Monitoring andEvaluation of Payment for Forest

Environmental Services in VietnamFrom Myths to Reality

Pham Thu Thuy, PhD – CIFORVu Tan Phuong, PhD – VAFSKaren Bennett MSc, CPSS - US Forest ServiceLe Ngoc Dung - CIFOR

Contents Introduction

Approach and Methodology

Findings - Myth and Reality

Recommendation

Introduction

Lam Dong FPDF Son La FPDF Xuan Thuy NP

33 ES buyers 300 ES sellers

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

Scope of Work

Approach &MethodologyCountry 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

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

Lam Dong

Nam Dinh/ Xuan Thuy National Park

Son La

In depth issues for review

Institutional setting of PFES PFES implementation at local

levels Management of PES funds Monitoring & evaluation of

PFES Assessment of stakeholders

on PFES

1. Clear institutional settings and organizations are in place

2. PFES contracts are easily implemented3. Service buyers are well defined4. Environmental service benefits are obvious5. Impact of PES on social well-being obvious6. There is a functional M&E system in place

Findings: Myths and RealitiesPerception may be different than on-the-ground reality:

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

1. Clear Institutional Settings and Organizations are in Place

THE PRIME MINISTER SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAMNo: 2284/QD-TTg Independence-Freedom-Happiness

Hanoi, December 13, 2010DECISIONOn 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”

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

PFES Reporting System - Circular 20

May also release funds to village leader if forest is managed by the community.

Final Approval list posted at commune prior to payment

Ot Noi Village Payment Design

Village Management Unit3 people – volunteer

to confirm forest protection

Farmer Groups - 7If 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

Da Nhim – Lac Duong Dist. Forest

Management Board

Army Patrol<5% of area

Households

Group Patrol

Provincial Fund Management

Forest Management Funds -multiple levels

Boundaries unclear in field

Difficult communication◦ Ministry ->Province -> District

Contract based on land allocation

PES contracts delayed

2. PES Contracts Are Easily Implemented

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?

3. Service Buyers are Well Defined

Khung theo dõi giám sát hiện hành

FEE

COL

LECT

ORS

• Hydro Power Plants

• Water Supply Co.

• Industrial Users

• Ecotourism Operators

• Industrial Water Users

• AquacultureBR

OKER

S • National• Central• Provincial• District• Communes• Villages• Consulting firms• NGOs• GIZ, Winrock, ,

• Donors legal and technical facilitators

SELL

ERS • Individual

Households• Household

Groups• Villages• Forest Ltd.

Companies• Forest

Management Board

????????????

????????????

????????????

BUYE

RS

BENE

FICI

ARIE

S

Water Users

Electricity Users

Tourists

People of Vietnam

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

4. Environmental Service Benefits Are Obvious

Water quality degraded

Provincial/Central – no observations

Data Collection◦ DONRE ◦ Water Supply Company◦ Lam Dong - 4 stream gages

Stream gates integrate all watershed activities

4a.PES can reduce sediment and improve water quality in reservoirs

PFES alone cannot solve all sediment problems

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?

4b.Natural Forests Receive Highest Payments for PES

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

5. PFES Improves Social Well Being - Livelihood

Payments Received Is Increasing

No payments collected from industrial water users

Total Revenue From Service Buyers

2009 2010 2011 2012

0

200000000

400000000

600000000

800000000

1000000000

1200000000

96%91.7%

94.7%

98.5%

4.3%7.9% 5.1%

1.4%0.1%0.2% 0.2%

0.1%

HydropowerWater CompaniesTourism Companies

Year

1000

Vie

tnam

Don

g

Expenses Forest Management Fund

Fund dispersal Son La – 50% Lam Dong 17%

2009 2010 2011 2012

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

5.3%15.6% 4.6%

15.4%

94.7%

84.4%

95.4%

87.6%

Fund management

Forest Protection

Average Household PaymentsProvince 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 Individual2000

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/yrMaize: 30 Million VND/ha/yr

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

6. A Functional Monitoring and Evaluation System is in Place

1. Institutional Aspects

2. Policy Changes

3. Monitoring

4. Participatory Watershed Approach

Recommendations

Capacity Training for field staff◦ Meeting facilitation◦ Reporting – on line◦ Data Management◦ Monitoring

National watershed boundary delineation

Technical Guidance Manuals◦ Forest inventory, erosion control…

1. Institutional Aspects

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

2. Policy Changes

Forest Area Forest Quality / Biodiversity Water Quality/Quantity and

sedimentation Landscape Aesthetics Social / Livelihood

3. Monitoring

Types of Monitoring INPUTS MONITORING1. Identify forest area2. Identify forest owners

Determine willingness to participate in PFES3. Develop agreements/contracts4. Identify buyers – collect payments

OUTCOMES MONITORING1. Ensure environmental services are delivered2. Pay for services delivered3. Determine societal impact

Formulate Question

Design Samplin

g Strategy

Gather Data

Analyze Data

Report Findings

Adapt System

as Needed

The Monitoring Process

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

Phasing of Monitoring

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

4. Participatory Watershed Approach

Thank you!