Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

Additionality and Conditionality of PFES in Vietnam

12 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

Presented by Ms. Pham Thu Thuy (CIFOR), at "National workshop: 12 years of PFES impacts in Vietnam" on 24 November 2020

Veröffentlicht in: Umweltschutz
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

Additionality and Conditionality of PFES in Vietnam

  1. 1. Phạm Thu Thủy, Hoàng Tuấn Long, Đào Thị Linh Chi, Trần Ngọc Mỹ Hoa, Nguyễn Thủy Anh, Nguyễn Vân Anh, Nguyễn Đình Thảo, Matt Hamilton, và Caleb Gallemore Additionality and conditionality of PFES in Vietnam
  2. 2. Outlines • Analytical framework • Methods • Environmental impacts • Economic impacts • Social impacts • Key messages Analytical framework 1. Additionality: Impact of PFES compare with business as usual or in the absence of PFES 2. Conditionality: Environmental services (ES) providers are only paid if actual ES are delivered
  3. 3. Methods National Province District Commune Village Communities/ Households Institution Environment Economic Social Can thiệp (Trước) Can thiệp (Sau) Đối chứng (Trước) Đối chứng (Sau) AfterBefore Compare (control) Compare (interven tion) Impact
  4. 4. Methods: 2991 people interviewed + 60 researchers involved No. Sơn La 36 Đắc Lăk 50 Huế 31 VQG Cát Tiên 37 Tổng 154 Men Women Mixed Sơn La 119 117 Đắc Lăk 200 200 200 Huế (ước tính) 132 132 121 VQG Cát Tiên 110 112 Tổng 442 563 438 Men Women Sơn La 142 98 Đắc Lăk 417 63 Huế 131 112 VQG Cát Tiên 161 113 Tổng 851 386 No. Sơn La 32 Đắc Lăk 25 Huế 38 VQG Cát Tiên 62 Tổng 157 Key informants interviewed Focus group discussions Households surveyed Consultation workshops Literature review Remote sensing and network analysis
  5. 5. Environmental impact – National and regional impact Apply Cox Proportional Hazard Models: • Random nation-wide sample of 250,000 pixels that were forested as of 2000 • Random sample of 250,000 pixels that were forested in 2000 but deforested by 2018 • 30 x 30 pixels Hansen/ Global Forest Watch • Control variables: distance from roads, croplands, elevation, topography, % canopy closure • Possibility of deforestation before and after PFES Evidence that PFES does lower rates of forest loss for forest patches that were standing in 2000
  6. 6. Environmental impacts 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Forest area before and after PFES CÁT TIÊN SƠN LA ĐẮC LẮC HUẾ 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cả 4 site Sơn La Cát Tiên Đắk Lắk Huế Cả 4 site Sơn La Cát Tiên Đắk Lắk Huế WITH PFES KHÔNG PFES Local perceptions on PFES impact on forests Higer quality Degraded PFES PFES PFES PFES
  7. 7. Economic impacts 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cả 3 site Cát Tiên Đắk Lắk Huế Cả 3 site Cát Tiên Đắk Lắk Huế CÓ PFES KHÔNG PFES HH incomes before and after PFES in control and intervention sites Tăng Không thay đổi Giảm 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Cả 4 site Sơn La Cát Tiên Đắk Lắk Huế % PFES contributes to HH incomes Dưới 10% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% Trên 75%
  8. 8. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Cát Tiên Sơn La Đắk Lắk 1 năm 2 năm liên tục 3 năm liên tục 4 năm liên tục từ 5 năm liên tục trở lên Ngắt quãng 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cát Tiên Sơn La Đắk Lắk TĂNG GIẢM BIẾN ĐỘNG Sustainability of PFES payment
  9. 9. Social Impacts No. of poor HH/Total PFES recipients No. of poor households get out of poverty thanks to PFES/Total poor PFES recipients Total 57% 11.24% Sơn La 68% 0% Cát Tiên 59% 81.4% Đắk Lắk 53% 5% Huế 58% 3.93% * Poverty and poor households are defined based on local defintion
  10. 10. Deforestation declines moderately when additional organizations are active in the province Social impact
  11. 11. Workshops may also catalyze collaboration, and better collaboration between government agencies which can contribute to more cohesive forest governance BUT…. Organizations seem to avoid one another when working in the same areas. Model 1 Rate parameter period 1 7.39 (0.49)*** Rate parameter period 2 5.58 (0.45)*** Outdegree (density) -1.61 (0.18)*** Reciprocity -0.00 (0.20) Organizations co-attended workshops in prior time period 0.53 (0.22)* Organizations work in the same place -0.31 (0.15)* Governmental organization 0.51 (0.33) Collaboration between governmental organizations 0.56 (0.20)** Iterations 2669 ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05
  12. 12. Conditionality 35.71% 100.00% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% SƠN LA ĐẮC LẮK Forest area decreased but still received higher payment % HH continuously received PFES payment for more than 2 years but continuously has reduced number of forest areas • Weak law enforcement • Lack of evidence for payment • Social objectives come at the costs of environmental objectives
  13. 13. Key messages • Additionality: • Scale matters • More data is needed to confirm PFES additionality • Challenges in attribute PFES’s impact in a policy mix • Forest quality • Funding and political commitment • Weak Conditionality might threaten the sustainability of PFES scheme
  14. 14. Additional on-going and future • Measure increase in forest cover (along with forest loss) and effects of PFES on net change in forest cover • Measure effects of PFES on forest connectivity, and implications for species
  15. 15. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION foreststreesagroforestry.org | globallandscapesforum.org | resilientlandscapes.org cifor.org | worldagroforestry.org

×