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!
Top Related