The document evaluates the shortcomings of the current monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system for Payments for Forest Ecosystem Services (PFES), highlighting the absence of robust ecological assessments and unclear contract enforcement. It emphasizes the need for a well-structured M&E system to include baseline establishment, stakeholder engagement, and data collection protocols to effectively measure environmental and social impacts. Policy recommendations propose defining key performance questions, compliance thresholds, and clear reporting requirements to improve transparency and accountability within the PFES framework.

1. Monitoring and Evaluation system for
PFES: Key findings and policy
recommendations
Pham Thu Thuy, Karen Bennet, Vu Tan
Phuong, Le Ngoc Dung

2. Analytical framework

3. Methods used

4. • Absent of a clear monitoring and evaluation system
• The monitoring and evaluation system set out in
Circular 20 refers only to the maintenance of existing
forest cover as a proxy for environmental services
and to final outcomes
• No requirements or protocols for environmental
monitoring of forest quality, soil erosion or water
regulation, even though PFES targets all of these
environmental services.
• Although a verification process has been established,
it is not being followed effectively. The current
monitoring system actually creates a disincentive to
report deforestation or forest degradation
Key findings: Overview

5. • No scientific assessment on the ecological outcomes
• Stakeholders (buyers, sellers, brokers) are uncertain if the
environmental services have been improved
• Neither reports nor any interviews compared the forest quality
or condition before and after PFES, using clear and
comprehensive criteria for the baseline.
• Very few data on the effect of different land uses on runoff and
erosion in Vietnam are available  need to measure the
quantity of each kind of service from each land use and
vegetation type.
• lack of a clearly documented land tenure system
• Lack of hydrology and physical science skills to analyze and
interpret these data  difficult to implement at provincial level
Key findings – M&E for environmental
services

6. • PFES contract are hardly set up and signed
• PFES contract enforcement is low (e.g. buyers’
compliance, sellers’ provision of ES and FPDFs in
reporting the financial reports to all stakeholders)
• Contract vs. agreement vs. request ?
• No consistent on M&E criteria in the contract or even
absent or too general
• Lack of understanding of PFES contracts, their
requirements (both buyers, sellers)
• Challenging in enforcing and monitoring PFES contracts
for community forests
• Lack of grievance handling system to address disputes
related to contract
Key findings – M&E for PFES contracts

7. • Positive impact on Unclear impact of PFES on local
incomes
• Some advert affect has been seen due to poor
implementation of PFES
Key findings – M&E for social impacts
of PFES

8. Key findings – M&E for financial flows
and payment distribution

9. • M&E system could be simple or sophisticated, depending on
the financial and technical capacity of the provincial FPDF.
• A simple approach = concentrates on inputs and self-reporting
might be better initially, to help get PFES underway- by the
fifth year of a project, monitoring efforts should be well
documented and sufficient to clearly demonstrate if progress is
being made toward achieving both socioeconomic and
environmental targets.
• Local entities should define the scope of monitoring and
evaluation by discussing and agreeing on the level of funding
available for the system, the engagement of local constituents,
the level of detail in the field data collected and whether it is
quantitative or qualitative, and the capacity of stakeholders and
partner organizations to achieve the desired level of
sophistication in the system (Guijt and Woodhill 2002).
Policy recommendations

10. a monitoring and evaluation system, which features the
following activities: establishing a baseline; monitoring
PFES program inputs including identification of
stakeholders, development of contracts, acquisition and
disbursement of funds; and assessment of the social and
environmental impacts of the program.

11. • developing key performance questions
• determining what information is needed to answer each question and defining the protocol to be
used to acquire that information
• determining the relevance of a protocol to the overall PFES strategy and how the information
will be used to help evaluate the program outcomes, adapt policy or improve program delivery
• determining exactly who is responsible for each action as some tasks should be done at the
local level, some more complex tasks are appropriate for the provincial level and the most
scientifically rigorous tasks should be completed, less frequently, at the central government
level or at the request of donor agencies
• deciding how often each task should be completed
• producing outputs, that is, discrete products generated through answering the key questions
(e.g., a map, report or spreadsheet)
• establishing the minimum acceptable level of compliance at every level, to ensure transparency
and accountability in PFES and to function as a trigger point; the minimum threshold is the point
at which the program cannot move forward if this step is not completed, and where the
minimum threshold is not met, corrective action must be taken at a higher organizational level
• setting reporting requirements that itemize the exact products that need to be delivered at
specified time frames
• clearly establishing the consequences of failing to complete the required reporting in a
satisfactory manner.
Steps to develop M&E system

12. Join us at www.cifor.org