anco Decla a ion: Building Pa ne ships & Secu ing Suppo o Fo es s, Clima e, & Li elihoods (GCF, 2014) REDD+ SES In e na ional Re iew: he S a e o Ac e, B azil (REDD+ SES Ini ia i e, 2015) Pa hs o Dialogue be ween Indigenous Peoples and Subna ional Go e nmen s (GCF B azil, 2018) Guiding P inciples o Collabo a ion and Pa ne ship Be ween Subna ional Go e nmen s, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communi ies (GCF, 2018) F. de Wi and João Mou a o Wo ld De elopmen 157 (2022) 105955 7 In ela ion o indigenous peoples’ pa icipa ion, he e iew highligh ed some p ocess weaknesses. ‘‘Al hough many Indigenous Peoples’ g oups pa icipa ed in he adap a ion he REDD+ SES p in- ciples, c i e ia, and indica o s in Ac e, i should be no ed ha many o he Indigenous Peoples g oups’ we e no pa o his p ocess e en hough hey we e in i ed o pa icipa e in wo kshops and consul a ion mee ings” (p.4). Also, he e iew included conce ns exp essed by indigenous peoples’ ep esen a i es ega ding Ac e go e nmen : ‘‘ hey ha e me wi h he au ho i ies o some indige- nous communi ies, bu no o he s; e en hough an Indigenous Wo king G oup has been c ea ed, he e is no indica ion o include indigenous peoples in CEVA o in he g oup o councils o o he in e -ins i u ional decision-making bodies” (p.20). 4.1.3. Powe dynamics and imbalances The mos equen ly men ioned challenge o SISA’s go e nance applies o bene i sha ing. Acco ding o IMC, 30% o hei annual budge goes o SISA go e nance and 70% o i s subp og ams. SISA’s subp og ams include indigenous peoples (17% o he budge ), smallholde a me s and ex ac i is s (37%), and p i a e ag icul- u e p ope ies (46% o he budge ). In he IWG mee ing minu es, ep esen a i es o indigenous o ganiza ions complained ha hey we e ne e in o med why hei subp og am only ecei es 17% o he budge , when highe pe cen ages a e gi en o SISA’s o he sub- p og ams. The main complain is ha he IWG is no in ol ed in any s uc u al and inancial decisions o SISA and is only asked o decide on smalle le el p ojec s. Indigenous ep esen a i es also poin ed o a lack o clea com- munica ion by IMC on he pu pose o clima e go e nance and hei one-sided clima e na a i e on en i onmen al impac s. Du ing one o SISA’s capaci y building ac i i ies, an indigenous pa icipan highligh ed he link be ween clima e change and cul u e: ‘‘Clima e change a ec s ou li es and ou cul u e. The wea he [clima e] o us is linked o na u e and ou cul u e” (IMC, 2014).Howe e ,SISA’s capaci y-building ac i i ies and wo kshops a e o a echnical na - u e and a e ocused on he en i onmen al impac o clima e change on ecosys em se ices. An indigenous membe o he IWG men ioned ha he p ocess o in o ming hei communi y membe s on he issues discussed in he IWG is a eal challenge: Ou people do no unde s and he link be ween he in e na ional poli ical deba e on clima e change and hei daily li es. (In e iew #A9) This can be seen in p ac ice wi h he REM p og am: many REM bene icia ies do no clea ly unde s and why hey a e ecei ing bene i s. The IWG mee ing minu es show ha he agenda-se ing and he majo i y o p esen a ions a e ca ied ou by non-indigenous ep esen a i es. As shown by Table 2, bo h he p esidency and sec- e a ia o he IWG a e in non-indigenous hands. Also, indigenous pa icipa ion depends on he au ho i y o he indigenous leade and is no equal: some ha e mo e poli ical skills and eel mo e a ease wi h he Po uguese language. An indigenous ep esen a i e complained he e a e no go e nmen al echnicians a ailable o help hem wi h he S a e’s bu eauc a ic p ocesses. Only he expe- ienced indigenous o ganiza ions a e able o submi p ojec appli- ca ions. This esul s in he ac ha mos indigenous o ganiza ions ha e ne e ecei ed unding, whe eas o he p ojec s (such as he IAA p og am) egula ly ecei e unding. The unde lying isk is ha he IWG becomes a me e discussion g oup, no leading o e ec i e ac ions. An in e iewed indigenous leade , no a membe o he IWG, complained ha he s a e dialogue wi h indigenous peoples is mainly ocused on h ee o he i een indigenous peoples in Ac e: They a e used as go e nmen al p opaganda o he a che ype o he ecological Indian. I ’s a ma ke ing issue. (In e iew #A16). Acco ding o Ac e’s an i-REDD mo emen 3 , i is he S a e’s eli es ha pa icipa e and p o i om REDD. The mo emen , ounded in 2011 and made up o uni e si y p o esso s, ep esen a i es o na ional and local NGO, indigenous o ganiza ions, u al wo ke s’ unions, B azil’s le -wing poli ical pa y PSOL and communi y g oups, c i icized SISA as o e ing ‘‘ alse solu ions incen i ized by g een capi alism and wes e n on ology” based on ca bon emission compensa ion ins ead o imp o ing Ac e’s sus ainabili y. Socie y in gene al s ands in solida i y wi h he indigenous peoples. They don’ need aining on ca bon. They need e i o ial secu i y, heal h, and educa ion. Basic igh s. The go e nmen needs o dema ca e indigenous e i o ies. (In e iew #A5) To make ma e s wo se, he e is a lack o e ec i e moni o ing on SISA’s impac s making i impossible o assess whe he cu en policies a e e ec i ely add essing he causes o de o es a ion and clima e change (REDD+ SES Ini ia i e, 2015). Acco ding o Ac e’s an i-REDD mo emen , SISA caused a di ide be ween he S a e’s indigenous peoples ha a e in a o , and hose agains he go e n- men al p og am. When he in e iews ook place, B azil had jus held i s 2018 elec ions o P esiden and S a e Go e no and he e we e some ensions and unce ain ies among he in e iewed s akeholde s. The elec ed igh -wing P esiden , Jai Bolsona o, disman led go - e nmen di isions wo king on clima e change and h ea ened o pull B azil ou o he Pa is Ag eemen on clima e change (H. Esco- ba , 2019). On he subna ional le el in Ac e, a e wen y yea s o PT (B azil’s Wo ke s Pa y) hegemony, he newly elec ed igh - wing S a e Go e no , Gladson Cameli, issued a ie ce c i ique o he Flo es ania-model and h ea ened o close he IMC. An indige- nous leade , membe o he IWG, ema ked: I eel sad abou wha he coun y is acing in poli ical and en i on- men al e ms. I hope ha ou Gods o Na u e will help us o mini- mize damage and auma. [...] In he Amazon o my d eams he e would be no mo e de o es a ion, and he big ci ies would all apa , and e e yone would li e in he o es in di ec con ac wi h na u e. I would like o see a li e wi hou asphal , wi hou conc e e, wi hou oil and wi hou aking om na u e any hing bu he necessa y con- sump ion o li e. (In e iew #A18) 4.2. Ucayali’s in e cul u ali y 4.2.1. Challenging hegemonic clima e poli ics? Compa ed o o he Amazon- egional depa men s, Ucayali has a s ong ins i u ional p esence o i s indigenous peoples, especially he Shipibo and Ashaninka people. This g ea ly acili a es he wo k- ing o he IWG. IWG discussions ha e ocused on he indigenous, mo e holis ic concep ion o lands and he impo ance o ances al ca e and spi i uali y. In i s mee ings, indigenous o ganiza ions emphasized he impo ance o he use o ayahuasca, a adi ional spi i ual b ew used in indigenous ce emonies. Ayahuasca is pa o ou cul u e. Th ough i s use we ha e isions o mo he na u e. We hink we should espec e e y plan , e e y ee, 3 Ac e’s an i-REDD mo emen consis s o app oxima ely 20 suppo e s, bo h indigenous and non-indigenous. In 2011, hey elabo a ed he ‘‘Ac e Decla a ion: In de ense o li e, he in eg i y o peoples and hei e i o ies and agains REDD and he commodi ica ion o na u e”. In 2012, hey p esen ed hei ‘‘Dossie Ac e: he Ac e ha na u e ma ke s y o hide” du ing a demons a ion a he Uni ed Na ions Con e ence on Sus ainable De elopmen in Rio de Janei o, B azil. In Decembe 2018, 30 yea s a e he assassina ion o Chico Mendes, he mo emen p esen ed he ‘‘Xapu i Decla a ion: Chico Mendes in he s ando agains he alse solu ions o g een capi alism”. F. de Wi and João Mou a o Wo ld De elopmen 157 (2022) 105955 8 because hey a e like a pe son. Th ough ayahuasca, we can speak wi h na u e. (In e iew #U13) Ano he heme is sa egua ding indigenous iden i y and p omo - ing indigenous cul u e. This has esul ed in 15 colo ul wall- pain ings o indigenous aces and adi ions in Ucayali’s capi al Pucallpa (see Figs. 2 and 3) and he p omo ion o dances and songs om he egion’s di e en indigenous peoples. 4.2.2. Meaning ul indigenous pa icipa ion? Indigenous pa icipa ion is s ong, bu hei demands a e no in eg a ed in egional public policies and lack implemen a ion. Acco ding o a local NGO ep esen a i e his is bo h a egional and a s uc u al p oblem on he na ional le el. Indigenous issues a e no uly pa o public policies. They (indigenous leade s) si in hei adi ional clo hes and pa - icipa e in a ious ound ables and wo king g oups o sa is y dono -demands. (In e iew #U16) The IWG was c ea ed wi hou an assigned budge and he e o e only he con ede a ions loca ed in Ucayali’s capi al pa icipa ed in i s mee ings, as he e is no budge a ailable o he mo e dis an ede a ions. This lack o implemen a ion is also isible in Ucayali’s 2015– 2020 Regional S a egy on Clima e Change (RSCC). In i s ‘‘ ans- e se axes” he RSCC men ions he alue o indigenous knowledge: ‘‘The e is a e y impo an issue ha mus also be po en ia ed: he enhancemen and dissemina ion o indigenous adi ional knowl- edge ela ed o o es managemen , since his managemen is in ac much iendlie o he Amazon and allows a be e use o he o es .” (GOREU, 2014). Howe e , besides his sho epig aph, he use o indigenous knowledge on he o es is no men ioned in he s a egy and is no pa o i s chap e on ‘‘ins i u ional and ope a ional aspec s”. The same goes o he ecen ly c ea ed Regional Depa men o he De elopmen o Indigenous Peoples (RDDIP). Indigenous ep esen a i es emphasized ha his was c ea ed wi h nei he he powe s no he budge : e en o manage he IWG, which is coo dina ed by he Regional En i onmen al Au ho i y. Ano he example o he go e nmen ’s lack o willingness o uly in es in in e cul u ali y is he missed oppo uni y o suppo ing he in e cul u al uni e si y UNIA – he esul o he indica ion o egional indigenous g oups o p o ide oppo uni ies o uni e si y educa ion o he indigenous you h. Al hough he UNIA p o ides wo o icially au ho ized unde g adua e cou ses, indigenous o ganiza ions complain ha he gene al managemen is s ill in he hands o non-indigenous wo ke s and he lea ning on o e is a om being in e cul u al: I (UNIA) lacks ou ances al and spi i ual ocus. (In e iew #U3). A second complain is ha he access oad o he UNIA is unpa ed, making i impossible o ge o he uni e si y du ing pe i- ods o hea y ain all. A equen ly men ioned pi all in Pe u is i s cen alis , op-down way o go e ning. S akeholde s men ioned a need o mo e egion- aliza ion and mo e egional o ices. Bo h he in e na ional NGO WWF and he Uni ed Na ions De elopmen P og am’s (UNDP) ‘‘a Resilien Amazon’’ do no ha e egional o ices in Ucayali. Mos o he ime in e na ional p ojec s hi e hei consul an s in Pe u’s capi al Lima, who only occasionally isi Ucayali. Acco ding o a local NGO ep esen a i e hese consul an s a e o en unawa e o he local con ex and needs. Hi ing consul an s om he na ional capi al makes i look as i he e is no local capaci y o deal wi h p ojec managemen and weakens Ucayali’s egional ins i u ions. (In e iew #U8) Ucayali’s egional go e nmen and local NGO ep esen a i es emphasized he po en ial o wo king a he subna ional le el. As we a e om he egion, we unde s and hei ( he indigenous peoples) cosmo ision. I is he na ional au ho i ies ha do no inco po a e i in hei egula ions. (In e iew #U19) The in e iewed s akeholde s app ecia ed he space p o ided by he IWG o include he Amazonian and indigenous con ex in o egional policies. Because egional policies and s a egies need o ollow he na ional empla e, hey slow down he p ocess. An example o his is he elabo a ion o socio-en i onmen al sa egua ds o he REDD- p og am, which i s ha e o be de eloped a he na ional le el and only hen ansposed o he egional le el. Pe u’s op-down na ional budge law o he public sec o obliges egional go e n- men s o ask pe mission o all hei public expendi u es. Al hough he Pe u ian Amazon makes up 60% o he coun y, he in e - iewed egional s akeholde s complain ha he na ional go e n- men in Lima does no ca e abou de elopmen in he Amazon. 4.2.3. Powe dynamics and imbalances Ano he challenge o he e en exe cise o powe ela ions is he p ejudice o (mos ) egional go e nmen employees owa ds indigenous peoples. They a e looked upon as ‘‘backwa ds, and Figs. 2 and 3. Wall-pain ings o indigenous aces and adi ions in Ucayali’s capi al Pucallpa inanced by Pe u’s Vice Minis y o In e cul u al A ai s o p omo e indigenous iden i y. Sou ce: pho os aken by he au ho . F. de Wi and João Mou a o Wo ld De elopmen 157 (2022) 105955 9