**5.2 Evaluating the effectiveness of the PFES program**

### *5.2.1 Score of the evaluation indicator*

Specific scores for each evaluation indicator are shown in **Table 6**. Accordingly, the scores of three economic, social, and environmental aspects were 5.63 points, 7.51 points, and 7.5 points, respectively. Thus, the economic efficiency of the PFES program was only average, while the social and environmental effects were evaluated equally and at a pretty good level.


*Integrated Effect of the Payment for Forest Environmental Services (PFES) in Vietnam DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112900*


#### **Table 6.**

*Score of three economic, social, and environmental aspects of the PFES program.*

#### *5.2.2 Integrated effectiveness of the PFES program*

The results of calculating the IES of the PFES program under the three scenarios are presented in **Table 7**. The IES of the program achieved the highest score in the second scenario – Sustainable Development Scenario with a score of 7.03 (Pretty Good). In the remaining two scenarios, the IES was only above average with 6.88 points and 6.28 points for the first scenario and third Scenario, respectively.

IES analysis under different scenarios to recommend managers to select/adjust the evaluation weights of three economic, social and environmental aspects in actual situation of the locality or with predefined management objectives. This creates flexibility in the performance assessment of PFES programs. As for the program of Ba Be district is one of the poorest districts of Vietnam. Besides, the local people are mainly ethnic people living in the forest. Therefore, in the selection of scenarios to evaluate the PFES program should pay attention to social issues, especially issues such as poverty reduction, participation of ethnic minorities; sustainable livelihood development; and limit social conflicts. Choosing the first scenario – sustainable development not the most effective because this area was a - special difficult need to be considered very carefully in forest protection and local economic development. On the contrary, if choosing the third scene - Promoting economic efficiency (weighted 65%), reduces environmental efficiency and social efficiency (weights 20% and 15%, respectively) causing to reduce the forest protection efficiency. On the other hand, high economic efficiency but not equal distribution will increase social conflicts, especially between the rich and the poor, ethnic minorities with Kinh people. As a result, the sustainability of the PFES program will be seriously degraded. From the above analysis, it can be seen that the option of


**Table 7.** *Analysis of the integrated effectiveness of the PFES program under different scenarios.* evaluating the PFES program according to the second scenario was more feasible for the actual situation of the Ba Be district. This scenario allows the Ba Be district to sustainably protect forest resources and gradually improve local economic and social life. Focusing on forest protection while still considering the livelihoods of forest-based communities, ensuring social security and fairness.
