World Development 157 (2022) 105955

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

World Development
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev

Governing the diverse forest: Polycentric climate governance in the

Amazon
Fronika de Wit ⇑, João Mourato
Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The Amazon is rapidly approaching its tipping point, which could turn a once enchanted tropical
Accepted 5 May 2022 rainforest into a dry, carbon-emitting savannah. This will have catastrophic impacts well beyond the
South-American continent and its inhabitants. The region is facing a nowadays familiar challenge of
combating climate change and promoting social justice. International climate governance is proving inef-
Keywords: fective, as it fails to incorporate the long term wellbeing of local communities. Demands for justice have
Amazon led to calls for more polycentric climate governance. This approach aims to provide a culture-specific and
Climate change
place-based approach to dealing with the possible consequences of climate change for social justice and
Intercultural justice
Knowledge governance
sustainable livelihoods. This article examines the scope for introducing Intercultural Polycentric Climate
Polycentric governance Governance (IPCG) to the Amazon. We select two examples of subnational climate governance and
indigenous peoples’ participation in the Amazon as our case studies: the State of Acre in Brazil and the
regional department of Ucayali in Peru. Both are seen as pioneers of intercultural climate governance
in their national contexts, and both have established indigenous working groups geared to promote
the provision of intercultural fairness within their regional governance mechanisms. We conducted a
qualitative content analysis, both of our interviews and relevant policy documents. Our study highlights
three challenges for successful IPCG: 1) overcoming intercultural injustices; 2) increasing meaningful
participation; and 3) filling governance gaps. Our findings reveal that there is still some way to go to meet
these outcomes. Bridging polycentricity and interculturality, diverse systems of knowledge and their
adherents need to be better appreciated and incorporated as part of the process of reassessing the pur-
pose of IPCG. Only then, will we see the handling of the future of the enchanting Amazon in a holistic
way: so much more than mere carbon storage.
Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction forest is a so-called ‘tipping element’ in the world’s earth climate

‘‘The white people do not ask themselves where the forest’s
value of growth we call ne rope comes from. They probably
think that plants grow alone, without a reason. Or else they take
themselves for great workers, able to make plants grow solely
through their own efforts. They even call us lazy because we
do not destroy as many trees as they do.” (Kopenawa &
Albert, 2013, p. 382)
Davi Kopenawa is a shaman and spokesman for the Yanomami
people living in the Brazilian Amazon. His work embodies a plea
for local action and people-centered development that respects
indigenous rights to preserve the Amazon. The Amazonian rain-
⇑ Corresponding author at: University of Lisbon, Institute of Social Sciences, Av.
Professor Anibal de Bettencourt 9, 1600-189 Lisbon, Portugal.
E-mail addresses: fronika.wit@ics.ulisboa.pt (F. de Wit), joao.mourato@ics.
ulisboa.pt (J. Mourato).
system (Lenton et al., 2008): A combination of regional deforesta-
tion quasi-permanent ground fires and rising global emissions will
likely transform it into a dry savannah and net carbon emitter
(IPCC, 2014). Recently, Lovejoy and Nobre (2019) warned that
the Amazon is ‘teetering on the edge of functional destruction’.
Unprecedented droughts of 2005, 2010 and 2015 herald upcoming
tipping points (Sampaio et al., 2019). Persistent deforestation
endangers the rainforest’s resilience: The Amazon tipping point is
expected to be triggered when its deforestation reaches a total of
20% to 25%, a mere 5% increase of current deforestation levels
(Carvalho et al., 2020; Lovejoy & Nobre, 2019; Nobre et al., 2016).
A tipping point transgression will have catastrophic impacts,
not only through the loss of vital ecological services with a loss
of biodiversity and an extreme decrease of the forest’s carbon
sequestration potential. It will also reduce water security for the
South American continent (Walker, 2021). Especially vulnerable
to this catastrophe are the over 400 indigenous peoples, whose

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105955
0305-750X/Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. de Wit and João Mourato
livelihoods depend on the ecosystem services provided by the
tropical rainforest (Kronik & Verner, 2010). These peoples play a
crucial role in preventing the Amazon’s functional destruction.
Indigenous territories have proven to be an important buttress
against deforestation (Alencar et al., 2016; Ford et al., 2020). If it
materializes, this socio-environmental disaster will render useless
much of the mobilizing efforts of the Agenda 2030 and its Sustain-
able Development Goals (SDGs) (Richardson & Erdelen, 2020;
Steffen et al., 2018).
Tipping elements, such as the Amazon, are of great concern for
global climate governance and require a fundamental restructuring
of governance arrangements (Galaz, Crona, Österblom, Olsson, &
Folke, 2012; Rockstrom et al., 2009). Decades of international envi-
ronmental conservation efforts show that neither the international
community nor national governments can ensure the necessary
conservation efforts (E. Ostrom, 2010a). The working alternative
is that governing climate change and reducing emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) is a collective action
problem that needs a polycentric approach (Agrawal, Nepstad, &
Chhatre, 2011; Duchelle et al., 2014; Nagendra & Ostrom, 2012;
Nepstad, Boyd, Stickler, Bezerra, & Azevedo, 2013). Polycentric gov-
ernance (PG) stands for ‘‘many centers of decision-making which
are formally independent of each other [. . .] to the extent that they
take each other into account [. . .]” (V. Ostrom, Tiebout, & Warren,
1961, p. 831). Research on PG arrangements is rapidly increasing,
highlighting the importance of local action, site-specific conditions,
mutual adjustment, experimentation and learning, and trust build-
ing (Dorsch & Flachsland, 2017; Jordan, Huitema, Asselt, & Forster,
2018).
Recent research has pointed to the multiple dimensions of
power, and the many intersections between power and institutions
in PG (Kashwan, MacLean, & García-López, 2019). Power dynamics
and asymmetries are often a ‘black box’ (Morrison et al., 2017,
2019). This research stream on ‘Power and Institutions’ (See
Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; Agrawal & Ribot, 1999; Andersson,
Gibson, & Lehoucq, 2006; Andersson & Ostrom, 2008; Clement,
2010; Kashwan, 2016) mainly focuses on the distributional dimen-
sion of justice in emerging forms of PG. However, like power, jus-
tice is also a multidimensional concept. Next to distributive justice,
it also embraces procedural justice, which looks at how decisions
are made and by who, and justice in terms of cultural and political
recognition (Martin, 2017; Schlosberg, 2013).
Justice as recognition is more difficult to conceptualize and less
frequently addressed in the literature. It refers to the political
and cultural status afforded to identity groups defined by social
characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, or worldview, intersect-
ing with spatial and historical contexts (Martin et al., 2016). ‘Mis-
recognition’ refers to lack of respect for difference, whereby some
people are dominated for arbitrary reasons such as their gender,
color, or beliefs (Fraser, 1997). An example of a recognition injus-
tice is the inferior status given to diverse non-Western world per-
spectives and systems of knowledge (Martin, 2017).
Although heterogeneity in PG arrangements has been explored
in empirical research, too little work has focused on its evolution
and its consequences (Poteete, Janssen, & Ostrom, 2010). In partic-
ular, the concept of cultural diversity is still under-researched
(Aligica, 2014; Aligica & Tarko, 2013). This has inevitable negative
implications as ‘‘[. . .] we live in a world in which diverse values,
identities, principles, and cultures are entangled with unprece-
dented intensity” (Aligica, 2014, p. 26). Research is revealing the
importance of embracing diversity of knowledge systems (Tengö,
Brondizio, Elmqvist, Malmer, & Spierenburg, 2014), and of estab-
lishing a meaningful intercultural dialogue with participation by
indigenous peoples and local communities (Goldman, Turner, &
Daly, 2018; Schroeder, 2010; Schroeder & González, 2019).
2
World Development 157 (2022) 105955
Nevertheless, increasing indigenous participation and the inter-
culturality of PG arrangements is not without its problems. The
emerging fields of Latin American political ecology (Leff, 2015) and
political ontology (Blaser, 2009, 2013; de la Cadena, 2010) highlight
the need to rethink its neocolonial perspective on PG and challenge
its intercultural deficit. Contradicting the hegemonic One-World
World (OWW) perspective (Law, 2015), they point to a world of
many worlds: the Pluriverse (Escobar, 2018, 2020; Kothari, Salleh,
Escobar, Demaria, & Acosta, 2019). Where the OWW portrays
modernity and development as the only way forward, marginalizing
other forms of knowledge, the Pluriverse aims to go beyond the
onto-epistemic limits of modernity and stands for ‘reworking an
imaginary of politics’ (de la Cadena & Blaser, 2018, p. 24).
Taking stock of the emerging literature on the Pluriverse, this
paper critically analyses the nature of indigenous participation in
PG arrangements. It challenges what current PG arrangements
actually deliver and how different stakeholder perspectives and
knowledge systems are factored in such processes. We structure
our analysis around the concept of interculturality and how it
influences power sharing dynamics behind development decisions
in polycentric contexts. In short, this paper seeks to connect poly-
centricity to the concept of interculturality and conceptualizes
Intercultural Polycentric Climate Governance (IPCG). To do so, it
looks at two examples of forums for intercultural governance and
indigenous participation in the Amazon in the form of Indigenous
Working Groups (IWGs). We structure our analysis of IPCG around
three core questions: 1) To what extent are IWGs able to challenge
the established climate change knowledge politics?; 2) To what
extent do IWGs provide any real power to local people?; and 3)
How can we improve the way in which different perspectives
and systems of knowledge inform IPCG solutions?
Our analysis of IPCG is divided into three parts. First, we review
current debates on both polycentricity and interculturality. Focus-
ing on foundational components of PG arrangements, we highlight
the challenges of intercultural knowledge governance across levels.
Second, we focus on the practice of IPCG, by looking at two IWG in
the Brazilian and Peruvian Amazon. We assess the potentials and
risks of IWG for incorporating indigenous knowledge and world-
views through comparative analysis. Finally, we outline three key
issues that are proving instrumental in determining the impact
of IPCG solutions: 1) intercultural injustices; 2) lack of meaningful
participation; and 3) governance gaps. The paper concludes by
proposing a set of policy recommendations to foster improved
IPCG for sustaining the Amazon biome.
2. Linking polycentricity to interculturality
2.1. Polycentric governance
The concept of Polycentric Governance (PG) was first intro-
duced in the 60s as ‘many centers of decision-making which oper-
ate independently of each other’ (Ostrom et al., 1961). Almost fifty
years after its inception, Elinor Ostrom (2010b) pointed to emerg-
ing polycentric systems as crucial for coping with climate change,
highlighting the need to align diverse levels, sectors, and actors to
enable the definition of collective goals. Polycentric Climate Gover-
nance (PCG) – in contrast with the monocentric United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or state-led
climate change governance systems – is thus characterized by mul-
tiple governing authorities (e.g. subnational governments, net-
works of governments, companies, community organizations)
that have considerable independence to make norms and rules
regarding climate action.
Ostrom (2010b) urged the need to critically study the strengths
and weaknesses of PCG, warning that polycentric systems are not a
F. de Wit and João Mourato World Development 157 (2022) 105955

panacea, as ‘‘there are no panaceas (. . .) for complex problems such cultural beliefs. It sheds light on the relations of power and recog-
as global warming” (p.555). With this in mind, and to explain the nition that have occurred between cultures throughout history.
rapidly changing landscape of climate governance, Jordan et al.
(2018) summarize PCG’s essential features around five key propo- 2.3. Towards intercultural polycentric governance
sitions drawn from polycentric theory: 1) Local action: governance
initiatives are likely to take off at a local level, through processes of Polycentricity can be used as a conceptual framework for any
self-organization; 2) Mutual adjustment: governing units are likely complex system, such as economic markets or democracies
to spontaneously develop collaborations with one another; 3) (Aligica & Tarko, 2012). It is especially well-suited to multicultural
Experimentation: the willingness and capacity to experiment is societies, provided those groups have arrived at an understanding
likely to facilitate governance innovation; 4) Trust: enhanced direct of the nature of their constitutional foundations (Aligica, 2014).
communication positively affects trust levels and consequently Vincent Ostrom (1992) emphasizes ‘meta-constitutional condi-
increases cooperation; and 5) Adoption of overarching rules: local tions’ as fundamentally significant for achieving and sustaining
initiatives are likely to work best when bound by a set of overarch- PG solutions that enable citizenship and vice versa. To better
ing rules that enshrine the broader goals to be achieved and allow understand how cultural differences impact these processes,
any conflicts to be satisfactorily resolved. Thiel and Moser (2019) focus on three foundational components
Thiel, Blomquist and Garrick (2019) introduced the idea of of PG (see Table 1):
‘thinking polycentrically’. In their view, polycentric thinking: 1)
implies not accepting blueprints, but requires deeper scrutiny 1) Overarching rules – institutional rules are defined as pre-
and empirical ooesearch into institutional design and human scriptive statements that forbid, require, or permit some
behavior; 2) accepts context-specific factors and effects of gover- action or outcome (Ostrom, 1986). These overarching rules,
nance arrangements; 3) recognizes the use of multi-method or ‘‘the institutional scaffolding that structures self-
research for iterative theory development; 4) implies the existence organization” (Thiel & Moser, 2019, p. 82), differ across juris-
of transaction costs and trade-offs in order to further the effective- dictions, which leads to different forms of governance.
ness of governance arrangements; and 5) suggests certain expecta- Ostrom (1990, p. 14) points out that ‘‘getting the institutions
tions related to agency and its relation to institutions. However, right’ is a difficult, time-consuming, and conflict-evoking
polycentric arrangements do not necessarily ‘‘guarantee sound
governance or assure efficiency, equity, reliability, and responsive-
ness” (Thiel et al., 2019, p. 267). Hence, they should be seen as a
bottom-up competitive process where intrinsically agonistic
worldviews often collide. Table 1
Polycentric Governance foundational components applied to interculturality.
2.2. Governing interculturally Defined in relation to the Examples from the
concept of Climate Governance
Interculturality has been increasingly mentioned among supra- Interculturality literature
national bodies as being a core-concept of their policies (e.g. CoE- 1. Overarching Culturally-bound rules Indigenous/non-western
Council of Europe, UNESCO-United Nations Educational, Scientific Rules are defined as participation in global
prescriptive statements climate governance and
and Cultural Organization). Intercultural approaches are often used
that forbid, require, or climate negotiations
in contrast to traditional strategies of assimilation and multicultur- permit some action or (Belfer, Ford, Maillet,
alism to discuss the challenges of migration-related cultural diver- outcome Araos, & Flynn, 2019;
sity in Western contemporary societies (Zapata-Barrero, 2015). Claeys & Delgado Pugley,
Although dominated by Anglo-American discourses, the concept 2017; Wamsler et al.,
2020)
of interculturality is far from homogeneous. Aman (2015) draws
attention to Latin-American perspectives stressing that 2. Social Problem Cultural values, attitudes, A cultural approach to
Characteristics beliefs, orientations, and climate change (Hulme,
‘interculturality’ is not the same as its Spanish translation ‘intercul-
underlying assumptions 2017; Nash et al., 2020)
turalidad’, as ‘‘. . .translation of these somewhat conflicting notions co-determine the way Climate change narratives
requires an understanding of the socio-political circumstances people address social (Farbotko & Lazrus, 2012;
under which they prevailed” (p.226). problems Fløttum & Gjerstad, 2017;
Scoville-Simonds, 2018)
In Latin America, interculturalidad emerged in the late 80s as a
Climate governmentality
core-component of struggle by indigenous peoples for the pursuit (Bäckstrand & Lövbrand,
of yet unfinished decolonization processes together with indige- 2006, 2019; Stripple &
nous political emancipation and civil rights’ recognition. It there- Bulkeley, 2013)
fore expresses an alternative framework for debates on 3. Community Cultural diversity in Indigenous knowledge
modernity, development, and more sustainable ways of life Heterogeneity terms of capabilities, incorporation in climate
(Solano-Campos, 2013; Walsh, 2009). Moving beyond cultural interests, beliefs, values, governance (Brace &
norms and mental Geoghegan, 2011;
diversity, interculturalidad also strives towards transforming pre-
models Goldman et al., 2018;
sent structures of society that embody deeply rooted colonial lega- Rice, Burke, & Heynen,
cies (Aman, 2015). It serves as an instrument and tool of 2015)
decoloniality’s praxis (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018). Political ontology of cli-
mate change (Burman,
Drawing on Mignolo (2007), interculturalidad can be theorized
2017; Esbjörn-Hargens,
as an act of resistance to the vestiges of colonialism, to delink from 2010)
the rhetoric of modernity and the logic of coloniality, by embracing Climate justice, recogni-
‘the Pluriverse’ (Escobar, 2018, 2020). Interculturalidad reveals how tion and capabilities
cultural hierarchy has been internalized as part of our conceptual (Okereke, 2018;
Schlosberg, 2012;
framework for understanding and acting upon reality. It questions
Schlosberg & Collins,
modernity’s dualist ontology that divides our world into subjects 2014)
and objects, human and non-human, scientific knowledge and
3
F. de Wit and João Mourato
process. It is a process that requires reliable information
about time and place variables as well as a broad repertoire
of culturally acceptable rules”.
2) Social problems’ characteristics – Social problems are cultur-
ally and historically co-determined as are the ways people
address them (Blomquist & Schroder, 2019). Although it is
broadly accepted that this co-determines public decision-
making in different geographies (Kickert, 2003), the nature
of the relations between cultures and governance has largely
been neglected.
3) Community heterogeneity – polycentricity offers an opportu-
nity to deal with heterogeneous actors and actor groups, in
terms of their capabilities, interests, beliefs, values, norms
and mental models (Poteete et al., 2010; van Riper et al.,
2018). According to Aligica (2014), homogeneity of human
agents is assumed or expected by our current theories and
models and, in order not to miss out on society’s pluralism
and cultural diversity, the diverse perspectives and hetero-
geneous communities of actors are critically important for
polycentricity.
However, to what extent do these foundational components of
PG challenge hegemonic politics and lead to the interweaving of
knowledge systems and worldviews? Cash et al. (2006) point to
the ‘plurality challenge’ resulting from differences across levels
about what is perceived as salient, credible, and legitimate knowl-
edge, and what is perceived as the important scale or level of
addressing the problem. A growing body of evidence highlights
critical knowledge governance as essential for reaching sustain-
ability (Van Kerkhoff, 2014; van Kerkhoff & Pilbeam, 2017). In this
sense, intercultural governance, as van Kerkhoff (2014) states,
requires a reframing of knowledge as an input to governance of
environmental issues, to ensure that understanding and incorpo-
rating diverse knowledge is a vital process for polycentric gover-
nance. This is a key component of our research design.
Recently, scholars have focused on the challenges of intercul-
tural knowledge exchange and the risk of creating ‘‘functional
interculturality” and thereby perpetuating neocolonial relations
and power imbalances (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018, p. 58). Yates and
Núñez Núñez (2020) underline the impossibility of institutional
standardizing divergent ontologies and epistemologies and
‘‘intercultural dialogues” into technical governance criteria. They
highlight the importance of ‘decolonial experimentation’ and the
‘‘everyday and extra-institutional dynamics of intercultural knowl-
edge exchange and the geolinguistic praxis entailed” (2020: p.13).
In line with this, Rodríguez et al. (2018) underline the need to go
beyond shared knowledge production, but to create conditions
for reflexive governance, to ‘‘critically consider different ways of
understanding, valuing, and interpreting specific problems and
their possible solutions” (p.693).
Another challenge for IPCG is that of power imbalances. Creat-
ing institutional spaces for intercultural dialogue runs the risk of
disempowering already marginalized groups (Rodríguez et al.,
2018). Morrisson et al (2019) point to types of power that shape
PG systems. For IPCG, framing power, empowered to frame prob-
lems set norms and influence discourse across decision-making
centers, is of special importance. The way powerful actors objectify
a complex governance challenge, such as climate change, through a
neoliberal perspective, creates its ‘climate governmentality’
(Stripple & Bulkeley, 2013) and frames the process of governing
and financial allocation. Thereby it fails to achieve a redistribution
of power and radical change in the hegemonic climate politics
paradigm and ‘‘[. . .] become functional to the systems of domina-
tion and the matrices of modern/colonial/capitalist power” (W.
Mignolo & Walsh, 2018, p. 93).
4
World Development 157 (2022) 105955
3. Methodological outline
3.1. Case study research
Due to its high cultural diversity and global importance for cli-
mate governance, the Amazon offers a crucial stage for IPCG. This
paper builds on two strategically selected subnational Amazonian
IPCG case studies: the State of Acre in Brazil, and the regional
department of Ucayali in Peru (Fig.1). These case studies can be
understood as ‘paradigmatic cases’: that serve ‘‘to develop a meta-
phor or establish a school for the domain that the case concerns.”
(Flyvbjerg, 2011, p. 307). Both subnational case studies were the
first in their respective countries to establish Indigenous Working
Groups (IWGs) to stimulate the dialogue between government
and indigenous peoples on governance issues, such as climate
change. They are considered pioneering examples of subnational
indigenous participatory governance in their national contexts
(see DiGiano et al (2018) for Acre and Rodriguez-Ward and Del
Aguila (2014) for Ucayali).
3.1.1. Case study 1: The state of Acre-Brazil
In the 1980s, Acre, one of Brazil’s nine Amazon States, became
internationally known because of the murder of Chico Mendes, rub-
ber tapper, who fought for forest preservation and the rights of the
‘Povos da Floresta’ (People of the Forest). In the 1990s, inspired by
Mendes’s ideals, Acre’s movement for social justice and forest con-
servation, politically allied with the regional Worker’s Party (PT),
elected Jorge Viana, a forest engineer, as Acre’s Governor (1998).
Viana inaugurated his Governo da Floresta (Forest Government), with
a series of innovative policies in support of sustainable forest extrac-
tivism and social inclusion. Acre’s experiments with forest-based
development and forest citizenship, the so-called Florestania, led
to a comprehensive approach that links policies across sectors,
involves civil society, and continuously builds institutional capacity
(Schminck, Duchelle, Hoelle, Leite, & Vinício, 2014).
The Florestania-model holds a special position for Acre’s indige-
nous peoples. It initiated a process of ‘ethno-mapping’ of indigenous
territories as part of its spatial planning policy and created the State
Secretary for Indigenous Affairs. In 2010, Acre consolidated its
Florestania model through a progressive law that established the
State System of Incentives for Environmental Services – SISA. Acre
s SISA created, amongst others, the State Institute of Climate Change
´
and Regulation of Environmental Services (Instituto das Mudanças
Climáticas – IMC), responsible for regulation, registry of program
participants, and of issuing of carbon credits. It also established
the Commission for Validation and Accompaniment (CEVA), respon-
sible for monitoring SISA. An important component of CEVA is its
Indigenous Peoples Technical Advisory Chamber.
3.1.2. Case study 2: the regional department of Ucayali-Peru
Ucayali is one of Peru’s five regional departments that are situ-
ated in the Peruvian selva (Amazon forest). Although Ucayali bor-
ders the Brazilian state of Acre, its socio-political context is very
different. Compared to Acre, the regional department does not
have long-standing experience with climate governance. On the
contrary, research shows the department’s land conflicts with its
indigenous populations, representing 12% of the region’s total pop-
ulation (Ministerio de Cultura, 2020), and particular governance
structures where untitled communities are ‘hidden’ under invest-
ment opportunities (Leal Pereira et al., 2015).
Due to successful lobbying by Peru’s national and regional
indigenous organizations, Ucayali’s regional policies enjoy a stron-
ger focus on interculturality. In 2000, Ucayali was the first Peruvian
region to create an intercultural university, UNIA (Universidad
Nacional Intercultural de la Amazonía – the National Intercultural
F. de Wit and João Mourato
Fig. 1. Our two case studies for intercultural polycentric climate governance in the Amazon: the department of Ucayali-Peru (in yellow) and the State of Acre-Brazil (in blue),
separated by the Brazil/Peru-border (dark line). The figure in the upper right corner shows their location within the Amazon biome (in green). (For interpretation of the
references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
University of the Amazon). In 2015, Ucayali created its Regional
Working Group on Indigenous Policies (RWGIP), with the objective
of guaranteeing the full rights and equal opportunities of
indigenous peoples within its jurisdiction to participate in the
decision-making processes of any policies and programs that con-
cern them. One of the main results stemming from RWGIP’s work
has been the creation of the Regional Department for the Develop-
ment of Indigenous Peoples (RDDIP) in June 2018, led by the
indigenous Diana Mori.
3.1.3. Indigenous working groups
Both case regions established Indigenous Working Groups
(IWGs) as part of their participatory governance mechanisms
(See Table 2). Both IWGs were created and are coordinated by their
respective regional governments, with the aim to allow for institu-
tionalized and continuous dialogue, in contrast with stand-alone
project-specific consultation processes. In 2012, Acre’s IWG started
off as a temporary working group but was institutionalized in 2017
to guarantee indefinite indigenous participation. Ucayali’s IWG
was created following the national example of Peru’s IWG estab-
lished by the country’s Vice Ministry for Intercultural Affairs in
2014. Both regional governments highlight their country’s ratifica-
tion of the International Labor Organization (ILO)’s 169 Convention
on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples1 and the United Nation Declara-
tion on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)2, as the Legal
1 nal indigenous organizations as members (see Table 2), the major-
The 1989 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, known as ILO169, is the
major binding international convention regarding indigenous and tribal peoples. It
entered into force on September 5, 1991 and was ratified by Brazil on 25 July 2002
and by Peru on 2 February 1994.
2
The 2007 United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is
a non-legally binding resolution that delineates indigenous collective and individual
rights. The Declaration’s goal is to encourage collaboration between government and
indigenous peoples on pressing global issues. Both Brazil and Peru are among the 144
countries that voted in favour of the Declaration.
5
World Development 157 (2022) 105955
Basis for their IWG establishment, emphasizing ILO 169 Art. 6 on
appropriate procedures for indigenous participation through their
own institutions, and UNDRIP Art.19 on ‘‘[. . .] obtaining free, prior
and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative
or administrative measures”.
The main difference between the two case study areas is that
Acre’s IWG is only focused on ecosystem services and climate
change while its state government representatives are all from
environment-oriented departments. Ucayali’s IWG, on the other
hand, discusses a much broader spectrum of issues and brings
together representatives of all the six departments of the Ucayali
regional government. Also, the idea to create an IWG in Acre came
from the state government and served as an example for the elab-
oration of Brazil’s national REDD strategy. In Ucayali, it was the
other way around: the national level set the example for its regio-
nal departments. Finally, where Acre’s IWG provides advice to
CEVA (SISA’s Commission for Validation and Accompaniment)
and does not make decisions, Ucayali’s IWG votes upon proposals
related to indigenous policies.
3.2. Methods
3.2.1. Semi-structured interviews
Active members of both IWGs were interviewed. In Acre, we
were able to interview 9 IWG members, 5 indigenous and 4 non-
indigenous representatives. Although Acre’s IWG counts 19 regio-
ity are new members and, at the time of our fieldwork, had not
(yet) participated in IWG meetings. In Ucayali, we interviewed
11 IWG members, 6 indigenous and 5 non-indigenous. In both of
our case study areas, IWG members were asked to indicate other
relevant IPCG stakeholders to be interviewed, including
(sub)national government, (I)NGOs, private sector, indigenous
organizations, and university representatives. To include
F. de Wit and João Mourato
Table 2
Indigenous Working Groups in Acre-Brazil and Ucayali-Peru.
Acre’s Indigenous Peoples
Technical Advisory
Chamber
Local CTI (Camara Técnica
Abbreviation Indígena)
Creation August 20, 2012,
Resolution No. 001
Institutional set- Part of the Commission of
up Validation and Monitoring
(CEVA) of the 2010 Acre
State Law on Incentives
for Environmental
Services (SISA)
Nature A forum for dialogue
between SISA actors,
indigenous communities,
and civil society.
Objectives Advice on regulating
environmental services on
indigenous-held lands;
Assist consultation
processes with the state’s
indigenous peoples;
Opinion on indigenous
issues and regulating
environmental services on
indigenous-hold lands;
Define specific actions and
projects.
Members 3 state government
institutions, 1 regional
NGO, Brazil’s National
Indian Foundation
(FUNAI) and 19 regional
indigenous organizations,
Themes discussed Ecosystem services,
climate change
DESIGN
Host Institution Acre’s Climate Change
Institute (Instituto de
Mudanças Climáticas –
IMC)
President President of Acre’s IMC
Secretary CEVA’s Executive
Secretariat
PROCEDURES
Meetings Approximately twice a
year; Extraordinary
meetings when necessary
Voting NA
Decision-making Meetings’ minutes serve
as input for CEVA that
makes the final decisions.
alternative (anti-government) voices, we also interviewed 2 repre-
sentatives of Acre’s anti-REDD movement and 3 representatives of
Ucayali’s indigenous movement of the Shipibo-people towards
autonomy and self-governance.
Ucayali’s Regional
Working Group on
Indigenous Policies
GRTPI (Grupo Regional de
Trabajo con Politicas
Indigenas)
August 27, 2015 by the
Regional Executive
Resolution No. 0714-
2015-GRU-GR
Following the 2014
National example and call
for the creation of
Working Groups on
Indigenous Policies
(GTPIs)
A space for intercultural
dialogue, analysis, and
proposals
Adopt measures or
coordination mechanisms
between public and
private institutions, and
indigenous organizations,
and generate actions
aimed at respecting
collective rights and
promoting the sustainable
development of
indigenous communities
and peoples
All 6 departments of the
Ucayali’s Regional
Government, 8 regional
indigenous organizations
Territorial organization;
food security; climate
change; bilingual
education; intercultural
justice
Regional Environmental
Authority (Autoridad
Regional de Ambiente -
ARA)
Regional Governor or
representative
Manager of the Regional
Environmental Authority
or representative
Ordinarily (every two
months) and
Extraordinary Sessions
recorded in the respective
Minutes which are then
signed and shared among
all its members.
All organizations have one
vote.
Presents and analyses
proposals that are voted
upon through consensus
decision-making.
6
World Development 157 (2022) 105955
We conducted a total of 45 semi-structured interviews,
between August and October 2018 in Ucayali (n = 25), and between
November 2018 and January 2019 in Acre (n = 20). The interviews
were semi-structured as the topic and question formulation were
fixed, but the question sequence and interviewer behavior
depended on the situation and interviewee’s answers, as some of
the interviews were conducted in a more formal, governmental
setting and others in a more informal setting. The interviews had
open, pre-formulated questions and were conducted in the Por-
tuguese (Acre) and Spanish (Ucayali) languages.
An important detail is that the first author who conducted the
interviews used to live and work in the State of Acre in the field
of socio-environmental governance. This insider-perspective has
both advantages and disadvantages for qualitative research; On
the one hand, the researcher was familiar with the language and
institutional culture, which increased the participants’ acceptance,
trust, and openness. A disadvantage is that being part of the con-
text might raise issues of undue influence of the researcher’s per-
spective, such as role confusion and not being able to see the
wider perspective (Asselin, 2003). However, being an insider does
not necessarily negatively influence the research process: continu-
ous reflection and close awareness of personal biases can reduce
potential harms of insider membership (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009).
It should also be noted that the interviews were conducted dur-
ing a volatile institutional period, possibly influencing the research
process (Kacen & Chaitin, 2015). Both regions had political elec-
tions in October 2018: federal and state-level elections in Brazil
and regional and municipal elections in Peru. The governments
in both case studies faced uncertainties regarding the continuation
of their political programs and strategies. Also, many of the inter-
viewed governmental representatives were in ‘‘commissioned
positions”, and hence were not sure if they would be able to stay
inside the government, possibly influencing their perspectives.
The prime purpose of the interviews was to better understand
the potential and risks of introducing and promoting intercultural
climate governance in both regions. The interviews, which lasted
between 40 and 90 min, were conducted through an interview pro-
tocol (see Appendix), starting off with a short description of the
research project and highlighting the respondent’s voluntary par-
ticipation and data confidentiality. All participants signed an
informed consent form. The interviews were divided into four sec-
tions: 1) institutional work on climate change; 2) climate collabo-
rations and governance; 3) climate justice and indigenous
participation; and 4) recommendations for improved climate
governance.
3.2.2. (Policy) document analysis
We qualitatively analyzed the institutional documents and the
meeting’s minutes of the IWGs in Acre (n = 10) and Ucayali
(n = 17), as well as other relevant (policy) documents (see Table 3).
Part of these were documents on partnerships between subna-
tional governments and indigenous peoples, put forward by the
Governor’s Climate and Forest Taskforce (GCF), of which both the
government of Acre and Ucayali are members.
Established in 2008, GCF is a network for subnational collabora-
tion on tropical forest and climate protection, with 38 member
states and provinces of 9 countries. One of GCF’s spearheads is
the establishment of partnerships and collaboration between sub-
national governments and indigenous peoples, for which it
receives financing by the Norwegian development agency NORAD.
This focus on indigenous participation has resulted in a set of guid-
ing principles for collaboration and partnership between subna-
tional governments, indigenous peoples, and local communities,
which were made public at the 2018 Global Climate Action
Summit.
F. de Wit and João Mourato
Table 3
Analyzed (Policy) Documents.
Acre-Brazil Ucayali-Peru
Workshop ‘Understanding (IMC, 2014) Ucayali Regional (GOREU,
SISA and the climate change Climate Change 2014)
context Strategy
REDD+ SES International (REDD+ SES
Review: the State of Acre, Initiative,
Brazil 2015)
One of our analyzed GCF documents is the transcription of the
workshop ‘‘Paths for Dialogue between Indigenous Peoples and
Subnational Governments of the Brazil’’, organized by GCF Brazil
in collaboration with Earth Innovation Institute (EII), which took
place on March 2, 2018 in the city of Rio Branco. The workshop’s
main objective was to exchange experiences between indigenous
leaders and representatives of Brazil’s subnational and national
governments and its organized civil society, and to establish joint
strategies for the development of subnational policies aimed at
the Brazilian Amazon’s indigenous peoples. The workshop, which
counted with both indigenous and state government representa-
tives of Brazil’s nine Amazon states, was a follow-up of the GCF
annual meeting in 2016, organized to discuss the challenges of
setting up the dialogue between indigenous peoples and
governments. However, as this first meeting was just for GCF
member-states, there were no indigenous peoples present and
GCF member states asked for a follow-up with representatives of
indigenous organizations.
3.2.3. Qualitative data analysis
Both the interviews and (policy) documents were coded using
MaxQDA software for qualitative data analysis through an induc-
tive, data-driven approach (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2019). During the
qualitative data analysis stage, the following three categories or
‘themes’ were formed in the wake of our review: 1) intercultural
justice; 2) level of participation; and 3) governance gaps. The first
category relates to interweaving indigenous knowledge systems
with scientific knowledge and recognition of the indigenous ontol-
ogy. The second category is related to Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of
participation, which shows how participation ranges from solely
informing civil society about plans and projects, to providing them
decision making power and control over the final decision. The last
category of governance gaps relates to the multilevel failures of
addressing global issues, such as climate change, on the local level
as well as effectively linking a diversity of stakeholders and their
knowledge systems towards transdisciplinary governance.
4. Intercultural polycentric climate governance in the amazon
4.1. Acre’s Florestania
4.1.1. Challenging hegemonic climate politics?
Stakeholder interviews in Acre indicated that establishing a
more holistic and systemic perspective was the main outcome of
SISA’s IWG. Indigenous participation introduced new topics to
the climate agenda, such as respect for indigenous cultures and ter-
ritorial rights. Therefore, 10% of the total funding for indigenous
peoples from the German funded Redd for Early Movers program
(REM) is now going to the organization of indigenous cultural fes-
tivals. As stated by a governmental interviewee:
Acre’s dialogue between the subnational government and the
indigenous peoples has shown us to look at the indigenous lands
7
World Development 157 (2022) 105955
GCF-Taskforce
The Rio Branco Declaration: Building Partnerships & Securing (GCF, 2014)
Support for Forests, Climate, & Livelihoods
Paths for Dialogue between Indigenous Peoples and Subnational (GCF Brazil,
Governments 2018)
Guiding Principles for Collaboration and Partnership Between (GCF, 2018)
Subnational Governments, Indigenous Peoples and Local
Communities
not as a problem for development, but actually as a strategy
towards sustainable development. (Interview #A12)
Another government representative emphasized Acre’s
pioneering position in comparison to other Brazilian Amazon
States:
SISA is not only focused on emission reduction, but also on social
inclusion and quality of living. (Interview #A2)
Acre’s Florestania-experience served as an example for the
National Program for Territorial Management Plans for Indigenous
Territories (PNGATI). An IMC representative emphasized how their
collaboration with indigenous peoples through the IWG is also
pioneering within the state itself, as this kind of collaboration does
not happen with any other department of the Acre government.
4.1.2. Meaningful indigenous participation?
An indigenous member of the IWG highlighted that their partic-
ipation in SISA has also strengthened their role internally:
Now we are not only looking at what the government should do,
but have become protagonists of improvements inside our lands.
(Interview #A4)
Since 2015, through SISA, the Indigenous Agroforestry Agents
(IAA) program receives support for the salaries of 149 IAAs, who
are trained to provide technical assistance on agroforestry systems
and environmental education inside their community.
Another indigenous member of the IWG, highlighted how par-
ticipation in SISA has also unified the indigenous movement and
reinforced their voice.
Before the creation of the Indigenous Working Group, the state was
our enemy. Now there is an intercultural dialogue and more
respect. (Interview #A18)
An important result of the subnational dialogue between IMC
and the State’s indigenous peoples is the elaboration of the 2013
Indigenous Charter of Principles. This serves as input for Acre’s
REDD+ Social and Environmental Safeguards (SES), and places a
strong emphasis on ‘‘free, prior and informed consent” for the con-
sultation of indigenous peoples.
In 2015, Acre, among the first jurisdictions in the world to use
the REDD+ SES, was the first to have an international REDD+ SES
review on its participatory, multi-stakeholder establishment of
REDD+ SES, performed by the REDD+ SES Initiative. The review’s
objectives were three-fold: 1) assessing the quality of the multi-
stakeholder process; 2) assessing the extent to which the interna-
tional REDD+ SES Guidelines had been followed; and 3) learning
from Acre’s pioneering process and reporting to the donor
(NORAD). The review’s general conclusion stated that Acre has
been ‘‘largely successful [. . .], with only minor variations that are
unlikely to affect the quality of the safeguards information”
(REDD+ SES Initiative, 2015, p. 10). One weakness is SISA’s lack
of coherence with other relevant policies and plans contributing
to sustainable development.
F. de Wit and João Mourato World Development 157 (2022) 105955

In relation to indigenous peoples’ participation, the review They are used as governmental propaganda of the archetype of the
highlighted some process weaknesses. ‘‘Although many Indigenous ecological Indian. It’s a marketing issue. (Interview #A16).
Peoples’ groups participated in the adaptation the REDD+ SES prin-
According to Acre’s anti-REDD movement3, it is the State’s elites
ciples, criteria, and indicators in Acre, it should be noted that many
that participate and profit from REDD. The movement, founded in
other Indigenous Peoples groups’ were not part of this process
2011 and made up of university professors, representatives of
even though they were invited to participate in workshops and
national and local NGO, indigenous organizations, rural workers’
consultation meetings” (p.4). Also, the review included concerns
unions, Brazil’s left-wing political party PSOL and community
expressed by indigenous peoples’ representatives regarding Acre
groups, criticized SISA as offering ‘‘false solutions incentivized by
government: ‘‘they have met with the authorities of some indige-
green capitalism and western ontology” based on carbon emission
nous communities, but not others; even though an Indigenous
compensation instead of improving Acre’s sustainability.
Working Group has been created, there is no indication to include
indigenous peoples in CEVA or in the group of councils or other Society in general stands in solidarity with the indigenous peoples.
inter-institutional decision-making bodies” (p.20). They don’t need training on carbon. They need territorial security,
health, and education. Basic rights. The government needs to
4.1.3. Power dynamics and imbalances demarcate indigenous territories. (Interview #A5)
The most frequently mentioned challenge of SISA’s governance
To make matters worse, there is a lack of effective monitoring
applies to benefit sharing. According to IMC, 30% of their annual
on SISA’s impacts making it impossible to assess whether current
budget goes to SISA governance and 70% to its subprograms. SISA’s
policies are effectively addressing the causes of deforestation and
subprograms include indigenous peoples (17% of the budget),
climate change (REDD+ SES Initiative, 2015). According to Acre’s
smallholder farmers and extractivists (37%), and private agricul-
anti-REDD movement, SISA caused a divide between the State’s
ture properties (46% of the budget). In the IWG meeting minutes,
indigenous peoples that are in favor, and those against the govern-
representatives of indigenous organizations complained that they
mental program.
were never informed why their subprogram only receives 17% of
When the interviews took place, Brazil had just held its 2018
the budget, when higher percentages are given to SISA’s other sub-
elections for President and State Governor and there were some
programs. The main complaint is that the IWG is not involved in
tensions and uncertainties among the interviewed stakeholders.
any structural and financial decisions for SISA and is only asked
The elected right-wing President, Jair Bolsonaro, dismantled gov-
to decide on smaller level projects.
ernment divisions working on climate change and threatened to
Indigenous representatives also pointed to a lack of clear com-
pull Brazil out of the Paris Agreement on climate change (H. Esco-
munication by IMC on the purpose of climate governance and their
bar, 2019). On the subnational level in Acre, after twenty years of
one-sided climate narrative on environmental impacts. During one
PT (Brazil’s Workers Party) hegemony, the newly elected right-
of SISA’s capacity building activities, an indigenous participant
wing State Governor, Gladson Cameli, issued a fierce critique of
highlighted the link between climate change and culture: ‘‘Climate
the Florestania-model and threatened to close the IMC. An indige-
change affects our lives and our culture. The weather [climate] for
nous leader, member of the IWG, remarked:
us is linked to nature and our culture” (IMC, 2014). However, SISA’s
capacity-building activities and workshops are of a technical nat- I feel sad about what the country is facing in political and environ-
ure and are focused on the environmental impact of climate mental terms. I hope that our Gods of Nature will help us to mini-
change on ecosystem services. An indigenous member of the mize damage and trauma. [. . .] In the Amazon of my dreams there
IWG mentioned that the process of informing their community would be no more deforestation, and the big cities would fall apart,
members on the issues discussed in the IWG is a real challenge: and everyone would live in the forest in direct contact with nature.
I would like to see a life without asphalt, without concrete, without
Our people do not understand the link between the international
oil and without taking from nature anything but the necessary con-
political debate on climate change and their daily lives. (Interview
sumption to live. (Interview #A18)
#A9)

4.2. Ucayali’s interculturality

This can be seen in practice with the REM program: many REM
beneficiaries do not clearly understand why they are receiving
benefits.
The IWG meeting minutes show that the agenda-setting and
the majority of presentations are carried out by non-indigenous
representatives. As shown by Table 2, both the presidency and sec-
retariat of the IWG are in non-indigenous hands. Also, indigenous
participation depends on the authority of the indigenous leader
and is not equal: some have more political skills and feel more at
ease with the Portuguese language. An indigenous representative
complained there are no governmental technicians available to
help them with the State’s bureaucratic processes. Only the expe-
rienced indigenous organizations are able to submit project appli-
cations. This results in the fact that most indigenous organizations
have never received funding, whereas other projects (such as the
IAA program) regularly receive funding. The underlying risk is that
the IWG becomes a mere discussion group, not leading to effective
actions.
An interviewed indigenous leader, not a member of the IWG,
complained that the state dialogue with indigenous peoples is
mainly focused on three of the fifteen indigenous peoples in Acre:
4.2.1. Challenging hegemonic climate politics?
Compared to other Amazon-regional departments, Ucayali has a
strong institutional presence of its indigenous peoples, especially
the Shipibo and Ashaninka people. This greatly facilitates the work-
ing of the IWG. IWG discussions have focused on the indigenous,
more holistic conception of lands and the importance of ancestral
care and spirituality. In its meetings, indigenous organizations
emphasized the importance of the use of ayahuasca, a traditional
spiritual brew used in indigenous ceremonies.
Ayahuasca is part of our culture. Through its use we have visions of
mother nature. We think we should respect every plant, every tree,
3
Acre’s anti-REDD movement consists of approximately 20 supporters, both
indigenous and non-indigenous. In 2011, they elaborated the ‘‘Acre Declaration: In
defense of life, the integrity of peoples and their territories and against REDD and the
commodification of nature”. In 2012, they presented their ‘‘Dossier Acre: the Acre that
nature markets try to hide” during a demonstration at the United Nations Conference
on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. In December 2018, 30 years
after the assassination of Chico Mendes, the movement presented the ‘‘Xapuri
Declaration: Chico Mendes in the standoff against the false solutions of green
capitalism”.

8
F. de Wit and João Mourato
because they are like a person. Through ayahuasca, we can speak
with nature. (Interview #U13)
Another theme is safeguarding indigenous identity and promot-
ing indigenous culture. This has resulted in 15 colorful wall-
paintings of indigenous faces and traditions in Ucayali’s capital
Pucallpa (see Figs. 2 and 3) and the promotion of dances and songs
from the region’s different indigenous peoples.
4.2.2. Meaningful indigenous participation?
Indigenous participation is strong, but their demands are not
integrated in regional public policies and lack implementation.
According to a local NGO representative this is both a regional
and a structural problem on the national level. Indigenous issues
are not truly part of public policies.
They (indigenous leaders) sit in their traditional clothes and par-
ticipate in various roundtables and working groups to satisfy
donor-demands. (Interview #U16)
The IWG was created without an assigned budget and therefore
only the confederations located in Ucayali’s capital participated in
its meetings, as there is no budget available for the more distant
federations.
This lack of implementation is also visible in Ucayali’s 2015–
2020 Regional Strategy on Climate Change (RSCC). In its ‘‘trans-
verse axes” the RSCC mentions the value of indigenous knowledge:
‘‘There is a very important issue that must also be potentiated: the
enhancement and dissemination of indigenous traditional knowl-
edge related to forest management, since this management is in
fact much friendlier for the Amazon and allows a better use of
the forest.” (GOREU, 2014). However, besides this short epigraph,
the use of indigenous knowledge on the forest is not mentioned
in the strategy and is not part of its chapter on ‘‘institutional and
operational aspects”.
The same goes for the recently created Regional Department
for the Development of Indigenous Peoples (RDDIP). Indigenous
representatives emphasized that this was created with neither
the powers nor the budget: even to manage the IWG, which is
coordinated by the Regional Environmental Authority. Another
example of the government’s lack of willingness to truly invest
in interculturality is the missed opportunity of supporting the
intercultural university UNIA – the result of the vindication of
regional indigenous groups to provide opportunities to university
education for the indigenous youth. Although the UNIA provides
two officially authorized undergraduate courses, indigenous
Figs. 2 and 3. Wall-paintings of indigenous faces and traditions in Ucayali’s capital Pucallpa financed by Peru’s Vice Ministry of Intercultural Affairs to promote indigenous
identity. Source: photos taken by the author.
9
World Development 157 (2022) 105955
organizations complain that the general management is still in
the hands of non-indigenous workers and the learning on offer
is far from being intercultural:
It (UNIA) lacks our ancestral and spiritual focus. (Interview #U3).
A second complaint is that the access road to the UNIA is
unpaved, making it impossible to get to the university during peri-
ods of heavy rainfall.
A frequently mentioned pitfall in Peru is its centralist, top-down
way of governing. Stakeholders mentioned a need for more region-
alization and more regional offices. Both the international NGO
WWF and the United Nations Development Program’s (UNDP) ‘‘a
Resilient Amazon’’ do not have regional offices in Ucayali. Most
of the time international projects hire their consultants in Peru’s
capital Lima, who only occasionally visit Ucayali. According to a
local NGO representative these consultants are often unaware of
the local context and needs.
Hiring consultants from the national capital makes it look as if
there is no local capacity to deal with project management and
weakens Ucayali’s regional institutions. (Interview #U8)
Ucayali’s regional government and local NGO representatives
emphasized the potential of working at the subnational level.
As we are from the region, we understand their (the indigenous
peoples) cosmovision. It is the national authorities that do not
incorporate it in their regulations. (Interview #U19)
The interviewed stakeholders appreciated the space provided
by the IWG to include the Amazonian and indigenous context into
regional policies.
Because regional policies and strategies need to follow the
national template, they slow down the process. An example of this
is the elaboration of socio-environmental safeguards for the REDD-
program, which first have to be developed at the national level and
only then transposed to the regional level. Peru’s top-down
national budget law for the public sector obliges regional govern-
ments to ask permission for all their public expenditures. Although
the Peruvian Amazon makes up 60% of the country, the inter-
viewed regional stakeholders complain that the national govern-
ment in Lima does not care about development in the Amazon.
4.2.3. Power dynamics and imbalances
Another challenge for the even exercise of power relations is the
prejudice of (most) regional government employees towards
indigenous peoples. They are looked upon as ‘‘backwards, and
F. de Wit and João Mourato
unprofessional” and ‘‘lacking the capacity to manage projects” as
mentioned by regional government representatives. According to
local NGO representatives, the regional government lacks the
capacity to discuss in an intercultural way with the indigenous
organizations as well as the necessary delicacy to explain regional
projects. In the past, it made promises to indigenous organizations,
without explaining projects in more detail, and thereby created
false expectations, which led to a loss of trust. As mentioned by
various interviewees, both indigenous and non-indigenous, until
now there are no good examples of effective co-governance
between government and indigenous peoples in Ucayali.
Leaders of the Shipibo people mentioned their struggle towards
autonomy and their vision of the Council of Self-Governance of the
Shipibo-people (Autogobierno Shipibo). Inspired by self-governance
examples of the Achuar and the Wampi people, the Shipibo want
the recognition and titling of their ancestral territory in an inte-
grated way. However, self-governance does not mean
independence;
We want a governance structure designed by us and territorial
governance in line with our indigenous cosmovision that includes
ancestral care. We do not own the land, it is the land of Pacha-
mama (Interview #U4).
Peru’s legal system is extremely constricting; Communal terri-
tory that is classified as forested land cannot be titled to indige-
nous peoples, they can only be allocated ‘use rights’. ‘Territorial
security’ and land titling are of the utmost importance for the Ship-
ibo people:
Without our lands, we are nothing. First, we need territorial secu-
rity, then we can talk about climate change and dialogue with the
government (Interview #U24).
4.3. Dialogue between subnational governments and indigenous
peoples
In August 2014, during its eighth annual meeting in Acre’s cap-
ital city Rio Branco, GCF members prepared and signed the Rio
Branco Declaration, which is considered GCF’s ‘commitment
framework’ for its 38 member states, including Acre and Ucayali.
The Declaration’s focus is on low-emission rural development
and aims to formalize ‘‘ [. . .] commitment to continue reducing
deforestation, to develop partnerships with private sector initia-
tives that leverage the opportunities available through jurisdic-
tional programs, and to rapidly and effectively channel
performance-based funds for the promotion of forest-based and
forest-friendly economic development to producers, foresters,
farmers, ranchers, indigenous peoples, local communities, and
other forest stakeholders.” (GCF, 2014).
The Rio Branco Declaration formalizes GCFs interest in partner-
ships with the private sector and mentions indigenous peoples as
beneficiaries of funds from REDD initiatives. In following GCF
meetings, incentivized by positive results from Acre’s inclusive
approach and its IWG, GCF started working towards collaboration
and dialogue with indigenous leaders. This led to the formation of
the GCF Global Committee on Indigenous Peoples and Local Com-
munities in 2016, which serves as a platform for sharing strategies.
This Global IWG also began working on guiding principles for the
collaboration between subnational governments and indigenous
peoples.
In March 2018, a workshop organized by GCF Brazil to discuss a
draft of these guiding principles gathered indigenous leaders and
representatives from all Brazil’s nine Amazon states. One of the
workshop’s panels focused on exchanging experiences between
States on indigenous peoples - government collaborations. It
10
World Development 157 (2022) 105955
became clear that the other states do not have the same experience
as Acre, as most of them are in a very early stage of dialogue. Dur-
ing the workshop, indigenous representatives expressed their
demands for a transparent dialogue in which they are not just
recipients of benefits, but equal partners (GCF Brazil, 2018). They
found it inadmissible to discuss benefits, while there are still
indigenous peoples without territory. In relation to IWGs, they
demanded indigenous participation in the decision-making and
implementation and in the creation of working groups and sought
to be protagonists of these intercultural spaces. The indigenous
representatives also mentioned that financial resources for their
participation comes from international cooperation, which, in their
view, highlights a lack of governmental interest and care.
5. Discussion
Thiel, Blomquist and Garrick (2019) emphasize that polycen-
tricity does not necessarily lead to good governance. However, in
PG, cooperation, competition, and conflict resolution are mecha-
nisms through which actors ‘take each other into account’, and
generate and share information which leads to mutual adaptation
(Ostrom et al., 1961). This process of mutual acknowledgement
brings us back to the concept of interculturality and intercultural
governance within the Amazonian space. How can we improve
the way in which different perspectives and systems of knowledge
inform IPCG solutions? We structure a critical interpretation of the
previously described results around three key issues:
5.1. Intercultural justice
Stakeholders in both Acre and Ucayali mentioned the added
value of indigenous participation in expanding their understanding
of climate change challenges and enabling regional governments to
look at it in a more systemic and intercultural manner. But whose
conceptualization of interculturality are we looking at? Western-
ized conceptualizations of interculturality often clash with the
indigenous interculturalidad: Where interculturality is based on
neoliberal strategies of low-carbon development and REDD-
policies, interculturalidad challenges these neo-colonial structures.
Latin American governments, through their education, health care
and natural resources policies, have largely dismissed intercultural-
idad in their actions (Walsh, 2009). The danger is the undermining
of a conceptual effort aimed at challenging shared ideas on devel-
opment and modernity.
As Aman (2015, p. 217) puts it, ‘‘where interculturalidad works
toward pluriversality, interculturality risks universalizing the par-
ticularity that is modernity”. It portrays a neoliberal development
model as the only possible pathway in the position to assimilate
all other worlds, canceling possibilities for what lies beyond its
limits (de la Cadena & Blaser, 2018). Based on modernist politics
relying on dualisms, it portrays modernity and development as
the only way forward and marginalizes forms of knowledge devi-
ant from science, which is seen as the only reliable truth (Kothari
et al., 2019). Interculturalidad is much more than a ‘dialogue among
cultures’: it ‘‘points toward the building of radically different soci-
eties” (W. Mignolo & Walsh, 2018, p. 75).
In the Amazonian space, failures to appreciate particular cul-
tural perspectives are deeply inserted in climate politics. Although
the IWGs provide a platform for discussion, our analysis shows that
the way the indigenous members perceive and wish to act towards
nature is not integrated into public policies. Santos (2015) empha-
sizes the value of ‘Epistemologies of the South’ and the importance
of cognitive justice between different ways of knowing and differ-
ent forms of knowledge. Tengo et al. (2014) discuss the importance
of creating synergies and cross-fertilization across knowledge sys-
F. de Wit and João Mourato
tems and the need for a true intercultural dialogue for improved
ecosystem governance. Although the IWGs provide an opportunity
for indigenous participation, their structures and procedures, dom-
inated by government representatives, keep them in line with the
established climate change knowledge politics and ways of know-
ing that prioritize economic growth whilst destroying ancestral
wisdom (Martin et al., 2020). This is a form of pervasive power,
the antithesis of polycentric climate governance.
Haverkamp (2021) emphasizes how ontological injustices in cli-
mate governance reflect a continuity of colonial logics and prac-
tices. Echoing Escobar’s design for a pluriverse world (2018), she
comments on how ‘‘(climate) adaptation actions are produced
from, and therefore may also reproduce, colonial legacies and
uneven power relations” (2021, p. 12). As illustrated in Acre, Ucay-
ali and the GCF, a neocolonial way of looking at nature in general,
and at the forest specifically, is still at the forefront of (IWG) dis-
cussions. Both case studies attempt to incorporate indigenous
knowledge and worldviews into the established REDD-policies that
portray the forest as fundamentally playing the role of carbon stor-
age. The same goes for the GCF Guiding Principles, which are ulti-
mately focused on low-carbon development. Territorial
governance and indigenous land rights, the most important topic
for the indigenous representatives, are not being discussed.
To address these intercultural injustices, Haverkamp (2021)
asks for critical reflection on adaptation-as-usual efforts, and seeks
a tilt towards decolonial practices. For Amazon IPCG that would
imply moving away from the predominant focus on scientific
expertise and technological solutions, to a discussion on epistemo-
logical and ontological differences, instead of merely focusing on
budget-spending strategies. Indigenous alternatives that challenge
the dominant socio-environmental worldview, such as Ucayali’s
example of the Shipibo Council of Self-Governance, are not picked
up by the IWG. Escobar (2016) argues that we need knowledge
from struggles between western and indigenous perspectives for
thinking about social transformations, as this knowledge ‘‘provides
us with essential elements for thinking about the profound cultural
and ecological transitions needed to face the inter-related crises of
climate, food, energy, poverty and meaning” (2016, p. 14).
5.2. Nature of participation
Although the demand for more equity and justice might have
pushed the system towards more polycentric governance by
including non-state actors, what it actually delivers is unclear. In
the current Amazonian policy environment, there is a lack of
meaningful indigenous participation beyond sporadic working
group discussions. Both in Acre and Ucayali, indigenous represen-
tatives do not have a stake in how project money is spent. In Acre,
this is due to a lack of communication and transparency. It often
remains unclear how the benefits from REDD projects are shared.
In Ucayali, due to Peru’s highly centralized governance system,
local indigenous affairs are not seen as a priority. The regional gov-
ernment lacks financial and human resources as well as the polit-
ical will to address indigenous issues.
These results are in line with the expressed skepticism by Cooke
and Kothari (2001) on participatory development, both as a prac-
tice and discourse. According to the scholars, participation is often
used to legitimize, not challenge, the existing development models
and governance strategies. Also, participatory processes are fre-
quently based on naive assumptions regarding authenticity of
behavior as well as power and power relations, especially in rela-
tion to (international) donors. As illustrated by our results, espe-
cially in Acre, the IWG was established to achieve a
predetermined outcome: a low-carbon development strategy.
Thereby, it marginalizes those who challenge the status quo, such
11
World Development 157 (2022) 105955
as the indigenous peoples that are part of the anti-REDD
movement.
Following international legislation and the principle of obtain-
ing ‘free, prior and informed consent’ (FPIC) of indigenous peoples
before adopting measures, indigenous participation in environ-
mental governance has rapidly increased. FPIC, however, is no sil-
ver bullet for intercultural participation and needs critical
examination: ‘‘The sole presence of indigenous participants is not
enough to qualify participatory processes as intercultural dia-
logues.” (Flemmer & Schilling-Vacaflor, 2016, p. 183). Increased
indigenous participation might strengthen the power of local elite
actors (Fontana & Grugel, 2016); Create spaces dominated by the
state with no room for indigenous (Flemmer & Schilling-Vacaflor,
2016); and present a simplistic understanding of indigenous com-
munities as being homogeneous and harmonious units visions
(Schilling-Vacaflor & Flemmer, 2020). All of these issues can be
observed in the functioning of the IWG in our case regions.
Seeking a just participatory framework also requires paying
attention to who is participating and what is their stake in the dis-
cussion. The fact of having an IWG on climate governance does not
necessarily mean that the appropriately inclusive indigenous rep-
resentatives are participating. Both of our case studies show that
the IWGs are not representative of their entire indigenous popula-
tions, and that mainly indigenous stakeholders from the capital
cities of Rio Branco and Pucallpa attended the meetings. This
‘‘tends toward participation simply as a means to get people
together as if they are all equivalently empowered stakeholders,
which is highly contestable” (McCall, 2016, p. 67). The question
of whether indigenous representatives are being typed for the very
fact that they are ‘indigenous’ casts a negative cloud over IWG
efforts, ultimately undermining IPCG solutions on the ground.
Acre and Ucayali’s IWGs are a long way away from including
indigenous peoples in a way that respects and promotes their ‘dis-
tinctive spiritual relationship’ with their lands, as expressed in
international legislation such as ILO 169 and the UNDRIP. PCG
‘‘may be helping to create the illusion that something is being done
and diverting attention that might be better devoted to getting tra-
ditional state actors to take ownership for and tackle the problem”
(Okereke, 2018, p. 331). The creation of an IWG might create such
an illusion, without necessarily recognizing the added value of
indigenous perspectives and creating more effective forms of gov-
ernance. These performative and superficial demonstrations of
esteem for indigenous perspectives and participation is ‘‘an exer-
cise in paying lip service to political correctness” (Ramos, 1998,
p. 219) without a de facto compromise to integrate indigenous par-
ticipatory processes into public policies (Fontana & Grugel, 2016;
Merino, 2018).
5.3. Governance gaps
Although Duchelle et al (2014) regard solutions in the Brazilian
Amazon as promising for effective and equitable REDD implemen-
tation, our results highlight climate governance gaps that hinder its
intercultural integration processes. A first gap is on the horizontal,
cross-sectoral level. Climate governance involves a high level of
complexity and policymakers often do not recognize existent
cross-sector and cross-actor interrelations (Bergsten et al., 2019).
In both case study areas, indigenous affairs are not integrated into
the diverse regional governance secretaries, nor is there an
assigned budget for indigenous policies. Although creation of IWGs
is a first step towards policy coherence and integration (Weitz,
Strambo, Kemp-Benedict, & Nilsson, 2017), attempts at IPCG in
the Amazon fall far short of embracing its potential
interculturality.
The structure and functioning of governance arrangements
strongly reflect the characteristics of social problems being
F. de Wit and João Mourato
addressed by dominant power holders, people’s variable knowl-
edge about those characteristics, and differing perceptions of them
(Blomquist & Schroder, 2019). Where indigenous people empha-
size the holistic nature of their participation, environmental agen-
cies have specific responsibilities compartmentalized by law. This
complicates and inhibits any attempts on their part to connect
with other policies such as education, health care or agricultural
development (Boxelaar, Paine, & Beilin, 2006). On top of this,
amidst public officials, there is no training on interculturality and
hence no empathetic understanding of its importance for climate
governance. Without this process of collaborative learning,
involved stakeholders will be unable to build a shared understand-
ing of the challenges and necessary practices for natural resource
governance (van Oosten, 2013).
A second identified governance gap, vertical in nature, high-
lights the fragility of the governance system and the lack of a more
robust IPCG. The local action component of polycentricity reminds
us that ‘‘bottom-up governance is a perilous activity, vulnerable to
lapses in funding and state support” (Galaz et al., 2012, p. 31). In
both Brazil and Peru, recent regional elections led to political
change, which endangers the continuity of existing IWGs. In Brazil,
the elected rightwing president Jair Bolsonaro, is an outspoken cli-
mate change denier who undermines the territorial rights of Bra-
zil’s indigenous peoples. Under his influence any serious attempt
to establish IPCG in Brazil looks doomed as Brazil’s ‘overarching
rules’ in relation to climate governance are focused on agricultural
expansion.
A third governance gap concerns the politicized knowledge
system that perpetuates the interculturality and interculturalidad
divide. Efforts of policy co-production can potentially alter the
institutional arrangements that govern relationships between
knowledge and power, state and citizens, indigenous or not.
However, critical policy weaknesses or deliberate political
agency, in both Brazil and Peru, enforces a prejudiced status
quo against a pluralistic knowledge-based policy environment,
which constitutes ultimately a knowledge governance gap (Van
Kerkhoff, 2014).
6. Conclusion
IPCG is still in its infancy. Neither polycentricity, nor intercul-
turality are absolute solutions to the multitude of governance fail-
ures and challenges outlined in the literature. IPCG is not a
guarantor of avoidance of any environmental tipping point, includ-
ing the Amazonian. Notwithstanding, the implementation of IPCG
should be understood as a continuous learning process instead of
an end-state. We still need to figure out how to deal with polycen-
tric governance arrangements in intercultural contexts, such as the
Amazon. Today’s polycentric theory is not enough. It struggles with
issues of inclusiveness, imbalanced power and justice. It must be
re-politicized with the yet missing voices in key environmental
governance solutions. Regardless of how plural these voices may
be and how they may echo dominant discourses. Minimal IPCG
requirements are trust, localism and experimentation with shared
rules and expectations.
In this paper, we critically reviewed two pioneering examples of
indigenous participation in subnational climate governance: the
Brazilian state of Acre and the Peruvian department of Ucayali.
The reform and improvement of polycentric governance arrange-
ments have a crucial role to play towards the political emancipa-
tion of indigenous movements. For this to happen a number of
pre-conditions must be met. There is a need for a research agenda
that mobilizes IPCG as simultaneously complexity-oriented, criti-
cally reflexive, and normatively committed (West, van Kerkhoff,
& Wagenaar, 2019). Multiple factors support this.
12
World Development 157 (2022) 105955
First, existing intercultural injustices in polycentric governance
arrangements should be acknowledged and reflected upon. Non-
western epistemological and ontological perspectives on climate
change and forest governance are often neglected or portrayed as
‘savage’, as they are ‘‘virtually incompatible with the rapacity of
industrial activities” (Ramos, 1998, p. 219). Although the Intergov-
ernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services (IPBES) is starting to recognize and incorporate alternative
worldviews in its framework (Tengö et al., 2017), its older sister,
the IPCC, still has a very narrow view on climate governance as
low carbon development. So too do Brazil’s and Peru’s national
and regional governments.
Second, further examination and research is needed on the
lack of meaningful indigenous participation in Amazon climate
governance. This could lead to establishing a weakened working
group with sporadic discussions and no stake in final decisions:
political tokenism. Our case studies, from two countries with
different institutional settings, highlight the same outcome:
continuous marginalization of the majority of the region’s
indigenous peoples. Only those that ‘speak the same language’
as the government are being heard and interculturality is per-
ceived as a simple add-on to existing governance arrangements.
Well functioning IPCG needs to respect the cultural and territo-
rial rights of indigenous peoples, as expressed in international
legislation. It will also need more attention for anti-systemic
voices and alternative conceptions of justice, progress, nature
and culture (Kothari et al., 2019). This is not (yet) happening
in the Amazon.
Finally, even if a political space opens for deeper indigenous
participation, the complexity of IPCG would be a fierce challenge
in terms of the management of the diverse knowledge systems
involved. Social capital through which the institutional arrange-
ments that facilitate the sharing and coproduction of knowledge
create the so-called knowledge brokerage (Brondizio, Ostrom, &
Young, 2009; Michaels, 2009; Mourato, Bussler, & de Wit, 2020)
which is still deeply underdeveloped. Ultimately, only inclusive
knowledge governance solutions (van Kerkhoff & Pilbeam, 2017)
may support a more politically- and socially sensitive intervention
in deeply intercultural contexts avoiding the pitfalls of managerial-
ist approaches to sustainability (West et al., 2019).
IPCG faces an uphill battle against deep-rooted political and cul-
tural biases. The recommendations of global agendas and academic
research alone will have little impact towards the necessary polit-
ical ethos shift and institutional redesign. To this effect, future
effective IPCG must embrace a multidimensional conceptualization
of justice as a fundamental goal. If not, the realization of the
Agenda 2030 and its long-term plans for sustainable transforma-
tion will most certainly fail (Martin et al., 2020). To avert this
means to step up participation towards indigenous-driven co-
governance (Hill et al., 2012), through formally structured settings.
For equal legitimacy, it must move beyond purely consultative pro-
cesses. Interculturality should be embedded as a central pillar in all
government departments, and intercultural training of govern-
ment officials made mandatory. The ‘‘authentic speech” dimen-
sions of participatory modernization (Habermas, 1984) and joint
reflection on a shared problem definition and goals are paramount
for successful IPCG.
Notwithstanding, as we stand the implementation of IPCG has
limited room for improvement, regardless of how normatively it
can be prescribed. To further foster IPCG implies a deep reform
of IWGs. These, however, are so deeply entrenched in colonial
hegemonic cultural constructs that the very use of concepts such
as what constitutes justice from an indigenous culture viewpoint
may sit beyond any existing knowledge brokering strategies and
practices. Furthermore, the very notion of indigenous culture is
structurally unsettled as it encompasses disparate and often con-
F. de Wit and João Mourato
tradictory views. We acknowledge these critical limitations and
how they impact IPCG efforts.
IPCG requires the crossing of many boundaries, e.g. territorial,
disciplinary, organizational and cultural. Crossing cultural bound-
aries, in particular, requires a profound overhaul of stakeholder’s
perceptions, as without it ‘‘. . .the ‘‘others” remain others, and many
difficulties and limitations are likely to follow for advancing collab-
orative activities” (Perz, 2016, p. 95). The IWGs in Acre and Ucayali
are a first step towards a co-production model for subnational cli-
mate governance that better serves the Amazon’s cultural context.
Nevertheless, the hegemonic narrative of the Amazon is still
focused on the forest as carbon storage and stocks, highlighting
the imminent inequalities and structural power relations of Ama-
zon collaborative politics. Meanwhile the indigenous inhabitants,
whose voices are vital to impede the onset of a drying disen-
chanted forest, remain substantially unheard.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Fronika de Wit: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal anal-
ysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft. João
Mourato: Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Portuguese Fundação para a Ciên-
cia e a Tecnologia [grant numbers 7/2019/NT-GH-01 and SFRH/
BD/129274/2017].
We are grateful for the map of our two case studies kindly pro-
vided by Professor Sonaira de Souza da Silva from the Federal
University of Acre (UFAC) in Brazil.
We received valuable comments to this manuscript from Pro-
fessor Tim O’Riordan from the University of East Anglia. We also
received valuable comments and suggestions for improvement by
two anonymous reviewers, for which we express our gratitude.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105955.
References
Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of
community in natural resource conservation. World Development, 27(4),
629–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00161-2.
Agrawal, A., Nepstad, D., & Chhatre, A. (2011). Reducing emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation. Annual Review of Environment and
Resources, 36(1), 373–396. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-042009-
094508.
Agrawal, A., & Ribot, J. (1999). Accountability in decentralization: A framework with
South Asian and West African cases. Journal of Developing Areas, 33(4), 473–502.
Alencar, A., Pereira, C., Castro, I., Cardoso, A., Souza, L., Costa, R., ... Novaes, R. (2016).
Desmatamento nos Assentamentos da Amazônia: histórico, tendências e
oportunidades. Brasilia, DF: IPAM - Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da
Amazônia.
Aligica, P. D. (2014). Institutional diversity and political economy. Institutional
diversity and political economy. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/
acprof:oso/9780199843909.001.0001
Aligica, P. D., & Tarko, V. (2012). Polycentricity: From Polanyi to Ostrom, and
beyond. Governance, 25(2), 237–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
0491.2011.01550.x.
Aligica, P. D., & Tarko, V. (2013). Co-production, polycentricity, and value
heterogeneity: The ostroms’ public choice institutionalism revisited. American
13
World Development 157 (2022) 105955
Political Science Review, 107(4), 726–741. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0003055413000427.
Aman, R. (2015). Why Interculturalidad is not Interculturality: Colonial remains and
paradoxes in translation between indigenous social movements and
supranational bodies. Cultural Studies, 29(2), 205–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09502386.2014.899379.
Andersson, K. P., Gibson, C. C., & Lehoucq, F. (2006). Municipal politics and forest
governance: Comparative analysis of decentralization in Bolivia and Guatemala.
World Development, 34(3), 576–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.worlddev.2005.08.009.
Andersson, K. P., & Ostrom, E. (2008). Analyzing decentralized resource regimes
from a polycentric perspective. Policy Sciences, 41(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11077-007-9055-6.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01944366908977225.
Asselin, M. E. (2003). Insider research: Issues to consider when doing qualitative
research in your own setting. Journal for Nurses in Staff Development, 19(2),
99–103. https://doi.org/10.1097/00124645-200303000-00008.
Bäckstrand, K., & Lövbrand, E. (2006). Planting trees to mitigate climate change:
Contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and
civic environmentalism. Global Environmental Politics, 6(1), 50–75. https://doi.
org/10.1162/glep.2006.6.1.50.
Bäckstrand, K., & Lövbrand, E. (2019). The road to Paris: Contending climate governance
discourses in the post-Copenhagen era. Journal of Environmental Policy and
Planning, 21(5), 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2016.1150777.
Belfer, E., Ford, J. D., Maillet, M., Araos, M., & Flynn, M. (2019). Pursuing an
indigenous platform: Exploring opportunities and constraints for indigenous
participation in the UNFCCC. Global Environmental Politics, 19(1), 12–33. https://
doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00489.
Bergsten, A., Jiren, T. S., Leventon, J., Dorresteijn, I., Schultner, J., & Fischer, J. (2019).
Identifying governance gaps among interlinked sustainability challenges.
Environmental Science and Policy, 91, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2018.10.007.
Blaser, M. (2009). Political ontology: Cultural studies without ‘cultures’? Cultural
Studies, 23(5–6), 873–896. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380903208023.
Blaser, M. (2013). Ontological conflicts and the stories of peoples in spite of Europe:
Toward a conversation on political ontology. Current Anthropology, 54(5),
547–568. https://doi.org/10.1086/672270.
Blomquist, W., & Schroder, N. (2019). Seeing polycentrically: Examining governance
situations using a polycentricity lens. In A. Thiel, W. Blomquist, & D. Garrick
(Eds.), Governing complexity: Analyzing and applying polycentricity (pp. 63–82).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boxelaar, L., Paine, M., & Beilin, R. (2006). Community engagement and public
administration: Of silos, overlays and technologies of government. Australian
Journal of Public Administration, 65(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8500.2006.00476.x.
Brace, C., & Geoghegan, H. (2011). Human geographies of climate change:
Landscape, temporality, and lay knowledges. Progress in Human Geography, 35
(3), 284–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510376259.
Brondizio, E. S., Ostrom, E., & Young, O. R. (2009). Connectivity and the governance
of multilevel social-ecological systems: The role of social capital. Annual Review
of Environment and Resources, 34(1), 253–278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
environ.020708.100707.
Burman, A. (2017). The political ontology of climate change: Moral meteorology,
climate justice, and the coloniality of reality in the Bolivian Andes. Journal of
Political Ecology, 24(1), 921–930. https://doi.org/10.2458/v24i1.20974.
Carvalho, S., Oliveira, A., Pedersen, J. S., Manhice, H., Lisboa, F., Norguet, J., ... Santos,
F. D. (2020). A changing Amazon rainforest: Historical trends and future
projections under post-Paris climate scenarios. Global and Planetary Change, 195.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2020.103328.
Cash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., ... Young, O.
(2006). Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a
multilevel world. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 8 [online]. https://doi.org/10.5751/
es-01759-110208.
Claeys, P., & Delgado Pugley, D. (2017). Peasant and indigenous transnational social
movements engaging with climate justice. Canadian Journal of Development
Studies, 38(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2016.1235018.
Clement, F. (2010). Analysing decentralised natural resource governance:
Proposition for a ‘‘politicised” institutional analysis and development
framework. Policy Sciences, 43(2), 129–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-
009-9100-8.
Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? London and New
York: Zed Books.
de la Cadena, M. (2010). Indigenous cosmopolitics in the Andes: Conceptual
reflections beyond ‘‘politics”. Cultural Anthropology, 25(2), 334–370. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01061.x.
de la Cadena, M., & Blaser, M. (2018). A world of many worlds. Durham: Duke
University Press.
DiGiano, M., Mendoza, E., Ochoa, M. L., Ardila, J., Oliveira de Lima, F., & Nepstad, D.
(2018). The twenty-year-old partnership between indigenous peoples and the
Government of Acre. San Francisco: Brazil. Retrieved from https://
earthinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Acre_EN_online.pdf.
Dorsch, Marcel, & Flachsland, Christian (2017). A Polycentric Approach to Global
Climate Governance. Global Environmental Politics, 17(2), 45–64. https://doi.org/
10.1162/GLEP_a_00400.
F. de Wit and João Mourato
Duchelle, A. E., Cromberg, M., Gebara, M. F., Guerra, R., Melo, T., Larson, A., ...
Sunderlin, W. D. (2014). Linking forest tenure reform, environmental
compliance, and incentives: Lessons from redd+ initiatives in the Brazilian
amazon. World Development, 55, 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.worlddev.2013.01.014.
Dwyer, S. C., & Buckle, J. L. (2009). The space between: On being an insider-outsider
in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 54–63.
https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800105.
Esbjörn-Hargens, S. (2010). An ontology of climate change integral pluralism and
the enactment of multiple objects. Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 5(1),
143–174.
Escobar, A. (2016). Thinking-feeling with the earth: Territorial struggles and the
ontological dimension of the epistemologies of the south. AIBR Revista de
Antropologia Iberoamericana, 11(1), 11–32. https://doi.org/10.11156/
aibr.110102e.
Escobar, A. (2018). Designs for the pluriverse: Radical interdependence, autonomy, and
the making of worlds. Durham; London: Duke University Press. 10.2307/j.
ctv11smgs6.
Escobar, A. (2020). Pluriversal Politics. Durham; London: Duke University Press.
Farbotko, C., & Lazrus, H. (2012). The first climate refugees? Contesting global
narratives of climate change in Tuvalu. Global Environmental Change, 22(2),
382–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.11.014.
Flemmer, R., & Schilling-Vacaflor, A. (2016). Unfulfilled promises of the consultation
approach: The limits to effective indigenous participation in Bolivia’s and Peru’s
extractive industries. Third World Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01436597.2015.1092867.
Fløttum, K., & Gjerstad, Ø. (2017). Narratives in climate change discourse. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.429
e429.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of qualitative research (pp. 301–316). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Fontana, L. B., & Grugel, J. (2016). The politics of indigenous participation through
‘‘free prior informed consent”: Reflections from the Bolivian case. World
Development, 77, 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.023.
Ford, J. D., King, N., Galappaththi, E. K., Pearce, T., McDowell, G., & Harper, S. L.
(2020). The resilience of indigenous peoples to environmental change. One
Earth, 2(6), 532–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.05.014.
Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the ‘‘postsocialist”
condition. Routledge.
Galaz, V., Crona, B., Österblom, H., Olsson, P., & Folke, C. (2012). Polycentric systems
and interacting planetary boundaries - Emerging governance of climate change-
ocean acidification-marine biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 81, 21–32. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.012.
GCF. (2014). The Rio Branco declaration: Building partnerships & securing support for
forests, climate, & livelihoods. Rio Branco, Brazil. Retrieved from https://
earthinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/RioBrancoDeclaration_EN.
pdf.
GCF. (2018). Guiding principles for collaboration and partnership between subnational
governments, indigenous peoples and local communities. Retrieved from https://
gcftf.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Guiding_Principles_ENG.pdf.
GCF Brazil. (2018). Caminhos de diálogo entre Governos subnacionais e Povos
Indígenas - Informe de progresso. Rio Branco, Brazil.
Goldman, M. J., Turner, M. D., & Daly, M. (2018). A critical political ecology of human
dimensions of climate change: Epistemology, ontology, and ethics. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.526.
Goreu (2014). Estrategia Regional de Cambio Climático de Ucayali. Peru: Pucallpa.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, Volume 1, reason and the
rationalization of society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Haverkamp, J. (2021). Collaborative survival and the politics of livability: Towards
adaptation otherwise. World Development, 137. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.worlddev.2020.105152 105152.
Hill, R., Grant, C., George, M., Robinson, C. J., Jackson, S., & Abel, N. (2012). A typology
of indigenous engagement in Australian environmental management:
Implications for knowledge integration and social-ecological system
sustainability. Ecology and Society, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04587-
170123.
Hulme, M. (2017). Weathered: Cultures of climate. London: Sage Publications.
IMC. (2014). Entendendo o SISA e o contexto das Mudanças Climáticas Relatório da
Oficina. Rio Branco, Brazil. Retrieved from http://imc.ac.gov.br/wp-content/
uploads/2017/03/Relatorio_Oficina_SISA_GTI_dez2014.pdf.
IPCC. (2014). IPCC fifth assessment report: Climate change 2014. Climate change 2014:
Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment
report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. 10.1017/
CBO9781107415324.
Jordan, A., Huitema, D., Van Asselt, H., & Forster, J. (2018). Governing climate change.
(A. Jordan, D. Huitema, H. van Asselt, & J. Forster, Eds.). Cambridge University
Press. 10.1017/9781108284646.
Kacen, L., & Chaitin, J. (2015). ‘‘The times they are a changing” 1: Undertaking
Qualitative research in ambiguous, conflictual, and changing contexts. The
Qualitative Report, 11(2), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/
2006.1671.
Kashwan, P. (2016). Power asymmetries and institutions: Landscape conservation
in central India. Regional Environmental Change, 16, 97–109. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10113-015-0925-8.
14
World Development 157 (2022) 105955
Kashwan, P., MacLean, L. M., & García-López, G. A. (2019). Rethinking power and
institutions in the shadows of neoliberalism: (An introduction to a special issue
of World Development). World Development, 120, 133–146. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.026.
Kickert, W. J. (2003). Beyond public management: Shifting frames of reference in
administrative reforms in the Netherlands. Public Management Review, 5(3),
377–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/1471903032000146955.
Kopenawa, D., & Albert, B. (2013). The falling sky: Words of a Yanomami shaman.
Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England: the Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press.
Kothari, A., Salleh, A., Escobar, A., Demaria, F., & Acosta, A. (2019). Pluriverse: A post-
development dictionary. Tulika Books.
Kronik, J., & Verner, D. (2010). Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change in Latin America
and the Caribbean. Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change in Latin America and the
Caribbean. Washington DC: The World Bank. 10.1596/978-0-8213-8237-0.
Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2019). Analyzing Qualitative Data with MAXQDA. Cham:
Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-030-15671-8.
Law, J. (2015). What’s wrong with a one-world world? Distinktion; Journal of Social
Theory, 16(1), 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/1600910X.2015.1020066.
Leal Pereira, D., Salisbury, D., Faqín Fernández, J., Cauper Pezo, L., Silva, J., Pereira, L.,
... Pezo, C. (2015). Ideas cambiantes sobre territorio, recursos y redes políticas
en la Amazonía indígena: Un estudio de caso sobre Perú. Journal of Latin
American Geography, 14(2), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1353/lag.2015.0018.
Leff, E. (2015). Encountering political ecology: epistemology and emancipation. In R.
Bryant (Ed.), The international handbook of political ecology (pp. 44–56). Edward
Elgar Publishing. 10.4337/9780857936172.00011.
Lenton, T. M., Held, H., Kriegler, E., Hall, J. W., Lucht, W., Rahmstorf, S., &
Schellnhuber, H. J. (2008). Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(6), 1786–1793. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.0705414105.
Lovejoy, T. E., & Nobre, C. (2019). Amazon tipping point: Last chance for action.
Science. Advances, 5(12). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba2949.
Martin, A. (2017). Just conservation. Just conservation: Biodiversity, WELLBEING AND
SUSTAINABIlity. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315765341.
Martin, A., Armijos, M. T., Coolsaet, B., Dawson, N., ... Edwards, A. S. (2020).
Environmental justice and transformations to sustainability. Environment:
Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 62(6), 19–30. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00139157.2020.1820294.
Martin, A., Coolsaet, B., Corbera, E., Dawson, N. M., Fraser, J. A., Lehman, I., &
Rodriguez, I. (2016, May 1). Justice and conservation: The need to incorporate
recognition. Biological Conservation. Elsevier Ltd. 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.021.
McCall, M. K. (2016). Beyond ‘‘Landscape” in REDD+: The imperative for ‘‘Territory”.
World Development, 85, 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.05.001.
Merino, R. (2018). Re-politicizing participation or reframing environmental
governance? Beyond indigenous’ prior consultation and citizen participation.
World Development, 111, 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.worlddev.2018.06.025.
Michaels, S. (2009). Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental
policy problems and settings. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(7), 994–1011.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.05.002.
Mignolo, W. D. (2007). Delinking: The rhetoric of modernity, the logic of coloniality
and the grammar of de-coloniality. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 449–514. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09502380601162647.
Mignolo, W., & Walsh, C. (2018). On decoloniality: Concepts, analytics and praxis.
Durham; London: Duke University Press.
Ministerio de Cultura. (2020). Ucayali. Cartilla informativa sobre pueblos indígenas u
originarios. Lima. Retrieved from https://centroderecursos.cultura.pe/es/
registrobibliografico/ucayali-cartilla-informativa-sobre-pueblos-indígenas-u-
originarios.
Morrison, T., Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Lemos, M. C., Huitema, D., & Hughes, T. P.
(2017). Mitigation and adaptation in polycentric systems: Sources of power in
the pursuit of collective goals. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.479.
Morrison, T., Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Lemos, M. C., Huitema, D., Phelps, J., ... Hughes,
T. P. (2019). The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance.
Global Environmental Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101934.
Mourato, J., Bussler, A., & de Wit, F. (2020). Interweaving knowledge systems
through sustainability governance. In W. Leal Filho, A. M. Azul, L. Brandli, A.
Lange Salvia, & T. Wall (Eds.), Partnerships for the goals. Encyclopedia of the UN
sustainable development goals. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71067-
9_101-1.
Nagendra, H., & Ostrom, E. (2012). Polycentric governance of multifunctional
forested landscapes. International Journal of the Commons, 6(2), 104–133.
https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.321.
Nash, N., Whitmarsh, L., Capstick, S., Gouveia, V., de Carvalho Rodrigues Araújo, R.,
dos Santos, M., & Wang, X. (2020). Local climate change cultures: Climate-
relevant discursive practices in three emerging economies. Climatic Change, 163,
63–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02477-8.
Nepstad, D. C., Boyd, W., Stickler, C. M., Bezerra, T., & Azevedo, A. A. (2013).
Responding to climate change and the global land crisis: REDD+, market
transformation and low-emissions rural development. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368(1619), 20120167.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0167.
Nobre, C. A., Sampaio, G., Borma, L. S., Castilla-Rubio, J. C., Silva, J. S., & Cardoso, M.
(2016). Land-use and climate change risks in the Amazon and the need of a
F. de Wit and João Mourato
novel sustainable development paradigm. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 113(39), 10759–10768. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605516113.
Okereke, C. (2018). Equity and justice in polycentric climate governance. In A.
Jordan, D. Huitema, H. van Asselt, & J. Forster (Eds.), Governing climate change:
Polycentricity in action? (pp 320–337). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108284646.
Ostrom, E. (1986). Multiorganizational arrangements and coordination: An
application of institutional analysis. In F. Kaufmann, G. Majone, & V. Ostrom
(Eds.), Guidance, control, and evaluation in the public sector (pp. 495–510). Berlin:
De Gruyter.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/
CBO9780511807763.
Ostrom, E. (2010a). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex
economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641–672. https://doi.org/
10.1257/aer.100.3.1.
Ostrom, E. (2010b). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global
environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550–557. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004.
Ostrom, V. (1992). The meaning of American federalism: Constituting a self-governing
society. San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press. 10.2307/
3330260.
Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M., & Warren, R. (1961). The organization of government in
metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. The American Political Science Review,
55(4), 831–842. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.151.3712.868.
Perz, S. G. (2016). Crossing boundaries for collaboration: Conservation and
development projects in the Amazon. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Poteete, A. R., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2010). Working together: Collective action,
the commons, and multiple methods in practice. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton
University Press. 10.2307/j.ctt3fgxrd.
Ramos, A. R. (1998). Indigenism ethnic politics in Brazil. Madison: The University of
Wisconsin Press.
REDD+ SES Initiative. (2015). REDD+ SES International review: State of Acre, Brazil.
Retrieved from http://www.redd-standards.org/images/REDD_SES_
International_Review_for_Acre_ENG.pdf.
Rice, J. L., Burke, B. J., & Heynen, N. (2015). Knowing climate change, embodying
climate praxis: Experiential knowledge in Southern Appalachia. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, 105(2), 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00045608.2014.985628.
Richardson, J. G., & Erdelen, W. R. (2020). 2030 is tomorrow: Transformative change
for a mistreated mother Earth. Foresight, ahead-of-pub (ahead-of-print).
10.1108/FS-03-2020-0029.
Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E., ... Foley, J.
(2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity.
Ecology and Society, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03180-140232.
Rodriguez-Ward, D., & Del Aguila, P. (2014). Valuation of environmental services in
the managed forests of seven indigenous communities in Ucayali, Peru. In E. O.
Sills, S. Atmadja, C. de Sassi, A. E. Duchelle, D. Kweka, I. A. P. Resosudarmo, & W.
D. Sunderlin (Eds.), REDD+ on the Ground: A case book of subnational initiatives
across the globe (pp. 166–184). Center for International Forestry Research
(CIFOR).
Rodríguez, I., Sletto, B., Bilbao, B., Sánchez-Rose, I., & Leal, A. (2018). Speaking of fire:
Reflexive governance in landscapes of social change and shifting local identities.
Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 20(6), 693–712. https://doi.org/
10.1080/1523908X.2013.766579.
Sampaio, G., Borma, L. S., Cardoso, M., Alves, L. M., von Randow, C., Rodriguez, D. A.,
... Alexandre, F. F. (2019). Assessing the possible impacts of a 4 °C or higher
warming in Amazonia. In C. Nobre, J. Marengo, & W. Soares (Eds.), Climate
change risks in Brazil (pp. 201–218). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92881-4_8.
Santos, B. deS. (2015). Epistemologies of the South. Routledge. https://doi.org/
10.4324/9781315634876.
Schilling-Vacaflor, A., & Flemmer, R. (2020). Mobilising free, prior and informed
consent (FPIC) from below: A typology of indigenous peoples’ agency.
International Journal on Minority and Group Rights.. https://doi.org/10.1163/
15718115-02702008.
Schlosberg, D. (2012). Framework for adaptation policy. Ethics & International
Affairs, 26(4), 445–461. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679412000615.
Schlosberg, D. (2013). Theorising environmental justice: The expanding sphere of a
discourse. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09644016.2013.755387.
Schlosberg, D., & Collins, L. B. (2014). From environmental to climate justice: Climate
change and the discourse of environmental justice. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews: Climate Change, 5(3), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.275.
Schminck, M., Duchelle, A., Hoelle, J., Leite, F., & Vinício, M. (2014). Forest Citizenship
in Acre, Brazil. In Forests under pressure: Local responses to global issues. IUFRO
World Series.
15
World Development 157 (2022) 105955
Schroeder, H. (2010). Agency in international climate negotiations: The case of
indigenous peoples and avoided deforestation. International Environmental
Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10, 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10784-010-9138-2.
Schroeder, H., & González, N. C. (2019). Bridging knowledge divides: The case of
indigenous ontologies of territoriality and REDD+. Forest Policy and Economics,
100, 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.12.010.
Scoville-Simonds, M. (2018). Climate, the Earth, and God – Entangled narratives of
cultural and climatic change in the Peruvian Andes. World Development, 110,
345–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.06.012.
Solano-Campos, A. T. (2013). Bringing Latin America’s ‘‘Interculturalidad” into the
conversation. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 34(5), 620–630. https://doi.org/
10.1080/07256868.2013.807231.
Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Lenton, T. M., Folke, C., Liverman, D., ...
Schellnhuber, H. J. (2018). Trajectories of the earth system in the anthropocene.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(33), 8252–8259. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115.
Stripple, J., & Bulkeley, H. (2013). Governing the climate. New York: Cambridge
University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107110069.
Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014).
Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance:
The multiple evidence base approach. Ambio, 43(5), 579–591. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3.
Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C. M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., ...
Folke, C. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—
lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 26–27, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005.
Thiel, A., Blomquist, W., & Garrick, D. (2019). Governing Complexity. (A. Thiel, W. A.
Blomquist, & D. E. Garrick, Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/9781108325721.
Thiel, A., & Moser, C. (2019). Foundational aspects of polycentric governance:
Overarching rules, social-problem characteristics, and heterogeneity. In A. Thiel,
W. Blomquist, & D. Garrick (Eds.), Governing complexity : Analyzing and applying
polycentricity (pp. 82–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Kerkhoff, L. (2014). Knowledge Governance for Sustainable Development: A
Review. Challenges in Sustainability, 1(2), 82–93. https://doi.org/
10.12924/cis2013.01020082.
van Kerkhoff, L., & Pilbeam, V. (2017). Understanding socio-cultural dimensions of
environmental decision-making: A knowledge governance approach.
Environmental Science and Policy, 73, 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2017.03.011.
van Oosten, C. (2013). Restoring landscapes-governing place: A learning approach
to forest landscape restoration. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 32(7), 659–676.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2013.818551.
van Riper, C. J., Thiel, A., Penker, M., Braito, M., Landon, A. C., Thomsen, J. M., &
Tucker, C. M. (2018). Incorporating multilevel values into the social-ecological
systems framework. Ecology and Society, 23(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-
10047-230325.
Walker, R. T. (2021). Collision course: Development pushes Amazonia toward its
tipping point. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 63(1),
15–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2021.1842711.
Walsh, C. (2009). Interculturalidad, Estado, Sociedad: Luchas (de) coloniales de nuestra
época. Quito: Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar Abya-Yala.
Wamsler, C., Schäpke, N., Fraude, C., Stasiak, D., Bruhn, T., Lawrence, M., ... Mundaca,
L. (2020). Enabling new mindsets and transformative skills for negotiating and
activating climate action: Lessons from UNFCCC conferences of the parties.
Environmental Science and Policy, 112, 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2020.06.005.
Weitz, N., Strambo, C., Kemp-Benedict, E., & Nilsson, M. (2017). Closing the
governance gaps in the water-energy-food nexus: Insights from integrative
governance. Global Environmental Change, 45, 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.gloenvcha.2017.06.006.
West, S., van Kerkhoff, L., & Wagenaar, H. (2019). Beyond ‘‘linking knowledge and
action”: Towards a practice-based approach to transdisciplinary sustainability
interventions. Policy Studies, 40(5), 534–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01442872.2019.1618810.
Yates, J. S., & Núñez Núñez, J. (2020). Articulating worlds otherwise: Decolonial
geolinguistic praxis, multi-epistemic co-existence, and intercultural education
and development programing in the Peruvian Andes. Cultural Geographies.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474020970253.
Zapata-Barrero, R. (2015). Interculturalism: Main hypothesis, theories and strands.
In Interculturalism in cities: Concept, policy and implementation (pp. 3–19).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. 10.4337/9781784715328.00007.