This presentation by Pham Thu Thuy, Nguyen Tuan Viet and Le Ngoc Dung shows how the scoping study on PRES schemes could be designed.

1. Scoping study on PES schemes Dak Nong
Pham Thu Thuy
Nguyen Tuan Viet
Le Ngoc Dung

2. PES-readiness
• Provincial Forest Protection and Development Fund in place… but
very centralised with low involvement of district, commune and village
level
• PES has not been seen as another forest protection program rather as
a part of sectoral improvement and cross-sectoral coordination
• 25 staff but limited capacity in handling complex transaction and
bridging buyers and sellers + compete for administration fee
• Challenge in financial distribution due to out of date forest land
allocation and registration data
• Low understanding of PES of stakeholders
• Low willingness to pay of buyers
• Low willingness to pay of sellers due to high opportunity costs, limited
understanding of PES and lack of alternative livelihood activities
• Weak information sharing amongst stakeholders
• 90% of forests are under management of State forest enterprises --
elite capture of benefit

3. Option Defined ES Buyers Sellers Conditionality Payment mechanism
1 - Watershed
protection
- Reduce
sedimentation of
reservoir
Hydropower plants
Water supply
companies
- Local people
- Communities
Monitoring of
environmental
services:
Unclear what
are the
baselines ?
Monitoring of
contract:
incapable of
current
institutions
Weak law
enforcement
Current form: Cash
payment
Limited investment on
in- kind
2 Spawning grounds and
sources of food for
aquaculture activities
Households or business
organizations implement
aquaculture activities
Local authorities or
hydropower
plants ????
Under-developed
contracts
3 Landscape beauty Tourism companies
(eco- park – under
construction))
Visitor
- Local people
- Communities
- Entrance fee ?
Pay for community
development fund
and forest
protection contract
???
- Direct payment
between people
and companies
4 Biodiversity
conservation
Tourists and
government; NGOs
?
- Yok Don National
Park and Local
communities
Under-developed
contracts
5 Carbon sequestration - Private companies
- REDD+ projects
- Government agencies
- Local people
- Communities
- State forest
enterprises
-Verifiers
involved
-Clear baseline
and reference
level
- In kind and in cash
upon negotiation

4. Pros and ConsOption Pros Cons
-Watershed
protection
-Reduce
sedimentation
of reservoir
• regulated in national policy on PES
• Institutional setting in place
• Compliance of large scale and state
owned companies are well-cited
• SFEs controls forest land
• Inequity (e.g. outsiders from other provinces access to
land)
• Resistance of small and private hydropower plants
• Lack of forest monitoring and inventory data
• Political economy influence – National Energy
Spawning
grounds and
sources of food
for aquaculture
activities
• Hydropower plants create huge area of
reservoirs
• There are households and business
organisations implemented
aquaculture activities on these
reservoirs
• Local authorities are in charge of
management of these reservoirs
• Lack of clear guidance
• High implementation costs
Landscape
beauty
• Landscape beauty are widely found
• Strong interests from tourism
companies make direct transaction
between the companies and HHs
• Lack of experience in this type of ES (e.g. Ta Dung
Protected Area has just established in recent years)
Biodiversity
conservation
• Biodiversity hotpot
• Highly degraded area
Under- developed market
Rely on government funding
Carbon
sequestration
• Strong support of government to
REDD+, CDM
• high potential of carbon trade (e.g.
• Interest of private companies ares
trong (Germany + Truong Thanh
Companies)
• CDM projects are proposed but there is still not actual
implementation (e.g. Truong Thanh company)
• Resistance from provincial authorities on complying
with international auditing and verification and
unclear on carbon credit allocation

5. Recommendation- Short term
• Ensure the effectiveness of PES scheme (e.g. Ensure
10% kept at Provincial Fund and SFEs are used for ES
improvement purpose)
• Promote transparency through improved information
dissemination channel SMS system ?
• Pilot other alternative livelihood activities (large scale
avocado?) + support market access (e.g. certified coffee
and PR campaign of Trung Nguyen) as in-kind payment
method
• Develop and pilot participatory ES monitoring to enhance
the conditionality + increase the payment level + local
involvement in PES
• Pilot co-management between National Park and SFEs
with local households in delivering ES
• Multi PES schemes ? Scoping studies to compare costs
vs. benefit ??? - Trade- off between political impact
and PES impact >??

6. Recommendations – Long term
• Bundling different environmental services but how to
distribute $ via Forest Protection and Development
Fund ?
• Baseline and database on ES current status need to
be established (Dak Nong FPDF is carrying the
forest area inventory – what about other ES ?)
• Capacity building for both local authorities and local
people on PES, ES monitoring and negotiation skills
– (e.g. information exchange and networking
between Son La and Dak Nong)

7. THANK YOU