A comparative analysis on Payment for Environmental Services in China, Vietnam and Republic of Korea

Abstract

This study examines the institutional arrangement of incentive-based policies on forest rehabilitation of China, Vietnam and the Republic of Korea (ROK) and synthesizes lessons learned especially relevant to the context of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK). These three countries were selected due to their successes in reforestation according to their government-led programs of forest rehabilitation. The programs are as following: Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP) in China, Program 661, also known as 5 Million Hectare Reforestation Program (5MHRP) in Vietnam and 1970s The First Ten-Year Forest Rehabilitation Plan in the ROK. These three programs played an important role in forest rehabilitation along with incentive programs, and logging bans, which aimed to reduce deforestation of native forests while increasing forest cover. They have also been called as either eco-compensation or Payment for Environmental Services (PES). Although the ROK reforestation policy does not fit the exact definition of PES, looking over their main efforts to restore forests implemented with various incentive programs including both cash and in-kind, it is regarded as a PES scheme in this research. By conducting a comparative analysis through the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, many similarities have been found. All changes had started from the highest levels of governments understandings of the importance of forests shown by establishment of rules and incentives for forest conservation and shifted major policies in land tenure reform. This motivated households or communities to take over more responsibilities. On the other hand, many differences exist among the countries in terms of leading actors, payment mechanisms, legal frameworks, communication methods and causes of deforestation. Compared to the other two countries, the ROK had a good communication channel between the Central government and local government. The Vietnamese government gave long-term tenure ownership to the people, with a maximum period of 50 years, thus giving more responsibility to individuals. The China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED) consisted of high-level and non-profit advisory body including Chinese leaders, international deputy and academics. It fulfilled the implementation of government and research activities in practice. Although many lessons learned from the experiences of three countries, the research has some limitations. Different political systems might be a barrier to proper application of findings in the context of the DPRK. In the last few decades, China and Vietnam has undergone rapid transitions from a command economy to market economy. Their market-based approach to forest conservation has been implemented along with the changes in social and political system. In contrast, the ROK is a market economy even though former President Park Chung-Hee strongly implemented a planned economy system during his reigning period while also implementing the reforestation policy in 1970s. Contrasting to these countries, the DPRK has a centrally planned economy system where the role of market mechanism is possibly limited. Therefore, different political and economic systems amongst the four countries should be carefully considered while looking into implications that might relate to the context of the DPRK.