Monitoring and Evaluation of Payment for Forest Environmental Services in Vietnam


Published on

This presentation by

Published in: Environment, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Go to examples in discussion: Son La, Lam Dong Examples
    No clear guidelines on how to determine forest area
    No clear guidelines on how to determine K factor – default – pay everyone the same, regardless of forest quality
  • Community forests are better managed than individual
    Funding village works best, let village describe distribution – ensure it is equitable
    Forests monitored by village with check by rangers – varying success
    Very little money for rangers
    Very small ability to do checks
    Use village norms, traditions in protecting forests
    Takes 2-3 years to get program running smoothly
  • The Forest Ranger from the Forest Management Unit works with each community. Holds meetings with the community to document what has happened, how much has burned or been converted to forest. Records minutes of meetings. These meetings count as acceptance checks. Reports to Forest Management Fund Board and this serves as a basis for payment. The Rangers have yet to receive any funding from FMF even though it is additional work.
  • Pls fix Lam Dong not Lom Dong,

    The missing box include “ Forest patrol units
  • Forest status, forest boundaries and watershed areas on maps and in the field were not clearly defined
    Lack budget for forest survey;
    Difficulty in establishing local Forest Protection and Development Fund
    Difficulting in establishing contract
    Difficulty in determining the ‘K factor’
    Collaboration at the ministry and provincial levels had not been efficient, especially regarding the budget allocation to the provinces (Government of Vietnam 2010).
  • Tourism companies as buyers and sellers make their fees actually unrecoverable.
    Put in case of Lom Dong ecotourism buyer/seller
    If leagal document changes could double payment
  • At some point the Users and People of Vietnam in general will realize they are paying for things they may or may not be receiving but they will want information
    Increase transparence and public participation
  • Group Together Key points
  • Data collection is not coordinated.

    broke down within 1st year.
    Great technology, wrong application
  • Need to look at the strata, effectiveness, equities and efficiencies. A K Factor 1 ensures equity and increases efficiencies, however, it risks effectiveness of PFES in maintaining high quality forest that provide for protection of biodiversity across the country.
    Trade off between equity, efficiency and effectiveness
    K factors K1: Forest Quality ,Rich, medium, poor 0.9 - 1
    K2: Forest Function : Protection, production special use 0.95 - 1
    K3: Forest Origin: Natural, planted, 0.9 - 1
    K4: Difficulty for Protection – Access, remoteness0.9 - 1 R
  • Side-effect of PES has been observed (e.g. community spirit and custom has been lost; social conflicts)
    Forest patrol Lam Dong, households own different amounts of land but spend same labor in patrol but get paid differently.
  • Put in column chart of payer by year figure and percent together. Number of Hydropower that already have contracts
  • USD
    Son La Individual $11.42 , Household Groups ($30.85), Community Forests ($1434)
    Lam Dong Individual $16.60-50, Patrol Groups $500

    Percapita income Son La = 17 million VND
    Per Capita Income Lam Dong = 32 million VND
  • Need independent 3rd party monitoring
  • Make sure monitoring practices are relevant to their lives, that there is a conscious recognition of the problem to be addressed.
  • Monitoring and Evaluation of Payment for Forest Environmental Services in Vietnam

    1. 1. From Myths to Reality Pham Thu Thuy, PhD – CIFOR Vu Tan Phuong, PhD – VAFS Karen Bennett MSc, CPSS - US Forest Service Le Ngoc Dung - CIFOR
    2. 2.  Introduction  Approach and Methodology  Findings - Myth and Reality  Recommendation
    3. 3. Lam Dong FPDF Son La FPDF Xuan Thuy NP 33 ES buyers 300 ES sellers
    4. 4.  to conduct an independent, comparative review of PFES in Vietnam to assess the current status, compare implementation processes and lessons learned, and to provide recommendations for effective scaling up and replication.  Built upon the independent assessment under Global Comparative Study on REDD+ led by CIFOR
    5. 5. Country Profile REDD/PES discourse analysis Policy network analysis Flexible research design Literature review Experts consultations Consultation workshops In-depth interviews Surveys Media discourse analysis Social network analysis Focus group discussions
    6. 6. Literature review • Legal documents: Decree 99 (2010); circular 80 (2011) Circulars 60 (2012); circular 85 (2012); circular 20 (2012); • Reposts of VNFF; etc Consulta- tion meeting • Meeting with relevant stake holders (VNFF, ADB, Winrock Int’; GIZ, etc) • Meetings with provincial FPDF; services buyers (hydropower plants; water companies etc); forest owners (FMB, HH, etc) Field survey • Field survey (Son La, Lam Dong, Xuan Thuy) • Meeting with villages; communities; households; etc Team work • Data & information collation • Reporting
    7. 7. Lam Dong Nam Dinh/ Xuan Thuy National Park Son La
    8. 8.  Institutional setting of PFES  PFES implementation at local levels  Management of PES funds  Monitoring & evaluation of PFES  Assessment of stakeholders on PFES
    9. 9. 1. Clear institutional settings and organizations are in place 2. PFES contracts are easily implemented 3. Service buyers are well defined 4. Environmental service benefits are obvious 5. Impact of PES on social well-being obvious 6. There is a functional M&E system in place Perception may be different than on-the-ground reality:
    10. 10.  Clear government support  Multiple circulars/decisions exist BUT… ◦ Institutional settings and organization ◦ Ambiguity in guidelines ◦ Capacity is an issue ◦ Lacking M&E direction ◦ Weak agency coordination THE PRIME MINISTER SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM No: 2284/QD-TTg Independence-Freedom-Happiness Hanoi, December 13, 2010 DECISION On approving the Project on “Implementation of the Decree 99/2010/ND-CP dated September 24, 2010 of the Government on the policy for payment for forest environmental services”
    11. 11. Household Report Village Report Commune Report District Forest Management Fund Summary 10% Acceptance Check by Forest Management Unit Ranger if needed District People’s Committee Approval District Fund Management Board Approval Release payment if no dispute May also release funds to village leader if forest is managed by the community. Final Approval list posted at commune prior to payment
    12. 12. Village Management Unit 3 people – volunteer to confirm forest protection Farmer Groups - 7 If can’t solve problems on their own Forest Protection Unit Monitoring District Fund Management with Commune Individual Farmers Village decided together to keep 40% of PFES for general community work projects community Provincial Fund
    13. 13. Forest Management Board Army Patrol <5% of area Households Group Patrol Provincial Fund Management
    14. 14.  Forest Management Funds -multiple levels  Boundaries unclear in field  Difficult communication ◦ Ministry ->Province -> District  Contract based on land allocation  PES contracts delayed
    15. 15.  Người mua dịch vụ ◦ Bên trung gian Người bán  Nhà máy thủy điện ◦ Không được phí chi trả vào giá bán điện (2009-2010) ◦ Chậm trễ trong thanh tóan ◦ Trợ cấp cho các hộ nghèo  Chuyển phí chi trả tới người tiêu dùng cuối cùng ◦ Không tính tới lợi nhuận kinh doanh ◦ Quan tâm tới kết quả ◦ Mong muốn được tham gia vào quá trình giám sát ◦ Thiếu khung pháp lý về chia sẻ lợi ích  Bên mua nên chia sẻ chi phí chi trả DVMTR?
    16. 16. FEECOLLECTORS •Hydro Power Plants •Water Supply Co. •Industrial Users •Ecotourism Operators •Industrial Water Users •Aquaculture BROKERS •National •Central •Provincial •District •Communes •Villages •Consulting firms •NGOs •GIZ, Winrock, , •Donors legal and technical facilitators SELLERS •Individual Households •Household Groups •Villages •Forest Ltd. Companies •Forest Management Board ???????????? ???????????? ???????????? BUYERS BENEFICIARIES Water Users Electricity Users Tourists People of Vietnam
    17. 17.  Hộ gia đình/nhóm hộ tự giám sát  Kiểm lâm nghiệm thu ◦ boundary checking? ◦ SNV program initiated with GPS  Few incidents of non-payment due to violation  Forests better protected with PFES (no real data)  Groups management better than individuals
    18. 18.  Water quality degraded  Provincial/Central – no observations  Data Collection ◦ DONRE ◦ Water Supply Company ◦ Lam Dong - 4 stream gages  Stream gates integrate all watershed activities PFES alone cannot solve all sediment problems
    19. 19.  Forest types not distinguished ◦ Meet Circular 34 definition of Forest and they’re in  K factor not wanted by households ◦ 4 K factors designated, 1 implemented  Are all forests providing equal benefits?  Should there be a restoration component to PFES?
    20. 20.  High opportunity cost for conversion  Bundle services to increase payments?  Social conflict from: ◦ uneven payments of various programs ◦ Low participation in community ◦ Forest patrols paid on land basis not time  Some PFES payments not collected  PFES payments used in inappropriate ways
    21. 21. No payments collected from industrial water users Total Revenue From Service Buyers 0 200000000 400000000 600000000 800000000 1000000000 1200000000 2009 2010 2011 2012 96% 91.7% 94.7% 98.5% 4.3% 7.9% 5.1% 1.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 1000VietnamDong Year Hydropower Water Companies Tourism Companies
    22. 22.  Fund dispersal  Son La – 50%  Lam Dong 17% 0 100,000,000 200,000,000 300,000,000 400,000,000 500,000,000 600,000,000 700,000,000 800,000,000 900,000,000 1,000,000,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 5.3% 15.6% 4.6% 15.4% 94.7% 84.4% 95.4% 87.6% Fund management Forest Protection
    23. 23. Province Forest Owner Hectares Average Payment/ha (1000 VND) Household Received 1000VND/yr Son La Individual 32,396 3 220 660 Son La Household Groups 1,242 14 220 3,080 Son La Community Forests 1,497 140 220 30,800 Lam Dong Individual 2000 1-3 350 350-1,050 Lam Dong Patrol 7000 333.9 65 8,000 ? PFES is a small portion of per capita incomeCoffee: 40 million VND/ha/yr Maize: 30 Million VND/ha/yr
    24. 24.  Many checks and balances ◦ financial aspects  No systematic internal monitoring  Little environmental services monitoring  No consistent feedback to constituents  No grievance handling system  No social monitoring indicators
    25. 25. 1. Institutional Aspects 2. Policy Changes 3. Monitoring 4. Participatory Watershed Approach
    26. 26.  Capacity Training for field staff ◦ Meeting facilitation ◦ Reporting – on line ◦ Data Management ◦ Monitoring  National watershed boundary delineation  Technical Guidance Manuals ◦ Forest inventory, erosion control…
    27. 27.  Expand PFES concept to include restoration ◦ Improve forest quality ◦ Reforestation ◦ Improved management practices on ag land  Coordination with DONRE to focus on soil conservation associated with forestry, ag, road construction  Independent 3rd party monitoring - multiparty
    28. 28.  Forest Area  Forest Quality / Biodiversity  Water Quality/Quantity and sedimentation  Landscape Aesthetics  Social / Livelihood
    29. 29.  INPUTS MONITORING 1. Identify forest area 2. Identify forest owners  Determine willingness to participate in PFES 3. Develop agreements/contracts 4. Identify buyers – collect payments  OUTCOMES MONITORING 1. Ensure environmental services are delivered 2. Pay for services delivered 3. Determine societal impact
    30. 30. Formulate Question Design Sampling Strategy Gather Data Analyze Data Report Findings Adapt System as Needed
    31. 31.  Tiered level of monitoring ◦ Early on pay for inputs  Highlight good conservation practices  Reward good land management  Community based, engage woman and minorities ◦ Later on pay for outputs  Expect results  Figure out reward system
    32. 32.  Understand base landscape  Map existing conditions  Determine Societal Goals and Objectives ◦ Forms the basis of monitoring  Design management plan  Introduce best management practices for all development sectors – Enforce  Monitor the effects