Multi-level governance and decision-making on forests and PFES in VietnamAnastasia Yang, Vu Tan Phuong, Tien Nguyen Dinh, et al.

Why research multilevel governance?

Village Village Village

commune

Village

Commune

District

Province

National

International e.g. donors

Horizontal

Verti

cal

Key actors:

Vietnamese government

State companies

Forest protection and development fund (FPDF)

Rubber plantation companies

Hydro power companies

Village actors

Non-government

Organizations (NGO)

Government organizations

e.g. JICA

Research questions

* Based on key informants interviews

1. How do multilevel actors and their decisions relate to land use change on the ground?

2. How has decentralization influenced land use change and local peoples livelihoods?3. What can existing benefit sharing mechanisms teach us about procedural and

outcome legitimacy in land use decisions?

Site selection

Global study : lessons on MLG and land use decisions

Power EquityTechnical

Politicalrights

Study overview:• 54 research cases of land use change in 5 countries. • Exploring the case driven stories at ach of these sites • Assess the legitimacy of decision making and outcomes

Findings:

Multi-level governance and decision-making on forests and

PFES in Vietnam

A Legal study…..

Distribution of powers and responsibilities affecting forest, land use, and REDD+ across levels and sectors in Vietnam- Key regulations on PFES are outlined based

on Decree No. 99

Province Dien Bien Nghe AnDistrict Muong Cha Dien Bien Con Cuong Tuong Duong

Commune Hua Ngai

Muong Muon

Muong Pon

Muong Nha

Chi Khe Luc Da Thach Giam

Yen Na

Sites PFES REDD+ pilot

project

Rubber plantatio

n

Community based forestry

management

Hydropower plant

(HPP) developm

ent

Afforestation business (smaller

enterprise – private

company)

afforestation

government program - 147 program

Hydropower plant (HPP)

development

Research Case study sites Increasing emissions

Decreasing emissions

Study sites & methodsTable 1. Number of interviewees at each government level Study province Province District Commune/local Total intervieweesDien Bien 7 9 33 52Nghe An 9 11 30 48Total 16 20 63 100

Interviewees Vietnamese government

State companies

Forest protection and development

fund (FPDF)

Rubber plantation companies

Hydro power companies

Village actors

Non-government

Organizations (NGO)

Government organizations

e.g. JICA

Provincial government District government Commune government

….And across ministries(smallholders,

villager heads, mass organizations)

Forest ownership in Vietnam 2013

1) Forest

management boards

2) State owned fo

rest co

mpanies

3) Other e

conomic

organizations

4) Arm

force

units

5) Households

6) Communities

7) Others

8) Communal p

eople's committee

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000Natural Forest Planted forest

Tota

l Ha

allo

cate

d fo

rest

in 2

013

data source: MARD, 2014

Policy, people and land use change

Forest land allocation (FLA)

Forest & livelihood outcomes

Benefit sharing mechanism

(BSM) e.g. PFES

Regional research: Provincial PFES, payments & FLA

Dien Bien

403.4 billion VND paid

393,340 ha

116.2 billion VND (29 %)

Delayed due to FLA

Nghe An

94.84 billion VND

562,743 ha (2013), 273,982 ha in 2014

16.14 billion VND (17 %)

Delayed due to FLA, HH not received payments

Payment collected from users

Number of eligible forest hectares (ha)

Benefits received

Dien Bien FPDF 2014; Nghe An people committee, 2014. MLG synthesis report

Payment distributed

Province

PFES Findings: Dien Bien province

Hua Ngai+ village decide forest regulations + good awareness of forest protection

Muong Muon+ “Before 2013, there was no boundary among villages…... Under implementation of PFES, there are clear boundaries and [villagers] cannot come to cultivate in land of other villages” (villager 34b).

Muong Pon+ the Dien Bien PPC decided to re-implement activities on FLA alongside attempts to implement PFES

Muong Nha - PFES has not implemented yet due to small amount paid for watershed of Ma River.

PFES Findings: Nghe An province

Chi Khe- the Hydro power plant is not yet in operation so eligible households have not received compensationYen Na- individual household forest boundaries are not yet identified the Fund has just paid for forest owner organization, and group. “If let’s say, who protect better will get higher payment, I don’t

think it would be good, because when we was allocated forest land, there was different in term of conditions of each land plot. Land allocation is not up to our decision” (#41)

Luc Da- coordination among PFES with other projects / governmental program is weak and resulted in a poor understanding at the local level (#44).

Multi-level governance and decision-making on forests and

PFES in Vietnam

Power EquityResources

Coordination

rights

lack finances, human resources & capacity to meet greater demands of decentralization

Lack of coordination amongst policy and programs

FLA highly variable –more complicated second time round

Forest classification implicates rights, access and benefits

Recommendations

Provisions of adequate resources / training at commune/ district government level

Legitimate FLA and forest classification are important steps to a more legitimate PFES

Benefits need to meet livelihoods needs

Thank you!

http://www.cifor.org/redd-benefit-sharing/

With co-financing from:

The CIFOR REDD+ Benefit Sharing project is supported by:

Publications Trung, L.Q et al. (2015) The distribution of powers and responsibilities affecting forest, land use, and REDD+ across levels and sectors in Vietnam, occasional Paper, CIFOR http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-137.pdf

Yang et al. (forthcoming) Analyzing multilevel governance in Vietnam: lessons for REDD+ through land use change and benefit sharing in the provinces of Nghe An and Dien Bien, occasional Paper, CIFOR

Myers et al (2015) Benefit sharing in context. CIFOR InfoBrief 118. https://www.google.com/search?q=benefit+sharing+in+context&oq=benefit+sharing+in+context&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.3778j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8 Ravikumar et al (2015) Multilevel governance challenges in transitioning towards a national approach for REDD+: evidence from 23 subnational REDD+ initiatives. International Journal of the Commons 9(2) http://www.cifor.org/library/5703/multilevel-governance-challenges-in-transitioning-towards-a-national-approach-for-redd-evidence-from-23-subnational-redd-initiatives/ Ravikumar et al (2015) Project Guide and Methods Training Manual. CIFOR (https://www.google.com/search?q=ravikumar+project+guide&oq=ravikumar+project+guide&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59.3352j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8) - Futher details on research methods

And more…..

Project website: http://www.cifor.org/redd-benefit-sharing/Contact a.yang@cigar.org