This presentation by

1. From Myths to Reality
Pham Thu Thuy, PhD – CIFOR
Vu Tan Phuong, PhD – VAFS
Karen Bennett MSc, CPSS - US Forest Service
Le Ngoc Dung - CIFOR

2.  Introduction
 Approach and Methodology
 Findings - Myth and Reality
 Recommendation

3. Lam Dong FPDF Son La FPDF Xuan Thuy NP
33 ES buyers 300 ES sellers

4.  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

5. Country 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

6. 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

7. Lam Dong
Nam Dinh/ Xuan Thuy
National Park
Son La

8.  Institutional setting of PFES
 PFES implementation at local
levels
 Management of PES funds
 Monitoring & evaluation of
PFES
 Assessment of stakeholders
on PFES

9. 1. Clear institutional settings and organizations are
in place
2. PFES contracts are easily implemented
3. Service buyers are well defined
4. Environmental service benefits are obvious
5. Impact of PES on social well-being obvious
6. There is a functional M&E system in place
Perception may be different than on-the-ground
reality:

10.  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
THE PRIME MINISTER SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM
No: 2284/QD-TTg Independence-Freedom-Happiness
Hanoi, December 13, 2010
DECISION
On 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”

11. 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
May also release funds to village
leader if forest is managed by the
community.
Final Approval list
posted at
commune prior to
payment

12. Village Management Unit
3 people – volunteer
to confirm forest
protection
Farmer Groups - 7
If 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

13. Forest
Management
Board
Army Patrol
<5% of area
Households
Group Patrol
Provincial Fund
Management

14.  Forest Management Funds -multiple levels
 Boundaries unclear in field
 Difficult communication
◦ Ministry ->Province -> District
 Contract based on land allocation
 PES contracts delayed

15.  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?

16. FEECOLLECTORS •Hydro Power
Plants
•Water
Supply Co.
•Industrial
Users
•Ecotourism
Operators
•Industrial
Water Users
•Aquaculture
BROKERS
•National
•Central
•Provincial
•District
•Communes
•Villages
•Consulting firms
•NGOs
•GIZ, Winrock, ,
•Donors legal and
technical
facilitators
SELLERS
•Individual
Households
•Household
Groups
•Villages
•Forest Ltd.
Companies
•Forest
Management
Board
????????????
???????????? ????????????
BUYERS
BENEFICIARIES
Water
Users
Electricity
Users
Tourists
People
of
Vietnam

17.  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

18.  Water quality degraded
 Provincial/Central – no
observations
 Data Collection
◦ DONRE
◦ Water Supply Company
◦ Lam Dong - 4 stream gages
 Stream gates integrate all
watershed activities
PFES alone cannot solve
all sediment problems

19.  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?

20.  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

21. No payments collected
from industrial water users
Total Revenue From Service Buyers
0
200000000
400000000
600000000
800000000
1000000000
1200000000
2009
2010
2011
2012
96%
91.7%
94.7%
98.5%
4.3%
7.9%
5.1%
1.4%
0.1%
0.2% 0.2%
0.1%
1000VietnamDong
Year
Hydropower
Water Companies
Tourism Companies

22.  Fund dispersal
 Son La – 50%
 Lam Dong 17%
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
2009
2010
2011
2012
5.3%
15.6%
4.6%
15.4%
94.7%
84.4%
95.4%
87.6%
Fund management
Forest Protection

23. Province 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 Individual
2000
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/yr
Maize: 30 Million VND/ha/yr

24.  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

25. 1. Institutional Aspects
2. Policy Changes
3. Monitoring
4. Participatory Watershed Approach

26.  Capacity Training for field staff
◦ Meeting facilitation
◦ Reporting – on line
◦ Data Management
◦ Monitoring
 National watershed boundary delineation
 Technical Guidance Manuals
◦ Forest inventory, erosion control…

27.  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

28.  Forest Area
 Forest Quality / Biodiversity
 Water Quality/Quantity and
sedimentation
 Landscape Aesthetics
 Social / Livelihood

29.  INPUTS MONITORING
1. Identify forest area
2. Identify forest owners
 Determine willingness to participate in PFES
3. Develop agreements/contracts
4. Identify buyers – collect payments
 OUTCOMES MONITORING
1. Ensure environmental services are delivered
2. Pay for services delivered
3. Determine societal impact

30. Formulate
Question
Design
Sampling
Strategy
Gather
Data
Analyze
Data
Report
Findings
Adapt
System
as
Needed

31.  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

32.  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