Mekong Forum on Water, Food and Energy. 2012. Presentation from Session 5: Sharing for Energy, Water and Food

1. Benefit Distribution System in
Payments for Forest Environmental Services (PFES)
Case study: Bac Kan province
Dam Viet Bac & Delia C. Catacutan
ICRAF Vietnam
The Mekong Forum on Water, Food and Energy
Hanoi, Viet Nam, November 13-14, 2012
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE

2. Contents
1.Context of PFES in Vietnam and Bac Kan
2.Proposed benefit distribution system (BDS)
in Bac Kan
3.Questions for discussion
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE

3. National Policy Framework
Vietnam
• The Vietnamese Decision No.
380/QD – TTG: ES buyers should
pay ES providers
• Payments for forest
environmental services (DECREE
No. 99/2010/NĐ-CP.)
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE

4. PFES Benefit Distribution System in Vietnam
Vietnam Forest Protection & Dev.
Vietnam Forest Protection & Dev.
Fund
Fund K factors:
K1: Status of forest
Provincial Forest Protection and Development Fund
Provincial Forest Protection and Development Fund K2: Forest
types/purpose
K3: Origins of forest
K4: Difficulties in
An appropriate intermediate payment level
An appropriate intermediate payment level forest protection,
(e.g. district or commune)
(e.g. district or commune) including social and
geographic factors
Environmental services’ providers
Environmental services’ providers
**Forest owners
Forest owners
**Households/individuals contracted by forest owners
Households/individuals contracted by forest owners

5. Proposed BDS for PFES in Ba Be District, Bac Kan
> 85% • • Ba Be National Park
Ba Be National Park
Na Hang
Na Hang VND 20/Kwh Vietnam • • Ba Be Forest
Ba Be Forest
Hydropower
Hydropower Enterprise
Enterprise
FPF (100%) • • Protection Forest
Plant Protection Forest
Plant Management Board
Management Board
• • Commune People’s
Commune People’s
-0.5%
Committee (un-
Committee (un-
management
- < 5% contracted)
contracted)
fee
contingency
Ta Leng
Ta Leng
Hydropower
Hydropower - < 10% -10% management
plant VND 20/Kwh managemen fee
plant t
Bac Kan
Bac Kan Village community
Village community
FPF
FPF Contracted teams/groups
Contracted teams/groups
• • Ba Be National
Ba Be National
Park
(99.5%)
(99.5%)
Park
• • Boat cooperative
Boat cooperative 1-2% of
• • Households with
Households with revenues
homestay
homestay Households
Households
businesses in Bo
businesses in Bo
Lu and Pac Ngoi
Lu and Pac Ngoi
villages
villages

6. Stakeholders’ preference on BDS: case study in Ba Be and Na Ri
Districts (Modified REDD+ Game by Dave Eastman, ICRAF/Oregon
University)
(1) Preference over purpose-
oriented cash for
infrastructure and LURCs
(2) First-ranked benefit type, by
individual land tenure status
(LURC: Land use right certificate)

7. (3) Preferences over the LURC benefit varied by gender

8. Questions to be discussed
1. How can PFES schemes be developed with the least
transaction costs?
2. What are current applications of K factors and their
limitations on BDS in PFES?
3. What are local stakeholders’ preferences on benefits from,
or payment for ES?
4. How can BDS be designed that takes account different
forest land tenure systems of ES providers?
5. How can PFES reach the poor and landless people?
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE

9. Thank you !
More information about ICRAF’s PES work
in Vietnam
Delia C. Catacutan, Ph.D.
Country Representative
ICRAF-Vietnam
No. 8, Lot13A, Trung Hoa St.
Yen Hoa Ward, Cau Giay District
Hanoi, Vietnam
Email: D.C. Catacutan@cgiar.org
Visit us:
www.worldagroforestrycentre.org
www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/sea/vn
www.rupes.worldagroforestrycentre.org
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE