Importance and impacts of intermediary boundary organizations in facilitating payment for environmental services in Vietnam

Environmental Conservation - Tập 37 Số 1 - Trang 64-72 - 2010
Phạm T.T.1, Bruce M. Campbell2, Stephen T. Garnett1, Heather J. Aslin1, Minh Ha Hoang3
1School for Environmental Research, Charles Darwin University, Australia
2CGIAR Challenge Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
3World Agroforestry Center, Hanoi, Vietnam

Tóm tắt

SUMMARYIntermediaries are seen as important actors in facilitating payments for environmental services (PES). However, few data exist on the adequacy of the services provided by intermediaries and the impacts of their interventions. Using four PES case studies in Vietnam, this paper analyses the roles of government agencies, non-government organizations, international agencies, local organizations and professional consulting firms as PES intermediaries. The findings indicate that these intermediaries are essential in supporting PES establishment. Their roles are as service and information providers, mediators, arbitrators, equalizers, representatives, watchdogs, developers of standards and bridge builders. Concerns have been raised about the quality of intermediaries’ participatory work, political influence on intermediaries’ activities and the neutral status of intermediaries. Although local organizations are strongly driven by the government, they are important channels for the poor to express their opinions. However, to act as environmental services (ES) sellers, local organizations need to overcome numerous challenges, particularly related to capacity for monitoring ES and enforcement of contracts. Relationships amongst intermediaries are complex and should be carefully examined by PES stakeholders to avoid negative impact on the poor. Each of the intermediaries may operate at a different level and can have different functions but a multi-sector approach is required for an effective PES implementation.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Mike H. & Simon M. (2008) Research Note 1: Glossary of Intermediaries. University of Salford, SURF Centre, Salford, UK.

10.1111/j.1749-124X.2008.00107.x

Lee, 2007, Payments for Environmental Services and Poverty Reduction: Risks and Opportunities

Huang M. & Upadhyaya S. (2007) Watershed-based payment for environmental services in Asia. Working Paper No. 06–07. Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Collaborative Research Support Program (SANREM CRSP), Office of International Research, Education, and Development (OIRED), Virginia Tech, Virginia, USA.

Blagescu M. & Young J. (2006) Capacity development for policy advocacy: current thinking and approaches among agencies supporting civil society organisations. ODI Working Paper 260. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK.

Fraser, 2008, Protecting Country: Indigenous Governance and Management of Protected Areas, 19

Mapedza E. & Mandondo A. (2002) Co-management in the Mafungautsi State Forest area of Zimbabwe: what stake for local communities? WRI Working Paper Number 5. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA.

Arifin B. (2005) Institutional constraints and opportunities in developing environmental service market: lessons from institutional studies in Indonesia. World Agroforestry Centre Working Paper. World Agroforestry Centre, Southeast Asia Regional Office, Bogor, Indonesia.

Ravnborg, 2007, Payments for Ecosystem Services: Issues and Pro-poor Opportunities for Development Assistance

van der Meulen B ., Nedeva M. & Braun D. (2005) Intermediaries, organisation, and processes: theory and research issues. Position Paper for PRIME Workshop, 6–7 October 2005, The Netherlands [www document]. URL http://www.prime-noe.org/Local/prime/dir/News/Call%20for%20papers/Position%20Paper%20Workshop%20IntermedOrg.pdf

Bracer C. , Scherr S. , Molnar A. , Sekher M. , Ochieng B. O. & Sriskanthan G. (2007) Organisation and governance for fostering pro-poor compensation for environmental services: CES Scoping Study Issue Paper No. 4. ICRAF Working Paper No. 39. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya.

Bendell, 2006, Debating NGO Accountability

Pham, 2008, Pro-poor payments for environmental services: challenges for the government and administrative agencies in Vietnam, Public Administration and Development, 28, 363, 10.1002/pad.513

Wertz-Kanounnikoff S. & Kongphan-Apirak M. (2008) Reducing forest emissions in Southeast Asia: a review of drivers of land-use change and how payments for environmental services (PES) schemes can affect them. CIFOR Working Paper No. 41. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Moss, 2009, Organizing water: the hidden role of intermediary work, Water Alternatives, 2, 16

Baumann P. (2000) Equity and efficiency in contract farming schemes: the experience of agricultural tree crops. ODI Working paper 139. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK.

Borrini-Feyerabend, 2004, Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation

Nørlund R. , Tran N.C. & Nguyen D.T. (2003) Dealing with the donors: the politics of Vietnam's comprehensive poverty reduction and growth strategy. Policy Papers 4/2003. Institute of Development Studies, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.

Providoli A.I. (2009) Shangri-La Workshop 2009 (18–22 May 2009): Sustainable Land Management in the Highlands of Asia, Northwest Yunnan, China [www document]. URL http://www.icimod.org/enews/enews.php?print=1&id=30

10.1068/a4116

Bakker, 2008, The ambiguity of community: debating alternatives to private-sector provision of urban water supply, Water Alternatives, 1, 236

McIver, 2007, The Community Intermediaries Research Project

Hovland I. (2003) Communication of research for poverty reduction: a literature review. ODI Working Paper 227. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK.

Johnson C. , Deshingkar P. & Start D. (2003) Grounding the state: poverty, inequality and the politics of governance in India's Panchayats. ODI Working Paper 226. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK.

van Noordwijk M ., Leimona B. , Emerton L. , Tomich P.T. , Velarde J. S. , Kallesoe M. , Sekher M. , & Swallow B. (2007) Criteria and indicators for environmental service compensation and reward mechanisms: realistic, voluntary, conditional and pro-poor. CES Scoping Study Issue Paper no. 2, ICRAF Working Paper no. 37. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya.

10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.009

10.1016/j.forpol.2007.11.007

Landell-Mills, 2002, Silver Bullet or Fools’ Gold? A Global Review of Markets for Forest Environmental Services and Their Impact on the Poor. Instruments for Sustainable Private Sector Forestry Series

10.1111/1468-5914.00185

Bonnal, 2005, Proceedings of the African Regional Workshop: Preparing for the Next Generation of Watershed Management Programmes and Projects, 117

10.1017/S1355770X08004282

10.1002/sd.345

10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.08.007

10.1017/CBO9780511808678

Pollard A. & Court J. (2005) How civil society organisations use evidence to influence policy processes: a literature review. ODI Working Paper 249. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK.

World Agroforestry Center (2009) National Workshop on ‘Linkage of Forest Protection, Economic Growth and Poverty Alleviation: Issues and Approaches in Vietnam’ [www document]. URL http://www.worldagroforestry.org/af2/node/115?q=node/208

Campbell B.M. & Shackleton S. (2001) The organisational structures for community-based natural resource management in Southern Africa [www document]. URL http://www.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v5/v5i3a6.htm

Johnson C. (2001) Towards accountability: narrowing the gap between NGO priorities and local realities in Thailand. ODI Working Paper 149. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK.

Leimona B. & Lee E. (2008) Pro-poor payment for environmental services: some considerations. January Brief. World Agroforestry Centre, and Bangkok, Thailand: Regional Community Forestry Training Center, Bogor, Indonesia.

10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.029