a survey and assessment of community forest … · management system, the role of communities,...

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT

National Working Group on Community Forest Manageme nt Secretariat: c/o SMRP Hanoi, Room 301, #20 Tran Hung Dao Str.

I.P.O. Box 304, Hanoi, Vietnam Tel./Fax: +84 4 9331638

E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Website: www.mekonginfo.org/partners/cfm-vietnam/index.htm

Report

A SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT

IN SEVERAL NATIONAL PARKS AND NATURE RESERVES

by

Nguyen Huy Dzung

Vu Van Dzung

Hanoi, 2002

A survey and assessment of CFM in several national parks and nature reserves i

ABBREVIATION

1. KBT: nature reserve

2. VQG: national park

3. UBND: People’s Committee

4. BTTN: nature conservation

A survey and assessment of CFM in several national parks and nature reserves ii

TABLE OF CONTENT

ABBREVIATION....................................... ................................................................................................... I

TABLE OF CONTENT .................................. .............................................................................................. II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................... ......................................................................................... III

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... IV

1 OBJECTIVES, CONTENT, METHODS AND LOCATION OF STUD Y ................................................ 1

1.1 OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 CONTENT OF STUDY .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 STUDY METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 2

2 DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND THE MANAGEMENT OF NATURE RESERVES (SPECIAL USE FOREST) IN VIETNAM ............................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 HISTORY OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NATURE RESERVES IN VIETNAM ..................................................... 3 2.2 THE STATUS OF MANAGEMENT OF EXISTING NATURE RESERVES ............................................................. 5

3 ASSESSMENT OF FOREST MANAGEMENT IN AND AROUND A N UMBER OF NATURE RESERVES ................................................................................................................................................ 7

3.1 NATURE RESERVE OF PHONG DIEN .................................................................................................... 7 3.2 NATIONAL PARK OF BA BE ................................................................................................................. 9 3.3 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN SOME NATURE RESERVES ........................ 11 3.4 THE RELIANCE OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES ON FOREST RESOURCES ......................................................... 18 3.5 LOCAL PEOPLE’S PERCEPTION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NATURE RESERVES ...................................... 25 3.6 DIFFICULTIES IN ATTRACTING COMMUNITIES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF NATURE RESERVES 29

4 COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENS IN SOME N ATURE RESERVES .......... 29

4.1 FOREST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF COMMUNITY IN THE NATURE RESERVE OF PHONG DIEN ........................................................................................................... 29 4.2 MAJOR COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS AT THE NATIONAL PARK OF BA BE .............. 36

5 ASSESSMENT AND SELECTION OF A NUMBER OF EFFECITVE COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT MODELS IN NATURE RESERVES .............. .................................................................. 41

5.1 ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS ................................................. 41 5.2 SELECTION OF EFFECTIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS ....................................................... 43 5.3 MAJOR IMPEDIMENTS TO THE THREE COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT MODELS .................................. 45

6 A NUMBER OF CONSERVATION REGULATIONS AND POLICIES THAT ARE RELATED TO COMMUNITIES ........................................................................................................................................ 46

6.1 MAJOR REGULATIONS AND POLICIES ................................................................................................. 46 6.2 SOME DRAWBACKS IN CONSERVATION REGULATIONS AND POLICIES THAT ARE RELATED TO COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 49

7 SOLUTIONS TO ATTRACT COMMUNITIES TO PARTICIPATE I N THE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION OF FOREST IN NATURE RESERVES .............................................................................. 50

8 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 50

REFERENCE LITERATURE .............................. ....................................................................................... 52

A survey and assessment of CFM in several national parks and nature reserves iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In the course of conducting this study, we have benefited from multi-faceted assistance of the government at various levels, of agencies and individuals, who provided materials, participated in interviews, and provided assistance on the spot. We owe our deepest thanks to the SPAM project to which the Forest Protection Department is a partner, the Forest Protection Divisions of various provinces (Lao Cai, Thua Thien – Hue, Gia Lai, Ba Ria – Vung Tau), the Management Commissions of various national parks (Hoang Lien Son, Ba Be, Xuan Son, Pu Mat, Bach Ma), various nature reserves (Phong Dien, Kon Cha Rang, Kon Ka Kinh, Binh Chau – Phuoc Buu), district People’s Committees in A Luoi, Phong Dien, Forest Protection Units in A Luoi, Phong Dien, and People’s Committees of communes in the buffer zones of the nature reserve of Phong Dien and of the national park of Ba Be.

We sincerely thank the people in villages and communes where we conducted our study, who provided us a lot of assistance during field visits, collected materials, attended meetings, provided information and contributed many comments on the community’s management of nature reserves.

We are also indebted to members of the Core Group and the Working Group of the Mekong Sub-region Management Project for their valuable comments and ideas, without which this report would not have been completed.

The authors

A survey and assessment of CFM in several national parks and nature reserves iv

INTRODUCTION

Vietnam has been internationally recognized as one of the countries with natural resources of high biological diversity in the world. Acknowledging the importance of forest and biological diversity, the Government of Vietnam has introduced many policies, directions, and actions to protect these invaluable natural resources. In early 1960s, the Protected Forest of Cuc Phuong, later renamed National Park of Cuc Phuong, was established. Since then, a system of Special Use Forest (nature reserves under the management of the agriculture and forestry branch) has been set up with 127 areas, including 21 national parks, 51 natural reserves, 12 animal and biological conservation areas, and 37 cultural, historic and environmental sites. Of this total, a management commission has been established at about 50% areas for running daily operation.

An assessment of the performance of the special use forest system shows that one of the most difficulties of special use forest management currently is the untapped participation of communities living in or around the forest in the management and protection of forest. An empirical lesson has also been drawn, that is, without the active participation of communities, the management and protection of national parks and nature reserves will face lots of difficulties and be hardly successful.

To contribute to attracting communities to participate in the management and protection of forest in nature reserves, it is important that surveys and assessment of community forest management in and surrounding national parks and nature reserves be conducted in order to identify the most effective forest management models and to recommend effective and feasible measures to enhance the role of communities in forest management and maintenance of biological diversity.

In spite of time constraint, limited budget, and the novelty of the theme in Vietnam, the group of authors has managed to accomplish the study in time. It is hoped that the study outcome will contribute to enhancing the effectiveness of community forest management in special use forests in Vietnam so that communities will make active contribution in the cause of protecting natural and biological diversity in our country.

A survey and assessment of CFM in several national parks and nature reserves 1

1 OBJECTIVES, CONTENT, METHODS AND LOCATION OF STUD Y

1.1 Objectives

To determine the role and status of communities in the management and protection of forest resources and of biological diversity in nature reserves and national parks, thus suggesting solutions to attract communities to jointly manage and protect forest resources.

1.2 Content of study

1.2.1 Development process and management of the nat ure reserves system

1.2.2 Current status of community forest management in nature reserves

• Socio-economic conditions of buffer zones

• Land structure

• Population and its structure in nature reserves and buffer zones

• Living conditions of people in buffer zones

• Reliance of local people on forest resources

• Income of local people from forest resources

• Local people’s perception of the establishment of nature reserves

• Local people’s proposals to address their hardship when nature reserves are established

1.2.3 Types of community forest management in a num ber of nature reserves

- Nature reserve of Phong Dien.

- National park of Ba Be.

1.2.4 Analysis and assessment of models of forest m anagement in nature reserves

- Assessment of models.

- Selection of models.

- Major impediments to types of community forest management.

1.2.5 Assessing the practicality of some major comm unity-related conservation policies and regulations and recommending solutions

- Policies related to conservation activities.

- Regulations on the protection and benefit sharing between communities and the nature reserves.


- Recommending solutions to attract communities to participate in forest protection and management.

1.3 Study methodology

1.3.1 Collection and Assessment of Secondary Materi als

Collecting materials related to community management, materials and maps of national parks and nature reserves, legal regulations and policies related to community forest management and management of nature reserves,

Materials are mainly collected in five nature reserves located in different ecological regions with different minorities as follows:

- Nature reserve of Hoang Lien Son (province of Lao Cai).

- National park of Ba Be (province of Bac Can).

- National park of Xuan Son (province of Phu Tho).

- National park of Pu Mat (province of Nghe An).

- Nature reserve of Phong Dien (province of Thua Thien - Hue).

1.3.2 Application of PRA for interview

PRA method was used to interview farmers in communities and selected officials involved in the management and protection of nature reserves and national parks on issues such as management, exploitation and use of forest resources as well as the local people’s viewpoints on related issues. Used tools include preparation of matrix to assign marks for products and drawing maps with the participation of communities.

Interviews and consultation with local government and agencies involved in the management and enforcement of conservation activities were also conducted on issues such as the current management system, the role of communities, existing models, and other policy-related issues

1.3.3 Field visits

Field visits were made at the following nature reserves and national parks:

- Nature reserve in the North: national park of Ba Be.

- Nature reserve in the Central region: nature reserve of Phong Dien (province of Quang Tri).

The survey and assessment mostly focused on the performance of current management, communities’ participation in the management and protection activities, effective models for protecting resources and biological diversity with communities’ participation, policy-related issues, and recommendations made by agencies involved in the conservation activities.

1.3.4 Assessing community management models

Drawing on the assessment framework with five criteria proposed by the Mekong project.


1.3.5 Organizing conferences to gather comments of specialists

Gathering comments of specialists in the conference on issues described above in order to complete the report.

2 DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND THE MANAGEMENT OF NATURE RESERVES (SPECIAL USE FOREST) IN VIETNAM

2.1 History of the establishment of nature reserves in Vietnam

The National Park of Cuc Phuong, previously called protected forest of Cuc Phuong, was established on 7 July 1962. It is the first nature reserve established in Vietnam.

Ten other protected forests were established after the nature reserve of Cuc Phuong by decision No. 41/TTg of the Prime Minister on 24 January 1977. The system of nature reserves was expanded later nationwide and on 9 August 1986, 73 other protected forests were recognized under decision No. 194-CT signed by the State’s Vice President Vo Chi Cong.

Thus, as of August 1986, a system of protected forests, or nature reserves under the management of the agriculture and forestry branch, has been established with 87 sites in a total area of 900,000 hectares. These sites are divided into three categories:

1. National parks: 7 sites.

2. Nature reserves: 49 sites.

3. Cultural, Historical and Environmental Site: 3 sites.

On 19 December 1986, the former Ministry of Forestry issued decision No. 171-QD introducing the regulation on the management of three types of forest: production forest, protection forest, and special use forest. This is the first time the term “special use forest” was officially used to replace the term “protected forest”, as were the definition of special use forest and its three categories and the management delegation thereof.

Special use forest is part of the nation’s forest stock and established to meet the following objectives:

- Conserving various forest ecological models.

- Conserving animal and plant gene sources.

- Conserving forests of landscape, cultural, historical, and health-protecting value.

- Supporting scientific studies, education and training.

In early 2001, the Prime Minister issued decision No. 08/2001/QD-TTg dated 11 January 2001 introducing the regulation on the management of special use forest, protection forest, and production forest being natural forest. The regulation stipulates that:

Special use forest is divided into three categories (Article 6, chapter III):

1. National parks.


2. Nature reserves:

2.a. Natural stock reserves.

2.b. Species or biological conservation areas.

3. Cultural, historical and environmental sites (landscape-protecting forest).

The definition and criteria for identifying the above three types of forest are also specified in the decision.

1. A national park is a natural land area that is established to protect one or more ecological systems on a long-term basis, thus meeting the following requirements:

- The natural land area includes standardized specimens of basic ecological systems (remaining intact or insignificantly affected by human beings); typical ecological features of animal and plant species; forests are of high value in terms of science, education and tourism.

- The natural land area is large enough to contain one or more ecological systems and is not changed by adverse impact of human beings; the percentage of natural ecological area that needs to be reserved should be 70% or higher.

- Relatively good transport system.

2. A nature reserve is a natural land area that is established to ensure natural developments . Nature reserves are divided into two categories:

2.1 Natural stock reserve is a natural land area with stock of natural resources and with high biological diversity, and is established, managed and protected to ensure natural developments, and support conservation work and scientific studies. A natural stock reserve should meet the following requirements:

- Possessing a typical natural ecological system, maintaining basic features of nature, insignificantly affected by human beings, and possessing diverse animal and plant systems;

- Possessing important bio-archeological, archeological and biological features or features of high value to science, education, landscape, or tourism.

- Possessing endemic animals or plants or those that are being endangered.

- Large enough to ensure the integrity of the ecological system; the percentage of the natural ecological system that needs to be reserved should be at least 70%.

- Negative and direct impact by human beings can be avoided.

2.2 A species or biological conservation area is a natural land area that needs to be protected to ensure the ecological system (residing area) for one or more endemic or rare animals or plants and that should meet the following requirements:

- Playing an important role in nature reservation and in maintaining the life and development of species; being a place for regeneration, feeding, roaming, residing or hiding by animals;

- Possessing valuable or rare plants or being the residing or migrating area of valuable and rare wild animals;


- Being able to preserve the ecological system and species, relying on the protection by human beings or even on the impact of human beings on the ecological system;;

- The area of the reserve is conditional on the demand of the ecological system or of the species that need to be protected.

3. Cultural, historical and environmental sites (landscape-protecting forest) is an area that includes one ore more landscapes of scenery value and of cultural and historical value in order to support cultural and tourism activities, studies, and experiments. These sites include:

- Areas with beautiful landscape (inland, coastal, or on island).

- Areas possessing historical or cultural sites that have been rated or that possess landscape such as waterfalls, caves, mineral rock, sea landscape, archeological sites or reserved areas of traditional and historical value to local communities.

- Areas reserved for experiments.

For special use forest being islands, it may include forest ecological system and sea ecological system. For national parks or nature reserves being flooded land, it includes the entire natural flooded land ecological system and aquatic animals.

2.2 The status of management of existing nature res erves

2.2.1 Management delegation

To effectively manage the system of special use forest, the State has issued a number of regulations on management delegation from the central to local level. This management delegation, however, is not perfect even though it has created a legal framework for managing the system of special use forest. The new regulation stipulates that (Article 9):

The MARD is responsible before the Prime Minister for the delegation of special use forest management along the following lines:

- Taking the overall responsibility for managing the system of special use forests nationwide, including preparing the plan of special use forest system and submitting it to the government for approval; submitting to the Government for issuance or issuing within its authority policies, regimes, legal regulations related to the management, protection and development of special use forests; organizing such activities as guidance of technical skills, inspection and check over the management, protection and development of special use forests;

- Directly managing national parks of special importance or those located in several provinces.

- Coordinating with the Ministry of Fishery in such issues as guidance of technical skills, inspection and checking techniques over the management and protection of aqua resources in national parks and nature reserves with water-related ecological system.

- The Ministry of Culture and Information is directly responsible for developing cultural, historical and environmental sites that have been nationally classed or internationally recognized, in order to meet tourism, historical and cultural purposes. The Ministry of Culture and Information


should also coordinate with the MARD in the protection, management and development of these sites.

- Provincial People’s Committees are directly responsible for managing the remaining special use forests in the system. Subject to the scope and significance of each special use forest, a province may decide to delegate districts to manage, develop and exploit such forest for purposes of sightseeing or tourism.

2.2.2 Management performance

Management outcome

Vietnam remains one of poor countries in the world with an underdeveloped economy. Over the past years, however, the State has paid great attention to the protection of environment and biological diversity resources. The outcome reaped in this area is very encouraging and has contributed to the global program for protection of biological diversity resources, specifically:

- Having established a system of nature reserves nationwide on the basis of the prevailing legal framework, which have been recognized and protected by the State, ministries and branches, and local governments.

- Most of the special ecological systems, nationally or internationally rare and valuable animals or plants have been better protected in nature reserves. About two thirds of nature reserves have a management commission to run their operation. Many nature reserves have paid attention to the improvement of professional and technical skills for staff.

- A number of protection and construction programs have been implemented in line with the direction of investment projects.

- A number of nature reserves have initially implemented scientific study programs, developed ecological tourism, and well handled international cooperation activities in the study and conservation of biological diversity.

Constraints

- No State management agency is competent enough to uniformly manage nature reserves.

- The system of nature reserves so far is mostly located inland (the system of special use forests); the system of nature reserves in flooded areas and sea has not been established.

- A system of under-laws to govern the management of nature reserves system has not been in place.

- Just about two thirds of nature reserves and cultural, historical and environmental sites have a management commission. The rest has not had any management commission or fall under the temporary management of forest protection units. Most of the staff at nature reserves have not been professionally trained and have usually been transferred from the forest protection force, therefore facing managerial constraints.

- Relations among branches in the management of nature reserves have not been defined and the perception of government at different levels of conservation activities is not similar. Thus,


there are instances where the management commission is given blanket authority or where land disputes occur in nature reserves.

- The development of nature reserves so far over-emphasizes on construction of infrastructure, office for the management commission and guard stations, with less attention being paid to other action programs such as protection, scientific study, educational or awareness raising activities.

- No specific policy has been introduced to entice communities to participate in the management of nature reserves. Slow progress has been witnessed in the development of buffer zones and living conditions of local people have not been improved. This resulted in little participation and assistance of communities residing around nature reserves.

- Investment made into core zones and buffer zones is not harmonized; the coordination among different development programs in a nature reserve is not close and there is no focal point to manage and use investment capital.

3 ASSESSMENT OF FOREST MANAGEMENT IN AND AROUND A NUMBER OF NATURE RESERVES

3.1 Nature reserve of Phong Dien

3.1.1 Location and area of the nature reserve

The nature reserve of Phong Dien is located in the province of Thua Thien – Hue. The nature reserve lies on the lowland mountains south of the North Truong Son mountain range, which consists of mountains of over 1,000 meter height running northwest-southeast along the borderline of Thua Thien-Hue and Quang Tri. This is the watershed area of three rivers, namely, My Chanh, O Lau and Bo.

Table 1. Area of land and forest in the nature rese rve Unit: hectare

Zone Forest-covering land (III, II)

Non-forest land (I) Total

Strictly protected #1 11,653.4 1,288.6 12,942

Strictly protected #2 11,475.4 1,418.8 12,894

Rehabilitation #1 2,782.6 5,752.3 8,535

Rehabilitation # 2 3,121.3 4,055.7 7,177

Total 29,032.7 12,515.4 41,548

The total area of the nature reserve is 41,548 hectares and split into the following:

- Strictly protected zone of 25,836 hectares, which is also divided into zone #1 and zone #2.


- Protected zone for rehabilitation with area of 15,712 hectares, including 5,904 hectares of nature forest. This zone is also divided into zone #1 and zone #2.

The nature reserve of Phong Dien is of highly biological diversity, with diverse species of animals and plants. The nature reserve now has many endemic species of Vietnam and of Indochina and many valuable and rare species that have been listed in the red book of Vietnam and that are globally endangered such as the lophura edwardsi, L.diardii, and Rheinardtia ocellata. Especially, the nature reserve harbors two species recently announced to the scientific circle, i.e., the Pseudoryx nghetinhensis and Megamuintiacus vuquangensis.

The buffer zone of the nature reserves includes eight communes, i.e., Phong My, Phong Xuan, Phong Son in the district of Phong Dien, and Hong Van, Hong Kim, Hong Ha, Hong Trung, Bac Son in the district of A Luoi. Total area of the buffer zone is 55,133 hectares, part of which are forest and forestland under the management of the Phong Dien forest enterprise and the management commission of the Bo River watershed protection forest. The area of the buffer zone relative to that of the core zone is 132.64%.

Table 2. Communes’ land area located in the nature reserve

Unit: hectare

Commune Total area Area in core zone Area in buffer zone

Phong My 39,400 29,251 10,149

Phong Xuan 15,740 5,328 10,412

Phong Son 11,530 0 11,530

Hong Van 3,990 0 3,990

Hong Trung 6,791 0 6,791

Bac Son 1,044 0 1,044

Hong Kim 4,086 2,924 1,162

Hong Ha 14,100 4,045 10,055

Total 96,681 41,548 55,133

At present, the protection of watershed forest and biological diversity of the nature reserve of Phong Dien is a critical and urgent task. However, for effective management and protection, a decisive factor is the active participation of local communities.

3.1.2 Population characteristics and economic activ ities

At present, 5,300 households with nearly 29,000 people of 6 minorities, namely, Pa Hy, Pa Ko, Tai Oi, Ca Tu, Van Kieu, and Kinh, are residing in the buffer zone of the nature reserve. Their residence is usually located near rivers or streams of flat terrain and long major roads such as road No. 14, which runs through the valley of A Luoi. The composition of people by minorities in


the above communes of two districts of Phong Dien and A Luoi is divergent. The three communes in the district of Phong Dien are dominated by the Kinh minority (98%) whereas the Kinh minority only makes up for 2% of the population in the communes of the district of A Luoi.

No residential area lies in the core zone of the nature reserve. Like people in other nature reserves, the people here also face with many difficulties in terms of food sufficiency, education, health care, etc. All communes in the buffer zone are rated as extremely poor mountainous communes and fall under the Government’s assistance program for 135 poor communes.

The life of people living in the buffer zone is to a large extent dependent on agricultural production and exploitation of natural resources, especially forest resources. The average agricultural land area per household is 0.850 hectare and that per capita is 0.146 hectare. Autarky is the nature of the economy here. Inadequate cultivation land and irrigation system is a big impediment to the expansion of production and results in food shortage in many households.

3.2 National Park of Ba Be

The national park of Ba Be is located in the district of Ba Be, province of Bac Can, and about 18 kilometre far from the district town of Cho Ra. The national park sits at an altitude of 150-1,500 meters above sea level. The protected forest of Ba Be was established under decision No. 41/TTg, which was issued by the Prime Minister on 24 January 1977, with an area of 5,000 hectares. Under decision No. 83/TTg of 10 November 1992, the protected forest was renamed the national park with an area of 7,610 hectares, which consists of 3 sub-zones and a buffer zone:

- Strictly protected sub-zone: 3,226.2 hectares.

- Sub-zone protected for rehabilitation: 8,083.6 hectares.

- Administrative and service sub-zone: 300.2 hectares.

- The buffer zone has an area of 42,000 hectares and lies in 9 communes. The area of buffer zone relative to that of core zone is 125.3%.

3.2.1 Socio-economic conditions in the buffer zone

A common feature of the buffer zone is that it lies on the watershed area, with local people residing densely along the stream of Len and the river of Nang. Land of communes in the buffer zone is mostly bare land and hill. Therefore, rehabilitation of forest and economic development in the buffer zone are very important in order to create a social and ecological buffer zone that protects the national park.

The population in the nine communes is 23,331 people, forming 3,709 households of 7 minorities (Table 3)


Table 3. Population in communes at the National Par k of Ba Be

Commune Household Population Village Households in strictly protected

sub-region

Minorities

1 Nam Mau 444 2,800 10 444 H’Mong, Tay, Dao, Kinh

2 Khang Ninh 635 3,560 12 20 Tay, Dao, Nung, Kinh

3 Cao Thuong 437 3,144 13 0 Tay, Dao, H’Mong, Kinh

4 Cao Tri 223 2,234 6 0 Nung, Tay, Kinh, Dao

5 Quang Khe 523 2,986 10 60 Tay, H’Mong, Dao

6 Hoang Tri 220 1,221 6 0 Tay, Dao, H’Mong

7 Dong Phuc 306 2,573 12 0 Tay, Dao, H’Mong

8 Nam Cuong 527 2,698 10 0 Tay, Dao, Kinh

9 Xuan lac 394 2,115 11 0 Tay, Dao, H’Mong

Total 3,709 23,331 90 524/3,200

One of the most difficulties of the national park of Ba Be is that the population living in the core zone is huge with 3,200 residents. Increased population, together with limited agricultural land area, exerts a significant pressure on the exploitation of resources in the national park and in the lake of Ba Be. The province of Bac Can and the national park of Ba Be are designing plans to relocate part of the population from the core zone to the buffer zone of the national park.

3.2.2 Income structure of people in the communes

Prior to the establishment of the national park of Ba Be in 1993, income from forestry activities of local people in buffer communes makes up about 40-50% of total annual income. As the national park of Ba Be was established, income from forestry activities declined, as people were no longer allowed to enter core zone to harvest secondary forest products and timber. In the commune of Khang Ninh, which is located in the buffer zone of the national park, income from forestry activities accounts for only 10% of total income (Table 4).

Survey results show that about 60% of non-timber forest products are for home use while the rest 40% sold to the market.

Due to limited agricultural land area (average area per household is 0.840 hectare and area per capita is 0.134 hectare, lower than those prevailing in the nature reserve of Phong Dien), the


reliance of local people on forestry activities and other occupations is relatively high. For a more comprehensive insight, the section below will review socio-economic conditions in some other nature reserves.

Table 4. Income structure of people in the commune of Khang Ninh

No Major activities Income (%q) Note

1 Agriculture 60

1.1 Plantation 30

1.2 Livestock raising 25

1.3 Fruit trees 5

2 Non-timber forest products 10

3 Other incomes 30 Carpentry, construction, trading, etc.

Source: Non-timber Forest Products Project, 2000

3.3 Comparative analysis of socio-economic conditio ns in some nature reserves

3.3.1 Land structure

Area of buffer zones

The buffer zone is located in communes surrounding a nature reserve. Therefore, the area of the buffer zone may be larger or smaller than that of the core zone. Statistical figures of five nature reserves show the following percentage (Table 5).

Table 5. Area of buffer zones relative to that of c ore zones

No Name of nature reserves Total area (hectare)

Core zone (hectare)

Buffer zone (hectare)

Buffer zone/ Core zone (%)

1 National park of Ba Be 17,140 7,610 9,538 125.30

2 National park of Hoang Lien 61,005 22,281 38,724 173.80

3 National park of Xuan Son 33,687 15,048 18,639 123.86

4 National park of Pu Mat 191,483 91,113 100,370 110.15

5 Nature reserve of Phong Dien 96,681 41,548 55,133 132.64

Total 399,996 177,600 222,404 125.22


Thus, in five nature reserves, the average percentage of the area of buffer zones relative to that of core zones is 125.22%. In core zones, the forest-covering area accounts for 82.6%, non-forest land area for 14.8%, and agricultural land just for 1.6% (see Table 6)

The area of forest in buffer zones is usually smaller than that in core zones. But the area of agricultural land in buffer zones is larger (averaging 8.7%) than that in core zones. A survey of the area and structure of agricultural land in the buffer communes shows that the percentage of wet land and upland fields (burnt-over land), the average area of agricultural land per household and per capita vary greatly among nature reserves (Table 7).

Table 6. Land structure of core zones

Unit: hectare

No Type of land Area of nature reserves (hectare) Tota l area (ha)

%

Ba Be Hoang Lien

Xuan Son Pu Mat Phong Dien

1 Land with forest 5,696 13,854 8,697 89,517 29,082 146,846 82.6

1.1 - Nature forest 5,696 13,355 8,675 89,517 29,082 146,325

1.2 - Plantation forest 0 499 21 - - 520

2 Non-forest land 1,433 6,137 4,958 1,258 12,516 26,302 14.8

3 Agricultural land 0 1,195 1,371 338 - 2,904 1.6

4 Other land 481 1,095 22 - 1,598 1.0

Total 7,610 22,281 15,048 91,113 41,548 177,600 100

Table 7. Area and structure of agricultural land in buffer communes

Unit of area: hectare

Type of land Ba Be (7

communes)

Pu Mat

(16 communes)

Bach Ma

(3 communes)

Hoang Lien

Son

(3 communes)

Phong Dien

Area (%) Area (%) Area (%) Area (%) Area (%)

1.Agricultural land 3,117.7 100 87,203.7 100 527 100 702 100 4,213.7 100

1.1. Annual trees 1,630 52.28 9,886 11.34 460 87.2 676.8 96.4 4213,7 100

Wet land 966,9 59.32 4,795 48.5 337.7 73.4 357.7 52.9 1,184.8 28.1

Upland fields 67.4 4.13 1,215 12.3 337 73.4 357 52.9 304.5 7.2

Other annual trees 595.7 36.55 3,876 39.2 122 26.6 30.5 4.5 2,724.4 64.7

1.2. Mixed gardens 1,112.7 35.69 49 9.3 12 1.7 -


1.3. Perennial trees - 77,317.7 88.66 10 1.9 12 1.7 -

1.4. Pasture - - - - 1.5 0.2 -

1.5. Water surface 375 12.03 - 8 1.6 - - -

2. Agri land/household 0.840 5.144 0.207 0.632 0.850

3. Agri land/labor 0.737 2.211 0.084 0.179 0.886

4. Agri land/capita 0,134 0,934 0,038 0,096 0.146

Figures in the above table show that the area of agricultural land in nature reserves is generally very small, especially the area of wet rice cultivation. Except the buffer zone of national park of Pu Mat, which has relatively large area of agricultural land per labor of 2.211 hectare (mainly land for planting perennial trees such as tea or fruit), the area of agricultural land in other nature reserves is very small. The national park of Bach Ma has only 0.084 hectare of agricultural land per labor. This implies that the provision of food to buffer zones in nature serves is rather difficult. This is also one of the major reasons that forced local people to exploit resources in nature reserves to support their daily life.

3.3.2 Population and its structure in nature reserv es

Population density varies among nature reserves. Of the above five nature reserves, national park of Ba Be has the highest density of 245 persons per square kilometer while the nature reserve of Phong Dien has the lowest of 53 persons per square kilometer. At least 3 minorities live in the buffer zone and the core zone of each nature reserve. Of the five nature reserves, four have a residential area inside, with the residential area in national park of Hoang Lien Son accounting for the largest area of 17.4%, while the average figure of five nature reserves is 0.56%. This is a big problem that faces these nature reserves.

Table 8. Population and minorities in nature reserv es

Nature reserve

Total households

Total popula-

tion

Popula-tion

density /km 2

Minorities Population in nature reserve

Group of minorities

Number of househol

d

Number of people

%

1. National park of Ba Be

3,709 23,331 245 Tay, Dao, H Mong

524 3,200 13.72

2. National park of Hoang Lien

4,151 30,697 69 H Mong, Thai, Kinh, Dao

866 5,230 17.04


3. National park of Xuan Son

5,988 29,203 156 Muong (25,596 people), Kinh, Dao, Hmong

305 2,249 0.8

4. National park of Pu Mat

16,954 93,335 93 Thai (66.89), Kho mu, Kinh

163 894 0.1

5. Nature reserve of Phong Dien

5,300 29,000 53 Pa Hy, Pa Ko, Kinh

- - 0

Total 36,102 205,566 123 1,858 11,573 0.56

In the national park of Pu Mat, three villages in the commune of Mon Son, district of Con Cuong still live in a strictly protected area. These villages are dominated by the minority of Dan Lai, with 163 households and 894 people. According to a rural participatory survey, 136 households are considered poor and vulnerable to hunger, with annual income of less than VND 1.5 million. Income from exploitation of forest products in the national park accounts for 15.4% of the total income of these people.

In the national park of Ba Be, three communes have part of its population live in the nature reserve. The commune of Nam Mau alone has ten villages with 2,800 people living right in the nature reserve.

Under current plans, the nature reserves of Pu Mat and Ba Be will relocate part of the people out of the core zone, yet the implementation of which is conditional on other branches and other policies. Thus, these plans may not be implemented in the next few years. This is one of the most difficulties in the protection of resources and biological diversity of the nature reserves.

The average number of people in a household of Kinh minority is five.

The average number of people in a household of ethnic minorities is six.

Occupation

A survey of ten buffer communes in a number of nature reserves shows that nearly 80% of local people are involved in agricultural and forestry activities, 3% in fishery, 0.5% in handicraft, and the rest 13.1% in other occupation (Table 8). So agro-forestry production remains the main occupation of people in nature reserves.


Table 9. Occupation of people in ten buffer commune s

Buffer zones of nature reserves

Total

(%)

Occupation (%)

Agro-forestry

Fishery Handicraft Trading Services Others

1. Bach Ma 100 66 9 0.3 6 3.7 15.0

2. Hoang Lien Son

100 86 - 0.5 - 0.8 12.7

3. Binh Chau – Phuoc Buu

100 83 3 - 0.5 1.0 12.5

4. Kon Chu Rang

100 84 - 1.2 2.5 - 12.3

Total 100 79.7 3 0.5 2.3 1.4 13.1

The above classification is not exhausted because a household or a person may do one ore more jobs at times in a year.

3.3.3 Living conditions of people in buffer zones

� Income level

Studies of income of people in some other nature reserves show the following results. The average income per household is VND 7.3 million per annum; the average income per labor is VND 2.9 million and that per capita is VND 1.3 million.

Table 10. Average income of people in buffer zones in a number of nature reserves in 2000

Unit: VND million


Total income

Average income per annum

Per household Per labor Per capita

1. Hoang Lien Son 9.317 8.39 2.37 1.28

2. Kon Chu Rang 11.75 9.47 4.68 2.02

3. Binh Chau – P. Buu 15.73 9.02 4.20 1.84

4. Bach Ma 11.83 4.64 1.88 0.87

Average 12.16 7.32 2.95 1.38


Of the buffer zones in four nature reserves, that in national park of Bach Ma has the lowest average income per capita (VND 0.87 million). This level is understandable because the area of agricultural land per household in the buffer zone of the national park of Bach Ma is lowest (0.2 hectare), while that in buffer zones of the nature reserves of Kon Chu Rang and Binh Chau-Phuoc Buu are 0.8 hectare and 0.7 hectare, respectively.

� Income structure at communes in the buffer zone

Table 11. Wet rice cultivation in buffer zones of f our nature reserves

Unit: hectare

Indicators Buffer zones of nature reserves

Hoang Lien Son

Phong Dien

Kon Ka Kinh Binh Chau Phuoc Buu

Area for rice plantation (square meter/person) - One crop per year - Two crops per year

365

210

180

144 87

Average rice productivity (kg/hectare/year)

3,000-3,200 4,000 2,000-2,500 3,200-3,500

Average quantity of non-husked rice (kg/person/year)

180 110-210

90- 100 45-85

Number of food deficiency months 1-3 4-5 3-6 1-2*

Source: Dao Trong Hung and associates, 2001

In the past years, most people grew rice on upland fields and reaped very low productivity. When a upland fields was exhausted, they moved to a new one. Yet with the establishment of nature reserves and the introduction of fixed settlement policy, people were no longer allowed to get new upland fields and had to turn to wet rice cultivation. It’s a difficult move for these people because they did not have experience with intensive cultivation and investment capital. Except the people of H’Mong minority in Sa Pa who had long experience of growing rice in terraced fields and thus reached relatively high productivity, people in other nature reserves achieved low productivity with wet rice cultivation and faced hunger for several months in a year.

*Note: People living in buffer zones of the nature reserve of Binh Chau-Phuoc Buu are not much involved in food production but have other sources of income, thus their food deficiency period is shorter than that of people in the other three nature reserves.

� Classification of households’ economic welfare

As most buffer zones are located in mountainous and remote areas, economic welfare of most households are rated average (47.1%), and poor (33.9%). Only 19% of households are rated as having fair economic wellbeing. Thus, the percentage of households that fall under the poverty


line is very high. Figures in Table 9 show that the closer buffer zones are to cities and large urban areas, the better economic welfare of households. The percentage of poor households in buffer zones of the nature reserves of Hoang Lien Son is 70%, while the respective figures in buffer zones of the nature reserve of Kon Chu Rang, national park of Bach Ma, and nature reserve of Binh Chau-Phuoc Buu are 43%, 32%, and 6.7%, respectively.

Table 12. Classification of economic conditions in four nature reserves

Unit: %


Classification of households by economic welfare

Fair Average Poor

1. Hoang Lien Son 10 20.0 70.0

2. Kon Chu Rang - 56.4 43.6

3. Bach Ma 11 57.0 32.0

4. Binh Chau – Phuoc Buu 50 43.3 6.7

5. Average of four nature serves (8 communes)

19 47.1 33.9

� Intellectual standards

Results of a survey in ten buffer communes of four nature reserves of Hoang Lien Son, Bach Ma, Kon Cha Rang, and Binh Chau-Phuoc Buu show that the intellectual standards of local people are not equal. In the buffer zones of two nature reserves, namely, Binh Chau-Phuoc Buu and Bach Ma, which are located near cities and large residential centers. The intellectual standards of the people and the labor here are relatively high, with low incidence of illiteracy (5-7%). In contrast, the intellectual standards of people in the other two nature reserves, i.e., Kon Cha Rang and Hoang Lien Son, which are located in mountainous and remote areas, are low with the rate of illiteracy of above 50%.

Table 13. Intellectual standard of communities livi ng in 4 nature reserves' buffer zones

Unit: % Level of education Minorities living in buffer zones

Kinh H’Mong Bana Illiterate 6 50.5 55 Primary 45 48.0 44 Lower secondary 41 1.5 1 Higher secondary 7 0.0 0 University and occupation orientation school

1 0.0 0.0

Total 100 100 100


Most of the elderly and women in remote villages of the commune of Dak Rong (nature reserve of Kon Cha Rang) can not speak Vietnamese. Due to little education, they face lots of difficulties in absorbing agricultural and forestry extension techniques and understanding the importance of nature conservation and protection of biological diversity. Also due to perception, low education and absorption capacity, they are hesitant to borrow even preferential credit from the State or NGOs, afraid of being unable to use the loan effectively and repay it. Due to low education (Table 12), people of H’Mong minority in Hoang Lien Son and people of Ba Na minority in Kon Cha Rang (Gia Lai) find it hard to overcome outdated practices and to avoid relying on forest, let alone striving to fight against poverty.

� Infrastructure and public services

In the surveyed buffer zones of the above four nature reserves, we found that as the result of fixed settlement projects, programs No. 133 and 135 of the Government, and assistance projects financed by international organizations, infrastructure in buffer zones has been significantly improved. The infrastructure and services in the national park of Bach Ma and the nature reserve o f Binh Chau-Phuoc Buu are relatively good. Infrastructure and services in the two nature reserves of Kon Cha Rang and Hoang Lien Son are, however, inadequate. These two areas have not been connected to the national power grid; the inter-commune and inter-village road system has yet been paved and useable only in the dry season. In rainy season, the villages virtually become isolated to the outside world. Due to complicated terrain and poor transport and communications systems, education, health care and clean water supply also suffer.

3.4 The reliance of local communities on forest res ources

3.4.1 Major types of resource exploitation

In the past years, the local people relied mostly on the exploitation of natural resources such as cutting timber for housing and production tools, hunting, and collecting forest vegetables for food (According to a participatory rural survey conducted in the village of Ha Long, the extent of reliance on forest resources by local people after returning from the district of A Luoi during 1977-1985 was 50%).

With the introduction of fixed settlement policy and program for mountainous rural development, which encouraged wet rice cultivation and fixed upland fields, people’s reliance has been reduced. Rapid depletion of forest resources also caused a sharp decline of forest products. The major types of resource exploitation include:

� Timber exploitation

Illegal exploitation of timber is ongoing in forest of the nature reserve of Phong Dien and its buffer zone. Timber is cut down for building common facilities of the community, houses, furniture, production tools, and for sales.

The exploitation is allowed by the forest protection unit if legitimate demand is justified. The allowed quantity is specifically set out: 5-10 cubic meters for common facilities of the community, subject to its scope; 0.5 cubic meter for coffin and production tools; 1 cubic meter for essential furniture in family; and 5 cubic meters for house building. In 2001, people in the commune of Hong


Van asked for the exploitation of 17 cubic meters for house building. If the figures in all communes of the buffer zone are incorporated, the exploited quantity of timber is 136 cubic meters per annum. This is, however, just the tip of the iceberg - the legitimate part of timber exploitation in the nature reserve and its buffer zone. A large quantity of timber was also exploited by communities and forest pirates uncontrollable by the forest protection force.

The major reasons are:

- Permit issuance procedures are complicated and time consuming.

- The protection in the entire nature reserve in general is not strict and the sanctioning of violation is not carried out seriously.

Key illegal exploiters are some households in the buffer communes and outsiders. High-value timber is the target of this group of people. And this is a major threat to the forest resources and biological diversity in the nature reserve.

� Exploitation of non-timber forest products

People communities residing around the nature reserve of Phong Dien exploit various types of forest product. Most of them are taken from the nature reserve with the rest from its buffer zone. Non-timber forest products exploited by local people include aloe wood, charcoal, rattan, corypha saribus, bamboo shoot, fruits, honey, medicinal plants, firewood, thatch, palm leaves, bulbul, etc. These forest products play an essential role in the life of local people. They are exploited for households’ consumption and for sales.

Rattan exploitation: local people said that in the past years, a household can harvest up to a hundred of rattan sprouts per day. Yet the number of exploiters and harvested quantity have reduced as the stock of rattan is now depleted. According to Mr. Quynh Mai: "the stock of rattan has dropped sharply due to an overwhelming number of exploiters; every family has its members harvesting rattan for sales. At that time, private traders from the lowlands even built roads deep into the forest to procure rattan. Thus, the stock of rattan in areas surrounding villages has virtually been depleted. To harvest rattan now, we need to go deep into the forest and could only get 30-40 sprouts of rattan, equivalent to 15-20 kilograms". Assuming 20% of households participating in this activity, the quantity of rattan harvested in six months is 6,678,000 sprouts, equivalent to 3,197,600 kilograms.

Charcoal collection. This activity is carried out by the people of Kinh minority in only two communes, i.e., Phong Son and Phong Xuan, in the district of Phong Dien. Interviewed people said that about 15-20 people per village participate in this activity and they burn wood for charcoal in only 5-7 months per year. The harvested quantity is 20 kilograms/person/day, which is sold at VND 1,000-1,500 per kilogram. Thus, about 612,000 kilograms of charcoal are collected by people in the two communes per year and sold for proceeds of VND 90,000,000.

Corypha saribus: The collection of corypha saribus is popular in the surveyed region. Yet difficulties also exist in this activity such as long distance to harvest site and sharply decreasing stock of corypha saribus due to over-exploitation. The number of harvesters, however, has not declined. This is a year-round activity and can be done by people of all ages. The quantity


harvested daily by a person is 50-60 leaves. The quantity of corypha saribus harvest annually, taking into account all communes in the region, amounts to million of leaves.

Firewood: Mr. Quynh Pon of the minority of Pa Ko, who lives in the commune of Hong Kim, informed that: "my family consumes a bucket of firewood every two days. Thus, my family’s annual consumption of firewood is 180 buckets, which is equivalent to 7.2 cubic meters. If I had to buy firewood at the price of VND 40,000 per cubic meter, I would have to pay VND 280,000 per annum". If firewood consumption of the entire region is calculated, the people here consume 37,100 cubic meters of firewood a year, which is monetized at VND 1,484,000,000.

Forest fruits: most harvested is the scaphium lunchnophorum, with the harvest season falling on July and August. The whole tree is usually cut down for harvesting the fruits given its relatively high price (selling price at around VND 30,000 per kilogram of dried fruits). By end of July 2002, the forest protection unit of A Luoi arrested two persons who illegally harvested the fruit and confiscated 200 kilograms. Mr. Vu Dai Tru, head of the protection unit, said that: "in 2001, the unit arrested several persons, imposed administrative fines and confiscated 2,100 kilograms". Given the confiscated quantity, it may be interpreted that hundreds of scaphium lunchnophorum trees were cut down.

Other non-timber forest products are also exploited by local communities. The available information indicates that non-timber forest products are diverse but the stock of these resources is on the decline. The search for and exploitation of aloe wood is no longer taking place, and other forest products are also on the verge of depletion such as rattan, honey, etc.

� Hunting and trapping of forest animals

Hunting and trapping of forest animals is a tradition of the minorities in the region and is still very popular. This is a major threat to rare and valuable birds and animals in the nature reserve and in the entire region. Local people hunt all types of animal if given the opportunity. The hunting period varies among villages in the region, yet it occurs mostly during rainy season and agricultural leisure period. Animals are hunted for food and for sales to supplement income. In 2001, the village of Khe Tran caught 6 wild boars, 1 muntjac, 5 porcupines, 30 jungle fowls; the village of Ha Long caught 1 muntjac, 2 wild goats, 30 wild boars, and numerous jungle fowls. These animals are no longer shared among village households but sold outright to the Kinh people in the lowlands.

Local people said that it was impossible to recall the number of animals that were caught annually, especially rare and endangered species, because once the animals are caught, they are kept and sold secretly.

Mr. Le Van Oi, a member of the forest protection team in village No. 3, commune of Hong Kim, said that: "in the past years, people in his village just used thrashing traps. Once trapped, only big animals could survive and then be sold, the small ones were usually thrashed to death and used for food only. The village people no longer hunt or trap animals in the forest but the threat now comes from outsiders, who set up traps that could catch virtually every animal, including snakes."

Forest animals are also caught by harvesters who go to forest to get secondary forest products. During the course of harvesting, these people also set up traps to catch animals, which shall be


used as food during their days in the forest or cut into pieces before they are brought back home. Given these practices, it is very difficult to detect such activities.

As a result of combined efforts of the forest protection force and villages’ forest protection teams, hunting activities have reduced significantly but trapping is still in place. Given the very high demand for forest animals, forest hunting is still a threat to forest resources and to biological diversity in nature reserves.

� Burning forest for upland fields

In the past years, as the result of cultivation tradition and limited agricultural land, the local community used to burn over forest to set up upland fields. This was one of the causes of forest fire, shrinking forest area, and depleting natural resources.

Most of the households in buffer zones have moved to settled cultivation, and only some households are still sticking to shifting cultivation. They include 6 households of the minority of Pa Hy and 3 households of the minority of Van Kieu, which are cultivating on a total area of 100 hectares with the shifting turnover of 2-3 years, depending on the arability of the land. The shifting cultivation, however, must follow rules of the respective village and commune and be approved by competent authorities. The shifting cultivation must be carried out within the area specified by the commune and the forest protection force. No burning is allowed in nature forest, plantation forest, watershed forest, premature forest, and forest and forest land with a slope of more than 25 degree. No illegal invasion of forest or of other’s land, which may result in dispute, is allowed. With approval issued by competent authorities, households must clear up the exactly specified location (old upland fields, can-brake, etc), dig borderline and do away flammable materials. Prior to burning, they have to report to the forest fire prevention steering committee of the respective village or commune and select an appropriate time for setting the fire on the location.

The burning of forest for upland fields in accordance with regulations and guidance has limited its negative impact and avoided risks to forest resources.

3.4.2 Major forest products exploited by communitie s and gender issue

Major products exploited by local people for use and sales include house-building timber, firewood, palm leaves, rattan, vegetables, fruits, roots, and forest animals.

Table 14. Major forest products exploited by local communities

Products Location Harvest time

Harvester (gender)

Purpose Quantity Price in VND

Timber Nature forest 1-12 M use 136 m3 Bird Forest 1-12 M use & sale 1.200 Animals Forest 1-12 M use & sale 800 Charcoal Nature forest 1-12 M use & sale 612,000 kg 1,200/kg Aloe wood Nature forest 1-12 M sale Depleted 30 million/kg Rattan Nature forest 6-7 M & F sale 6,678,000 1,000/sprout Palm leaves Nature forest 7-8 M sale 200,000

leaves

Corypha Nature forest 1-12 M & F sale 8,000,000 40/leave


saribus Firewood Forest 1-12 M & F use 37,100 m3 40,000/m3 Honey Nature forest 4-5 M use & sale 90,000/liter Sa xi Nature forest 1-12 M sale Bamboo shoot

Bamboo forest

8-9 M & F use & sale 1,000 kg 5,000/kg

Forest fruits Nature forest 7-8 M use & sale 4,000 kg Rao rao Nature forest 1-12 M & F use & sale 20,000/kg Medicinal plants

Various places

1-12 M & F use & sale 20,000/kg

Boi loi Nature forest 6-7 M & F sale 700 kg 1,000/kg Broom bud Premature

forest 1-3 M & F sale 30D/bud

Multiflorous knootweed

Forest 1-12 M & F sale 10,000/kg

Banana leaf Bare land 1-12 M & F use & sale 10/leave

Through interviews, it was found that local people exploit various types of forest products, the extent of harvesting of some of the products is significant, and income from secondary forest products accounts for a relatively large percentage of total income of households. Five forest products are exploited on year-round basis. Harvesters are of all ages, with 9 products are harvested by male and 10 products are harvested by both male and female. This indicates that men still play a vital role in the exploitation of forest products from the nature reserve.

3.4.3 The extent of local people's reliance on fore st resources

Table 15. Economic activities of villages/communes (Phong Dien nature reserve) Unit: grade

Product Ha Long village

Village # 3, Hong Kim commune

Khe Tran village

Bac Son commune

Hong Van commune

Rice 8 5 4 5 Groundnut 8 10 Bean 5 Cassava, sweet potato 7 3 6 8 6 Corn 2 2 2 Pepper 9 Rubber 10 Banana 2 8 6 Livestock raising 8 5 8 7 4 Forest plantation fee 6 8 8 2 Forest protection fee 3 2 2 Harvesting house-building timber 6 1 8 6 Forest animals 3 1 3 4 5 Stream fish 5 3 2 2 4 Rattan 4 2 1 3 3 Corypha saribus 4 3 1 3 Firewood 4 6 5 7 5

Source: interviews of village heads and people


Living in mountainous areas for so long and practicing the shifting cultivation, ethnic minorities view forest as their big house. Their life was virtually dependent on natural resources, from forestland for cultivation to house-building materials, production tools, and food from hunting and harvesting. With the introduction of the settled residence and cultivation and development of wet rice cultivation, their reliance on forest has eased relative to the past. Forest, however, will still play a vital role in their life given outdated production techniques, low productivity and product quality, and widespread poverty among local people.

Through discussion with local people on the importance of various economic activities by assigning them a grade in a scale of 1-10, 1 being least important and 10 being most important, we could see the role of forest in the life of local people.

The table indicates that forest resources still play a significant role in the life of local communities. Most households have their members entering forest to harvest products. They use forest products on a daily basis, especially during agriculture leisure period and food-deficiency months.

Table 16. Income of the family of Mr. Mai Thanh Lie m Ha Long village, Phong My commune

Unit: VND Income in 2001 Monetized

(VND) Note

Rice 1,200,000 Rice field of 2000m2 (2 crops) Non-rice crops 700,000 Field of 3.000 m2 for groundnut,

cassava, sweet potato Livestock raising 1,500,000 Pig, chicken, duck Attendance of plantation forest

250,000 Forest caring fees, 5th year

Firewood 280,000 From plantation forest and village forest

Rattan, Corypha saribus 400,000 From forest of the nature reserve Animal hunting * 100,000 To protect cultivation area Total 4,430,000 25% of income are forest-based

* Income from animal hunting may be understated given the sensitivity of the issue

3.4.4 The reliance of local communities on resource s in nature reserves

As most of the nature reserves are established in mountainous or coastal areas, the exploitation of forest products is closely related to the life of the local people. In a survey of 500 households living in the surrounding area of the nature reserve of Son Tra (city of Da Nang), the author named Dinh Thi Phuong Anh indicated that” “Prior to the establishment of the nature reserve in 1994, 7.6% of households made a living from the exploitation of forest products, 86.4% of the households got supplementary income from exploitation of forest products, and only 6.0% of the households made a living from agriculture or fishery, without any involvement in forest exploitation.”


Table 17. Forest exploitation activities of local p eople in the peninsular of Son Tra

Forest exploitation activities Number of households Percentage

Timber and firewood exploitation 152 32.3

Animal hunting and trapping 84 17.8

Bird hunting 72 15.3

Rattan collection 80 16.6

Medicinal plants collection 52 11.1

Other activities 30 6.20

In 1994, this author also conducted a survey of forest exploitation of 470 households, which lived on the peninsular of Son Tra. Its results show that firewood collection was the primary activity.

Table 18. Role of forest products for people in buf fer zones of nature reserves

Unit: grade

Forest products Hoang Lien Son

Phong Dien

Kon Ka Kinh

Binh Chau Phuoc Buu

Average

Timber 1 1 2 2 1.5

Firewood and charcoal 4 4 5 4 4.25

Bamboo shoot 3 2 4 1 2.50

Cat’s ear 3 1 2 2 2.00

Rattan 0 3 1 0 1.00

Medicinal plants 3 0 1 1 1.25

Corypha saribus 0 3 0 0 0.75

Choi chit 0 2 4 0 1.50

Bee’s honey 0 2 2 0 1.00

Boi loi bark 0 0 1 0 0.25

Decorative plants, insect 1 0 0 0 0.25

Dau nhua, chai cuc 0 0 0 1 0.25

Forest animal 1 1 2 1 1.25

Total score 16 19 24 12 71


In 2001, in a survey of the role of forest products in the life of people residing in buffer zones of four nature reserves, namely, Hoang Lien Son, Phong Dien, Kon Ka Kinh, and Binh Chau – Phuoc Buu, Dao Trong Hung and his associates, using interviews and a grading scale of 0-5 to assess the importance of forest products, also indicated that firewood is the most important product for the people, followed by bamboo shoot and cat’s ear, which are use for daily food.

The above table shows that the more remote the location of nature reserves is, the more reliance of local people on the exploitation of forest products.

3.5 Local people’s perception of the establishment of nature reserves

3.5.1 Many local people are not aware of the establ ishment of the nature reserve in their area

In general, the education to improving the awareness of local people of nature reserves in the area is not so good. Many local people who live in or around the nature reserve are not aware of its establishment. A survey of the awareness of local people in four nature reserves by Mr. Dao Trong Hung and his associates has reached the following results:

Table 19. Awareness of local people of the establis hment of nature reserves

Unit: number of opinion Interviewees Hoang Lien

Son Phong Dien Kon Ka Kinh Binh Chau

Phuoc Buu Total

# aswr % # aswr % # aswr % # aswr % # aswr %

Village officials - aware - unaware

5 0

100

0

7 0

100

0

7 3

70 30

7 o

100 0

26 3

89.6 10.4

School teachers - aware - unaware

3 0

100

0

3 0

100

0

1 0

100 0

5 0

100 0

12 0

100

0 School pupils - aware - unaware

2 5

28.6 71.4

6 1

85.7 14.3

3 5

37.5 62.5

7 2

77.7 22.3

18 13

58.1 41.9

Local people - aware - unaware

17 7

70.8 29.2

25 7

78.1 21.9

7

24

22.6 77.4

20 13

60.6 39.4

69 51

57.5 42.5

Total - aware - unaware

27 12

69.2 30.8

41 8

83.6 16.4

18 32

36.0 64.0

39 15

72.2 27.8

125 67

65.2 34.8

3.5.2 Many people are not aware of the purpose of e stablishing nature reserves

To assess the perception of the local people of the objectives of establishing nature reserves, Mr. Dao Dinh Hung and his associates (in 2001) posed the question “What are the purposes of establishing nature reserves” to local people living in or surrounding four nature reserves. Thirty


one people said they did not know that, 3 elderly people of H’Mong minority in Sa Pa did not say anything, the rest 673 people indicated 20 objectives (reasons) of the establishment of nature reserves (Table 19).

Table 20. Local people’s responses on the objective s of establishing nature reserves

Objectives of establishing nature reserves

Hoang Lien Son

Phong Dien

Kon Ka Kinh

Binh Chau Phuoc Buu

Overall

1 Protection of watershed forest, water source and prevention of wind

12 16 6 6 40

2. Protection of rare premature trees - 25 9 6 40 3 Protection of po mu 15 - 9 - 24 4 Protection of crops - 19 - - 19 5 Protection of jungle fowls and tiger - 19 - - 19 6 Protection of medicinal plants 21 - - - 21 7 Reserving forest for growing

cardamon 9 - - - 9

8 Tourism and sightseeing purposes 27 16 2 20 65 9 The State acquire land for planting

forest 26 20 15 - 61

10 Protecting forest for rehabilitation - 22 5 6 33 11 Prohibition of timber exploitation 7 26 13 7 53 12 Prohibition of firewood and charcoal

collection 8 17 10 16 51

13 Prohibition of animal hunting - 32 22 7 61 14 Prohibition of harvesting forest

products - 23 22 10 55

15 Prohibition of burning forest for upland fields

18 26 25 7 76

16 Prohibition of collecting orchids, ornamental plants, insects

22 - - - 22

17 Prohibition of grazing cattle 21 - - - 21 18 Prohibition of missionary activities 2 - - - 2 19 Protection of hot streams - - - 9 9 20 Security and national defense

objectives - - - 6 6

21 Did not know 5 7 11 8 31 22 Not respond 3 - - - 3 Total 196 264 149 108 717

An analysis of the responses of the local people shows that there are two types of opinions. People of the first type said that nature reserves are established to protect water source,


watershed forest, rare premature trees, medicinal plants trees, etc (266 responses). People of the second type said that they are established to prohibit certain activities of the local people such as timber exploitation, hunting, collection of forest products, orchids and insects, and burning forest for cultivation land (399 responses). The perception that nature reserves are established to prohibit all daily activities of the local people causes a conflict of interest between the nature reserve and the local people. Many local people thought that when a nature reserve was established, the local people would lose cultivation land and income from forest products and could not collect firewood or graze livestock in the nature reserve. Thus, education to improving the awareness of the local community, thereby encouraging them to participate in activities of the nature reserves, is critical.

3.5.3 Local people’s attitude towards the establish ment of nature reserves

To understand the attitude of the local people towards the establishment of nature reserves, Mr. Dao Trong Hung and his associates in 2001 posed the following question: “Do you support the establishment of the nature reserve? Why yes? Why no?” to the local people in four nature reserves and got the following results: 101 out of 121 people supported the establishment of nature reserves (83.4%). The rest did not support because they were afraid that the establishment of nature reserves would negatively impact their life (Table 20).

Table 21. Comments of local people on the establish ment of nature reserves

Nature reserve Supportive comments Non-supportive c omments

Hoang Lien Son 23

Reasons: protecting forest and water source, forest is rehabilitated for planting cardamon; forest protection is beneficial to the entire people; land is protected for local people to plant forest and increase income; tourism development

7

Reason: prohibited from grazing cattle and growing cardamon; short of land for upland fields; prohibited from entering forest to collect timber, firewood, medicinal plants and other forest products

Phong Dien 39

Reason: protection of watershed forest, avoidance of flood and drought; rehabilitating premature trees that have been over-exploited. Prevention of calamity and development of tourism. Nature reserves also prevent outsiders to exploit forest products. Protecting forest is beneficial to agricultural production in the area

4

Reason: the forest protection force has not discussed with the local people and specified production land area for the local people. Outsiders still enter forest to exploit timber and forest products.

Local people have not been facilitated to participate in forest protection. Local people are


prohibited from exploiting some normal products such as corypha saribus, rattan, firewood, etc. Areas surrounding the nature reserve should be reserved for agricultural production by local people.

Kon Ka Kinh 23

Reason: complying with the State policy on forest protection and management; outsiders are not allowed to exploit timber and invade land. Without nature reserves, we will soon lose forest given the current pace of forest destruction; then the Ba Na minority would lose their residence. The local people are very supportive of the nature reserve, provided that the local people are given land for cultivation.

3

Reason: the nature reserve would eat up upland fields, the people will face hardship and hunger or have to move to other places. The nature reserve will lose forest and timber, like the case of Kon Ha Nung site (a state-owned forest enterprise in the past). Local people are scared of losing forest.

Binh Chau – Phuoc Buu

16

Reason: forest protection is consistent with the State laws. It also helps protecting watershed, easing the impact of sea wind on agricultural production; facilitating tourism development and protecting forest resources for future generations

6

Reason: Local people will be prohibited from exploiting forest products, timber, and burning wood for charcoal. They will lose a source of income and face hunger. The nature reserve is beneficial to the State only. The State receives revenues from timber and tourism, whereas the local people get nothing and even lose cultivation land.

Total 101 comments 20 comments

It is noteworthy that some people of such minorities as Ba Na, Chau Ro, Kho Me, H’Mong, Van Kieu and even Kinh responded that they did not know whether to support nature reserves or not because they were not aware of objectives and issues related to the establishment of nature reserves. This implies that the education and propaganda to enhancing the awareness of the local people living in and surrounding nature reserves are very important.


3.6 Difficulties in attracting communities to parti cipate in the management of nature reserves

The above description of socio-economic conditions in buffer zones above shows that to encourage communities to participate in the management of forest and biological diversity in nature reserves, we shall face the following difficulties:

- Living conditions of local people are very poor; most of the people still rely on the harvesting of forest products to increase income. Therefore, their impact on nature reserves is significant.

- Intellectual standards of local people are also low and their awareness of nature reserves is limited. Therefore, capacity for absorbing new techniques, especially plantation and forest attendance techniques is low.

- Local people living in and surrounding nature reserves have not seen the benefits of establishing nature reserves. What they see is that the establishment of nature reserves will create hardship for their life.

- Local infrastructure, especially transport network, education, cultural facilities, health care, are inadequate, resulting in lots of uncertainties in life of local people. Many nature reserves have not been able to help local people to improve their life.

- The borderline of nature reserves and their buffer zones have only been specified in the map and hard to identify in the field. Thus, local people are not sure if they violate nature reserves or not.

- The regulation on management of special use forest, which was issued in connection with Decision No. 08/2001/QD-TTg, is overloaded with prohibitions and restrictions. It has not highlighted the importance of sustainable use of natural resources. Therefore, local people still feel like they are employees of nature reserves and have not actively brought their role into play.

- The current management mechanism of nature reserves is not open to the participation of local communities.

The above difficulties have hindered the participation of communities in the management and protection of nature reserves.

4 COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENS IN SOME NATURE RESERVES

4.1 Forest resource management arrangements with th e participation of community in the nature reserve of Phong Dien

At present, the management commission has not been established for the nature reserve of Phong Dien. Therefore, the entire area of forest and forest land falls under the management of the Forest Protection Division of Thua Thien-Hue, through the network of forest protection units at the


district level. Now the forest protection units of the districts of Phong Dien and A Luoi are responsible for managing the entire area of forest land and forest resources of the nature reserve.

Unlike agricultural land, the ownership of which has been given to households, the entire area of forestry land falls under the management of the State (forest enterprise, watershed forest management commission, forest protection unit) or of the collective units (co-operatives, communal People’s Committee). All production activities in the area of forestry land fall under the management of the above entities. Types of community forest management in the nature reserve of Phong Dien are carried out as follows:

4.1.1 Allocation of land and forest to villages und er contract, with management responsibility given to groups of households (villa ge #3 – commune of Hong Kim, district of A Luoi- buffer zone).

The forest protection unit signs a contract with each village, which is represented by the head of the village, on forest plantation, attendance and protection. The village shall, subject to the area and location of the forest that needs to be planted or protected, establish protection and management units.

The people living in village #3, commune of Hong Kim, are mostly of Pa Co minority. The management and protection of forest have been carried out since 2000.

The area of nature forest contracted for protection is 340 hectares, which lies in the buffer zone of the nature reserve. Seeds for the area of plantation forest are all provided by the forest protection unit to households. Most planted in 1989-1999 were Vernicia montana and Cinamomum casia. Households have harvested the Cinamomum casia once and second plantation is under way. All investment into the plantation of Cinamomum casia was made by farmer households.

The village has established two protection and management teams, each consisting of five people. Two protected areas fall under the management of the village, and a fee of VND 200,000 is paid for each area per month. On average, each team member is paid VND 40,000-60,000 per month. The village has internal rules that have been prepared in consultation with local people and the district’s forest protection unit. Major content of the internal rules is:

- General provisions;

- Benefits of the community and the people;

- Responsibilities and powers of the village head;

- Rewards and sanctions;

- Implementation arrangements; and

- List of forest management and protection teams of the village.

According to internal rules, the village people, if in need of house-building timber, should ask for permission of the village and of the forest protection unit and if the permission is granted, could exploit up to five cubic meter of timber. Half-cubic meter is the quota for a funeral. The types of exploitable timber are specified by the forest protection unit and the exploitable area is the buffer


zone of the nature reserve. The village people are entitled to exploit secondary forest products such as corypha saribus, rattan, medicinal plants, bamboo shoot, etc. Of which, corypha saribus is harvested in large quantity for sales.

Forest protection using village’s management and protection teams now is the most effective model in the region. Since management and protection teams are set up, forest resources are not exploited and forest not burned for upland fields. The local people voluntarily follow the agreed rules. The success of the model could be attributable to the following:

− Local people directly participated in the consultation, preparation and revision of the village’s internal rules. Therefore, the rules are accepted and implemented by the local people with ease.

− The commune’s People’s Committee is fully supportive of this model and thus facilitates the implementation process.

− Local people feel that they have benefits from joint protection of forest and thus are willing to do so.

Subject to local traditions and the affluence of each village, the internal rules are modified accordingly within the legal framework of the State. Given the effectiveness of this model, the forest protection unit is planning to expand its application to other communes.

Drawbacks of the village forest protection model, u sing protection teams

According to local people, they still feel uncertain and restraint in exploiting forest products because land and forest have not been allocated to them, despite the fact that they have been given the right to exploit some products in the protected forest. This issue needs to be reviewed in order to allocate land forest to local people for management in accordance with prevailing policies.

4.1.2 Forest protection unit and border defence sta tion allocate forest and forest land to households under contract for management an d protection (village of Ke, commune of Hong Van, district of A Luoi, along the border of Vietnam and Laos)

Forest and nature forest land in the region, which fall under the management of the forest protection unit and the border defence station, are directly allocated under a contract to households for protection. This arrangement is applied in the buffer zone of the nature reserve, which lies on the village of Ke, commune of Hong Van, district of A Luoi, along the border of Vietnam and Laos. The model is also applied in six other villages in various communes.

The village of Ke has 37 households of Pa Ko minority, with little land for agricultural production. In 2001, the village was allocated 75 hectares of non-forest land under a contract with the forest protection unit to develop agro-forestry activities. This area comprises mostly bare land and bushes, which shall be allocated by the village to each household for production and plantation. On average, each household will be allocated 1-1.7 hectares. If the plantation is implemented well after five years, the household may be allocated with additional area. Otherwise, the current area will be recalled and allocated to other households. Except the allocation of land, however, the


forest protection unit did not provide any support in terms of seeds, capital and technical guidance. Therefore, no trees have been planted although the forest had been allocated for more than one year. In essence, the purpose of the allocation is that the forest protection unit wanted to restrict the shifting cultivation within the allocated area.

For nature forest, the forest protection contract is signed directly with households. The annual fee for forest protection and management is VND 45,000 per hectare, which is financed by program No. 661.

Local people participating in forest protection are entitled to exploit secondary products in the protected forest such as rattan, medicinal plants, corypha saribus, etc. For house-building timber, permission of the district’s forest protection unit should be obtained.

As the protection of forest is contracted directly with households, the role of the village is not essential. The village just plays a supportive role in resolving cases of violation or in co-ordinating with the commune to deal with complicated cases of violations that go beyond its capacity.

Comments of local people

The local households are supportive of this model because each household is allowed to exploit forest products within the area under its protection.

Flaws of the model

With the allocation of forest to households for management, the forest is better protected and the local people could receive benefits directly. The guidance and support of the communal authorities and the role of the village, however, are limited. In many instances, the commune found it difficult to resolve cases in which the forest had been exploited by outsiders or the exploited quantity was in excess of limits. The forest protection unit is not available at all times to resolve such cases.

4.1.3 The forest protection unit allocated forest u nder a contract to communes for management and protection (commune of Bac Son, dist rict of A Luoi)

This model has been implemented in the commune of Bac Son, district of A Luoi since 2000. Most of the people here are of Pa Ko minority. The protected area of forest is mostly located in the buffer zone of the nature reserve. The forest protection unit allocated the forest to the commune for management and protection. The commune in turn allocated it directly to the agro-forestry officer-in-charge of the commune, who took responsibility of the entire area. The protection fee is VND 200,000 per month and protection efforts are spent mostly during October-April period.

The commune’s people are allowed to exploit secondary forest products in the buffer zone.

The major duties of the guard (agro-forestry officer-in-charge) are to prevent the commune’s people from exploiting timber or burning forest for upland fields. He is required also to report to the forest protection unit cases of exploitation by outsiders. Monthly report on forest protection and exploitation, and violation of forest resources should be lodged with the forest protection unit.



According to people in the commune, this model is not so effective given large area of forest and inadequate protection force. As the entire commune had not been mobilised to protect the forest, it was very difficult to detect violation cases. This model is only effective during campaigns in which the forest protection force, with the assistance of the communal authorities, could easily detect violators in the area. Therefore, the local people wanted the forest in the buffer zone be allocated to households for management and protection. By doing so, the forest would be better protected and the households would receive protection fees to supplement their income.

4.1.4 Villages manage holy forest in buffer zone (v illage of Ha Long, commune of Phong My, district of Phong Dien – buffer zone)

A tradition of the Pa Hy people is that they are scared of “”local ghosts”. Therefore, great attention is paid to protecting cemetery. The cemetery is usually a small forest, off limits to every one and thus becoming the “holy forest”. Although this practice is preserved by the village people, the forest sometimes was exploited by outsiders as no plan was designed by the village to protect it.

The practice of worshipping forest ghosts. In the past, village people thought that forest ghosts always dominated in large nature forests. Therefore, a number of nature forest or big trees were viewed as holy forest or ghost forest, protected and worshipped by the local people so that the ghosts would not endanger them and their animals. The village people refrained from cutting trees or hunting in such forest. They thought that violations would trigger the ghosts to cause sickness of the local people. This practice is still in place in the village of Ha Long, where sick people usually bring offerings to worship forest ghosts. A village’s holy forest is protected by its people but usually violated by those from other villages.

Previously, a tradition of the village was to select a beautiful cave in the forest in which all assets and belongings of ancestors were gathered. The local people consider these belongings very sacred and therefore did not dare to exploit timber and other forest products in the surrounding forests. Everyone in the village participates in the protection of this forest and clear sanctions are set forth against violations. For example, one chicken must be paid for one tree cut down or one pig or buffalo for several trees cut down; these animals will then be used as offerings to the deity of that cave. This practice, however, is no longer as strict as it was in the past. The local people still believe in the cave’s deity, yet things in the cave have been partially damaged and the surrounding forests also exploited by outsiders.

4.1.5 Households are contracted for forest protecti on, attendance and plantation by forest enterprise, forest protection unit and th e village community develop rules on forest management and protection (village of Ha Long, village #3, commune of Phong My, district of Phong Dien).

Residing in the commune of Ha Long are people of Pa Hy minority (171 people), Van Kieu (44 people), and Kinh minority (8 people). The village #3, in contrast, consists of 313 people of Pa Ko minority. These communities have the longest history in the region, carry unique cultural identity and a tradition of natural resource management. Customs and traditions are important factors that


attract local communities to participate in the management and protection of natural resources and environment.

Scarce agricultural land, plus low productivity of agricultural products, results in severe hardship in the life of the local people. The food deficiency period in village #3 on average is 2-4 months per year, with some households facing food shortage for even 6 months. One hundred percent of this village’s households are rated average or poor in terms of economic welfare.

Some forest products that often provide supplemental income to communities are rattan, bamboo shoot, corypha paribus, etc. Particularly, cinnamon is a major source of income to village #3. Just recently have the local people planted some farm produce such as groundnut, pea, etc.

The forest enterprise contracted households for forest plantation, management and protection, using financing from programs No. 327 and 661. Each household is contracted to plant 0.5-2.0 hectares, subject to the human resource of the household. A plantation fee of VND 900,000-1,000,000 per hectare and attendance and protection fee of VND 700,000 for the next three years are paid to households. Households may plant agricultural crops on forestland whose canopy is not full and reap all production benefits. Households may also collect dried branches or bushes under the forest cover to use as firewood.

The rules on forest management and protection are developed with joint efforts of the village people and the forest protection unit. The rules spell out prohibited activities, encouraged activities, benefits and obligations of the local people vis-à-vis forest resources.

Better insight of the forest management by local people in this region would be achieved by reviewing forest management models in two villages, namely, village #3, commune of Hong Kim, district of A Luoi and village of Ha Long, commune of Phong My, district of Phong Dien. These are two typical villages that have developed internal rules on forest management and protection in consultation with local communities.

Table 23. Land use structure in the village of Ha L ong

Unit: hectare

Types of land Village of Ha Long (unit: hectare)

Rice field 6

Other crop field (corn, sweet potato, bean, peanut)

1.5

Cassava field 15

Residential land and other lands 6

Plantation forest contracted to households*

135

Total 157.5

* According to statistical figures of plantation forest areas under programs No. 327 and 661


Communities of two minorities, i.e., Pa Ko and Pa Hy, have a long history in the region. They also have a tradition in the management and use of forest resources at the village and community level. Each village has its own internal rules on the management and use of forest. Enforcement of the internal rules used to be supervised by the village patriarch and now by the village head.

Former system of forest resource use and management

In the past, the village patriarch was highly respected by the village people. The village patriarch decided not only festivals and cultural activities of the village but also production activities and the management of natural resources. Yet since 1976, as the co-operative system was introduced, the patriarch was replaced by the head of co-operative and later by the head of village. Timber for house building is usually taken from forests surrounding the village. If in need of timber for house construction, a household must submit offerings to and ask for permission of the forest deity and can get timber only at areas specified by the village, not at the holy forest. Should a household want to get timber from forest of another village, it must ask for permission of that village patriarch and proceed with procedures to get the permission of the district’s forest protection unit. This practice causes little damage to forest resources, as the number of cut-down trees is few. The local people only cut down certain types of trees and as holy procedures are required, they did not dare to cut down trees at random.

Hunting is one of the important activities of the Pa Hy people. Following the plantation and trimming season is usually that for hunting and fruit harvesting. Hunting is reserved for men. In the past, when the forest was full of animals, groups of 5-6 people were formed and equipped with crossbow, javelin, and traps. Recently, many have turned to guns when they go hunting.

Even though the forest was full of animals in the past, the Pa Hy people were very conscious protecting them. Animals were hunted just up to the demand and no careless hunting was practised. Prior to setting up traps, hunters must ask for permission of the forest deity and submit offerings being cock or betel and areca. Village people ruled that the trapping area must have been marked by folded leaves or by a leave clipped in a carving made on a tree. Such signal would keep others from setting another trap or springing the current trap. Usually, hunters are allowed to set up traps only in their village’s territory. Setting up traps in another village’s territory will require permission of that village’s patriarch or witch doctor.

At present, most of the animals that used to live in the forest become scarce. Some species are no longer found such as tiger, wolf, and deer. Animal hunting is hardly practised by the village. The most popular hunting tool now is trap. Traps now are usually set up around cultivation fields to catch animals that damage crops. The local people said that it was impossible to count the number of animals caught annually, especially endangered and rare species, because one these animals were caught, they were kept secret and sold outright to lowlanders.

4.1.6 Commune establishes forest management and pro tection team (commune of Hong Ha, district of A Luoi)

This is the forest management model in the commune of Hong Ha, district of A Luoi. During 1995-2000, the Bo River Watershed Forest Management Commission contracted the plantation, attendance and protection of forest with households in the commune. The plantation fee was VND


900,000 per hectare, the attendance fee for the next 3 years was VND 750,000 per annum, and the protection fee was VND 45,000/hectare/month. At present, a protection team of 5-7 people has been established by the commune, which receives remuneration from the commune’s budget and has the responsibility to protect the contracted area and the area of natural forest in the commune.

Since 2001, the plantation, attendance and protection of forest have fallen under the responsibility of people from other communes, who were awarded the contract by the protection forest management commission. Thus, the local community and the commune lost a source of employment and a significant source of income. The commune’s forest protection team, however, is still maintained to protect the area of natural forest that lies within its territory.


Under this model of forest management, the commune’s forest management and protection team has effectively protected the forest area in the commune’s territory. The local people and communal officials wished that they would be again contracted by state-owned agencies and organisations to protect and plant forest in order to generate jobs and income for households and the community. This issue needs to be considered from the perspective of attracting local people to participate in forest management and protection.

4.2 Major community forest management arrangements at the National Park of Ba Be

The national park of Ba Be has coordinated with the People’s Committee of district of Ba Be and with People’s Committees of communes located in the buffer zone of the park to organize appropriate models of community forest management and protection. Activities that supplement income of local people include forest plantation, protection, and ecological tourism. Following are the major models:

4.2.1 Forest Protection Team (commune of Khang Ninh , district of Ba Be)

The forest protection team was established in 2001. The national park management commission worked directly with villages (after reporting to and reaching agreement with communal authorities) to establish forest protection teams and signed contracts directly with the villages and forest protection teams for implementation. The forest protection unit of the national park consulted directly with village people to develop internal rules on forest protection. This model is implemented in communes located in the buffer zone of the national park.

The village of Pac Nghe, commune of Khang Ninh, has 83 households. Its population is dominated by the Tay minority (89%), which is followed by the Dao and H’Mong. The economy is agriculture based, comprising of crop cultivation, livestock raising, and exploitation of products in the nature forest. Since 2001, the forest area in the buffer zone has been allocated to farmer households. On average, each household is allocated 1.5 hectares. The household of Mr. Nong Van Xuat was allocated the largest area of 11.3 hectares. Most of the allocated area is bare land and bushes that need to be replanted.


In 2001, the national park of Ba Be cooperated with five communes to establish forest protection teams. So far, 25 forest protection teams have been established to protect 3,000 hectares. Each village set up 2-3 teams, each teams consisting of 8-20 people. These teams follow specific rules and get the cooperation and guidance of forest protection officers of the national park.

The village of Pac Nghe has 3 forest protection teams. Mr. Hoang Van Tai, chief of team #2, informed that: “the village of Pac Nghe has been contracted to protect forest in the core zone of the national park. Since the protection team was established, incidence like illegal exploitation of forest and burning forest for upland fields has hardly occurred. As local people join forces with the national park in the management and protection of forest, this model can be sustainably maintained”.

The forest protection teams go checking the forest on a weekly basis. Each team is split into small groups, holds meeting a monthly basis, and sends a performance report to the national park management commission.

In addition to contracting forest protection teams to protect forest, the national park also provides farmers in the buffer zones with technical guidance to plant trees. The national park and various projects being implemented in the park’s territory also provide seeds of Manglietia conifera, Chukrasia tabularis, Dracontomelum dupe rreanum, etc., to farmers for planting in their forest gardens. Officials of the park make available a list of trees to farmers, who will then discuss and select the preferred ones like Manglietia conifera, Chukrasia tabularis, Dendrocalamus membranaceus, Canarium album, etc. The park later provides village people with seeds of the selected trees.

Other project activities such as provision of new sapling for agricultural production and better cooking stove also improve living conditions of farmers and reduce the pressure of exploiting forest resources in the national park.

As a management commission has been established at the national park of Ba Be, the relations between the management commission and the authorities of villages and communes in the buffer zone are relatively close, especially in recent years. The national park has collaborated with communes and villages to draft and finalize forest protection rules for 73 villages in both the core and buffer zones of the national park. This is one of the good arrangements to attract communities to participate in the protection of forest resources and biological diversity.

4.2.2 Forest Development Club (commune of Khang Nin h, Dong Phuc, mostly implemented by the PARC project)

The forest development club was established in 2001 in two communes located in the buffer zone of the national park. The forest development club was set up by joint efforts of the national park, the PARC project, the communal authorities, and the villages. The club was established to meet the following objectives:

- To encourage the participation of people who wish to plant and protect forest;

- To exchange knowledge and experience of plantation techniques, forest protection and management skills among members and among regions;


- To participate in forest protection and management in the buffer zone and the national park.

In 2001, the commune of Khang Ninh established 9 clubs with 178 members. In addition to exchange of techniques, these clubs have planted Manglietia conifera (6,830 trees), Canarium album (700 trees), Dracontomelum dupe rreanum (200 trees), and Chukrasia tabularis (1,135 trees).

The commune of Dong Phuc has established 6 clubs with 120 members. These clubs have developed rules for forest plantation and their internal operating rules, and set up nursery garden for 15,000 trees of various species.

The PARC project has the responsibility to provide technical assistance, 50% of funds for nursling, and evaluate the performance of forest plantation. In the first stage, each household will get 60 nurslings for plantation and the number of nursling will increase over the years.

The forest protection and development club is a model to attract communities to participate in forest development. It requires, however, initial assistance in terms of both financing and techniques to create a momentum for development. Initial support to farmers in terms of nursling and participation of farmers to developing operation rules are very important. This is both the support and stimulus to encourage farmers to participate in forest management and protection in communities.

4.2.3 Establishment of groups of collaborators to p articipate in tourism services and forest protection (commune of Nam Mau, which li es in the national reserve)

The national park of Ba Be possesses a unique feature, i.e., it has the Ba Be pond of 375 hectares, which is surrounded by rocky forest. This creates a landscape very attractive to tourists and a highly diverse biological system.

The commune of Nam Mau lies entirely within the core zone of the national park. The core zone also includes part of the communes of Khang Ninh and Quang Khe, with a total population of 3,000 people. This poses a difficulty to the national park in its management activities. The MARD, People’s Committee of the province of Bac Can and the national park of Ba Be have held many conferences to address the issue of people living in the core zone and the issue of harmonizing conservation and development activities.

The province of Bac Can has planned to relocate part of the population in the core zone out of the national park. To urgently reduce the pressure of exploitation of resources in the core zone, however, the National Park Management Commission has cooperated with the commune of Nam Mau and PARC project to organize groups of tourism guides. Villages participating in the transport of tourists in the Ba Be lake also organize 2-3 teams of transport and services. Tourist service teams are usually linked to forest protection teams, which have signed contract with the National Park Management Commission. The main goals of establishing such teams are:

− Transporting and guiding tourists who visit the lake and other cultural sites in an organized and safe fashion;

− Ensuring equitable income for those who participate in the provisions of tourism services.


− Contributing to improve living conditions of local people and protect resources of the national park.

Most tourism activities occur at the villages of Pac Ngo, Pho Lu, commune of Nam Mau. Tourism services at the lake are under the management of a commission, which control several service teams. Members of the commission are voted once every two years. At present, 116 boats are available for transporting tourists. All service-related issues must be in accordance with agreed regulations, such as ticket price, percentage of income of service teams being set aside to cover operating expenses of the commission, protection team, environment clean-up, etc. Members have all attended short-term workshops on tourism services such as cooking, entertainment activities, brocade weaving, etc.

According to Mr. Gia Dinh Huyen, who lives in the village of Pac Ngoi, commune of Nam Mau: "since participating in the tourism service team, my income has increased. I do not have to fight for tourists as I had before. Also, members in my family also provide tourism services such as accommodation, meal, souvenir sales, etc.".

Some calculations show that income from tourism activities makes up for 40% of the total income of a family. The annual average income is VND 300,000/boat, month . In the village of Pac Ngoi, four houses of farmers have been upgraded to guesthouses. The village has an entertainment team with about 14 performances to meet the demand of tourists. The village of Pac Ngoi has 3 forest protection teams in the core zone of the national park, each consisting of 20 people. Average income from forest protection is VND 200,000 per annum.

Major tourism sites include the lake of Ba Be with an area of 375 hectares, the cave of Puong, the waterfall of Dau Dang, the Fairy pond, etc. Tourism activities have brought initial outcome and attracted more tourists on an annual basis. The number of arrivals in 1995 was 2,200 and that in 2001 was 26,000, 25% of which were foreigners. Due to the importance of protecting biological diversity and the tourism assets, the hydroelectric power station planned to be constructed at the waterfall of Dau Dang has been suspended for further evaluation of its potential impact on the local environment.

One important observation is that since village people participated in tourism activities, incidents such as exploitation of forest products and burning forest for upland fields have not occurred. Members of tourism teams also function as inspectors of forests in the course of guiding tourists, especially for forests that are under joint protection of the village and the national park.

Thus, tourism activities have supplemented income for the local community. Benefits will encourage local people to participate in protecting forest in the national park. This issue is especially important for people living in the core zone of nature reserves, where the exploitation of resources is strictly prohibited.

4.2.4 Village-based forest management (commune of D ong Phuc, district of Ba Be)

This management model is implemented in the buffer zone of the nature reserve, which is located in the commune of Dong Phuc (Table 23). After the policy of allocating agricultural land to farmers was introduced and the cooperative dissolved, people in the village altogether participated in the protection of forests, which lie within its boundaries, in 1992. All protected area of forest is located


in the watershed, playing an essential role in supplying water for production and for daily life of the local people.

Table 23. Area of forest under community management

Unit: hectare

Commune Village Area (hectare) Note

1 Dong Phuc Lung Ca 55.2

2 “ Coc Phay 218.58

3 “ Coc Coong 96.16

4 “ Na Phia 82.07

5 “ Na Ka 67.15

6 “ Khua Quang 240.2

7 “ Na Booc 38.48

8 “ Tan Lung 546.98 Well protected

9 “ Na Thau 97.55

10 “ Ban Cha 716.37

11 “ Lung Minh 257.84 Well protected

12 “ Na Khau 187.37

Total 2,603.95

The area of community forest is protected on the basis of rules agreed among members of the community. In 2001, the area of community forest has been allocated to the village, which, together with village members, is responsible for management. Village people are allowed to exploit secondary forest products twice a year, which are mainly firewood and medicinal plants. According to the local people, that the forest is well protected can be attributable to the following:

- The village has developed detailed forest protection rules, which have been agreed upon and respected by everyone in the village;

- All members of the community directly benefit from community forest; and

- Close partnerships between the village community and the local authorities and available assistance of the national park management commission.

The aspiration of the local people is that they are allowed to protect forest on a long-term basis in order to stabilize production activities and their own life.

Thanks to good protection, some species have shown up again in the forest, including the Rhnopithecus avunculus, which was seen in Mo Pien. Thus, the province of Bac Can and the Forest Protection Department are preparing a proposal to establish the Xuan Lac species


conservation area of 9,581 hectares, which covers a number of nearby communes, to protect rare species and plants in the limestone mountains of the region.

Therefore, the community forest management model not only brings about socio-economic benefits to the local people but also plays an essential role in protecting biological diversity.

5 ASSESSMENT AND SELECTION OF A NUMBER OF EFFECITVE COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT MODELS IN NATURE RESERVES

5.1 Assessment of community forest management arran gements

Results of the study of two nature reserves indicate that there are nine models of forest management in place at nature reserves (Table 24).


Table 24. Evaluation of Forest Management Forms in Nature Reserves

Forms of forest management Location

in nature reserve

Relation with nature reserve

Forestry land use right

Ownership of products Illegal exploitation

Evaluation of impact on nature reserves

Government

People Household State Timber Non-timber products

1. Land and forest contracted to villages, then divided among households for management * #

Buffer zone

Close Close No Yes Permit required for use on the spot

Village people allowed to exploit

Hardly - Good impact - Unstable

2. Forest protection force and border defense station contract land and forest to households for management and protection *

Buffer zone

Not close

Close No Yes Permit required for use on the spot

Village people allowed to exploit

Hardly - Good impact on buffer zone - Unstable

3. Forest protection unit allocate forest to communes for protection under contract *

Buffer zone

Close Not close

No Yes Exploitation not permitted

Commune’s people allowed to exploit

Often - Forest not well managed - Unstable

4. Villages manage holy forest *

Buffer zone

- - - - Exploitation not permitted

No exploitation Hardly - Forest not well managed

5. Forest protection unit and forest enterprise contract with households for plantation and protection of forest *

Buffer zone

Not close

Close No Yes Exploitation not permitted

Households allowed to exploit

Forest still premature

Forest well managed

6. Commune establish protection teams *

Buffer zone

Close Not close

No Yes Permitted to use on the spot

Commune’s people allowed to exploit

Often Forest not well managed

7. Forest development club # Buffer zone

Not close

Close Yes No allowed to use Exploitable Forest still premature

Forest is developed in buffer zone

8. Tourism service teams also responsible for protection of forest #

Core zone Close Close - - - - - -

9.Forest managed by villages # Buffer zone

Close Close Community

Permit required Village people allowed to exploit under guidance

Not happen -Good impact on protection of forest in buffer zone, stable, and contributing to protect areas surrounding nature reserves.

Note: * Available in the nature reserve of Phong Dien # available in the national park of Ba Be


To select the appropriate model of community forest management requires specific evaluation criteria. Under this study, we rely mostly on the following criteria:

- Communities are well organized to manage forest.

- Close relations among local communities, nature reserve management commission, and the local authorities.

- Clear rules on forest management and protection, which are implemented by community people, taking into account local knowledge of forest management and protection.

- Specific socio-economic and environmental benefits generated to communities.

- Effective forest management, without incidence of illegal exploitation.

- The model has good effect on the protection of forest resources and biological diversity in and out of the nature reserve.

An analysis of Table 24 shows that the effectiveness of models # 2,3,5 and 6 is not as high as that of other models.

The right to own forest resources does not belong to the local people. The relations among local people, the nature reserve and local authorities are not close. Although some management models like models #2 and #5 have resulted in good impact on the management of forest in buffer zones, the stability of such models usually is not certain.

Instability in forest management may be attributable to unstable allocation of budget for forest protection. Budget is made available at the discretion of the State, not on the basis of the benefits generated from the forests themselves. The effectiveness of forest protection models #3 and #6 is not high because such models are not based on the community or on the local people.

Of the models #1, #4, #7, #8, and #9, models #4, #7, and #8 bring good impact on the nature reserve. They are, however, not popular and readily applicable, because their application is conditional on some prerequisites that are hardly met by nature reserves.

Therefore, in our assessment, models #1 and #9, which are community-based forest management models, are well organized, rules-based, and effective in terms of both economical value and protection of forest resources. These two community-based management models are generating good impact on nature reserves.

5.2 Selection of effective forest management arrang ements

In our assessment, the major forest management model currently implemented in national parks and nature reserves draws on the contracting of protection work with villages, which in turn organize protection teams to handle the job. In essence, this model can attract the local people to participate in the protection of forest in nature reserves. This model is applicable to communities living both inside and outside of nature reserves.

Communities have initially been organized into forest protection teams. Subject to the forest area and the number of participating households, one to three teams may be formed. The village head bears the ultimate responsibility in determining team members and running the operation of

A survey and assessment of CFM in several national parks and nature reserves

44

protection teams. The communal official in charge of agro-forestry also participates in activities of the protection teams. Furthermore, officers of the forest protection force located in nature reserves also provide such teams with guidance for better operation.

In our study, we observe that during the shaping and operation of protection teams, there was ongoing consultation between the nature reserve management commission and the communal authorities. Further consultation is also carried out with village officials. Protection teams operate under direct guidance of the village head. Under this arrangement, the relations among nature reserve, village authorities and the local people are very close. The nature reserve management commission can closely keep track of the protection of forest resources and take appropriate measures to ensure better protection of forest resources. This model is appropriate with forests that fall under the management of nature reserves, where the area of the nature reserve is too large and the annual budget for forest protection is adequate.

The village forest management model that is implemented in the buffer zone of the national park of Ba Be is effective in multiple facets, including the conservation concern. This model has existed in many regions, such as in the commune of Phuc Sen, district of Quang Uyen, province of Cao Bang or in some villages and communes in the province of Thua Thien Hue. Under the current policy framework, however, this model is appropriate with forests located in the buffer zone of nature reserves only, because by regulations, the core zone falls under the management of the nature reserve.


45

Diagram 1. Organizational Structure of Protection T eams in Nature Reserves and National Parks

(Case study at National Park of Ba Be and Nature Reserve of Phong Dien)

Nature Reserve(Forest Protection

Station)

Forest protectiongroups

Commune People'sCommittee

Village(Community Forest

Management)

Note:

Close relations

Loose relations

In addition, the allocation of land and forest to farmer households for business purposes has been carried out in a number of nature reserves and brought about good results through reduced exploitation of forest resources in those nature reserves. This model is effective mainly in buffer zone of nature reserves, provided that village’s internal rules are in place and initial technical and financial support made available.

Through the above analysis, it has been shown that the above three models can be applicable to the management and protection of forests in nature reserves. All of the three models can attract the local people to participate in the management and protection of forests in the core and buffer zones of nature reserves.

5.3 Major impediments to the three community forest management models

The major impediments facing the three community forest management models are:

� Community forest management by protection teams in the core zone and buffer zone of nature reserves:

Budget for protection activities is not certain. Without budget, village-based protection teams will not be operational, because other benefits in the protected area will not be exploited, etc.

� Community forest management (village-based)

Thus far, no policy recognizes the right to use forestry land of a community over forests protected by the community.


46

No policy is designed for the sharing of benefits, which are reaped from forests managed by a community, between the State and the community.

� Allocation of land and forest to farmers for busine ss purposes in buffer zone of nature reserves

Buffer zones of nature reserves are usually located in deep and remote areas. Poor economic conditions and inadequate access to techniques and capital make it very difficult to put such area of forest and forest land into businesses.

6 A NUMBER OF CONSERVATION REGULATIONS AND POLICIES THAT ARE RELATED TO COMMUNITIES

6.1 Major regulations and policies

� Forest Protection and Development Law

Due to abusive exploitation policy and under-regulated management of natural resources, forest resources in the region have declined dramatically in terms of both quantity and quality in a prolonged period. With the Forest Protection and Development Law passed in August 1991, it has become a manual for related authorities to better implement the management and protection of forest. It has also generated a significant impact on the local people living in and around forests, especially ethnic minorities in mountainous areas, whose life is dependent to a large extent on forest resources.

Empirical evidence shows that only the forestry management agencies master the Forest Protection and Development Law. Few local people are aware of this law given inadequate propaganda and awareness raising activities. This is a major impediment to make the law fully absorbed and implemented by the local people.

� Decision No. 08/2001/QD-TTg issuing regulation on s pecial use forest management

Decision No. 08 specified management methods for different sections in the system of special use forest as well as in the buffer zone. This decision also spelled out functions, duties of the management commission and had a great impact on the life of communities residing in the buffer zone of nature reserves. Some of its provisions are closely related to communities.

Article 13 . Protect, develop and use special use forests. The following activities are strictly prohibited in the strictly protected zone:

- Exploitation of biological resources.

- Exploitation of other natural resources.

- Livestock grazing.

The following activities are strictly prohibited in the zone protected for rehabilitation:

- Exploitation of biological resources.

- Exploitation of other natural resources.


47

Article 14 . Exploitation and collection of timber in special use forest

Timber can only be collected in special use forests that are specified as cultural, historical and environmental sites.

Article 17 . People who live in the special use forest and the buffer zone must observe the Forest Protection and Development Law, provisions of this regulation, and regulations issued by the management commission of special use forest, etc.

One question here is that in spite of prevailing specific regulations on the protection and use of resources in special use forests, why are many forests in nature reserves and national parks still vulnerable to exploitation by people living in and out of nature reserves? Is that because we did not pay proper attention to the interests of communities in the course of designing policies?

Through our analysis and assessment, we have arrived at the following major reasons:

- The interest of communities has not been paid proper attention. Once a nature reserve is established, the exploitation of all forest resources is prohibited, whereas the life of the local people in many regions relies to large extent on forest resources.

- Communities have not participated in conservation activities. Initial participation has been observed in a number of nature reserves, but such participation is still passive.

- Proper attention has not been paid to raising awareness and education activities with regard to the protection of environment and biological diversity. The local people are not aware of issues related to nature reserves as well as related regulations and policies so that they could join their hands in the management and protection of forest.

� Policies on benefits and sales of products

In decision No. 178/QD-TTg issued by the Prime Minister on 12 November 2001 regarding legitimate benefits and obligations of households and individuals who are allocated, leased, or contracted with forest and forestry land, it was specified that:

Households or individuals contracted for planting, protecting, rehabilitating special use forest are entitled to receive fees for planting, protecting and rehabilitating forest in accordance with the contract. They are also facilitated by the management commission of the special use forest to participate in services and tourism activities.

Households or individuals contracted for planting, protecting, rehabilitating nature forest in watershed areas are entitled to receive fees for planting, protecting and rehabilitating forest in accordance with the contract. They are also allowed to harvest secondary forest products such as flowers, fruits, oil, resin, etc., in the course of rehabilitating forest under the guidance of the contractor. Furthermore, they are allowed to harvest dried-up timber, collapsed trees, pest-infected trees, and trimming products in accordance with the design prepared by the contractor, and these products are freely traded. They are entitled to exploit timber under the selected cutting method with the exploitation extent not exceeding 20% when the protection forest is exploitable under the design prepared by the contractor. Households and village communities contracted for both rehabilitating forest and planting protection forest are entitled to all trimming products and agricultural and forestry products under forest cover.


48

As regard production forest, households contracted for planting, attending and protecting production forest are provided with budget by the contractor and entitled to plant agricultural crops and forest trees in a mixed way as long as the forest cover is not full. They are also allowed to carry out agro-forestry production under the forest cover as long as such activities do not negatively affect the growth of forest trees. The households are entitled to secondary products under the forest cover, products from agro-forestry production and other products as agreed in the contract with the forest owner. As the forest reaches the exploitable threshold, the households will negotiate with the contractor about the timing and methods of exploitation, etc. If the households invest their own capital in the plantation, attendance and protection of production forest, they are entitled to 95% of the value of exploited products, net of taxes, with the rest 5% being the share of the contractor.

The local people view this decision as an economic stimulus that encourages them to participate in the protection and development of forest, including the rehabilitation of special use forest. This decision also sheds light on the responsibilities of the parties allocated, leased, or contracted with forest in the protection and development of forest.

This decision, however, does not cover benefits derived from the system of special use forest, as they have been included in decision No. 08.

� Credit capital, investment, and taxes

The State has set out inclusive investment levels for protection forest and special use forest. Organizations, households and individuals, which plant forest, rehabilitate protection forest in less important regions and production forest, and develop forestry processing facilities, are entitled to preferential treatments as specified in the law on promotion of domestic investment, and to borrow from the national investment assistance fund and from other preferential credit sources, etc.

Natural resource tax is exempted for forest products exploited from production forests being nature forests, which have been rehabilitated through protection for regeneration. Commercial tax is exempted for forest products procured legally from plantation forest and for non-timber forest products exploited from nature forest. This is a strong stimulus to attract local communities to participate in forestry development.

Local people, however, have not been aware of or eligible to investment credit, especially those living near nature reserves located in remote and deep areas. For these people, accessing this source of credit seems remote.

� Policy on land forest allocation

Decree No. 02-CP was issued in 1994 and Decree No. 163 in 1998 by the Government to govern the allocation of land and contracting of forest to organizations, collective groups, and households that participate in the management and protection of forest. Under these decrees, the State allocates forestry land and forest to organizations, households, and individuals for purposes of forestry development. The land forest allocation tenor is 50 years and renewable. The allocation as stipulated under these decrees, however, has not been implemented in the nature reserve of Phong Dien. So far, the entire area of forest and forest land in the nature reserve falls under the


49

management of state-owned organizations such as forest enterprises and the forest protection force.

An outstanding problem now is that no specific regulation has been issued with regard to the allocation of land use right to communities. In some areas such as the buffer zone of the national park of Ba Be, local communities are managing nature forest to protect water source and forest resources. These communities, however, have not been officially allocated forest for management. Thus, this is also one of the impediments that discourages communities to participate in the protection of special use forest.

6.2 Some drawbacks in conservation regulations and policies that are related to community forest management

A review of conservation regulations and policies that are related to community management has identified the following drawbacks:

- The role of local people has not been properly taken into account in conservation work. So far, no conservation regulations or policies mention the role of local people in the management of nature reserves and their buffer zones. Hardly have the local people and low-level local authorities (district downward) been allowed to participate in even the planning of nature reserves and buffer zones. The composition of nature reserve management commissions also does not include representative of local communities.

- In regulation No. 08/2001, Article 8, paragraph 3, stipulates that: “Investors in buffer zone projects are responsible for collaborating with People’s Committee at various levels, agencies, and socio-economic organizations located in the buffer zone, especially with the management commission of the special use forest to: (i) formulate agriculture, forestry and fishery production plans and fixed settlement and cultivation plans, taking into account the participation of local communities; (ii) submit them to the competent authorities for approval; and (iii) implement them in order to stabilize and improve living conditions of the local people”. In practice, however, the role of local communities is usually underplayed when investment projects in buffer zones are formulated.

- On the management, protection and development of resources in special use forest: according to Article 13 of the Regulation on the Management of Special Use Forest, which was issued in connection with decision No. 08/2001/QD-TTg above, all resource exploitation activities, including the exploitation of non-timber forest products in the strictly protected zone as well as in the biological system rehabilitation zone, are strictly prohibited. This provision is not appropriate in practice, not up to the aspiration and demand of the local authorities and people, and not consistent with the new viewpoint of “conservation cum development”. At present, people living in and around nature reserves still rely to a large extent on forest resources in both the core and buffer zones. Prohibiting exploitation of forest products across the board without introducing measures to find alternative materials or sources of income just ends up in the regulation itself. This fact is observed clearly in nature reserves that are located in populous and coastal areas.


50

- Investment into scientific research that supports communities to change the structure of crops and livestock, especially the structure of forest trees (including non-timber forest products and domestication of wild animals), in order to increase their income is not given proper attention.

- The progress of ecological tourism development, which will generate an important source of income to nature reserves and local communities, is slow. Inadequate legal and policy framework is blamed for failure to attracting investment.

7 SOLUTIONS TO ATTRACT COMMUNITIES TO PARTICIPATE I N THE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION OF FOREST IN NATURE RESERVES

� Land and forest in buffer zones should be allocated to farmer households for management and production. This policy will make land and forest available to farmers for business purposes and reduce the pressure for exploiting resources in nature reserves.

� Villages should be contracted to protect the area of forest and forest land that is located in the core zone of nature reserves. Villages in turn should organize protection teams to handle the job.

� Local authorities should have their representative in the management commission of nature reserves. Community forest management models that exist at villages in the buffer zone of nature reserves should be encouraged and supported.

� New policies should be researched and introduced to attract the participation of communities in the protection of nature reserves. The model of open nature reserve should be introduced so that farmers could both collect non-timber forest products and protect essential values of the nature reserve.

� Ecological tourism should be organized and expanded to generate more income to communities and nature reserves. Programs #135 and #661 should direct their priorities to communes that are located in the buffer zone of nature reserves.

8 CONCLUSION

Community forest management has come into existence in various mountainous regions in our country. This forest management model in practice has brought about good and multi-facet results to both local communities and the society at large. The study also indicates that this model is bearing good impact on nature reserves.

Further study should be conducted on the model of community forest management currently implemented at different nature reserves, ecological regions, and minorities so that comprehensive conclusions from this model could be drawn.

Appropriate policies should be designed and introduced to set out benefits and obligations of communities once they participate in the management of forest in nature reserves in a drive to encourage their participation.


51

For the sake of systematic management of nature reserves, a management commission should be established in each nature reserve to formulate appropriate action plans with twin objectives, i.e., conservation and development. Concomitantly, the responsibility of implementing the State’s directions and policies should be linked to that of managing nature reserves and developing socio-economic welfare for communities living in the buffer and core zones of nature reserves.


52

REFERENCE LITERATURE

Literature in Vietnamese

1. Anon (2001). Policy Framework Conductive to Community Forest Management in Vietnam, seminar materials, Hanoi, 14-15 November 2001.

2. Anon (2002). Evaluation of the Management of Special Use Forest System in the Province of Gia Lai. Technical report #2. SPAM project, Hanoi, 2002.

3. Anon (2002). Evaluation of the Management of Special Use Forest System in the Province of Ba Ria Vung Tau. Technical report #3. SPAM project, Hanoi, 2002.

4. Anon (2002). Evaluation of the Management of Special Use Forest System in the Province of Thua Thien Hue. Technical report #4. SPAM project, Hanoi, 2002.

5. Anon (2002). Evaluation of the Management of Special Use Forest System in the Province of Lao Cai. Technical report #5. SPAM project, Hanoi, 2002.

6. Dinh Thi Phuong Anh (2002). Current Status of and Solutions to the Management and Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Nature Reserve of Son Tra – Da Nang. Materials of Seminar on Environmental Education, 7-8 October 2002, Hanoi.

7. International Birdlife Program in Vietnam and the Forest Survey and Planning Institute (2001). Investment project in the nature reserve of Phong Dien, Thua Thien Hue, Vietnam.

8. Nguyen Huy Dung (1999), Report on community forest management in the commune of Phuc Sen, district of Quang Hoa, province of Cao Bang. Sustainable Forest Management Study Program.

9. Vo Nguyen Huan (2001). Evaluation of the Management and Investment in Buffer Zones –SPAM Vietnam Project 0025.01.

10. Dao Trong Hung (2001), Identification of Conservation Management Issues from Women, SPAM Vietnam Project 0025.01.

11. Dao Trong Hung (2001), Identification of Conservation Management Issues from Ethnic Minorities, SPAM Vietnam Project 0025.01.

12. People’s Committee of Lao Cai (1993), Economic and Technical Analysis of the Nature Reserve of Hoang Lien Sa Pa.

13. Vu Long (1996). Study on the Development of Social Forestry Model in Central Highlands, Agriculture Publishing House, Hanoi, 1996.

14. To Dinh Mai (2001). Analysis of the Organization and Management Structure of Nature Reserves in Vietnam. Consultant Report. SPAM project, Hanoi, November 2001.

15. People’s Committee of Nghe An (2001), Investment Project for Development of National Park of Pu Mat.


53

16. To Dinh Mai and associates (2002), Planning – Institutions – Finance in Nature Reserves in Vietnam. Consultant Report. SPAM project, Hanoi, January 2002.

Literature in English

17. Vo Tri Chung, Eric crystal, Nguyen Huy Dzung, CS (1998)- Stewards of Vietnam S Upland forest.

18. WWF (1998), Human Migration and Resources Utilization (A research project of Population dynamics and resources utilization in the buffer zone of Yok Don National Park and the surrounding region, Dak Lak Provinces).

a survey and assessment of community forest … · management system, the role of communities,...

Documents