Day 1 session 5.2 five million hectare reforestation program in vietnam
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Day 1 session 5.2 five million hectare reforestation program in vietnam

on

  • 229 views

3rd Mekong Forum on Water, Food & Energy. Presentation from Sessions 3&5: Extending the benefits of hydropower: Clever suggestion or realistic goal?

3rd Mekong Forum on Water, Food & Energy. Presentation from Sessions 3&5: Extending the benefits of hydropower: Clever suggestion or realistic goal?

Statistics

Views

Total Views
229
Views on SlideShare
228
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://pop.dev 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Day 1 session 5.2 five million hectare reforestation program in vietnam Day 1 session 5.2 five million hectare reforestation program in vietnam Presentation Transcript

  • THE FIVE MILLION HECTARE REFORESTATION PROGRAM IN VIETNAM: AN ANALYSIS OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND ITS TRANSACTION COSTS Huong Tran Thi Thu, Manfred Zeller, Hoanh Chu Thai
  • Introduction 2    Forest tenure has been changing in Vietnam Forestry programs:  PAM (the United Nations' Food Program)  Program 327 (a nationwide reforestation program)  Regional reforestation programs 1998: the Five Million Hectare Reforestation Program (5MHRP)
  • Research questions 3  What are objectives of the 5MHRP? How has the program been implemented? What are the roles of the different stakeholders in the implementation process?  What are the incentives and disincentives for farmers in the program?  How much are the transaction costs and benefits to the farmers when they participate in the program?  How to reduce transaction costs in implementation in forestry program?
  • Map of study site 4
  • Methodology (con’t) 5  Sample size: 39 interviews and 15 focus group discussions     Province level: 2 interviews District level: 7 interviews Commune level: 5 interviews + 5 focus group discussions Village level: 25 interviews + 10 focus group discussions  Village headman: 5 interviews  Community: 10 focus group discussions  Household : 20 interviews
  • Methodology(con’t) 6  Data collection       Participatory Rural Appraisal Focus group discussions (guidance of semi-structure questionnaire and the support of Net-Map tool) Individual in-depth interviews (guidance of semi-structure questionnaire and the support of Net-Map tool) Informal communications Observations Data analysis  Data from focus group discussions and individual in-depth interviews was transcribed and coded by Nvivo in order to be grouped to content and thematic analysis.
  • Typology of contracts in the 5MHRP 7 Contract type Name of contract Duration (year) Contract target Protection forest Type 1 Plantation of new forest and protection of planted forest Zoning for protection of natural forest 9 Type 3* Zoning for regeneration and protection of natural forest 6 Individual household 1 Individual household Type 2 5 Individual household Village community Production forest Type 4 Plantation of new forest (*): was not implemented in selected communes
  • Command and money flows in the 5MHRP 8 Provincial People’s Committee Provincial Treasury Provincial Executive Committee District Treasury Management Board of Da river Protection Forest (MB2) Provincial Projects Management Board Management Board of Nature Conservation Areas (MB3) Seedling company District Agroforestry Extension Department Household/Community Command flow Money flow District Management Board of Protection Forest (MB1)
  • Transaction costs days for five communities 9 Village Natural Total TCs TCs per ha Start-up Variable transaction costs (% of total TCs) forest (labor day) (labor day) costs Regular SelfConflict Joining area (% of total meetings monitoring resolution monitoring (ha) TCs) and verification Co1 179 1.317 7.4 2.9 23.4 68.4 4.0 1.3 Co2 11 76 6.9 23.1 64.5 7.4 0.0 5.0 Da1 330 690 2.1 3.8 24.9 70.8 0.0 0.5 Da2 31 263 8.5 10.3 68.1 19.0 2.4 0.2 Da3 180 226 1.3 7.0 78.4 11.6 1.9 1.1 514 5.2 4.9 34.4 57.2 2.5 1.1 Average 146.2
  • Transaction costs days between individual and community contracts 10 The share of transaction costs between individual and community contracts 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0.2 2.5 57.2 Joining monitoring and verification Conflict resolution Self-monitoring 97.6 Regular meetings 34.4 0.8 0.4 4.9 Individual Community Contract type Start-up costs
  • Benefits per hectare per year of forest management 11 Community contract Individual contract Benefit Value (US$) Government monetary subsidy NTFPs Auxiliary trees extraction Total benefit Share (%) Value (US$) Share (%) 6.85 17.9 66.7 16.1 31.48 82.1 260.5 62.7 - - 88.2 21.2 38.3 100.0 415.4 100.0
  • Benefits and Costs of forest management for five communities 12 Benefits and costs for five communities 1,905.2 Da3 12,309.6 2,993.1 Communities Da2 7,280.3 9,915.2 Da1 32,047.5 1,372.2 Co2 4,141.5 22,006.8 Co1 32,500.2 - 5,000.0 10,000.0 15,000.0 20,000.0 Costs and benefits in US$ Costs Benefits 25,000.0 30,000.0 35,000.0
  • NPV per hectare per year between individual and community contracts (in US$) 13 Of which Village Community contract Individual contract Household planting Household planting woody trees - acacia woody trees - bamboo Co1 11.7 315.9 104.9 456.5 Co2 50.3 315.4 278.7 339.8 Da1 13.4 289.7 156.8 334.0 Da2 33.1 77.0 77.0 - Da3 11.6 - - - Average 24.0 267.4 144.4 376.8
  • Conclusions 14  The diversity of informal institutional arrangements resulted in the big variation of transaction costs in our studied areas  The extent of transaction costs was relatively large for households.     Community contract: regular meetings (34%) and self-monitoring (57%) constituted a large proportion of the total transaction costs; Individual contract: self-monitoring (98% of total TCs) Costs for conflict resolutions and for participating in official monitoring and verification are relatively small for households in both types of contract The NPV per hectare per year was higher for households under individual contract than for those under the community contract
  • Recommendations 15  High transaction costs incurred by households   can become a barrier to participate in an environmental management program might lower the real benefits obtained by households  A higher government subsidy would be needed to match the amount given out under the individual contract;  To increase the payment under individual contract to achieve a higher quality of planted forests with more woody trees
  • 16 Thank you for your attention!