Key messages

• PFES and the large number of workshops have helped catalyze or strengthen cooperation between participants, which in turn can help organizations contribute more effectively to forest governance initiatives. However, when organizations work in the same provinces, they are less likely to collaborate.
• The impact of PFES on household income depends on the levels of payments, livelihood options available in the area, the area of forest managed by households, and PFES contract types (between individual households and the fund or between village administrations and PFES agencies). There were substantial differences between study sites.
• PFES appears to have been successful in lowering rates of deforestation for forest plots that were standing in 2000. The longer PFES programs have been active in a province, the greater the expected reductions in deforestation.
• Estimated PFES impacts can vary significantly depending on the assessment method used. While this infobrief discusses the impacts of PFES on forest governance, local livelihoods and forest loss separately, their interaction could offer a more complex picture of PFES impacts.