The Prospects for payment for ecosystem services (PES) in Vietnam: A Look at three payment schemes

Human Ecology

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 237-249

  To, Phuc Xuan ^b   Dressler, Wolfram H ^a   Mahanty, Sango ^b   Pham, Thu Thuy ^c   Zingerli, Claudia ^d  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY RESEARCH   (Indonesia)

^d ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Forest resources; Market based mechanisms; Poverty alleviation; Property rights; Vietnam

Indexed keywords

ACCESSIBILITY; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; FOREST ECOSYSTEM; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FOREST RESOURCE; LIBERALIZATION; NATURAL RESOURCE; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; TRANSACTION COST;

VIET NAM;

EID: 84859804734     PISSN: 03007839     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10745-012-9480-9     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Beresford, M., and Fraser, L. (1992). Political economy of the environment in Vietnam. Journal of Contemporary Asia 22(1): 2-19
2. Beresford, M., (2008). Doi Moi in review: The challenges of building market socialism in Vietnam. Journal of Contemporary Asia 38(2): 221-243.
3. Bird, R., and Rodriguez, E. (1999). Decentralization and poverty alleviation: International experience and the case of the Philippines. Administration and Development 19: 299-319.
4. Chhatre, A., and Agrawal, A. (2009). Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106: 17667-17670.
5. Clements, T., John, A., Nielsen, K., An, D., Tan, S., Milner-Gulland, E. (2010). Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: Comparison of three programs from Cambodia. Ecological Economics 69(6): 1283-1291.
6. Corbera, E, Adger, N., and Brown, K. (2007). The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Development and Change 38(4): 587-613.
7. Cotula, L., and Mayers, J. (2009). Tenure in REDD: Start-point or afterthought? Natural Resource Issues No 15. London: IIED.
8. Crook, C., and Clapp, A. (1998). Is Market-oriented forest conservation a contradiction in terms. Environmental Conservation 25(2): 131-145.
9. Dressler, W. (2011). From first to third nature: The rise of capitalist conservation on Palawan Island, the Philippines. The Journal of Peasant Studies 38(3): 533
10. Dressler, W., and Pulhin, J. (2010). The shifting ground of swidden agriculture on Palawan Island, the Philippines. Agriculture and Human Values 27(4): 445-459.
11. Dressler, W., and Roth, R. (2011). The good, the bad and the contradictory: Neoliberal conservation governance in rural Southeast Asia. World Development 39(5): 851-862.
12. Dudley, N., Mansourian, S., Stolton, S., and Suksuwan, S. (2007). Protected areas and poverty reduction. A research report by WWF and Equilibrium. World Wide Fund for Nature.
13. Engel, S., Pagiola, S., and Wunder, S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 65: 663-74.
14. Goldman, M. (2001). Constructing an environmental state: Ecogovernmentality and other transnational practices of a 'Green' World Bank. Social Problems 48(4): 399-523.
15. Henin, B. (2002). Agrarian change in Vietnam's northern upland region. Journal of Contemporary Asia 32(1): 3-28
16. Huang, M., Upadhyaya, J., Rohit, and Kerr, J. (2009). Payment for watershed services in Asia: A review of current initiatives. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 28: 551-575.
17. Hua, D. N. (2010). Opening speech in the national workshop on development decree on payment for forest ecosystem services. Hanoi February 26, 2010.
18. Igoe, J., Neves, K., and Brockington, D. (2010). A spectacular ecotour around the historic bloc: Theorising the convergence of biodiversity and capitalist expansion. Antipode 42(3): 486-512.
19. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. (2011). (IGES). Payment for environmental services in Vietnam: An analysis of the pilot project in Lam Dong Province. Forest Conservation Project: Occasional Paper No. 5.
20. Kerkvliet, B. (1995). Village-state relations in Vietnam: The effect of everyday politics on decollectivization. The Journal of Asian Studies 54(2): 396-418.
21. Kerkvliet, B. (2001). Introduction: Analysing the State in Vietnam. Sojourn 16(2): 179-186.
22. Kumar, P., and Muradian, R. (2009). Payment for ecosystem services. Oxford University Press.
23. Landell-Mills, and Porras, I. (2002). Silver bullet or fools' gold? A global overview of markets for forest environmental services and their impacts for the poor. Instruments for sustainable private sector forestry series, IIED, London.
24. Leimona, B., Villamor, G., Noordwijk, M. V., Fauzi, A., Utaira, R. (2008). IFAD grant project tag-534 completion report: Developing mechanisms to reward the upland poor in Asia for environmental services that they provide. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Office, Bogor.
25. Mayrand, K., and Paquin, M. (2004). Payments for environmental services: a survey and assessment of current schemes. Montreal: Unisfera International Centre for the Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America. Available at: http://www.cec.org/files/PDF/ECONOMY/PES-Unisfera_en.pdf.
26. McElwee, P. (2012). Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based forest conservation in Vietnam: panacea or problem? Geoforum.
27. McElwee, P. (2009). Reforesting "bare hills" in Vietnam: Social and environmental consequences of the 5 million hectare reforestation program. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment 38(6): 325-333.
28. Lansing, D. (2011). Realizing carbon's value: Discourse and calculation in the production of carbon forestry offsets in Costa Rica. Antipode 43(3): 731-753.
29. Lee, E., and Mahanty, S. (2009). Payments for environmental services and poverty reduction: risks and opportunities. Bangkok: The Center for People and Forest.
30. Li, T. (2007). The will to improve: Governmentality, development, and the practice of politics. Durham: Duke University Press.
31. Mahanty, S., Suich, H., and Tacconi, L. (forthcoming). Access and benefits in payments for environmental services and implications for REDD plus: Lessons from a global review. Land Use Policy.
32. McCarthy, J., and Prudham, S. (2004). Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism. Geoforum 35: 275-283.
33. Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., and May, P. (2010). Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69(6): 1202-1208.
34. Nguyen Van Dang et al. (2001). 'Vietnam's economic renovation in retrospect', unpublished paper, January 2001.
35. Nguyen Truc Bong Son. (2011). Kinh nghiem thuc hien chi tra dich vu moi truong rung tinh Lam Dong [experience in PFES revenue distribution in Lam Dong province]. Presentation made at the meeting on Payment Distribution System organized by MARD in Hanoi, April 28, 2011.
36. Nguyen, T. P. (2009). The role of the government in developing and implementing the policy on payment for forest environmental services in Vietnam. Hanoi: FSSP Newsletter 26-27: 5-6.
37. Pagiola, S., Arcenas, A., and Platais, G. (2005). Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Development 33(2): 237-253.
38. Peskett, L., Schreckenberg, K., and Brown, J. (2011). Institutional approaches for carbon financing in the forest sector: learning lessons for REDD + from forest carbon projects in Uganda. Environmental Science and Policy 14: 216-229.
39. Peter, J., Nguyen, C. T., and Nguyen, T. B. T. (2009). The pilot payment for forest environmental services in Lam Dong Province. Hanoi: FSSP Newsletter 26-27: 11-13
40. Pham, X. P. (2009). Developing a Decree on Payment for Forest Ecosystem Services. Presentation at the consultation workshop organized by MARD in Hanoi. 26 February.
41. Porras, I., Grieg-Gran, M., and Neves, N. (2008). All that glitters: A review of payments for watershed services in developing countries, Natural Resource Issues No. 11. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.
42. Porter, G. (1993). Vietnam: The politics of bureaucractic soccialism. Ithica: Cornell University Press.
43. Redford, K., and Adams, W. (2009). Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving nature. Conservation Biology 23(4): 785-787.
44. Ribot, J. (2004). Enfranchising environment: The politics of choice in democratic decentralization. World Resources Report, Washington, D.C.
45. Rosales, R. (2003). Developing Pro-poor markets for environmental services in the Philippines. IIED, November 2003.
46. Scherr, S., Bennett, M., Loughney, M., and Canby, K. (2005). Developing future ecosystem service payment in china: lessions learned from international experience. Washington, D.C. Forest Trends.
47. Scott, S. (1999). Gendered Institutions and Entitlement to Land: An Analysis of Vulnerability in Vietnamese Decollectivization. In Hainsworth, G. (ed.), Globalization and the Asian economic crisis: indigenous responses, coping strategies, and governance reform in Southeast Asia. Pp. 459-473. Centre for Southeast Asia Research, Institute of Asian Research, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
48. Sikor, T., and Thanh, T. N. (2007). Exclusive versus inclusive devolution in forest management: insights from forest land allocation in Vietnam's Central Highlands. Land Use Policy 24(4): 644-653.
49. Sikor, T., and Nguyen, Q. T. (2007). Why may forest devolution not benefit the rural poor? Forest entitlements in Vietnam's Central Highland. World Development 35(11): 2010-2025.
50. Sikor, T. (1998). Forest Policy Reform: From State to household forestry. In Poffenberger, M. (ed.), Stewards of Vietnam's Upland Forest. Berkeley, C.A.: Asia Forest Network 18-38.
51. Sikor, T., Stahl, J., Enters, T., Ribot, J., Singh, N., Sunderlin, W., and Wollenberg, L. (2010). REDD-plus, forest people's rights and nested climate governance. Global Environmental Change 20(3): 423-425.
52. Soriaga, R., and Annawi, D. (2010). The 'No-Fire Bonus' Scheme in Mountain Province Cordillera Administrative Region, Philippines. In Tacconi, L., Mahanty, Suich, H. (eds.), Payments for environmental services, forest conservation and climate change: livelihoods in the REDD? Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 130-159.
53. Sydee, J., and Beder, S. (2006). The right way to go? Earth sanctuaries and market-based conservation. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 17 (1): 83-98.
54. Thuy, P. T., Campbell, B. M., Garnett, S., Aslin, H., and Hoang, M. H. (2010). Importance and impacts of intermediary boundary organizations in facilitating payment for environmental services in Vietnam. Environmental Conservation 37(1): 64-72.
55. To, X. P. (2007). Forest property in the Vietnamese uplands: An ethnography of forest relations in Three Dao Villages. Berlin and London: LIT Verlage/Transaction Publishers.
56. Van Hecken, G., and Bastiaensen, J. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services in Nicaragua: Do market-based approaches work? Development and Change 41(3): 421-444.
57. Vatn, A. (2010). An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 60: 1245-1252.
58. White, B. (1989). Problems in the empirical analysis of agrarian differentiation. In Hart, G. Turton, A., and White, B. (eds.), Agrarian Transformations. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 15-30.
59. Wunder, S. (2005). Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42. Center for International Forestry Research: Jakarta.
60. Wunder, S., Ibarra, E., Bui, D. T. (2005). Payment is good but control is better: why payments for forest-environmental services in Vietnam have so far remained incipient. Center for International Forestry Research: Bogor, Indonesia.
61. Sowerwine, J. (2004). Territorialisation and the politics of highland landscapes in Vietnam: Negotiating property relations in policy, meaning and practice. Conservation and Society 2: 97-135.