Presented by Annie Yang, Anne Larson, Grace Wong et al. ISEE 2014, Reykjavik

1. The equity of REDD+ benefit sharing
mechanisms? A multilevel governance
analysis in Vietnam.
Annie Yang, Anne Larson, Grace Wong et al.
ISEE 2014, Reykjavik

2. Project Aim: To provide Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and
Degradation (REDD+) policymakers and practitioners with policy options and
guidance to improve the design, development and implementation of REDD+
benefit sharing mechanisms.
Target groups:
• Policy makers in developing and developed countries
• Governments of the six focal countries
• REDD+ project developers and investors
Focal countries: Peru, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, Vietnam
Outline
• Project
• What is REDD+ and BSM
• Multilevel governance
• Background Vietnam BSM
• Research goals
• Methods
• Site selection
• Preliminary findings

3. Project: Understanding multi-level forest
governance as the context for REDD+
Aim: To provide REDD+ policymakers and practitioners
with policy options and guidance to improve the design,
development and implementation.
Target groups:
• Policy makers in developing and developed countries
• Governments of the six focal countries (Peru, Tanzania,
Indonesia, Vietnam, Mexico)
• REDD+ project developers and investors
Funders: European Commission, AUZAID, and NORAD

4. What is REDD and BSM?
 REDD+ requires a system to designate 1) who gets rewarded; 2) why; 3)
under what conditions; 4) in what proportions; and 4) for how long.
 Such systems are known as Benefit-Sharing Mechanisms (BSM), a broad
term that encompasses all institutional means, structures and instruments
for distributing finance

5. Designing REDD+
 REDD+ is in its infancy - so lessons on impacts and outcomes need to
come from other BSMs and the implementation of Payments for Ecosystem
Services (PES) schemes.
 Objectives:
1. What are key elements of an efficient, effective and equitable
BSM?
2. What policy/governance measures that need to be
implemented?
BSM Type
Context
Outcomes

6. Challenges for REDD+
Corruption
Legal provisions
Unclear governance
Elite capture of power
Limited capacity and finance
Weak enforcement
Insecure tenure / unclear rights
Accountability
Financial
management
Transparency
Pham et al. (2013)

7. The three e’s:
Equity
• Perception of fairness can undermine effectiveness and
efficiency
• Who should benefit?
Equity dimensions Characteristics
1) Procedural Participation in decision-making – levels vary
2) Distributive Allocation of outcomes and their impacts on different
stakeholders (cost, risks, benefits)
e.g. merit-based, need based, egalitarian, libertarian
3) Contextual Existing social conditions (capabilities and external
factors)
Mcdermott et al. (2013)
Effectiveness
Equity
Efficiency

8. Multilevel governance in Vietnam
Village Village Village
Commune
Village
Commune
District
Province
National
Global
Marks (1992) “authority
and policy-making
influence…shared across
multiple levels of
government - subnational,
national, and
supranational”
Ad quote!!

9. Vietnam background
Forest cover declined to about 27% in 1990. but by
2010 forest cover reached 39.5% (13 million ha) as
a result of government programmes.
Forest ownership types
1. State agencies e.g. State-owned companies
(SOCs), Management boards for protection
forest (PFMNs), Management boards for special
use forest (PAMBs)
2. Individual, private organization or joint venture
companies
3. Village communities as collective ownership
Forest categories:
• Production forest (6.3 million ha),
• Protection forest (4.8 million ha)
• Special-use forest (almost 2 million ha).

10. BSM Vietnam: Payment
for Forest Ecosystem
services (PFES)
 Nationwide PES schemes - Hydropower most
prevalent (total 190 HPP)
 Donor and nationally financed
 Total hydropower payments for 2013 US
$49,574,948
 Piloted in Lam Dong & Son La in 2008 &
became nationwide in 2010
 3.6 million ha out of a potential 4.1 million ha
has received benefits.
 The average level of payment of the amount
determined forest area for PFES in VN (2013)
is around 10,6 USD/ha/year;
Buyers (i.e.
hydropower
company)
National fund
Provincial FPDF
(Forest Protection
and Development
Fund)
PFES suppliers (i.e.
forest owners)
10%
admin
costs

11. REDD+, PFES and Vietnam
• The National REDD+ Action Program was
approved in June 2012 jurisdictional approach.
• lessons learnt from PFES should be adopted to
wider REDD+ scheme.
• Pilot REDD+ project sites established
• the potential for government agencies and
state-owned companies to capture the benefits of
REDD+ is high, given that 80% of high-quality
forest is under the management of state
agencies.

12. Research goals
1. To understand how land use decisions are made (across
levels and sectors) and how change occurs (including BSMs).
2. To understand the extent to which existing multilevel
governance arrangements support the effective and
equitable adoption of REDD+ or other low-carbon options.

13. Methods
I. Key informant interview / site selection instrument (national & Regional
level)
regional level key informants (government and non government).
II. Key informant interview (District & Provincial level)
located in the area of the particular initiative selected.
e.g. Knowledge of land use decisions and practices that have led to
increasing/decreasing C emissions within the district;
III. In-depth interviews on land use and land use change District & commune)
actors directly involved in any kind of land use change and could be used in
conjunction with the benefit sharing survey
e.g. Detailed history of land use change, Procedural and outcome legitimacy,
Actor interactions regarding land use
IV. Interview/survey on Benefit sharing structures and processes
actors directly involved in benefit sharing arrangements (REDD+, PES, SFM, etc),
both in design and as beneficiaries at site level.
Key
stakeholders
Government
actors
(provincial and
district level)
Community
representatives
NGOs
Private
sector
Community
based
organisations

14. Dien Bien
Nghe An
Provincial map of Vietnam
Site Selection
(Provinces: Dien Bien
and Nghe An)Dien Bien
Nghe An
Site (both provincial and district
level) selection criteria:
• Multilevel governance diversification;
• Status of REDD+ and other
conservation initiatives;
• Diversity in overall patterns of land
use;
• Carbon emission status (increasing/
decreasing);
• Accessibility, feasibility etc.

15. Site summary
Dien Bien Nghe An
Total land area 950,000 ha 1,648,820 ha
Forested land 394,000 ha (40%) 972,910.52 ha (59% in 2013)
Forest cover status Decreasing (–46000 ha forest
cover change 2008- 2011 )
Increasing (+76,800) ha forest
cover change 2008 – 2011 )
Special use 760,449 ha 169,207 ha
Protection forest 413,832 ha 302,068 ha
Production forest 298,032 ha 501,635 ha
Population 519,000 habitants 2,952,000 inhabitants
Selected communes Muong Cha district:
Hua Ngai commune
Muong Muon commnue
Dien Bien dstrict:
Muong Pon commune
Muong Nha commune
Con Cuong:
Chi Khe
Luc Da
Tuong Duong:
Yen Na
Thach Giam
Source: Nghe An department of foreign affairs (2014) General statistics office of Vietnam (2014)

16. Results: Interviewees
Province: Dien
Bien (5)
District: Dien
Bien (6)
Commune:
Muong Nha (9)
Muong Pon (8)
District: Muong
Cha (6/7)
Muong Muon
(9)
Hua Ngai (9)
Province:
Nghe An (9)
District: Con
Cuong (4/5)
Commune:
Chi khe (10)
Luc Da (6)
District:
Tuong Duong
(5)
Thach Giam
(9)
Yen Na (8)
NGHE AN
(total 52)
Dien Bien
(Total 53)

17. Preliminary findings
Dien Bien Nghe An
National
subnational
Local
Hydro plants payments very low- HHs
received a PFES payment of $0.31 per ha
- 700 ha deforested in construction
Hydropower construction driver of
deforestation and people displacement – HPP
establishment had little legitimacy
Forested allocation – conflict over land
rights
Forest allocation was perceived positively in
areas where complete – participatory
Shifting forest type categorisation to
special use
Shifting forest type categorization to
production
Reforestation unpopular as low demand Replantation extremely popular throughout
province due to accessible market and high
demand (Acacia and Melia) Forest protection
fund and groups were positive about the
distribution and procedural aspects.
Decentralization has created a burden for
lower governments and functional
local government unable to implement
policies effectively due to low capacity
Protect local neighbouring area but go
further to convert forest land
Shifting cultivation halted in the 1990’s,
except for Thach Giam
Rubber plantation driver of deforestation
but promoted for improving socio-
economic conditions
Rubber plantations in province but not
significant in study communes

18. The three e’s
Strengths
• Clear land tenure and land management
plans
• Participatory procedures
• Successful government reforestation
government programme
• Certain ethnic groups more open to SFM
practices
Effectiveness
Equity
Efficiency
Weaknesses
• Lack of coordination and consistency
between government sectors
• Low capacity and manpower at local
government levels
• HPP development top-down
procedures
• Low or unpaid PFES payments
• Policy driven approaches present an avenue for participation but what this
means remains unclear
• Same policies across the country and in some cases it will work and others not -
due to diversity of socio-economic conditions

19. Still to find out…
National: What are the key interests of the different government
sectors and which have more influence and why on land use?
e.g. benefits and burdens between HHP development and PFES
Sub national and district: what are the key priorities for sub-
national government do these compliment national and/or local
government interests?
e.g. change of forest status
Local: How are top down government programs perceived and
implemented by the local households/communities? What are
the oppurtunites and barriers?
e.g. Do the high opportunity cost of Acacia and other profitable species
implicate primary forest cover?

20. Thank you for listening
Project website: http://www.cifor.org
Email: A.Yang@cigar.org
For further information:
Pham, T.T. et al. (2013) Payments for forest environmental services in Vietnam: From policy to
practice, Occasional paper, CIFOR.
Pham T.T. et al. (2013) Approaches to benefit sharing: A preliminary comparative analysis of 13
REDD+ countries, Working Paper 108, CIFOR.
Luttrell C. et al (2013) Who Should Benefit from REDD+? Rationales and Realities, Ecology and
Society, 18(4): 52.
Lasse, L. et al (2014) Lessons from Payments for Ecosystem Services for REDD+ Benefit-Sharing
Mechanisms, CIFOR InfoBrief.
Many thanks to
 Project director: Grace Wong,
 Principal Scientist: Anne Larson,
 Cross-country WP6 coordinator Ashwin ravikumar
 Scientist: Pham Pu Thuy
 VAFS consultant: Cecilia Luttrell and Vu tan Phuong
 Researchers: Tien Nguyen and Le Quang Trung,
 Field assistants: Dung le Ngoc, Tran Vu Phuong, Nguyen Van Truong,