No abstract

No abstract

Green Growth (GG) has emerged as a global narrative, replacing to some extent and integrating earlier sustainable development narratives, while Reducing Emissions through avoiding Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) has developed as major item in climate change negotiations. GG and REDD+ are both considered important strategies and are often seen as synergistic in achieving major changes in economic, regulatory and governance frameworks. Of concern, however, is that GG is sometimes seen as greenwashing of economic activities (which could include forest conversion to other land uses) by an oversimplified presentation of win-win solutions without challenging the actual root causes of unsustainable growth. How GG and REDD+ can contribute to transformational change in policy and practice depends on the relationship between these narratives, especially whether their adoption in national level policies manifests synergies or discord. In this paper, we will answer this question through analysing: (1) how the two narratives have unfolded in Vietnam and Indonesia and to what extent REDD+ and GG rhetoric include concrete policy objectives; (2) what issues policy actors perceive as challenges for their implementation. A comparative, mixed methods approach was employed to analyze how REDD+ and GG are framed in national policy documents. This analysis was supported by data from interviews with policy actors in both countries in two points of time, 2011/12 and 2015/16. The findings highlight the challenges for implementation of both REDD+ and GG as individual policy programmes, and the dilution of the REDD+ agenda and decision makers' confusion about a GG strategy when these narratives are joined and translated by decision makers. Actors still perceive development and environmental objectives as a zero-sum struggle, favouring a development narrative that might lead to neither REDD+ nor green policy action. We conclude that REDD+ and GG can go hand in hand, if there is action to tackle deforestation and degradation.

• There are currently five payment distribution models implemented in Dien Bien and Son La provinces under the national payment for forest environmental services (PFES) program for community forests: (1) equal distribution to all households within a community, (2) payment for forest protection groups, (3) building infrastructure, (4) community investments, and (5) livelihood development options e.g. microcredit schemes. Each of these models has pros and cons for achieving the 3Es outcomes of effectiveness, efficiency and equity. Current payment distribution models focus on the equality aspects and overlook the equity, efficiency and effectiveness of the program. Combining different payment distribution options can enhance the 3Es outcomes.• The main underlying factors that drive villagers' to decide on a payment distribution model are the local communities' perceptions on equity, the size of the PFES funds and their trust in local authorities' accountability and capacity.• There is a risk of PFES contractual obligations being breached given the absence and their associated of regular auditing and monitoring of financial transactions. A better monitoring system and auditing system is required to assess the chain of benefit distribution, from ecosystem service payments provided by the users (hydropower/water companies), the transactions mediated by the intermediaries (FPDF, commune government) and benefits received by the sellers (village committees/households). One option for those communities with access is to promote the use of banking systems to deliver funds from the province to the community. Alternatively, mobile banking systems could be an option in addition the government should aim to improve the capacity of people in the village to manage and record all of their financial transactions.• Local people have a limited understanding of how the PFES funds are distributed; they are unsure of their eligibility, the payment amount, the timing of payments and the conditions attached to the payment. Enhancing information dissemination, availability and transparency about payment conditionality and distribution is recommended to support both effective decision-making on resource use and PFES overall.

Key messages• Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation and Enhancing Forest Carbon Stocks (REDD+) in Vietnam is one of the few policy processes where actors including the State, international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs) are vocal about taking part in the policy arena.• A policy network analysis, however, shows that governance of REDD+ remains centralized within a few government agencies (e.g. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development) and donors (e.g. UN-REDD) as indicated by their level of influence, frequency of information-sharing with other actors and level of collaboration with other actors.• Stakeholders identified corruption; ineffective consultation processes leading to lack of inclusion in decision making; limited role of scientists in decision making; and lack of coordination among government agencies and donors as major governance challenges for REDD+ in Vietnam.• The issue of strongest disagreement and polarization in the policy arena is about REDD funding and how it should be disbursed -whether REDD+ should be merged with existing state budget lines or set up as an independent fund outside these structures.