Monitoring and Evaluation system for PFES: Key findings and policy

recommendations

Pham Thu Thuy, Karen Bennet, Vu Tan Phuong, Le Ngoc Dung

Analytical framework

Methods used

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

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

• 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

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.

• 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

Join us at www.cifor.org