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

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. Outline
Overview of PFES in Đăk Lăk
Environmental impacts
Economic impacts
Social impacts
Recommendations

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The contribution of policy to financial resources for
forest protection&development
State Budget: 0.5%
Provincial Budget: 61.60%
PFES Budget: 37.90%

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Thank you!
foreststreesagroforestry.org | globallandscapesforum.org | resilientlandscapes.org
cifor.org | worldagroforestry.org