Fairness and Transparency in Payment for Forest Ecosystem Services Programs in Vietnam: A Community Based Evaluation

Date Received: Mar 12, 2021

Date Published: Jun 27, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31817/vjas.2022.5.2.04

Views

1277

Download

336

Issue: Vol. 5 No. 2 (2022): Vietnam Journal of Agricultural Sciences

Section:

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

How to Cite:

Son, C., Giang, N., Nui, N., Lam, N., & Vien, T. (2022). Fairness and Transparency in Payment for Forest Ecosystem Services Programs in Vietnam: A Community Based Evaluation. Vietnam Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 5(2), 1464–1479. https://doi.org/10.31817/vjas.2022.5.2.04

Fairness and Transparency in Payment for Forest Ecosystem Services Programs in Vietnam: A Community Based Evaluation

Cao Truong Son (*) 1 , Nguyen Thi Huong Giang 1 , Nguyen Hai Nui 2 , Nguyen Thanh Lam 1   , Tran Duc Vien 1

  • Corresponding author: ctson@vnua.edu.vn
  • 1 Faculty of Natural Resources and the Environment, Vietnam National University of Agriculture, Hanoi 131000, Vietnam
  • 2 Faculty of Accounting and Business Management, Vietnam National University of Agriculture, Hanoi 131000, Vietnam

    • Keywords

    Ba Be district, evaluation, fairness, payment for forest ecosystem services, transparency, Vietnam

    Abstract


    Payment for forest environmental services (PFES) has been widely implemented in Vietnam for enhancing the reforestation and conservation of natural resources. However, fairness and transparency in the implementation of PFES programs have not been given due attention. In order to gather the community's opinions about the fairness and transparency of PFES's implementation, two case studies of direct and indirect payment programs in Bac Kan Province were selected to investigate. In this study, a five-point scale to rank the levels of "importance" and "implementation" of eight criteria of fairness and five criteria of transparency were used. There were 167 people who participated in the evaluation process through a questionnaire. The results pointed out that the community highly evaluated fairness and transparency in terms of "importance". Nevertheless, the "implementation" of these criteria had lower evaluation points. In comparing the evaluation results between the service providers and buyers, there were no statistically significant differences in terms of the "important" criteria. However, the difference between providers’ and buyers' evaluations regarding "implementation" were significant, with the mean values of the providers' being relatively higher than the buyers'. In addition, the analyses also found that participants in the direct program evaluated fairness and transparency higher than those in the indirect program. Finally, we state that policymakers and other stakeholders should include fairness and transparency criteria in designing the evaluation framework of PFES programs in Vietnam in order to promote more participation of people and improve the sustainability of PFES programs.

    References

    Bennett M. T. (2008). China's sloping land conversion program: institutional innovation or business as usual? Ecological Economics. 65(4): 699-711. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.09.017.

    Coase R. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics. 3: 1-44.

    Dung N. V. (2015). PFES and opportunities for implementing forest co-management in Vietnam. Proceedings of the workshop on: Evaluating the effectiveness of payment for forest environmental services and the participation of local stakeholders. Hanoi. November 20, 2015: 41.

    European Climate Exchange (2008). About ECX. European Climate Exchange. London. Retrieved from http://www.ecx.eu/About-EXC on January 2, 2021.

    Engel S., Pagiola S. & Wunder S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecological Economics. 65(4): 663-674. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011.

    General Statistics Office in Vietnam (2020). Bac Kan Statistical Yearbook 2019. Statistical Publishing House. Hanoi (in Vietnamese).

    Bao Huy (2009). Building a benefit mechanism in community forest management. Proceedings of the National Workshop on Community Forest Management. Hanoi (in Vietnamese).

    Kolstad I. & Wiig A. (2009). Is transparency the key to reducing corruption in resource rich countries?. World Development. 37(3): 521-532.

    Landell-Mills N. & Porras I. (2002). Silver Bullet or Fools' Gold? A Global Review of Markets for Forest Environmental Services and Their Impact on the Poor International Institute for Environment and Development. London.

    Loft L., Le D. N., Pham T. T., Yang A. L., Thajadi J. S., Wong G. Y. (2017). Whose equity matters? National to local equity perceptions in Vietnam's Payments for forest ecosystem services scheme. Ecological Economics 135: 164-175.

    Tacconi L. (2012). Redefining payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics. 73: 29-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.028.

    Mc Leod S. A. (2008). Likert scale. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/likert-scale.html on May 5, 2020.

    Muradian R., Corbera E., Pascual U., Kosoy N. & May P.H. (2010). Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics. 69(6): 1202-1208. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.006.

    Muñoz-Piña C., Guevara A., Torres J.M. & Braña J. (2008). Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: analysis, negotiations and results. Ecological Economics. 65(4): 725-736. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.031.

    Mulgan R. (2000). Accountability: an ever-expanding concept? Public Administration.78(3): 555-573.

    Ngai N. B. (2016). Speech at the Summary Conference on Payments for Environmental Services in Vietnam. Proceedings of the Workshop: Evaluation of the effectiveness of payment for forest environmental services and the participation of local stakeholders, Hanoi on November 20, 2015 (in Vietnamese).

    Pagiola S. & Platais G. (2007). Payments for Environmental Services: From Theory to Practice. World Bank. Washington.

    Pagiola S. (2008). Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics. 65(4): 712-724. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.033.

    Pascual U., Muradian R., Rodríguez L. C., Duraiappah A. (2010). Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: a conceptual approach. Ecological Economics. 69(6): 1237-1244.

    Pham T. T., Bennet K., Vu T. P., Brunner J., Dung L. N. & Nguyen D. T. (2003). Payments for forest environmental services in Vietnam: From policy to practice. CIFOR (Bogor, Indonesia) Occasional Paper 93.

    Stavins R. N. (1998). What can we learn from the Grand Policy Experiment? Lessons from SO2 allowance trading. Journal of economic perspectives. 12(3): 69-88. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4981571_What_Can_We_Learn_from_the_Grand_Policy_Experiment_Lessons_from_SO2_Allowance_Trading on May 12, 2021.

    Government of Socialist Republic of Vietnam (2010). Decree No. 99/2010/ND-CP on "Payment for forest environmental services". Retrieved from http://vanban.chinhphu.vn on September 20, 2020 (in Vietnamese).

    Vien T. D., Son C. T., Dung N. T. T. D. & Lam N. T. (2016). Chapter 5: A voluntary model of payments environmental services: Lessons from Ba Be district, Bac Kan province of Vietnam. In: Thanh M. V., Vien D. T., Stephen J. L. & Ganesh P. S. (Eds.). Redefining diversity and dynamics of natural resource management in Asian. Elsevier Publishing.

    Vietnam Forest Protection and Development Fund (2016). Report on the implementation of the policy on payment for forest environmental services. Hanoi, Vietnam.

    Vietnam Administration of Forestry (2015). Report on: Evaluating the effectiveness of payment for forest environment services and the participation of local stakeholders. Hanoi. November 20, 2015.