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.

Assessing Impacts of the Payment for Forest Environmental Services in Dak Lak2

22 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

Presented by Mr. Hoang Tuan Long (CIFOR) and Ms. Tuyet Hoa Niekdam (Tay Nguyen Rural Development Center), 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!

Assessing Impacts of the Payment for Forest Environmental Services in Dak Lak2

  1. 1. The study was carried out by a collaboration between CIFOR and the Tay Nguyen Centrer for Rural Development ASSESSING IMPACTS OF THE PAYMENTS FOR FOREST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES IN ĐẮK LẮK
  2. 2. Outline Overview of PFES in Đăk Lăk Environmental impacts Economic impacts Social impacts Recommendations
  3. 3. Overview of PFES in Đắk Lắk 512.85 231.80 - 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 Tổng diện tích rừng Diện tích cung DVMTR Total forest area Total PFES forest area 36.732.2 31.1 Rừng đặc dụng (36,74%) Rừng phòng hộ đầu nguồn (31,04%) Rừng sản xuất (32,2%) Special-use forest Protection forest Production forest
  4. 4. Environmental impacts - Provincial forest area has decreased 628.98 640.53 641.18 498.66 526.35 496.26 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thousand ha BEFORE PFES AFTER PFES
  5. 5. Environmental impacts - Forest cover has decreased 44.98 47.92 48.25 48.80 48.82 48.85 48.25 37.99 40.12 40.11 38.65 37.81 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 % AFTER PFESBEFORE PFES
  6. 6. District forest area has decreased 114.3 114.4 114.6 114.5 114.3 114.3 114.3 106.8 107.5 107.5 107.2 107.1 78.3 79.6 80.2 80.5 80.5 80.6 80.9 70.1 71.8 71.9 71.5 70.3 59.0 61.6 62.9 63.5 65.3 65.7 66.2 64.2 72.2 72.4 69.7 69.4 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 nghìn ha Buôn Đôn Krông Bông M'Đrắk BEFORE PFES AFTER PFES
  7. 7. 81.1 81.1 81.2 81.2 81.1 81.1 81.1 75.7 76.2 76.2 76.0 76.0 62.3 63.3 63.8 64.0 64.0 64.1 64.4 55.7 57.1 57.2 56.9 55.9 44.1 46.1 47.1 47.5 48.9 49.2 49.6 48.0 54.1 54.1 52.1 51.9 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 % Buôn Đôn Krông Bông M'Đrắk District forest cover has decreased BEFORE PFES AFTER PFES
  8. 8. The area of natural forest decreases, the area of planted forest increases Năm Buôn Đôn Krông Bông M'Đrắk Natural forest (%) Planted forest (%) Natural forest (%) Planted forest (%) Natural forest (%) Planted forest (%) 2007 99.98 0.02 99.35 0.65 89.12 10.88 2008 99.97 0.03 97.72 2.28 85.26 14.74 2009 99.75 0.25 96.92 3.08 83.50 16.50 2010 99.74 0.26 96.49 3.51 82.36 17.64 2011 99.74 0.26 96.42 3.58 79.80 20.20 2012 99.74 0.26 96.16 3.84 79.24 20.76 2013 99.74 0.26 95.52 4.48 78.39 21.61 2014 99.69 0.31 98.79 1.21 90.50 9.50 2015 99.19 0.81 96.92 3.08 81.01 18.99 2016 99.19 0.81 96.79 3.21 81.01 18.99 2017 99.17 0.83 96.81 3.19 82.79 17.21 2018 99.28 0.72 98.37 1.63 83.36 16.64
  9. 9. Forest land encroachment by the households Indicators M’Đrắk National Park buffer zone PFES NON-PFES PFES NON-PFES Level of the encroachment + Percentage of HH encroached forest (%) 4.17 4.17 3.33 2.50 + Encroachment area/each household (ha) 0.52 0.52 0.48 0.50 Expansion purpose + Agricultural crops (%) 100.00 40.00 100.00 100.00 + Forest plantation (%) 0.00 60.00 0.00 0.00
  10. 10. Environmental impact before and after PFES 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% PFES NON PFES Local people perspective on the impact of PFES on forests Better 50 58.33 29.17 55.83 5 20.83 5.83 14.17 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 M’Đrắk District National Park buffer zone M’Đrắk District National Park buffer zone PFES NON PFES Proportion of households interviewed exploiting and selling forest products Proportion of households exploiting forest products Proportion of households selling forest products
  11. 11. The contribution of policy to financial resources for forest protection&development State Budget: 0.5% Provincial Budget: 61.60% PFES Budget: 37.90%
  12. 12. Income of surveyed households (million dong/household) Indicators M’Đrắk National Park buffer zone PFES NON-PFES PFES NON-PFES Total income 72.33 50.27 52.26 46.94 Cultivation 42.31 23.95 18.01 12.16 Breeding 4.79 2.81 3.5 2.44 Product from forest 0.19 0.02 0.22 0.69 Work for hire 7.63 17.87 6.06 9.54 Protecting the forest 5.89 0 7.47 2.05 Salary 4.18 2.91 6.52 9.92 Pension 0.92 0.48 0.8 0.95 Subsidize 1.75 0.14 0.95 0.47 Business 0.9 0.7 3.48 3.41 Other 3.77 1.4 5.25 5.31• Total income of household having PFES higher than NON-PFES from 5.32 – 22.06 million • Income from protecting forest of household having PFES 5.42 – 5.89 million higher
  13. 13. Tác động của chính sách tới một số chỉ tiêu sinh kế của hộ Chỉ tiêu M’Đrắk National Park buffer zone PFES NON-PFES Difference PFES NON-PFES Difference Shopping value (million đ/household) 46.55 20.59 25.96* 22.53 22.25 0.28 Land (ha/household) 3.00 2.38 0.62 2.07 1.47 0.60*** Land having certificate (ha/hộ) 0.83 0.64 0.19 0.86 0.41 0.45*** Cutivation product’s value (million d/household) 61.07 33.94 27.13* 34.25 24.28 9.97*** Value of livestock herbs (million d/household) 23.72 10.66 13.05*** 24.06 25.09 -1.03 Production expense (Rent/ buy ) (million d/household) 17.92 10.31 7.62** 16.47 13.04 3.43 Income from cutivation (million đ/household) 42.31 23.95 18.37** 18.01 12.16 5.85* Income from breeding (million.đ/household) 4.79 2.81 1.98 3.50 2.44 1.06 Income from forest produce (million.đ/household) 0.19 0.02 0.17 0.22 0.69 -0.48 Income from protecting forest (million đ/household 5.89 0.00 - 7.47 2.05 5.42*** Thu income from different work(million .đ/household 15.54 22.17 -6.64* 17.83 24.76 -6.93 Total income (million.đ/household) 68.72 48.95 19.77** 47.03 42.11 4.92 Income better(%) 64.17 N/A N/A 60.83 34.17 26.67*** Life standard better(%) 43.33 N/A N/A 42.50 38.33 4.17
  14. 14. Social impact – since PFES applied, the area of forest allocated to people has increased 54.74 48.36 46.24 49.48 50.14 50.10 45.26 51.64 53.76 50.52 49.86 49.90 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Diện tích rừng uản lý bảo vệ tập trung Diện tích rừng giao khoánForest area for centralized management and protection Forest area contracted
  15. 15. Social impact - Limited access to information on PFES is available M’Đrắk District National Park’buffer zone Access information from Protecting forest fund 7.50 13.33 Access information from forets managers 23.33 19.17 Access information from forestry company 0.00 0.83 Access information from Commue People’s Commitee 14.17 15.83 Access informatin from different sources 4.17 9.17 Haven’t accessed information 50.83 41.67
  16. 16. Protection group/commu nity Number of household Rate (%) Households allocated with forest and forestry land provide environmetal services 68 1253 17.70 Communities allocated with forest and forestry land provide environmetal services 11 1650 23.30 Contracted protecting forest with forest owner is organization or communal leader committee - 4177 59.00 Total - 7080 100.00 Số hộ được hưởng lợi từ PFES
  17. 17. Recommendation • Complete the legal basis to supplement revenues from more PFES types. • Strengthening facilities to improve the quality of forest database management • It is necessary to have an effective policy for the development of plantation forests: including land use rights, credit, market linkages for the plantations to develop sustainably and qualify to benefit from PFES • There are solutions to promote participation in PFES (especially communication improvement) of providers and beneficiaries • The state management agencies need to be more proactive in concretizing the PFES policy into the characteristics of each locality
  18. 18. Thank you! foreststreesagroforestry.org | globallandscapesforum.org | resilientlandscapes.org cifor.org | worldagroforestry.org

×