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.

Sustainable financing mechanisms for mangrove and wetland protection

112 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

Presented by Pham Thu Thuy, CIFOR, on 10 November 2020 at "International workshop: Enhancing wetland management and sustainable development"

Veröffentlicht in: Umweltschutz
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

Sustainable financing mechanisms for mangrove and wetland protection

  1. 1. Sustainable financing mechanisms for mangrove and wetland protection Pham Thu Thuy
  2. 2. 1. Methods 2. Global overviews 3. National lessons learnt 4. Future schemes 5. Recommendations Outline
  3. 3. • Literature review • Interviews and HH surveys • Cases studied: both PES AND PES-LIKED, different scales + management regimes, different ecoregions, and state and non-state programs/projects Provinces Total key informants interviewed Thai Binh 292 Thanh Hoa 287 Quang Ninh 288 Da Nang 6 Hai Phong 224 Quang Nam 4 Ben Tre 14 Tra Vinh 25 Ca Mau 10 TOTAL 1,150 Methods
  4. 4. Global overviews o Tourism, recreation as well as storm protection are the most common ES that have been monetized. o cultural services such as aesthetic and artistic values have been hardly valued so far, indicating the necessity for further research regarding these services o A/R CDM : 18 registered globally, none is on mangrove
  6. 6. GLOBAL vs. NATIONAL PFES schemes for mangrove 22.7 77.3 45.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Landscape beauty carbon sequestration aquaculture % VIETNAM GLOBAL
  7. 7. National and sub-national level funding sources Source: Pham et al. 2019.Funding the protection and development of mangrove forests at sub-national level: Lessons from Ben Tre, Tra Vinh and Ca Mau provinces, Vietnam. Available at: https://www.cifor.org/library/7234/
  8. 8. Incentives and disincentives • INCENTIVES: o Payment for labour day…but low, no significant between control and intervention sites, only for planting not maintenance o Training as side benefit but become the main incentives o Providing seeds and fertilizer… but not locally adapted and based on local needs, overlook appropriate site selection and right species o Payment for end products but… late or event no payment; no significant between control and intervention sites o Innovative from village-self formed group: reward for reporting violations o Better access and higher price for certified products… but market margin is low • DISINCENTIVES: o Prohibit access and use of local people to convert mangrove and access to mangrove forests with administrative fines….but weak law enforcement o High investment costs • Both do not fully address and tackle drivers of D&D and do not take into account and build on social motivation
  9. 9. M&E, additionality and permanence • Unclear M&E indicators and framework • Primary economic indicators driven (E.g. kg of prawns, and are not based on environmental indicators • Ineffective law enforcement • external stressors(fire, pollution, sea level rise, ocean acidification) can potentially impinge on key PES parameters o (1) threaten ecosystem service provision, additionality and permanence, o (2) add challenges to the identification of PES providers and beneficiaries, and o (3) add complexity and costs to PES mechanism design.
  10. 10. Mangrove governance • Overlapping and unclear mandates, responsibilities amongst government agencies. • Information gaps and access to information on non-state programs on mangrove protection and development • New form of governance and local resistance • Insecured tenure and elite capture • Conflicts between local and migrants • Willingness and political commitment varies • Imbalance power between local people vs. companies, people vs. State in setting up and implementing PES contracts
  11. 11. Potential ES and ES buyers
  12. 12. Willingness to pay • LOW due to: (i) not directly managing the mangroves; (ii) low level of payment and only a small group benefit the schemes; (iii) limited area available and feasible for mangrove reforestation schemes; (iv) uncertain and unclear legal framework; (v) unstable income • HIGH, if: • Better law enforcement • Secured land tenure • Equitable benefit sharing mechanism • Transparent, accountable M&E • Inclusive decision making • Appropriate incentives and disincentives • Who benefit more should pay more • Clear mechanism • Stable annual incomes • The boat sizes 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 301,000- 500,000 100,000- 300,000 <100,000
  13. 13. RECOMMENDATIONS PAYMENT • Think out of the box • International funding is limited - domestic funding plays a key role • Secure enabling conditions (e.g. institutional setting, M&E, safeguards) to attract funding DISTRIBUTION • Focuses on incentives protecting existing mangrove as well as reforestation • Shifting from paying labor day for reforestation activities to addressing the drivers • Combine in-kind and in-cash payment, incentives and disincentives
  14. 14. cifor.org blog.cifor.org ForestsTreesAgroforestry.org THANK YOU