Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T11:32:08.837Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2010

THU THUY PHAM ,
BRUCE M. CAMPBELL ,
STEPHEN GARNETT ,
HEATHER ASLIN  and
MINH HA HOANG
THU THUY PHAM*
Affiliation:
School for Environmental Research, Charles Darwin University, Australia
BRUCE M. CAMPBELL
Affiliation:
CGIAR Challenge Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
STEPHEN GARNETT
Affiliation:
School for Environmental Research, Charles Darwin University, Australia
HEATHER ASLIN
Affiliation:
School for Environmental Research, Charles Darwin University, Australia
MINH HA HOANG
Affiliation:
World Agroforestry Center, Hanoi, Vietnam
*
*Correspondence: Miss T. Pham e-mail: pham.thu.thuy@cdu.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Intermediaries 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.

Keywords

environmental servicesintermediarieslocal organizationspayment for environmental servicespro-poorVietnam
Type
THEMATIC SECTION: Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM): designing the next generation (Part 1)
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 37 , Issue 1: Thematic section. Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM): designing the next generation (Part 1) , March 2010 , pp. 64 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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.Google Scholar
Bakker, K. (2008) The ambiguity of community: debating alternatives to private-sector provision of urban water supply. Water Alternatives 1 (2): 236–252.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Bendell, J. (2006) Debating NGO Accountability. New York, USA and Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Bonnal, J. (2005) The sociological approach to watershed management: from participation to decentralization. In: Proceedings of the African Regional Workshop: Preparing for the Next Generation of Watershed Management Programmes and Projects, ed. Swallow, B., Okono, N., Achouri, M. & Tennyson, L., pp. 117–122. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Kothari, A. & Oviedo, G. (2004) Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.htmGoogle Scholar
Ferraro, P. J. (2008) Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 65 (4): 810–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, F., Donohoe, P. & Donohoe, P. (2008) realising opportunities and recognising constraints: jointly managed parks in the Northern Territory. In: Protecting Country: Indigenous Governance and Management of Protected Areas, ed. Smyth, D. & Ward, G.K., pp. 19–29. Canberra, Australia: The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.Google Scholar
Hovland, I. (2003) Communication of research for poverty reduction: a literature review. ODI Working Paper 227. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Khurana, R. (2002) Market triads: a theoretical and empirical analysis of market intermediation. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 32 (2): 239–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koellner, T., Sell, J., Gaehwiler, M. & Scholz, W.R. (2008) Assessment of the management of organizations supplying ecosystem services from tropical forests. Global Environmental Change 18: 746–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosoy, N., Corbera, E. & Brown, K. (2008). Participation in payments for ecosystem services: case studies from the Lacandon Rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum 39: 2073–2083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landell-Mills, N. & Porras, T.I. (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. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development.Google Scholar
Lee, E. & Mahanty, S. (2007) Payments for Environmental Services and Poverty Reduction: Risks and Opportunities. Bangkok, Thailand: Regional Community Forestry Training Center.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Locatelli, B., Rojas, V. & Salinas, Z. (2008) Impacts of payments for environmental services on local development in northern Costa Rica: a fuzzy multi-criteria analysis. Forest Policy and Economics 10 (5): 275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
McIver, W., Kitchen, S. J., O'Donnell, S., Reddick, A. & Rideout, V. (2007) The Community Intermediaries Research Project. Canada: Community Informatics Research Network.Google Scholar
Medd, W. & Marvin, S. (2007) Strategic intermediation: between regional strategy and local practice. Sustainable Development 15 (5): 318–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mike, H. & Simon, M. (2008) Research Note 1: Glossary of Intermediaries. University of Salford, SURF Centre, Salford, UK.Google Scholar
Moss, T. (2009) Intermediaries and the governance of sociotechnical networks in transition. Environment and Planning A 41 (6): 1480–1495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, T., Medd, W., Guy, S. & Marvin, S. (2009) Organizing water: the hidden role of intermediary work. Water Alternatives 2 (1): 16–33Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
North, D. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pham, T.T., Hoang, M.H. & Campbell, M.B. (2008) Pro-poor payments for environmental services: challenges for the government and administrative agencies in Vietnam. Public Administration and Development 28 (5): 363–373.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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=30Google Scholar
Ravnborg, M. H., Damsgaard, G.M. & Raben, K. (2007) Payments for Ecosystem Services: Issues and Pro-poor Opportunities for Development Assistance. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Institute for International Studies.Google Scholar
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.pdfGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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/208Google Scholar
Wunder, S. (2008) Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence. Environment and Development Economics 13 (3): 279–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, L., Tu, Q. & Mol, P. J. (2008). Payment for environmental services: The Sloping Land Conservation Program in Ningxia Autonomous Region of China. China and World Economy 16 (2): 66–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar