848 P. McElwee et al.
TABLE 3 Enrolment in the PES programme among surveyed house- holds and by household head types in 2011 and 2015, in all three study provinces combined.
% of surveyed households enrolled in/benefitting from PES
% of surveyed male-headed households enrolled in/ benefitting from PES
% of surveyed female-headed households enrolled in/benefitting from PES
2011 2015 52 56
56 62 40 40
TABLE 4 Household member participation in PES meetings and activities across the three study provinces in 2011 and 2015.
Household members participating the most in PES (% of households)1
Husband Wife
Both equally
Others; e.g. children, cousins
Do not know
Lâm Đồng
4 7 2
0
Sơn La
6 0 7 2
Thừa Thiên Huế2
2011 2015 2011 2015 2011 87
71 74 45 84 3
17 4 36
0 0
9 17 10 16 0
0
1Columns do not necessarily sum to 100% because of rounding. 2There were no interviews in 2015 as there was a delay in implementing PES.
TABLE 5 Household decision-making on payments for environ- mental services across two of the three study provinces in 2011 and 2015. Variation in the number reporting reflects households who reported having received a payment in the previous year.
Who decided how the PES money would be spent (% of households)?1
Husband Wife Both
Other
Lâm Đồng
2011 (n = 46)
22 48 28 2
2015 (n = 35)
11 3
83 3
SơnLa
2011 (n = 41)
85 10 2 2
1Columns do not necessarily sum to 100% because of rounding.
more gender-equitable participation was reported: in both Lâm Đồng and Sơn La, the per cent of households reporting that both husbands and wives participated equally in PES rose, with a striking increase in SơnLa.
Do women and men use payments differently?
In nearly all cases, men in the household physically received the payment, which was usually paid in cash by government officials. Respondents were asked, ‘Who decided how the PES money would be spent?’ (Table 5), and the results re- vealed cultural differences across sites (Thừa Thiên Huế is
2015 (n = 36)
11 3
78 8
not in this analysis as few payments had been made at the time of the survey). In 2011 in Sơn La, where the dominant ethnic group, the Thai, has traditional patriarchal norms, the husband decided how to use the money (85% of house- holds). In Lâm Đồng in 2011, the wives decided in 48%of households, reflecting matriarchal norms among the Koho ethnic group. But by 2015, both sites had converged: 83%of respondents in Lâm Đồng and 78%ofinSơn La reported joint decision-making. A female village head in Lâm Đồng told us that women’s power in the household was now shared with men more than in the past, attributed to men having received payments for environmental services. Participants in a women’s focus group in Lâm Đồng sta-
ted they preferred to receive payments, rather than the men doing so, as they had certain livelihood activities they were already in charge of and were familiar with family budget needs. Women in a focus group in Sơn La stated that the lack of wives’ names on land tenure certificateswas probably the reason men were paid the PES money. Although women did not report major arguments between husbands and wives over how to spend the payments, some stated they be- lieved men had wasted some of the PES money on alcohol or tobacco; for example, some women were confused about the exact payment rates they should expect to see, and believed that money had not been returned fully to the household. We also surveyed households about how payments were
used. In 2011, PES money was primarily spent on food, household goods, and schooling fees and expenses for chil- dren (Table 6). Only a small number of households reported they used part of the protection money PES funds on direct forest activities, such as purchase of tree seedlings or hiring labour for forest work, and the results in 2015 were largely the same. Wesaw some differences in expenditures between male- and female-headed households in a few categories: in 2011, male-headed households spent less of their PES money on household goods, more on house construction, and considerably more on other expenses, a category for non-essential expenses that was left open for respondents to specify, and which usually included recreation, cigarettes or travel. Female-headed households in 2011 spent nothing on other expenses, whereas 25%ofmale-headed households mentioned this category. By 2015 women-headed house- holds had increased their spending in the non-essential cat- egory, which could be a result of more disposable income, as well as a realization that use of PES money is not monitored (women may have been more reluctant to spend the income on non-essential items in the initial years of the programme). Participating PES households were also asked about their
opinions on the benefit distribution system (Table 7). Most households wanted a higher payment per ha, and both female- and male-headed households had largely similar suggestions (asking for 725,000–750,000 VND/ha on aver- age, or slightly more than double what was paid per ha in Lâm Đồng, and seven times higher than the payments in
Oryx, 2021, 55(6), 844–852 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605320000733
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164
