The Context Of Redd In Vietnam

This report discusses the political, economic and social opportunities and constraints that will influence the design and implementation of REDD+ in Vietnam. In particular, four major direct drivers (land conversion for agriculture; infrastructure development; logging (illegal and legal); forest fire) and three indirect drivers (pressure of population growth and migration; the state’s weak forest management capacity; the limited funding available for forest protection) of deforestation and degradation in Vietnam are discussed, along with their implications for REDD+. These drivers and their impacts vary from region to region, and change over time – no ‘one-size-fitsall’ formula will function across the whole of Vietnam. The report also examines the lessons learnt from various forestry and economic development policies and programmes and suggests how a future REDD+ mechanism can overcome the major challenges, which include limited funding for forest protection, weak local governance capacity, poor vertical and horizontal coordination, low involvement of the poor, women and indigenous groups, low economic returns, elite capture of land and benefits, and corruption. The report suggests that if REDD+ is to succeed, it must be participatory, that is, all players are given fair and ample opportunity to be part of the programme (particularly those with the least resources or the greatest economic disenfranchisement); transparent, that is, all players can trace how the programme is administered, including the distribution of benefits; and well-monitored, to ensure that the programme is conducted such that it meets its overarching objectives and guidelines. The success of REDD+ will also require that it take a pro-poor and pro-gender equity approach.

Vietnam is acknowledged to be REDD+ pioneer country, having adopted REDD+ in 2009. This paper is an updated version of Vietnam’s REDD+ Country Profile which was first published by CIFOR in 2012. Our findings show that forest cover has increased since 2012, but enhancing, or even maintaining, forest quality remains a challenge. Drivers of deforestation and degradation in Vietnam, including legal and illegal logging, conversion of forest for national development goals and commercial agriculture, weak law enforcement and weak governance, have persisted since 2012 up to 2017. However, with strong political commitment, the government has made significant progress in addressing major drivers, such as the expansion of hydropower plants and rubber plantations.Since 2012, Vietnam has also signed important international treaties and agreements on trade, such as Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) through the European Union’s (EU) Forest Law Enforcement. These new policies have enhanced the role of the forestry sector within the overall national economy and provided a strong legal framework and incentives for forestuser groups and government agencies to take part in forest protection and development. Nevertheless, new market rules and international trade patterns also pose significant challenges for Vietnam, where the domestic forestry sector is characterized by state-owned companies and a large number of domestic firms that struggle to comply with these new rules.The climate change policies, national REDD+ strategy and REDD+ institutional setting has been refined and revised over time. However, uncertain and complex international requirements on REDD+ and limited funding have weakened the government’s interest in and political commitment to REDD+. REDD+ policies in Vietnam have shown significant progress in terms of its monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) systems, forest reference emission levels (FREL), and performance-based and benefit-sharing mechanisms by taking into account lessons learnt from its national Payment for Forest Environmental Services (PFES) Scheme. Evidence also shows increasing efforts of government and international communities to ground forestry policies in a participatory decision-making processes and the progress on developing safeguarding policies in Vietnam between 2012 and 2017 affirms the government’s interest in pursuing an equitable REDD+ implementation. Policy documents have fully recognized the need to give civil society organizations (CSOs) and ethnic groups political space and include them in decision making. Yet, participation remains token. Government provision for tenure security and carbon rights for local households are still being developed, with little progress since 2012.The effectiveness of REDD+ policies in addressing drivers of deforestation and degradation has not be proven, even though the revised NRAP has recently been approved. However, the fact that drivers of deforestation and degradation are outside of the forestry sector and have a strong link to national economic development goals points to an uneasy pathway for REDD+. The business case for REDD+ in Vietnam has not been proven, due to an uncertain carbon market, increasing requirements from donors and developed countries, and high transaction and implementation costs. Current efforts toward 3Es outcomes of REDD+ could be enhanced by stronger political commitment to addressing the drivers of deforestation from all sectors, broader changes in policy framework that create both incentives and disincentives for avoiding deforestation and degradation, cross-sectoral collaboration, and committed funding from both the government and developed countries.

REDD+ is one of the leading near-term options for global climate change mitigation. More than 300 subnational REDD+ initiatives have been launched across the tropics, responding to both the call for demonstration activities in the Bali Action Plan and the market for voluntary carbon offset credits.

REDD+ must be transformational. REDD+ requires broad institutional and governance reforms, such as tenure, decentralisation, and corruption control. These reforms will enable departures from business as usual, and involve communities and forest users in making and implementing policies that a ect them. Policies must go beyond forestry. REDD+ strategies must include policies outside the forestry sector narrowly de ned, such as agriculture and energy, and better coordinate across sectors to deal with non-forest drivers of deforestation and degradation. Performance-based payments are key, yet limited. Payments based on performance directly incentivise and compensate forest owners and users. But schemes such as payments for environmental services (PES) depend on conditions, such as secure tenure, solid carbon data and transparent governance, that are often lacking and take time to change. This constraint reinforces the need for broad institutional and policy reforms. We must learn from the past. Many approaches to REDD+ now being considered are similar to previous e orts to conserve and better manage forests, often with limited success. Taking on board lessons learned from past experience will improve the prospects of REDD+ e ectiveness. National circumstances and uncertainty must be factored in. Di erent country contexts will create a variety of REDD+ models with di erent institutional and policy mixes. Uncertainties about the shape of the future global REDD+ system, national readiness and political consensus require  exibility and a phased approach to REDD+ implementation.

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation and Enhancing Forest Carbon Stocks (REDD+) in Vietnam is oneof the few policy processes where actors including the State, international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) and civilsociety organizations (CSOs) are vocal about taking part in the policy arena.

The Republic of the Union of Myanmar is a forest resource-rich country, but is also facing serious deforestation and forest degradation problems. Currently, Myanmar's forest still covers more than 40% of the country's land area (Aung (2001) but 70% of its population live in rural areas, and the agricultural sector is the main contributor to the country's gross domestic product (GDP) (30%) (World Bank 2014). The country faces the all-too-common dilemma of how to develop its economy while at the same time curbing environmental degradation and contributing to carbon emissions reduction. In 2013, Myanmar adopted a REDD+ program and started its preparatory phase. Myanmar established and developed its National Forest Monitoring System (NFMS) and Reference Emission Levels (RELs) for REDD+ following the guidance and modalities set out by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Implementing REDD+ requires political commitment to address direct and indirect drivers of deforestation, an adequate funding mechanism that is based on a thorough analysis of all costs and benefits, a transparent and equitable benefit-sharing mechanism, and a participatory decision-making approach in which all stakeholders can take part in REDD+. The Global Comparative Study on REDD+, together with its country partners, is compiling profiles of 14 countries to better understand the socioeconomic contexts in which REDD+ policies and processes emerge.

The issue of REDD+ benefit sharing has captured the attention of policymakers and local communities because the success of REDD+ will depend greatly on the design and implementation of its benefit?sharing mechanism. Despite a large body of literature on potential benefit?sharing mechanisms for REDD+, the field has lacked global comparative analyses of national REDD+ policies and of the political?economic influences that can either enable or impede the mechanisms. Similarly, relatively few studies have investigated the political?economic principles underlying existing benefit?sharing policies and approaches. This working paper builds on a study of REDD+ policies in 13 countries to provide a global overview and up?to?date profile of benefit?sharing mechanisms for REDD+ and of the political?economic factors affecting their design and setting. Five types of benefit?sharing models relevant to REDD+ and natural resource management are used to create an organising framework for identifying what does and does not work and to examine the structure of rights under REDD+. The authors also consider the mechanisms in light of five prominent discourses on the question of who should benefit from REDD+ and, by viewing REDD+ through a 3E (effectiveness, efficiency, equity) lens, map out some of the associated risks for REDD+ outcomes. Existing benefit?sharing models and REDD+ projects have generated initial lessons for building REDD+ benefit?sharing mechanisms. However, the relevant policies in the 13 countries studied could lead to carbon ineffectiveness, cost inefficiency and inequity because of weak linkages to performance or results, unclear tenure and carbon rights, under?representation of certain actors, technical and financial issues related to the scope and scale of REDD+, potential elite capture and the possible negative side effects of the decentralisation of authority. Furthermore, the enabling factors for achieving 3E benefit?sharing mechanisms are largely absent from the study countries. Whether REDD+ can catalyse the necessary changes will depend in part on how the costs and benefits of REDD+ are shared, and whether the benefits are sufficient to affect a shift in entrenched behaviour and policies at all levels of government. The successful design and implementation of benefit?sharing mechanisms – and hence the legitimacy and acceptance of REDD+ – depend on having clear objectives, procedural equity and an inclusive process and on engaging in a rigorous analysis of the options for benefit sharing and their potential effects on beneficiaries and climate mitigation efforts.