integrated forest restoration programme - mekonginfo · integrated forest restoration programme ......

Integrated Forest Restoration Programme (17) 18/11/2004

Integrated Forest Restoration Programme

In Cao Bang Province

1999-2004

By Drake Hocking

Forestry Adviser

Cao Bang – Bac Kan Rural Development Project

October 2004

Integrated Forest Restoration Programme (17) Page i 18/11/2004

Executive Summary

The Forestry Component of the Cao Bang Bac Kan Rural Developmenet Project aimed to enable the residents of poor communes in Cao Bang (and Bac Kan) province to sustainably manage their forest resources so as to assure water supply and conservation of soil as well as to improve their incomes and general livelihood. To do this, we developed practical approaches aimed at the Community or village level, mainly in poor Communes and with a focus on poverty-alleviation. This is called Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM), and includes management of communal land as well as small plots of private forestland that have been allocated to individual households. Delivery of these approaches to the ultimate beneficiaries involved extensive cooperation with and support to government agencies and institutions, developed through a cooperative strategic analysis. Owing to the complex motivational structure for forest activities, the Project cooperated with Provincial authorities to create an enabling environment of appropriate policy, statutory, regulatory, economic, and social context that encourages tree-growing and helps to make it profitable for farmers. Simultaneously, a programme was arranged for upgrading the skills and confidence of extension staff at all levels: Provincial, District, Commune and Village. Staff of the Forest Protection Department (FPD) received refresher training in Social Forestry and participatory methods and tools to equip them for a new role as community activation leaders. A key element of the strategy was support to an improved and accelerated participatory procedure for micro-level land use planning and allocation of forest land to households (LUPLA), providing them with the security of tenure needed for confidence to invest labour and resources into forest restoration. This was supported by significant investment in household-level tree plantations, the cash being delivered to farmers by a new procedure through the Vietnam Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development after technical checks by the FPD. Important lessons learned by the Project through this experience were: 1. Improving the “enabling environment” (political attitudes, statutory

framework, sector policies, administrative arrangements) is extremely important and should be the first priority.

2. Building of implementation capacity is effective and efficient using “Learning by doing” methods and replicating through a “Training of Trainers“ approach.

3. Partner agencies should have maximum self-responsibility for programmes. Identify energetic individuals and respond to opportunities.

4. Management and programme planning must retain sufficient flexibility to enable “mid-stream corrections” and ability to respond to changing situations.

Integrated Forest Restoration Programme (17) Page ii 18/11/2004

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................6 1.1 Objectives for the CBBCRDP Forestry Component.......................................6

1.2 Land areas and classification of Cao Bang .....................................................7

1.3 A note on classification of forest land.............................................................8

1.4 Summary of the integrated forest restoration strategy ....................................9

2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................10 2.1 Fifty years of forest exploitation ...................................................................10

2.2 Early experience with forest land administration..........................................11

3 STRATEGIC ACTIVITIES OF CBBCRDP ...................................................14 3.1 Enabling environment ...................................................................................14

3.2 Identify and strengthen capacity ...................................................................15

3.2.1 Roles and capacity within PPC, DARD, FPD, SFE ..............................15

3.2.2 Training: ToT & Learning-by-doing ....................................................16

3.2.3 Technical Training for Grassroots Extension Workers .........................16

3.2.4 ToT for forestry activities ......................................................................18

3.2.5 Integrated field approach: an example...................................................18

3.3 The constituent elements for FLUPLA .........................................................19

3.3.1 Land Use Classification .........................................................................20

3.3.2 Planning .................................................................................................21

3.3.3 Land Allocation .....................................................................................21

3.3.4 Organisation chart of linkages ...............................................................21

3.4 Land Use Planning (LUP) and Land Allocation (LA) ..................................22

3.4.1 Summary of the basic steps for LUPLA................................................23

3.4.2 Contracts and benefit-sharing ................................................................24

3.5 Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM).........................................24

3.5.1 The main steps of CBFM.......................................................................25

3.6 Forest restoration activities & technology development...............................25

3.6.1 The Five Million ha. Reforestation Prog. (5MHRP) .............................25

3.6.2 Selection of forest restoration technologies...........................................26

3.6.3 Supporting component activities............................................................29

3.6.4 Village nurseries ....................................................................................30

3.7 Financial aspects ...........................................................................................31

Integrated Forest Restoration Programme (17) Page iii 18/11/2004

4 ACHIEVEMENTS .............................................................................................32

4.1 Milestone events for Forestry Component ....................................................32

4.2 Synoptic-level Achievements........................................................................32

5 LESSONS LEARNED........................................................................................34

6 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................35

7 ANNEXES ...........................................................................................................36 Annex 1: Basic steps towards CBFM....................................................................36

Annex 2: Village tree nursery concept and modalities........................................37

Annex 3: Villages with Project-supported forestry activities by Province, District, and Commune. .........................................................................................41

Annex 4: Strategy for delivering Tot for Commune-based extension ...............53

Annex 5: Organisation Chart for FSSP Partners & 5MHRP ............................57

Annex 6: FSSPP Matrix of Affiliation & International Donors.........................58

Annex 7: Summary of user rights and responsibilities on allocated forest land..................................................................................................................................70

Annex 8: Summary of Project Activity Outputs (1999-2004).............................71

Annex 9: Forest Inventory Classes in Vietnam....................................................72

Integrated Forest Restoration Programme (17) Page iv 18/11/2004

Acknowledgements

This Report is built upon three years of association with the Cao Bang – Bac Kan Rural Development Project under the leadership of joint Co-Directors Mr Jerry Rolls and Mr Tran Van Khan. It draws on the knowledge and long experience of forestry-sector pioneers and colleagues in the Cao Bang Leadership and Administration, especially Mr Nong Ich Hoc (former forestry-sector Secretary of the Cao Bang People's Committee, now retired), the late Mr Ly Danh Phuong (former Director of the Cao Bang Forestry Department), and Mr Nguyen Quang Minh (present Director of the Forest Protection Department). Their knowledge and wisdom were generously shared during numerous convivial discussions, interviews and field trips. The Sections on activities and achievements draw heavily on the contributions of staff of the Forestry Component of the Project management Unit, especially Dr Ly Van Trong, Mr Pham Nguyen Khoi, and Dr Pham Ngoc Thuong. Invaluable early analysis and strengthening of the enabling environment and implementation capacity were contributed by Mr Ingemar Salle, Forestry Advisor for the period 1999-2001. Progress made during the Project period relied heavily on advances made by earlier forestry-sector cooperation projects. Developing capacity for LUPLA was made possible by engaging lead Trainers from the Social Forestry Development Project, Song Da (with GTZ support), suggested by the CTA Elke Foerster. For CBFM, we were able to draw on expert and experienced Trainers from the Social Forestry Training Centre of Xuan Mai University, where the skills and capacity had been developed through the foresight and sustained support of Helvetas and the Swiss Development Cooperation, through the Social Forestry Development Project present Advisor Mr Ruedi Luthi. For the concept of separating technical from financial tasks, we relied upon the detailed systems developed by the KfW projects under the guidance of CTA Dr Ulrich Apel and National Project Chief Dr Dao Cong Khanh. I am grateful to all of the above, and also to the many other friends and colleagues within and outside the Project who contributed numerous smaller but valuable pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. However, none of those mentioned are to be blamed for any errors or omissions, which are the responsibility of the author alone.

Integrated Forest Restoration Programme (17) Page v 18/11/2004

Table of abbreviations

5MHRP Five Million Hectare Reforestation Programme ARDO Agriculture & Rural Development Office (at District level) CBBCRDP Cao Bang Bac Kan Rural Development Project CBFM Community Based Forest Management CPC Commune People’s Committee DARD Department of Agriculture and Rural Development DNRE Department of Natural Resources and Environment DOLISA Department of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs DPC District People’s Committee FDS-D Forestry Development Sub-Department (of DARD) FLA Forest Land Allocation FLUPLA Forest Land Use Planning and Land Allocation FMB Forest Management Board (usually at District level) FPD Forest Protection Department (Kiem Lam) FSSP(P) Forest Sector Support Programme (and Partnership) GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System HH Household KfW Kreditanstalt fuer Wiederaufbau (German development bank) LA Land Allocation (used for FLA, could include agricultural land) LUP Land Use Plan(ning) MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development PMU Program Management Unit PPC Provincial People’s Committee PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal SALT Sloping Agricultural Land Technology (contour hedgerows) SFDP Social Forestry Development Project (GTZ: Song Da) or

Programme (Helvetas/SDC: National). SFE State Forest Enterprise SIDA Swedish International Development Agency VBARD Vietnam Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development

Integrated Forest Restoration Programme (17) Page 6 18/11/2004

Integrated Forest Restoration Programme In Cao Bang Province

By Drake Hocking

1 Introduction Cao Bang is a Northern Mountainous Province of Vietnam bordering China. Its development activity between January 1999 and December 2004 was helped by cooperation with the EU-supported Cao Bang-Bac Kan Rural Development Project (CBBCRDP), of which one of the three main components was Forestry. The Project also worked in Bac Kan Province, but Bac Kan is not included in the present report because it has enjoyed support from many other internationally financed projects at the same time so the situation and the response are different. Forest restoration in Cao Bang Province is necessary because of successive waves of deforestation over the last fifty years or so. Main causes of deforestation include heavy exploitation to develop infrastructure for wars (French, American, and Chinese), commercial logging mainly by State Forest Enterprises, inexorable use for firewood by local people and by armies, and land conversion to agriculture and grazing use, partly through progressive pressure on ethnic minorities to reduce traditional use as long-rotation fallows ("shifting cultivation") for production of subsistence food crops. More details are given in the next Chapter of this Report.

1.1 Objectives for the CBBCRDP Forestry Component The main Project objective was: “To achieve improved living standards and environmental sustainability for poor households in Vietnam’s Northern Highlands. Specifically, the project aims to enable the residents of poor communes in Cao Bang and Bac Kan provinces to increase food production, sources of supplementary income and access to markets and to assure water supply and conservation of soil by re-establishing of forest cover where required.” (Financing Agreement). Note that the target population consists of residents of poor Communes (as defined by the Government of Vietnam), and not only the poorest households (although they also are not excluded). The Forestry Component aimed to enable the residents of poor communes in Cao Bang and Bac Kan provinces to sustainably manage their forest resources so as to assure water supply and conservation of soil as well as to improve their incomes and general livelihood. To do this, we developed practical approaches aimed at the Community or village level, mainly in poor Communes and with a focus on poverty-alleviation. This is called


Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM), and includes management of communal land as well as small plots of private forestland that have been allocated to individual households. The specific objectives of the Forestry Component were:

• To assist DARD in increasing agro-forestry skills and the plantation of timber, industrial trees and fruit trees by the households.

• To assist in the strengthening of the Provincial and District Forestry Development Section’s capacity to plan, monitor and supervise forest development activities.

• To assist in the strengthening of Provincial District extension services focusing on cultivation techniques for fruit and commercial tree species as well as in planning and implementing training courses by training and supporting extension staff.

• To supply the needs of the target population with regards to tree seedlings by assisting and promoting private owned nurseries in the districts.

• To increase the social forestry capacity of communes and villages by supporting them in undertaking the planning and management of communal land.

Implementation Criteria for the CBBCRDP

Poverty orientation ⇒ Target activities towards the poorer communes in both provinces.

Cost effectiveness ⇒ Obtain the best possible economic and/or social return per unit of investment.

Replicability ⇒ Use technologies, equipment, resources and methodologies that are replicable to other mountainous provinces.

Criteria for forestry activities

• High percentage of poor households. • High diversity of ethnic groups. • Forest land allocated to farmers. • Local leaders and farmers interested in forestry and willing to co-operate

with the project. • Demonstration areas accessible for study visits and field excursions. • Biological and geographical differences.

1.2 Land areas and classification of Cao Bang According to the province's statistical data of 2001, the current distribution of the land of Cao Bang is as follows: The total natural land area of the province is 669,072 ha. Of this:

1. Agriculture land is 64,600 ha accounting for 9.6%. 2. Forestry land is 584,400 ha equivalent to 87%. Of this:

a. Land with trees is 287,170 ha, or 42.9% of the total land area. Within this, most (94%) of the tree cover is immature regeneration of natural forest, and the rest is semi-mature plantation forest.


b. Land without trees is 297,000 ha. Of this, 133,400 ha are rocky mountain-tops. The rest is shrubby or bare grassy hills amounting to 163,400 ha, or 24% of the total area of the Province. This is the main area targeted for forest restoration.

3. Other land: This includes urban and built-up areas, homestead areas, “unused” land, residential land, and other small categories.

1.3 A note on classification of forest land The meaning of forest land (sometimes forestry land) is not always the same. In this report, in conformity with the Land Law of Vietnam, we use the term to mean any land that has an average slope more than 10 degrees and at one time probably had trees on it, whether or not there are any trees there now. Where trees are present, this is called forest cover. Forest cover is also classified by the kinds and mixtures of trees present, and by their stage of maturity. We are here discussing classification of the forest land, not the forest cover. In Vietnam as elsewhere, land is generally classified in broad categories as follows, based on a combination of land use potential and actual present use:

1. agriculture; level or only slightly sloping land with good soil 2. forest, potentially any land with slope over 10 degrees (but see

below). There are varying further categories used for different purposes, but common ones include:

3. unused, land not capable of supporting crops or trees; generally because it is too rocky, mountain tops, exposed to seasonal flooding, shorelines, and the like. But this category has also come to be used for land (usually more or less sloping) with forest capability but which is used for other purposes such as agriculture. This frequently confuses statistics and makes them hard to interpret.

4. urban, areas with buildings or roads. Forest land is further classified into three classes: protection, production, special use. (Agricultural land is of course also further classified but this is not the topic at present.) The three classes of forest land are divided by a mix of biophysical criteria (slope, soil depth, biodiversity, etc) and present or planned land uses, especially the presence of major capital investments like hydroelectric or irrigation dams. Most forest land in Vietnam starts out classified as protection forest, meaning that the main intended use is for watershed protection (reducing erosion risks and increasing upland water storage capacity), protection of riverbanks and lake margins, and coastal protection (dune stabilization and storm defences for coastal settlements). This class of forest land has severe restrictions placed on proportion and methods of permitted harvesting of trees and other forest products, for obvious reasons. The production forest class consists of forest land (normally any land with slope of more than 10 degrees; otherwise it is agriculture) that is sheltered from critical erosional risks by a buffer zone of protection forest, and with good


soil favouring tree growth. The separation of production from protection forest is dominated by the need to ensure adequate delivery of water out of catchments for major dams. Hence, biophysical rules may be over-ridden close to impoundment lakes, or relaxed if outside the theoretical essential catchment area. The category, special use forest, is applied to forest land that is reserved for special uses such as parks, wildlife and ecological reserves, resorts, and historical sites. It is relatively very small and need not concern us further However, we must not lose sight of the category, unused land, because in statistical information it frequently includes, or even mainly consists of, steeply sloping forest land that has no trees because it is being used for something else, mainly agricultural or livestock uses. This poses special problems for sustainable management that we return to later. Until recently, almost all forest land in Cao Bang was classified as protection forest in order to qualify for allocation of funds for reforestation from the Central Programme 661, which was restricted to protection forests as first priority. There were also small areas of special use forest. Systematic re-classification based on satellite imagery started in the year 2004, with the goal of identifying areas of forest land suitable for production forests. This was mainly to support planning aspirations for provincial forest-based industries such as a pulp mill.

1.4 Summary of the integrated forest restoration strategy 1. Build an enabling environment to encourage forest restoration. 2. Identify & strengthen institutional capacity to work towards it. 3. Participatory Land Use Planning (LUP) to optimise land use. 4. Land allocation (LA) with Red Books (=LUPLA) to motivate farmers. 5. Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM). 6. Support through financial norms of the 5MHRP. 7. Private farmer-operated tree nurseries and other supporting activities. 8. Technical and financial separation using FPD and VBARD.


2 Historical Background The following background material was drawn from papers contributed to a “Leaders’ Seminar on Forest Restoration in Cao Bang” and from interviews of Mr Nong Ich Hoc (former forestry-sector Secretary of the Cao Bang People's Committee, now retired), the late Mr Ly Danh Phuong (former Director of the Cao Bang Forestry Department), and Mr Nguyen Quang Minh (present Director of the Forest Protection Department). But they have not reviewed this paper, so any errors are solely the responsibility of the author.

2.1 Fifty years of forest exploitation Cao Bang Province was liberated from French occupation on 3rd October 1950. The rest of the country continued in a state of war and required massive support from the liberated north. Much of the needed support came from the former Soviet Union. Therefore, the Central government and the Province assigned the provincial Forestry Sector the task to establish Forest Enterprises to exploit strong and heavy timber for the construction of a railway running from Eastern Europe through China to Vietnam in support of the nation's liberation, construction and defence. This was the main task of the sector during this period. Some quality timbers and other forest products (such as medicinal herbs) were also exploited for export to China in return for cash and imported goods. The First State Forest Enterprise (SFE) exploiting wood of the province was established in Thach An district in mid-1950s. Thach An and Ha Lang were the districts where wood was exploited the most. The second SFE was established in Nguyen Binh District during 1975. In order to exploit the forest product, it was necessary to open the forestry routes for transportation. To help with that, the Cao Bang PPC authorized to establish a Forestry Bridges and Roads Company and a fleet of vehicles for transportation of timber and forest products. The company overcame a lot of difficulties to construct more than 300 km of forestry road in Nguyen Binh and Thach An Districts. From 1956 - 1964: The province produced and exported 136,280 m3 of logs, and 77,000 Ste of firewood. The highest volume of timber in a single year during this period was 17,500 m3 exported to China in 1958. From 1965 to 1970: During this period, export continued but the volume was reduced gradually. From 1970 to 1980: Timber exploitation was speeded up again for the main course of construction of the province and the country. From 1981 to now: The forest products were continued to be exploited and processed. Population increase by in-migration due to 1979-1981 border war with during the period 1980-1990 China gave rise to a sharp increase in firewood cutting by and for the army. During this period there was also an increase in the civilian population, and the disintegration of the cooperatives and collective farming systems. Together these contributing elements caused the most serious deforestation


so far through firewood cutting for use and for sale, and conversion of the land to cultivation and livestock grazing. Together, these changes resulted in a decrease in the timber cut down by the SFEs. The official recorded output of State and Non-state entities during this period was only 88,500 m3 of logs and 11,768 Ste of firewood. However, it is certain that un-recorded exploitation was much more than recorded; the real number would have been much larger. Aware of the real situation of the exhausted forest of Cao Bang, in 1992 the Ministry of Forestry put a ban on exploitation of Cao Bang Forest in the State areas. Table 1: Official quantities of timber and firewood produced in Cao Bang

during historical periods. Recorded harvests by SFEs in Cao Bang.

1956-64 1970-80 1981-92

Roundwood logs of quality timber (m3) 136,280 186,800 88,500

Firewood (Ste) 77,000 208,000 11,768

Vau (bamboo) for Pulp (tons) 18,500

Vau for construction (No.) 258,700

Bingham bamboo for fishing rods (No.) 8,185,000

Bingham bamboo for poles (No.) 858,000

Note: see text for details of conditions during respective periods.

2.2 Early experience with forest land administration Denuded forest land is a wasted resource and increases risks of erosion, flooding, and degradation of water systems. Lack of harvestable timber, as at present, means that the Province receives no revenues from the forests and therefore has little money to re-invest for restoration. This necessitates engaging all stakeholders, including rural communities and individual farmers, for forest restoration. Experience has shown that an essential precursor to forest restoration is allocation to designated "owners" (individual or institutional). Central government policy states that, "Every forest should have an owner", in order to create and sustain stakeholder interest in protection, investment and good management. Farmers' motivation for forest investment and protection is utterly dependent on confidence that they will be able to reap the benefits. This means having secure and provable tenure to the land for the duration of the forest growth cycle. Such secure tenure is verified only by the issue of long-term Land Use Certificates, commonly called "Red Books", issued to prove allocation of the land by the competent authority, usually the District People’s Committee. Land allocation (LA) can be done rationally only after careful Land Use Planning (LUP; hence, LUPLA) to establish the condition and quality of the


land and its present and potential uses such as for critical watershed protection, production forest, special use forest, industrial plantations, orchards or other perennial woody crops like tea, grazing land for livestock, and sloping agricultural land for subsistence crop production. Land use planning is vital for the purpose of establishing the areas of different uses in order to minimise use conflicts, such as grazing of livestock on new plantations. It is also needed for finding out the areas involved in different uses for the purpose of planning for the needed investment. The situation in Cao Bang Province regarding allocation of forest land was complicated. Finding actual statistics was difficult because of the diffused responsibility for allocation and issuing of Red Books for forest land. Statistics used to be maintained by the Department of Land Administration at Province level. District Land Administration offices now report to District Agricultural and Rural Development Offices (ARDOs) (since 2002), and statistics are kept at District offices. No central record of forest land allocation then existed at Province level. The following estimate was based on best available data. Before 1999, allocation of forest land on a provisional basis ("green books") had been done for 54% of forest land (some 300,000 ha). This work had been carried out under Decree #02 CP of the Centre, and was undertaken by the Forest Protection Department with ultimately unsatisfactory results. The allocation was done without participatory method and landholders didn’t get land use right certificates (“Red Books”). Red Books had been issued on an "ad hoc" basis for special situations on a much smaller area. The "estimated" area covered by Red Books at the end of 2002 was 8% of forest land, most of it to the State Forest Enterprises (SFEs). The precise distribution of Red Books between individuals and institutions at that time is not available. It was done mainly in deforested zones previously under control of SFEs and with the goal of getting them re-planted by the SFEs. Then came the centrally-mandated abolition of all "non-economic" SFEs (which was all of them in Cao Bang!), and much of the Red Book allocated land in the books of the now-defunct SFEs became dormant. Actual farmer-controlled, red book allocated land was not known precisely, and was estimated (with no assurance of reliability) by the Planning Section of the DARD at about half, or 4% of the total forest land of the province. One reason for the initial slow pace of Red Book allocation was that the responsibility was not clearly defined and no agency was charged with follow-up to do it. Another reason was that many local disputes were arising because the provisional ("green book") allocations had been done as a desk exercise with no reference to the real situation on the ground, no consideration of natural boundaries, and reference to the boundaries of administrative units like Communes and villages proved to be inaccurate. A third reason was that verification on the ground was difficult and costly in terms of manpower and field expenses. And a fourth reason was that there was no systematic follow-up with technical financial support necessary for making the allocated forest land productive and profitable. The situation has now changed radically. The Decree #64 CP of the Central Government aims to deliver “Red Books” to the farmers, and there will be no more “Green Books”. Follow-up Policy Decisions now call on all Provinces to


complete the allocation of forest land as soon as possible, and preferably before the end of 2005. To achieve this will be very difficult, but the pressure to speed up is obvious.


3 Strategic Activities of CBBCRDP This chapter consists of a brief description of the main Project activities in the forestry sector with the logic of strategy underlying the activity. In some parts a lot of detail is provided. This is because of our belief that how we do something is more important than what we do. Lots of agencies and projects list the same kinds of activities. We distinguish activities of the CBBCRDP from those of the same name by describing a detailed account of why and how the activities are performed.

3.1 Enabling environment The Project strategy to encourage forest restoration was first, to develop an enabling environment that would favour progress on real social forestry in Cao Bang. We began by supporting study tours for selected officials from the Province, FPD, Land Administration, and Districts to nearby Provinces with long experience of participatory LUPLA. The next step towards improving the enabling environment was to increase levels and frequency of dialogue on forestry-related issues. Further dialogue led to a proposal for a “Leaders’ Seminar on a New Forest Restoration Strategy for Cao Bang” with Project support. The Leaders’ Seminar brought together key stakeholder agencies in the Provincial and District administrations, invited contributory papers on relevant topics from informed officials, and brought in a small number of National experts to introduce and/or explain the policy advances being made in the Centre and in other provinces. The main outcome of the “Leaders’ Seminar” was to stimulate fresh thinking and enhanced open-ness to new ideas on forest issues. It also established two “Working Groups” charged with formulating new policies for PPC attention, and adjustments to operations not requiring a policy decision. The Working Groups met frequently during the ensuing year, prompting much discussion, reflection, examination of existing practices and policy frameworks, and suggestions for reform or modification. PPC action followed on key issues such as clarification of lead and cooperating roles for LUPLA, and establishment of the Vietnam Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (VBARD) as a partner in delivering funds to farmers for forestry initiatives. The last major element of the enabling environment was to increase technical contacts between the Province and the Centre. This was done through inviting individual visits from Xuan Mai Forestry University and from the National Institutes for Forest Science (FSIV), Forest Inventory & Planning (FIPI), and Agricultural Science (VASI) (with mandate for agroforestry). Visits were followed by dialogue to agree a useful contributing role, and then issuing of Contracts for direct contacts through recurrent visits for research, monitoring and evaluation, and training. These recurrent visits to Cao Bang created and maintained individual contacts and friendships with Provincial administrative and technical officers which evolved into working professional relationships that are set to continue when the Project closes in 2004.


3.2 Identify and strengthen capacity A central policy of the Forestry Component of the CBBCRDP was to always work with and through a Provincial partner, so that the learning benefit of the activity, the skills and experience, would remain within the partner agency when the Project ended. This policy extended to staffing of the PMU. As far as possible, PMU forestry staff were recruited from partner agencies under secondment arrangements. The benefits of this extended in two directions: the PMU had a more direct line of communication and understanding of the partner agencies, and the agencies retained the experience of the Project within its own staff when the Project ended. The Project also provided support to the District ARDOs to enable direct contracting of one additional extension staff in each focal District. They were called, “District Facilitators”. This was to the meet the need for more staff that was created by the new funding and expanded programmes coming from the Project, and applied equally to Forestry and Agriculture Components. Formal procedures to create new staff positions through normal channels take a long time and the need was urgent. The contracted new staff had the same basic terms of employment and job description as other staff. It was foreseen and in fact actually happened, that they would be absorbed into the normal staff complement as new positions were created or to replace staff that resigned. In this way additional capacity was supported quickly and with minimal disturbance. 3.2.1 Roles and capacity within PPC, DARD, FPD, SFE Implementation of any strategy requires capacity for action in the field. The first step was to identify the functions and duties, staffing levels and distribution, and felt constraints of the main operational agencies in Cao Bang with an interest in the forestry sector. This was done through several sessions of dialogue and discussion at senior levels of each agency. Through this process, implementation capacity was identified as lying mainly within the District ARDOs and Forest Ranger Stations (FPD, or Kiem Lam). The FPD has the strongest institutional structure and largest operational staff in the province (quantity and quality of skilled staff). Furthermore, they have large numbers of staff acting at district level under the direction of the Department and their links with Districts and Communes are very close. For the administrative aspects, including management of funds for payment of field activities and office work in issuing “Red Books”, the main partner is the Project Management Board established by the DPC for the purpose of LUPLA. As to the operational field teams, the District ARDOs and the District-level Land Administration Departments under the ARDO are key partners with the FPD. So personnel with professional qualifications in forestry (and agriculture) existed in all Districts. However, most of the existing staff had no previous exposure to training or teaching methods such as preparation of a lesson plan, or use of audio-visual aids, and the FPD Forest Rangers training and duties were more akin to being forest police than as forest development partners.


3.2.2 Training: ToT & Learning-by-doing During October 2000, a Project Consultant helped Forestry and Agriculture Components to develop a plan for a “cascade” system of refresher and upgrading training to strengthen the skills of the agriculture and forestry extension services of the two Project Provinces (Steven Hunt, November 2000). The “cascade” concept involved Training of Trainers (ToT) who then became the trainers for delivering the same set of skills to the next level of staff, eventually down to the Commune and Village levels. Implementation of the basic plan began in early 2001 and continued for three full years. This was to train extension staff with skills in how to present information and the skills to pass it on to other, starting with selected trainees at Province- and District levels. An essential part of the concept was to apply the “Learning-by-doing” method. In this method, as a part of each training module, every trainee prepares and delivers a lesson plan to a sub-group of the trainees, thus gaining first-hand practical experience for the new skills. Two points are worth emphasizing here because they are absolutely critical for achieving the desired result. First, the ToT was designed for systematic cascade of the skills through four levels: Province, District, Commune, and Village. And second, at every level, the candidates are carefully and individually selected. At the Province and District levels, this is important so that the trainers for the lower levels are selected for having an aptitude as teachers. Selection is also important at the Commune and Village levels, because personnel at those levels are not employees and do not receive any salary. Therefore, they must be individuals who besides being capable of receiving instruction must also be well-rooted in the Village and Commune, and must be well known and respected by all residents. Often they are among the Commune or Village leadership, either as leaders themselves or as members of families of leaders, or in some other way well connected into the community network. Once trained through the ToT cascade, these Commune and Village-level Extension Workers are the key individuals responsible for selection of participants in all other activities, and then in delivering project-financed inputs and technical training down to farmer-level. For this, they receive no payment. Their interest is in the increased prestige and respect through being the channel for new information and inputs. They are also key to monitoring the success of various activities. They receive a small “Monitoring Fee” for checking on survival of trails and demonstrations, and reporting this back to the District ARDO and via the ARDO to the PMU. PMU staff cross-check such information by systematic supervisory visits to each field location in rotation during the year. 3.2.3 Technical Training for Grassroots Extension Workers The technical training for grassroots level extension workers was organised mainly by the Agriculture Component with support from Forestry. It was delivered through a cooperative programme with the Extension Centre and the District ARDOs. Details of the strategy, logic and planning for this crucial third level are included in Annex , to illustrate the care in identifying needs, selecting candidates, and preparations.


After the initial training in presentation and teaching skills, the technical programme consisted of 10 technical topics, provided in orderly sequence starting each year in May in focal districts (5 in Cao Bang). The training was delivered for 10 training days in each focal commune, spread over five months of the year to allow combinations of theory and practice according to the seasonal demands of the crops and tree activities. Such dispersed delivery also helps to take the pressure off the trainers and allows time for reviewing the experience so far. In addition it is better not to overburden trainees from commune and village level, who tend to have limited absorption capacity that rapidly becomes saturated with a long exhaustive training course. Prior to the actual implementation of the training, the Project supported the Extension Centre in each province to organize workshops for participatory development of the training curriculum and presentation materials. The methodology had been introduced earlier by the Mountainous Region Development Project (supported by the Swedish International Development Agency – SIDA) to the Department for Forestry Extension of MARD, of which two experts acted as facilitators. During the first workshop in CBBC-RDP, subject-matter specialists from Province and District levels identified ten training topics (see Table below) that are of major importance for farmers in each province. The provinces differed in their selection of priorities, but in both provinces agricultural topics were higher priority than forestry (see Table below), and the Agriculture Component took the lead in arranging training.

Table 2: Technical topics and training materials for Grassroots Level Extension Worker Training (Forestry & Agriculture)

Bac Kan Cao Bang 1. Hybrid rice intensive farming Pure rice variety intensive farming

2. Hybrid maize intensive farming Hybrid maize intensive farming

3. Planting and caring of soybean Planting and caring of soybean

4. Raising cattle Raising local cattle

5. Raising pigs as porker Raising pigs as porker

6. Raising industrial chicken Raising local chicken

7. Raising breeding sows Planting sugarcane

8. Planting and caring of stoneless Persimmon

Straw mushroom production

9. Planting and caring of Anise Mango multiplication by grafting

10. Natural forest enrichment Planting hybrid Acacia

Authors were selected to write the first drafts, as well as critics, editors and artists to give their contribution. During a second workshop held one month later the first draft was presented by the author and revised according to comments of the plenum which included technical staff, critics and editors as well as representatives of the target group, farmers and village extension


workers. Each topic went through three to four rounds of revision to be printed as the final draft. These documents were tested during the village extension worker training courses in the focal districts and thereby were evaluated by the trainers and the grassroots level extension workers themselves. Another meeting was organized between the Extension Centres of the two Provinces to develop monitoring guidelines for the grassroots level extension worker training in the Districts. The overall strategy included delivery to non-focal Districts. This step began, but was not completed, within the duration of the present Project. 3.2.4 ToT for forestry activities Based on their experience, the forestry-sector partner agencies (mainly FPD and Districts) asked for further support for more specialised staff training. The main topics included social forestry (for CBFM), LUPLA, GIS/GPS for LUPLA mapping, and remote sensing interpretation for satellite imagery. Training in these topics was delivered starting in late 2002 using the same ToT approach and “Learning by doing” method. These training courses ran concurrently with the second and third level cascades of Extension methodology ToT. Fundamental to success was rigorous and careful planning, identifying key skilled and experienced top-level trainers, and careful selection of trainees, especially those for the top ToT level. To illustrate, for application of participatory LUPLA in the Districts, Province-level training was provided to twenty highly selected future Trainers from four stakeholder agencies (District Land Administration, ARDO, District FPD, and Provincial FPD). One month of practical experience in Duc Long Commune consolidated this through “Learning-by-doing” to create an expert LUPLA Team (as well as completing the actual LUPLA of the commune). The next step split these experts, now experienced, into two new Teams where they became the Trainers to extend their skills to further staff. They carried out LUPLA in two more Communes of Hoa An District, while preparing fresh staff to transfer the new skills to two new Districts in a further round. Subsequently, this was further extended to a third cascade level, so that by the Project end there were sixteen trained and experienced LUPLA teams with capacity to carry out LUPLA in about 40 Communes per year as well as continuing with other regular duties. Linked to this and following about one month behind the LUPLA, was a similar ToT Cascade for Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM). This also reached the third tier of the Cascade during the Project duration. 3.2.5 Integrated field approach: an example A major consideration for Forestry activities is that the approach in each community is comprehensive and integrated, providing coherent and sustained support towards the goal of self-sustainable Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM). This means that several selected activities are delivered in an orderly and planned sequence, to provide mutual support and reinforcement. To illustrate this, an example is given below of the support provided to one Community, the Commune of Na Sac, in Ha Quang District. The Commune is situated 50 km northwest of Cao Bang Town. It has been a focal commune


from 2001. The villages participating in implementation of project-supported activities are Lung Pia in the higher-altitude sub-zone and Kep Ke, Coc Sau and Po Nghieu in the low-altitude sub-zone. The following Table presents the forestry-sector activities in Na Sac that have been supported by the Project since 2001.

Table 3: Integrated forestry support to Na Sac commune, Ha Quang district.

Forestry Activity Amount Starting Date

Present view

1. New Plantation 16.5 ha 1/2001 Survival satisfactory, growing well, well protected

2. Natural regeneration 330.9 ha 3/2001 Well protected, species diversity increasing

3. Regeneration with Additional planting

5.4 ha 3/2001 Well protected, good survival of additional planting, good growth of regeneration.

4. Planting of fruit trees 114 5/2001 Survival 87% by 2003.

5. Trials on Custard apple growing

6 hhs 6/2001 Successful for 2 hhs in 2001, in 2002 re-tried in the other 4 hhs

6. Trials on Bamboo shoot planting

10 hhs 4/2002 Well established, growing normally, not yet shooting for harvest.

7. CBFM Meeting House one 6/2003 Participatory design, 25% local contribution. Not yet complete.

8. Training in Commune 3 courses 1/2001 VDP, CBFM, ToT for extension

9. Training in Village 3 courses 1/2002 VDP, CBFM, various technical topics

10. Cross visits 3 visits All yrs To other Districts & Provinces for innovation

11. Workshop in Commune

2 HT 2002 To review progress

12. Supported Village Development Planning

2 All yrs Villages and Commune are able to prepare their own development plans annually.

3.3 The constituent elements for FLUPLA The main result of the FLUPLA process is to issue farmers with official Land Use Certificates ("Red Books") for forestry land. The main result of Red Book allocation is that it gives farmers confidence in tenure of the forest land, sufficient to encourage investment (including family labour and protection) with the expectation of being able to command the fruits of improved management for their own, and the community's, benefit.


Forest land is by its very nature a complex mosaic of land forms, slopes, soil types, exposures, and present uses. It is seldom realised that a thorough and sustainable allocation of forest land for productive use is likewise unavoidably complex, requiring attention to many technical and administrative details. Responsibility for these procedures is dispersed among several institutions and agencies at several levels. This is illustrated in the following figure (Please see next page), adapted from SFDP Song Da. The legal rights and responsibilities conferred on farmers receiving allocated forest are also complex. To give a brief flavour of what is involved, the constituent elements are listed below, with further details included as Annex 7 (based in part on the FSSPP Matrix of Affiliation; see Annex 5).

Figure 1: Flow chart of Institutional linkages for LUPLA

3.3.1 Land Use Classification • Technical Criteria, Policy and Legal Instruments for Land Classification. • Current Land Administration Data and Sources. • Land Classification and Land-Allocation (Current Status, Regionally Used

Best Practices, Experiences). • Mapping and Designation of Timber Supply Zones.


• Potential Analysis of Sites for Forestry Plantations. • Data on forestry inventory and land tenure. 3.3.2 Planning • Legislation Related to Land Use Planning for Investment Purposes. • Organizational and Institutional Responsibilities (Contractual

Mechanisms). • Preparation Procedures of Development Plans which Guide Natural

Resources Management. • Macro and Meso Level Land Use Planning Systems and Procedures to

Identify Priority Areas for Investment, consistent with Central and Provincial policies and goals.

• Micro-level Integrated Land Use Planning (Current Status, Regionally Used Best Practices, Experiences).

• Planning framework, which integrate all actors see following organisation chart) of the forest sector.

• Development of Provincial Forest Programs (Experiences, Implication to the National Strategy).

• Mapping Standards and Technologies, Current Standards versus Requirements; use of GPS/GIS technology.

• Cost for Present Classification and Land Use Planning versus Improved Procedures

• Development of Forest Management Plans for Natural Forests (Experiences, Best Practices, Balance of Present Know-how)

• Development of Village- or Community-level Forest Management & Action Plans.

• Market linkages for small-scale forest development enterprises (e.g. Community Forests).

• Linkages to sources of finance (such as 661 funds, commercial sources) for development.

3.3.3 Land Allocation • Legislative Procedure for Land Allocation. • Organizational and Institutional Responsibility for Land Allocation at the

ground level (District and Commune). • Available of Land and Resource Valuation Methodology (Potentials and

Shortcomings). • Guidelines on the Allocation and Equitable Distribution of Forest Land to

Households, Communities, State and Commercial Entities. • Demarcation of Allocated Lands on the ground, and GPS definitions for

mapping without overlaps. • Forest Boundary Definition of Participants of the 5MHRP (for mapping and

for financing of developments). • Monitoring and Evaluation Instruments of Economic Development

Following Land Allocation. 3.3.4 Organisation chart of linkages The linkages among key stakeholders in forest land management, and therefore also in the procedures for allocation or forest land, are shown graphically in the organisation chart in Annex 4.


3.4 Land Use Planning (LUP) and Land Allocation (LA) Early in 2003, the Cao Bang PPC authorised a fresh approach to allocation of forestry land through a pilot beginning in a single Commune of one District for introduction of Participatory LUPLA. This was the start of a carefully planned "learning-by-doing" ToT cascade as follows. The first few months of experience led to a better understanding of the inter-agency needs and enabled development of administrative procedure, cost norms, and financial Guidelines. A LUPLA Management Board was created at District level, and produced hard facts on the time and budget needed. Using these, the Project management and later the Province was convinced and approved a set of agreed cost Norms for LUPLA. The Provincial People's Committee issued a Decision that for the first time clearly assigned the lead duty of carrying out LUPLA to the FPD, and tasked the LMD (now part of the DARD) and the Districts to cooperate and support the process as required. The Project management approved a sufficient budget for 2003 to expand the pilot programme over 5 Communes in the pilot District. Hands-on learning with constant coaching and guidance were used to develop a carefully selected core group of LUPLA trainers including FPD Rangers and land administration staff in the pilot district, and some Rangers from adjacent Districts. This latter group was selected with a view to expanding the programme to further Districts in the next year. This round of experience ended with eight experienced LUPLA Teams, each able to conduct LUPLA independently. Each further round included two more “new” Rangers to form the basis for another new Team (for other Districts). The first few rounds needed about 4-6 weeks to carry out the field work for LUPLA in one Commune, and another 3-4 weeks for the administrative work involved in issuing the Red Books. Later rounds went faster as Teams gained experience, and by the end of 2004 most teams were able to complete a Commune in 2-3 weeks of field work. By the end of 2004, the Province had the capacity to complete LUPLA in at least 24 Communes per year. Further expansion of the numbers of trained and experienced Teams will increase capacity to carry LUPLA in probably 48 Communes in 2005. Unfortunately that may not happen unless there is a new project with the same priorities and with donor support for the costs. The Province has very little money for this purpose from internal revenues, and money received from the Central government under the 5MHRP (see later) is strictly tied to actual forest restoration activities and cannot be used for the necessary underpinning land allocation. It must further be said that the pace and success of training for LUPLA was supported and enabled by simultaneously providing re-orientation training to all FPD Rangers in concepts and practice of Social Forestry. This was done through a separate group of key experienced trainers (from Xuan Mai University Social Forestry Training Centre) using the same principle of learning-by-doing. The training was delivered through the medium of actually training groups of village people, based on a simplified curriculum that concentrated on key skills (participatory tools) and concepts (another subject


needing another paper). This programme was coordinated with and preceded the LUPLA training by roughly two months, so that there was a constant stream of freshly reoriented Rangers, skilled in participatory tools, ready to enter the training in LUPLA. 3.4.1 Summary of the basic steps for LUPLA The basic concepts for LUPLA can be stated simply and in brief. Application of these concepts to real situations in the field involves huge variation in the details, demanding experience and flexibility to adapt the method to the reality. It is beyond the scope of this report to go into such details. Complete Guidelines, which have been developed through the experience of this cooperation programme, and are under consideration for final authorisation by the PPC for general application. The summarised steps are as follows:

1. Policy framework detailing the principles to be applied regarding land categories for consideration and eligibility for receiving shares.

2. Advance notice to the Commune; then a pubic meeting to explain LUPLA, inform about key policies, and invite discussion. Initiate local thinking about the Land Use Plan.

3. Mobilise a field team to the Commune, including District-level representation from key stakeholder Departments (Forest Protection, Forest Management Board, Land Administration, Agriculture, NRE) with necessary field equipment and supplies.

4. Draw up a Commune-level Land Use Plan, with participation of farmers and according to policies of Provincial and District Master Plans. At this time, the boundaries of different classes of forest land must be clearly established. The LUP must include provision to include all existing and anticipated future land use needs. This could include replacement of existing uses with alternative ways to meet the need, for example livestock grazing land might be replaced with intensive stall feeding or cultivation of fodders.

5. Identify on the ground boundaries of individual HH shares of land to be allocated. This will include portions of production forest land often called “unused” land. Often the HH shares will already be well known to the farmers and will largely conform to present usage (formal or informal). This is the opportunity to raise issues of equity and marginal re-distribution if required. It is also the time to settle border disputes within the Village and/or Commune. If previously unused forest land (production or protection, with or without real trees on it) is to be allocated, a fair distribution with logical connections to other land holdings will need to be agreed.

6. Measure and map the agreed boundaries. Make further adjustments if actual measurements reveal inequities not visually obvious.

7. Complete the individual HH Application Forms and collect required signatures from farmers and CPC, and submit to DPC for approval for Red Books, and to FMB for issuing of benefit-sharing Contracts (including protection only and reforestation plus protection.

8. DPCs and FMBs are then responsible for approving and issuing the documents. If amendments are required, documents are returned to


the CPC. If there are conflicts with other Communes, this is the level at which they must be resolved.

9. DPCs and FMBs submit returns of allocated land to the FDS-D. 10. Although not strictly a part of LUPLA, a critical aspect for sustainability

is active and continuing support for development of local Forest Management Regulations and development plans (CBFM; see also the following section of this Report). This tends to be the duty of the District Forest Rangers of the FPD, following norms and templates issued by the FPD. The local FMB will normally include plans for reforestation by plantation of at least part of the land so will involve significant investments. They also need funds for implementation. The money for protection forest land may come from 661 funds administered by the FMBs, and for production forest land may come from Projects or from private or commercial sources.

3.4.2 Contracts and benefit-sharing Provincial policy as at 2004 is to press for developing large-scale plantations of fast-growing tree species suitable for a “raw material production area” to support future wood-using industries. Current Guidelines for allocation of forest land include retaining a proportion of protection and production forest land within state ownership under management of Communes, District-level Forest Management Boards (FMBs), and/or Province-level State Forest Enterprises (SFEs). These entities are under policy guidelines to Contract the plantation and protection of such forest land to individual or groups of households. The contracts provide for major payments in the first three years to pay for the labour of establishing and initial tending of the plantations, and then annual smaller payments for protection until harvest. The value of the harvest is then shared between the land “owner” and the contracting households under terms that are spelled out in the Contracts (within the guidelines). Households are also permitted usufruct rights to non-timber forest products during the growth cycle of the trees. Such Contracts provide an alternative means of giving households the rights to forest land. When the cost of the initial investment is paid by Central 661 funds, the HHs receive less of the harvest value than if the HHs pay the initial investment, whether by themselves or by a Project on behalf of the HHs.

3.5 Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) Another important adjunct programme is continuation of the training in Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) at village or village-cluster level, carefully synchronised with the carrying-out of LUPLA, so the farmers are empowered to make sound use of the allocated forest land. This must then be supported with sufficient seed money to enable them to actually carry out the first steps of the to-be-generated Community Forestry Development Action Plan. It is important to involve the whole community in forest management because collective action is needed, for example:

1. for effective protection of planted areas from grazing livestock,


2. for community regulations on harvesting of timber and non-timber products,

3. for fire breaks and fire-fighting, 4. for harvest operations, 5. for production's price negotiation with traders

Part of support to CBFM is a continuing dialogue with financial institutions to develop a realistic policy on providing credit for forestry investment, at interest rates that reflect the long-term nature of forest investment. A Red Book can be used as security (collateral) for a loan. Without a Red Book, farmers cannot get a loan for forestry-related investments on forestry land. 3.5.1 The main steps of CBFM 1. Identify productive forest boundary and define the legal owner. Usually this involves a community-based land use planning and land allocation. This is why training for CBFM should always be integrated with training in and then carrying out LUPLA. 2. Check forest resources and classify based on forest status. The forest classification system is useful for assessment of management operations to improve the quality of forest resources and subsequently benefits for the villagers. An inventory is needed to determine timber volume and forest condition by age, canopy density and regeneration. This will normally allow management options to be listed. 3. Define production objectives according to the needs and aspirations of the community, within the limits of the resource available. The villagers' needs from the forest (e.g. for a mixture of timber and fuelwood) are determined, then becomes the beginning of a management plan. 4. Develop an operational management plan Decision 178 allows for forestland that was allocated to communes or village leaders (in the name of villagers) under Decision 02/CP to now come under active and sustainable forest management. This means that communities can harvest forest products up to prescribed limits, and can enjoy 100% of the benefits after paying basic tax of 5-10%. Such a plan has to be comprehensive, based on the available resources and the production objectives. To be practical and realistic, it has to include sample plots to determine productivity or various forest types and areas, plans for silvicultural interventions when necessary, and plans for development and/or protection. Most importantly, it must include a harvesting plan, so that villagers can see when various kinds of forest products can be harvested and material benefits can be realised. (See Annex 2 for a summary of the detailed steps to CBFM.)

3.6 Forest restoration activities & technology development 3.6.1 The Five Million ha. Reforestation Prog. (5MHRP) For the purpose of promoting supporting and financing forest restoration throughout Vietnam, the central government has articulated the “Five Million Hectare Reforestation Programme” (5MHRP). This provides detailed


specifications and guidelines for forest restoration through different levels of investment, from simple protection of natural regeneration, through various intensities of enrichment planting or gap-filling, to outright plantation of monoculture or mixed species stands of fast-growing industrial species. There is an accompanying detailed schedule of cost norms for each step of each kind of intervention that is needed for forest restoration. These norms are elaborated separately for various ecological regions, land forms and tree species. The Central government has further decided to provide funds to the Provinces to pay for implementing the 5MHRP. These funds are provided under Programme 661; hence, the term “661” is sometimes used interchangeably with 5MHRP. Under this programme, the use of the 661 funds is restricted or prioritised to protection forest land, on the logic that the protection of critical watersheds and river margins from erosion is in the public interest. Restoration of production forest land should be possible to finance out of investment funds from commercial sources. Where forest restoration activities include partial or complete plantation or enrichment, 661 funds can be paid as subsidies payable to participating farmers. In this case, the value of the harvest is to be shared with the supervising state entity, such as the FPD, an FMB or a SFE. However, where a Project pays the farmers for this initial investment using grant aid and not loan aid, the households shall own the full value of the trees themselves and can realise the full value at harvest time. This was the situation in the areas supported directly with funds from the CBBCRDP. 3.6.2 Selection of forest restoration technologies An important part of the procedure is help farmers to get the knowledge and skills to apply the optimum silvicultural technologies, to ensure that they realise the benefits they want at minimum cost. This is part of the total CBFM package. The procedure followed is normally participatory, and depends on the Land use potential, the actual present use(s), and the Household capacity (labour and resources). In general, suitable technical packages have been developed for use in situations of different levels of forest degradation, which tend to depend on the degree and duration of intervention causing the degradation and on the remaining natural propagating stock of trees. Within the set of technical options, the detailed selection of tree species to use then depends on the production objectives of the participating farmers. Some of the common combinations are illustrated in the following table:

Integrated

Forest Restoration Programme (17) Page 27 18/11/2004

Table 4: Levels of forest degradation, and corresponding restoration technologies available to farmers.

Degree and type of forest degradation Forest restoration technology

1. natural secondary regrowth forest 1. simple protection of natural regeneration

2. patchy degradation due to shifting cultivation

2. patch enrichment planting

3. mild species depletion, rich advanced natural regeneration

3. protection with enrichment and/or selection thinning

4. high to extreme species depletion, patchy and weak regeneration

4. patch-replanting with enrichment

5. shrubs and pasture, long duration of grazing pressure

5. entire plantation

6. conversion to sloping-ground agriculture

6. SALT with trees and/or shrubs on contours

Each category of forest land carries with it certain rules regarding appropriate ownership and management, financing of restoration activity, and corresponding harvesting limits. The following table illustrates the main combinations found.


Table 5: Land classification and management options

land category

agriculture: <10% slope, good soil

forest land: >10% slope, suitable for trees

special use forest: ecological reserves, parks, resorts, historical sites

special management

Management options

other forest lands: with trees possible owners and managers

without trees possible owners and managers

protection forest watershed, river & lake margins, coastal zone

protect timber harvest restricted to <10%/yr/ha

FMBs HHs by contract or Red Book

protect natural regeneration or plantation, finance by 661

FMBs HHs by contract or Red Book

production forest all other forest land

any silviculturally sound harvesting system with regeneration plan

SFEs HHs by contract or Red Book

protect natural regeneration, or plantation

SFEs HHs by contract or Red Book

unused land & land being used for other than the planned uses

allocate to an owner, manage as production or protection as suitable

SFE or FMB HHs by Red Book

urgent LUPLA, allocate to HHs SALT and part plantation

HHs, Red Book for SALT plantations by Red Book or contract


3.6.3 Supporting component activities Each element of the overall strategy required certain supporting activities besides the main thrust of the activity. Most supporting activities concerned creation or strengthening of capacity. Some concerned development and testing of new technologies, such as for propagation of indigenous hardwood tree species. 1. Trials and demonstrations of plantations and agroforestry with crops. See

Chapter 4 for a summary of the trials and demonstrations established and maintained by project partners. Evaluations of a representative sample of forest plantations and of agroforestry trials were conducted in 2003-04 by the FSVI and VASI, whose final Reports are available on the Project Website.

2. Project policy of requiring at least 10% of indigenous species, to encourage and sustain biodiversity and a longer-term planning horizon for forest restoration. Problems of availability of propagating material and performance were also addressed (see next item).

3. Screening trials of high-value indigenous hardwoods, in comparison with fast-growing indigenous and exotic tree species. In cooperation with the Forest Seed Company, who supplied some of the planting material, three long-duration trials were established in statistically-valid and replicated layout. Survival was poor for some species owing to difficult propagation and poor seedling quality.

4. Establish demonstrations of Sloping Agricultural Land Technology (SALT) Models in all focal Districts, to include propagating mother stock for a variety of grasses and leguminous shrub species.

5. Farmer-operated village-level tree nurseries: see Section 0 and Annex 2. 6. Development of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) such as chestnuts,

honey, mushrooms, medicinal plants and preliminary investigation of incense, orchids (sustainable management). The chestnut development programme in particular was successful and highly appreciated by participants and the Province. Further development cooperation is planned possibly with another donor.

7. Training in GPS, GIS, and interpretation of remote sensing satellite imagery, to create within-Province capacity. Together with supply of computers and hand-held GPS sensors, this enabled partners to speed up the mapping and resolution of allocated forest land as well as to rationalise synoptic and local levels of land use planning.

8. Support to Cooperative construction of CBFM houses, where meetings can be held in a neutral community-based atmosphere for discussing forest management regulations and development plans for investment and distribution of benefits. It was intended, and indeed worked out (see Box), that such CBFM houses should contribute to fostering a community spirit of cooperation.

Inauguration of the CBFM House at Na Hoai village, Nam Tuan Commune

Nam Tuan Commune is an hour off the main road to China, half an hour north of Cao Bang, so it's peaceful, almost remote. Na Hoai village lies within a circle of low hills that slope up gradually on the outside, and descend steeply inwards. Thus the inner surfaces retain a dense cover of secondary forest clinging to slopes too steep for livestock. Within the contained pool of paddy land, the CBFM House is on a low central mound with winding angular foot-tracks radiating to clusters of houses on the margins.

The CBFM house was built entirely by village labour (700 person-days, worth VND 18.9 mio) and the Project contributed VND 25 million for the


materials. They chose the design; not a stilt house that you or I might have preferred, but a low-maintenance modern brick structure in three rooms and tiled roof, with internal plastic ceilings so it was cool despite blazing sun.

The inauguration programme, on 26 September 2004, was thoughtfully scheduled so as to coincide with the autumn Moon festival, as the song said, so that those born in the village but working far away could come back for this momentous occasion and help celebrate. The Head of the Women's Union took me by the arm when we arrived and led me into the centre of the action. The local people are Tay ethnicity. They had arranged a simple and beautiful ceremony, a couple of short speeches by village notables interspersed with songs written and sung by village people. The first was in the lovely lilting Cao Bang style of singing that, translated for me verse by verse, told the story of the CBFM house as a very moving epic. The song ended with verses saying the process had created and strengthened the village community, and the house itself has grown from CBFM into being the very heart of village culture and life.

3.6.4 Village nurseries Private tree nurseries at village and farmer levels help to overcome chronic lack of tree seedlings of the desired species and eliminate the problems of and mortality incurred through long-distance transportation from large central nurseries. Initially, the production of the private nurseries was contracted by the Project’s partners for free distribution to participating farmers. The goal of self-supporting nurseries was pursued by a staged transition through, initially, a voucher system, then a partial payment by the receiving farmers. It is intended to lead to simple cash transactions, which will require another year or so to achieve. In this way, farmers themselves exercise choice and a degree of informed quality control on the nurseries. The bank later reimburses them at the relevant subsidy norm applied by the 5MHRP.

The problem

Central procurement of tree seedlings is always complicated. Much staff time is used in organising or locating sources, the maturity stage of the seedlings often does not suit the intended planting site and season, and transportation is expensive. Difficulties in procurement and distribution can result in late delivery, missing the optimum planting time. Mortality after planting may be high owing to desiccation and/or damage during transport and handling. In many forestry programmes, field activities suffer from delays or failures because of the lack of tree seedlings of the right species and quality, in time and on the planting site. Recovery from such delays may not be possible in the same year because of seasonal requirements. The result is loss of an entire year from the planting programme. More seriously, there is a demoralising and de-motivating effect on the participating farmers.

The solution

Village-based, farmer-operated nurseries can provide a solution to problems of this kind. The advantages include:

1. Seedlings are available in the right place. No problems of transport, and reduced damage during handling.

2. Seedlings are of the right tree species, provided that the operators find out what trees their neighbours want to plant.

3. With proper training, seedlings are of the right age, size and quality. When other farmers are also trained, they can exercise quality control through local supervision and selection.


4. Operating a tree nursery is an income-generation activity that can be done by poor people with little land, or even with no land if they can rent a small plot near to a water supply.

5. Cost to the State is reduced when farmers buy their own seedlings from a local supplier.

For more details of the how to set up village nurseries evolved by the Project, please see Annex 2.

3.7 Financial aspects The Project has linked the forestry programmes that it supports in Cao Bang with the 5MHRP including adoption of the schedule of subsidies that it specifies. This is directly in line with the Project goal of poverty alleviation as well as forest restoration. It is also in line with the Forest Sector Support Programme and Partnership, of which the E.C. is a signatory partner. An important question of the 5MHRP is how the subsidy payments are assessed and delivered to the farmers. In this case, the Project opened a dialogue with the Province leading to adoption of the approach pioneered in Vietnam by the KfW (German Aid Bank), which separates the function of technical guidance and verification from financial payments. A technical partner, in Cao Bang usually the Forest Protection Department (FPD), provides technical support to farmers and verifies achievement of planting or protection targets. A separate financial partner is a semi-commercial bank (the Vietnam Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development – VBARD). The bank opens individual farmer accounts and deposits the relevant subsidy amount in each account. Upon verification by the FPD of step-wise achievement of goals, the bank releases the subsidy amount relevant to each step.


4 Achievements It is common for achievements to be listed in terms of activity outputs, such as numbers of trainees, hectares of forest plantations, computers handed over. Such a compilation is available in Project Annual and final Reports, and a Summary is included here in Annex 8. In this Report, we are more concerned with less tangible achievements that are harder to express quantitatively and harder to verify physically. Readers can judge these achievements only through an intimate knowledge of the context of the concerned agencies and departments.

4.1 Milestone events for Forestry Component • ToT for Extension methods & skills started (Nov 2002) • Leaders’ Seminars (Sept 2003)

1. CB (overall forest restoration strategy) 2. BK (sustainable forest management)

• ToT for CBFM started (Jan 2003) • ToT for LUPLA started (March 2003) • Hoa An DPC Decisions (early 2003)

1. create a LUPLA Managements Board to coordinate agency inputs 2. authorize administrative guidelines and cost norms

• Cao Bang PPC Decisions (mid 2003) 1. authorize participatory review of LUPLA with KL as lead agency 2. authorize farmer payments through VBARD

• Bac Kan PPC Decision to authorize farmer payments through VBARD (late 2003)

• First CBFM House inaugurated (June 2004) • Chestnut Processing Centre inaugurated (Sept 2004

4.2 Synoptic-level Achievements 1. Partners at three levels (Provincial, District and Communes) now possess

much improved skills, knowledge, experience, and equipment. They are able to organise and deliver complex and coordinated programmes with better skills and confidence. They have also changed their attitude and way of working, towards a more capable and willing “service provider” for village people.

2. The skills and experience of partner agencies are sustainable. Programmes started can be continued after the Project has ended although more slowly because levels of funding will be lower (unless a successor Project provides additional funding).

3. In Cao Bang, participatory allocation of forest lands has increased the resource base for rural households and enabled direct management for sustainable harvests of forest products (timber and non-timber), with long-term prospects for broad-based poverty reduction. For the first time ever in Cao Bang, some ethnic H’Mong households received Red Books for forestry land. In Bac Kan, some administrative obstacles remain to be solved before large-scale allocation of forest land to farmers, with issue of Red Books, can go ahead.


4. Villages and farmers in pilot areas and focus Districts are better able to perceive, plan and carry out their own forestry-sector activities. This is achieved partly through embedded training in CBFM and technical extension methods within village extension agents.

5. The use of the VBARD for delivering forest-restoration payments to farmers has introduced institutional banking and credit for the first time to many farmers in remote communes. It has also accelerated the outreach of the VBARD by strengthening their “mobile banking” programme.

6. A vital supporting component is the network of village-level farmer-operated tree nurseries, self-sustaining with on-site mother trees of selected industrial tree species and quality horticultural varieties of fruit species. This combination contributes to poverty-reduction for poor households directly through profitable sale of seedlings, and indirectly through medium-term and long-term benefits from production and sale of fruits and timber forest products.

7. On the synoptic scale, the Provinces benefit from progressively increasing quantity and quality of forest cover and improved community-based protection and management of critical watershed forests.


5 Lessons Learned Many lessons were learned about technical aspects of forest development in Cao Bang, and about the statutory and institutional framework within which it is done. Many of these are described above. More important are the lessons for improving the delivery and sustainability of Project inputs. The lessons for project design, approach, and management are different, and it is these that are summarised in this section. We must stress again that an important aspect is, HOW we do these things. Many people use these words but the reality becomes different for various reasons and changing conditions. Constant attention to the details is vital for sustainable achievement of goals. 1. Improving the “enabling environment” is extremely important and should be

the first priority. Success in any kind of field activities depends on an intimate understanding of the political attitudes, statutory framework, sector policies, administrative arrangements, and even the personalities of the individuals involved.

2. Building of implementation capacity is effective and efficient when the steps are taken in the right sequence and method. Needs assessment must be participatory. Training should be by highly selective ToT and using the “Learning by doing” methods. Candidate trainees must be embedded in the partner agency (s) and in the Communes and villages.

3. Partner agencies should have maximum self-responsibility for programmes. To do this successfully also requires careful selection of partners. Criteria for selection must be based on more subtle qualities than staffing and resources. Identify energetic individuals and respond to opportunities.

4. Management and programme planning must retain sufficient flexibility to enable “mid-stream corrections” and ability to respond to changing situations. New Decrees, Decisions, and Policies are issuing all the time. Any of them could make a planned activity unnecessary or even counter-productive.


6 References Asian Development Bank. 2002. TA 3255-VIE Draft Final Report. Study on the

Policy and Institutional Framework for Forest Resources Management. ADB / MARD.

Hunt, Steven. 2000. Consultancy Report on Short-Term Straqtegic Planning for Forestry Extension and Training. CBBCRDP, Cao Bang.

MARD. 2001. Five Million Hectare Reforestation Program Partnership. Synthesis Report. MARD, ICD, 5MHRP Partnership Secretariat.

Sheelagh O’reilly and Bo Lager. October 2001. Draft outline guidelines for the proposed approach to participatory forest management planning for community forest areas of Ha Giang Province. MARD / MRDP.

Vu Long. 2002. Status and importance of village Forest Management in the Northern Provinces of Vietnam. National Working group on Community Forestry, Hanoi.


7 Annexes Annex 1: Basic steps towards CBFM The following summary table is taken from the Forest Sector Support Programme Matrix of Affiliation, text description of component actions.

1 Clarification of forest land allocation a Overview over forest land (ha) and ownership categories:

- Unallocated forest land to be allocated to CFM system - Forest land already allocated to households to be included in CFM system - Forest land allocated to organisations to be included in CFM system

b Clarification of arrangements with households/organisations that have been allocated with forest land and agree to include this land in the CFM system

c Preparation of proposal for forest land allocation to villages communities/group of households that will participate in the CFM system

2 Inventory of forest resources including classification of forest land (protection, production, special use)

3 Preparation of forest development and utilization planning base

a Long term forest development and utilization plan (50 years)

b Five-year forest management and investment plan

c Yearly Working and Harvesting Plan

d Economic feasibility

e Benefit sharing arrangements

4 Establishment of community-based controlling and reporting systems

5 Implementation of training / coaching measures

a Inventory methods

b Forest development and management planning

c Economic feasibility and benefit sharing arrangements

d Harvesting and Processing

e Community organizations development

6 Implementation of yearly work and harvesting plans

a Reforestation/Afforestation

b Tending

c Harvesting

7 Evaluation of performance during establishment phase

8 Improvement / adjustment of technical, organizational and financial arrangements as requested by evaluation, if any


Annex 2: Village tree nursery concept and modalities

Objective: To create a network of small-scale village nurseries, farmer-operated and quality-controlled, and self-sustaining through development of effective local demand for tree seedlings.

Difficulties for establishing Village nurseries Some (but only a few) farmer-operated nurseries are successfully operating in different provinces of Vietnam. But there have been difficulties with establishing such nurseries on a big scale:

1. Lack of a suitable training system, to develop nursery management knowledge and skills in a large number widely-separated field locations.

2. Lack of suitable propagating material (seeds, cuttings, mother trees) in remote rural locations.

3. Lack of an effective market; local farmers not convinced enough to pay for buying tree seedlings.

4. Lack of farmers’ access to necessary inputs such as bags or other containers for growing seedlings, fertilisers, pesticides, or other equipment.

5. Lack of silvicultural knowledge and propagating material for desirable indigenous tree species.

The present proposal offers potential solutions to these difficulties. The solutions include well-designed training programmes, appropriate credit (e.g. through savings & credit group loans), periodic expert advice, networking and organisational arrangements for distribution of inputs.

A training network Most Districts have one or two medium- to large-scale tree nurseries that are operated either by a government agency or are privately operated under production contracts to a government agency in part using Project money. These nurseries are a resource of skilled and experienced nursery operators. We propose to extend these skills as follows.

1. Request all programme Communes to identify potential village-based nursery operators within one month. Provide Guidelines and criteria will be for selecting candidate “Trainee Nursery Operators”. Project and Extension Centre staff will jointly develop and apply the guidelines.

2. Existing contracted nursery operators at District or Commune level will be informed of a change in policy. From next year new contracts will be issued only to nursery operators who agree to participate in a Training Programme for village-level nursery operators. The existing nurseries can expect to continue to receive contracts for some years, but at smaller quantities of seedlings and for more specialised tree species.

3. At present, we suggest that 50% of the estimated total seedling demand for next year’s project and non-project tree planting activities will be contracted to existing contract holders. The other 50% will come from the new Village-level nurseries being created.

4. The proportions and species mix available to contract-holders may be further varied in future years according to needs.

5. In practice, the seedling numbers estimated for production by Village-level nurseries will be for 100% of estimated local demand in each village, with the expectation that in the first year their success rate for seedlings of good size and quality may be only 50%. In case they have a surplus, it will


be available for open-market sale to meet local demand, or to make up any shortages in other nearby villages.

6. The Training Programme will be on-the-job, learning-by-doing. The Trainee Nursery Operators will come to their nearby District or Commune nursery for at least one full day, once or twice per month depending on seasonal requirements for nursery operations to be carried out. There would be about 10-20 Trainee Nursery Operators for each larger nursery. They will receive instruction from the experienced nursery operators for the tasks to be performed that month or week and will then practice that task or skill on-the-job by doing it in the same nursery.

7. The Trainee Nursery Operators will then return home to their own farms and do the same task (necessary that month or week) in their own nursery. In effect, this is like the system of “Farmers’ Field School” (FFS) training for agricultural skills and knowledge. We can call this approach, “Farmers’ Field Schools for Village-Level Nurseries”, or FFS-VLN.

8. The benefit to the Trainee Nursery Operators is that they will get training and experience on-the-job, and will also receive some DSA and travel expenses. The benefit to the Larger Nursery Operators will be that they receive “free-of-cost” work done in their nurseries, and an assurance of next year’s production contract from the ARDO.

9. It is expected that in the first year, the number of species that the Trainee Nursery Operators can learn to produce will be few, perhaps only 2-3 species each. It will be important to manage the placing of Trainee Nursery Operators in suitable larger nurseries, so that they can get the right set of skills for the right set of species. Their skills and the range of species that they can produce will be increased year-by-year by repeat FFS-VLN, rotating among larger nurseries producing different tree species.

10. When starting up their own nurseries, Trainee Nursery Operators will receive enough tree seedlings of the right species (clones for hybrid Acacias) to establish a small mother tree orchard of their own. They will be encouraged and helped to expand their mother tree orchard, year by year, with other species and/or clones.

11. As the nursery operators develop basic skills, arrange for regular training and upgrading, including for example grafting of valuable horticultural fruit trees and ornamental species.

Creating Effective Local Demand Demand for tree seedlings is created when farmers want to plant trees. Effective demand is when they have enough money to buy the tree seedlings that they want to plant, and a supply of the seedlings that they want is available to them at a fair price. So to create effective local demand, there are several pre-requisites, or pre-conditions:

1. Farmers must want to plant trees. 2. Farmers must have enough money to buy the tree seedlings. 3. Local tree nurseries must produce a supply of tree seedlings of the right

species and quality, at the right time for planting. 4. Any other sources of tree seedlings must not compete on unfair conditions;

that is, farmers must not be able to get tree seedlings free of charge or at subsidised prices from other projects or programmes.

We will consider each of these pre-conditions one by one.


1. Farmers must want to plant trees. Farmer motivation for planting trees is influenced by many factors and we should not over-simplify them. But we can be sure that some or all of the following factors are pre-conditions:

a. There is a scarcity or shortage of the tree products that they want for themselves, such as timber, firewood, or fruits; AND they can’t get them easily from residual natural forest;

b. OR: there is an effective and accessible market for such tree products AND farmers can be assured that they can grow, harvest, transport and sell the tree products for a profit.

c. OR: a project or programme pays them money to plant trees. 2. Farmers have enough money This factor is usually not limiting. Most farmers have enough money to do the things that they really want to do. For tree planting, it is important that the tree seedlings should be available locally and at a reasonable price. 3. Nurseries have enough good quality seedlings of the right species This is what we are trying to develop. Within one year we will have village-based nurseries producing good quality seedlings of the main species now available from larger nurseries at Commune or district level. It will take two or three years for village-based nurseries to produce a wider range of seedlings, including good-quality fruit trees and high-value indigenous timber trees. 4. No unfair competition (no free seedlings) Many programmes provide money incentives to farmers to induce them to plant trees. These programmes generally also provide free tree seedlings. When tree seedlings are provided free, farmers don’t need to buy them so this does not create local demand. Instead, availability of free tree seedlings undermines local village nurseries with unfair competition. So, for villages and Communes where we want to develop self-sustaining village-level nurseries, we have to eliminate unfair competition. No more free seedlings! That means we have to find another way to make sure that trees are available to farmers at low cost, for the programmes that are mainly in the public interest: watershed protection and soil conservation.

Transition from free to low-cost tree seedlings At present many farmers are used to getting tree seedlings for free or for very little cost. If we suddenly stop and make them pay for seedlings, probably they will refuse and plantation activities would be disrupted. So we have to plan for a smooth transition from free to low-cost seedlings. The following modalities are proposed:

1. There will be a one-year transition period. During the transition period, farmers will still get their tree seedlings at no direct cost, but we will introduce a direct transaction between the farmers and the village nursery operators using a voucher system.

2. Planning for all plantation activities will be done as before. Farmers (with support from extension workers) will estimate how many seedlings are needed of what species (fruit, forest, firewood, pulpwood). Communes and Projects will compile estimates to get the overall demand by tree species.


3. Of the total demand, 50% will be contracted to the existing network of larger-size contract nurseries at Commune and District levels. The other 50% will be reserved for farmers to get themselves from the village-level nurseries.

4. The village-level nurseries will meanwhile plan for producing 100% of the local demand in their own villages; in the expectation that in the first year they might succeed to produce 50% of good size and high quality.

5. At planting time, for the transition year, farmers will get 50% of their demand for seedlings free of cost as before, through the usual arrangements, from contract production at larger-size nurseries at Commune or District level.

6. Farmers will also get vouchers for the other 50% of their planned demand for tree seedlings. Each voucher will specify a number (say, ten) of seedlings of a named tree species (say, pine). Farmers will get enough vouchers to meet the remaining 50% of their demand.

7. Farmers can take their vouchers to their local village-based nursery and exchange them for tree seedlings of their choice. They can select the best seedlings available. This will hep to motivate farmers for early and timely collection of seedlings. The first-comers will get the best seedlings. And it will operate a quality-control system to motivate nursery operators to achieve high quality of seedlings. If the quality is poor, they will not get any customers and no vouchers.

8. If their local nursery has not enough seedlings of the right species or quality, farmers are free to take vouchers to another nursery in the next village, or even the next commune.

9. Nursery operators collect the vouchers and can take them to the Commune or Project office and exchange them for cash. The value of each voucher depends on the price for seedlings of that species and quality. This value will be set by the Project at the beginning of each year and will be publicised so that every body knows what the seedlings really cost.

10. For the next year, after the transition year, farmers will get vouchers for 100% of their seedling demand but they will not be free of cost. They will have to pay for the vouchers. The cost of vouchers will start at, say 50% of the real cost of the seedlings, and can be increased gradually over a further transition period of, say, two years (75% and 100%). Finally, after three years, the vouchers will disappear and farmers will have to pay cash to their local nursery for the real cost of tree seedlings.

11. By this time, the local nursery operators will have developed a high level of skills for a wide range of tree species, including grafting of selected horticultural varieties of fruit trees.

Remaining issues Some issues remain at present without proposals for solution.

1. How will prices be set for seedlings as the seedling production becomes totally de-centralised?

2. Should we have a system of benefit-sharing with the Project Management Boards at Commune level for the transition period?

3. What other programmes will be affected if we stop giving free-of-cost or cheap tree seedlings to farmers?

4. How big is the “catchment” area for each village-level nursery?


Annex 3: Villages with Project-supported forestry activities by Province, District, and Commune.

Table 6: Summary of numbers of programme locations, by District, commune and Village

Numbers ofProvince Districts Communes Villages/ClustersCao Bang 12 71 394

Bac Kan 6 39 184

Totals 18 110 578

Table 7: Detailed list of programme locations by Province, District, Commune and Village.

Bac Kan Province District Commune Village District Commune Village District Commune Village

I. Na Ri Huu Thac Khuoi Khieu IV. Ngan Son Thuong Quan Bang Lang VI. Bach Thong

Duong Phong Tong Ngay

Na Moi Pu Ang Ban Men

Na Ven Na Giao Tong Mu

Na Men Khuon Pi Ban Pe

Na Noong Na Keo Doi II Lam Truong

Khuoi Mi Khuoi Cooc Doi IV Lam Truong

Phieng But Coc Dan Na Chao Quang Thuan Phieng An I

Phieng Leng Na Hin


Luong Thanh Na Khon Na Ngan Khuoi Pieu

Na Leng Na Cot Na Dinh

Pac Cap Na Cha Na Liu

Phieng Cuon Khuoi Dien Na Chap

Na Pan Coc Phuya Na Kha

Khuoi Khap Ban Su Na Leng

Na Ken Phia Khao Boc Khun

Van Minh Khuoi Lieng Khuoi Ngoai Na vai

Khuoi Tuc Pu Co Ban Tran

Luong Thuong Na Lang Thuong An Na Him Luc Binh Ban Pong

Ban Giang Na Bua Lung Chang

Liem Thuy TOT tai xa Ban Ranh Cao Loc

Dong Xa TOT tai xa ban Luoc Pac Chang

Lang San TOT tai xa Phieng Thich Na Chuong

Luong Son TOT tai xa Ban Duom B Na Ngui

Van Hoc TOT tai xa Rong Thu Bac Lanh Chang

Con Minh TOT tai xa Chia Pang Nam Lanh Chang

Hao Nghia TOT tai xa Na Ca Quan Binh Lung Cooc

II. Ba Be Phuc Loc Nhat Ven Ban Duom A Thom Mo

Vang Quan Na Y Na Bung

Thieng Diem Na Choan Thai Binh

Phieng Gian Khuoi Sao Na Leng

Na Khao Na Pai Na to


Ban Luoc Khuoi Sap Nguyen Phuc Khuoi Boc

Na Duon Hang Rau Thon Quan

Na Hoi Tham Ong Thon Ngoan

Khuoi Pet Rong Tac Thon Nam Yen

Khuoi Tau Pac Thien

Yen Duong Phieng Kham V. Cho Moi Binh Van Khuoi Tau Na Muong

Ban La Na Mo Cang Lo

Na Vien Ban Moi Na Ca

Na Pai Thom Thoi Tu Tri Coc Noa

Phieng Phang Don Cut Na Ta

Nong Lung Tai Chang Phieng Mon

Khuoi Luom Quang Chu Lang Dien Do Deng

Na Nghe Lang Che Rac Keo

Na Dao Cua Khe Na Phat

III. Pac Nam

Boc Bo Na Phan Ban Nhuan Don Phong La Dan

Khau Dang Ban En Ban Dan

Na Cooc Dong Huong Ban Ven

Dong Leo Deo Vai Tan Tien TOT

Na Nghe Lang Chong Vu Muon TOT

Khuoi Be Na Rang

Na Ray Thanh Mai Khuoi Phay

Lung Pang Na Pai

Nam May Na Pen


Tum Rong

m Bo Tho

Khoun Tang

Ban Phai

Xuan La Thon Meo Khuoi Ret

Con Luong Na Vau

Lung Muong Mai Lap Ban Ra

Nam Nha Khau Tong

Khuoi Khi Ban Pa

Khuoi Boc Na Dieng

Ban Sap Khau Rang

Na Am Ban Ruoc

Thanh Van Khau Chu

a Don N

Phieng Khao

Quang Lang I

Kham Na

Yen Han Na Sao

Tra lau

Thom Trau

a Rao N

Na Nang

Moc Ban


Yen Cu Na Hoat

Tam Ban

Na Rien

Linh Na

Nong Ha Dao tao NVKL

Nhu Co Dao tao NVKL

Mai Lap Dao tao NVKL

Thanh Binh Dao tao NVKL

Doi Yen Dinh

Cao Bang Province

District Commune Village District Commune Village District Commune VillageI. Hoa An Duc Long Na Cooc II. Ha Lang Minh Long Na Quan X. H.Quang Na Sac Lung Pia

Phai Thin Ban Thang Lung Loong

Na Huyt Na Vi Coc Sau

Khau Ly Luoc Khieu Po Nghieu

Na Dong Da Tren Hoa Muc

Khau Huong Da Duoi Kep Ke

Na Mo 6 Lung Pia

7 Thanh Nhat Dong Hoan 7

Dan Chu Danh Sy Nguom Khang

Noi Thon Lung Ri

Min Sang 2 Lung Rai


Na Phia Vinh Quy Sang Chia Pac Hoan

Tan Cuong Khom Din Ru Ra

Phiac Cat 2 Doc Rau

Na Dan Thang Loi Ban Doa Lang Ly

Na Sang Ban Kit 6

Na Nhu Lung Phuc Thuong.Thon Tong Cang

Lung tao Co Nghiu Si Dieng

Ban Chang Luoc Thom Dong Neo

Pac Bo Ban Hao Lung Pia

Keo Thin Ban Bang Lung Tan

Ban Dua Ban Kha Ca Tho

Bo Ninh Ban Si Lung Mun

Na Hoang Ban Ruong 7

Hoang Sum Ban Xa Phu Ngoc Coc Chu

Lung La Ban Un Ban Tra

Dong An 12 Na Rac

Ban Hoa Dong Loan Ban Lung Na Ma

Na Mo Ban Mo Na Dam

Lung Liu 2 Lung Giang

Ban Ma Viet Chu Na Keo Na Giang

Au Khoa Na Man Khau Mat

Khuoi Boc 2 Na Dao

Lung Man Lung Noi


Ban Sinh III. Phuc Hoa Hong Dai Khu Tua Doc Dit

Na Toong Ban Suoi I Khuoi Re

27 2 Na Giang Pho

Vinh Quang Duc Chinh I Luong Thien Lung O Na Giang Thon

Duc Chinh II Ban Chang Ban Bo

Duc Chinh III 2 Nooc Mo

Duc Chinh IV Tien Thanh Binh Lau Na Lan

Vo Tou Ban Chap Dong Man

Ban Thin 2 18

Na Luong Cach Linh Cach Linh

Ban Tai Dong Chieu Truong Ha Pac Bo

Dong Cuong Lung Sam Ban Hoang I

Ban Ngan 3 2

Na Ma IV. Bao Lac Thuong Ha Ban Chang Lung Nam Nam Nhung

Na Chiem Na Tong Ca Giong

Lo Ngoa Na Ten Bo Thon

Na Ma Pac Ruou Po Tan

14 Na Vieng Ta Gioong

Nam Tuan Na Hoai 5 Cai Giong

Bo Bang Kh.Xuan Kha Rao Lung Co

Na Ngoai Xum Hau Nam San

Chu Sieu 2 Thin Tang

Roong Nang Hung Dao Ban Rien Keo hai Phia


Dong Hoan Tac tam Ang Bo

Dong An 2 Keo Khuyen

Pac Muong Thuong Ha Sieng Sinh Thong Sac

Na Ban 1 Ca Ma

Dong lang 2 Nam Nhunh

Na Kha Coc Pang Na Noc Lung Chan

Na Khao Coc pang Lung in

Tang Cai 2 Tong Po

Khau Lem Ban Toan Na Xiem Ca Gieng

Na Quy Ban Rung 19

Na Chau 2 Keo yen Lung Du

Vo Pjieng Khu 5 Na Duong Bo Sop

Vo Xa 1 Ta Ran

Na Dan Hong Tri Ban Khuong Lung Luong

Vo Khout 1 Rang Rum

Na Thang Co Ly

Pac Pan V.Quang Uyen

Quoc Phong Tam Quoc Rang Pan

Coc Lung 1 Ca Lo

Na Dieu Phuc Sen Da Vi Duoi Pa Ran

Van Thu Lung Hoai1

Thang Nuong Chi Thao Lung Nguu Phia Do

26 Na Rac Lung Sang

Be Tieu Na Mo 2 Sy Ngai


Na Bua Quang Hung Na Cuom Cay Tac

Na Vai Thac Det Nam Rang

Dong Viao 2 16

Ban Van I Doc Lap Na Chau

Ban Van II Dong Pan

Khao Hoa 2 Dao Ngan Ko Hiet

Khau Coi Keo Chang

Chung Mu VI. Bao Lam Ly Bon Na Pong I Keo Chang

Lang Phia Na Mat Ban Ha

Ban Soy 2 Na Sa

Vo Dao Quang Lam Ban Na Ban Nua

Da Lan TongNgoang

Dong Ro

NaSa-NaGiuong 2 Ban Khoang

Khau Luonh Mong An Khu I Lung Bo

Na Pja Che Ten 12

Na Cou 2 Quy Quan Bac Phuong

An Phu Yen Tho Ban Vang 1

Pac Ga Ban Chang XI. T.Nong Can Yen Ban Gai

Vo Ga 2 Bo Rang

Khuoi Va VII. Thach An Thai Cuong Khuoi Ken Ban Ai

21 Ban Lung Nooc

Ban Ngam

Dai Tien Na Bon Ban Kung Na Thin


Dau

Na Nua 3 Na Phac

Hec Chang Canh Tan Pac Pen De Cooc

Hec Nua Ban khun Na Pang

Quoc Tuan 2 8

Ma Nua Minh Khai Pac Dai Ngoc Dong Man Thuong

Ma Chang Na Ke Man Ha

Ma Tau 2 Tan Ha

Lung Khua Kim Dong Nam Nang Ta To

Na Khan Na Vai Lung Van

Na Cooc 2 Lung To

11 Lung Nhung

Binh Long Pac Goi VIII. Tra Linh Quang Han Ban Loa 7

Pac Keo Na To

Na Bat 2 Luong Can Dong May

Pac Cam Cao Chuong Ban Lip Na Sai

Duc Binh Ban Tap Lang Can

Khuoi Luong 2 3

Coc Ai Xuan Noi Ban Sum Da Thong Bac Dai

Ang Giang Ban Man Ban Giang

Na Giao 2 Na Ngam

Thua Khau Hung Quoc Na Rao 3

Thang Loi Ban Khun Luong Thong Ban Ria


11 2 Na Tom

Hong Nam Khuoi Linh IX. T.Khanh Lang Hieu Dong Do 2

Khuoi Sang Lung Muon XII. N. Binh Minh Thanh Na Luoc

Khuoi Tau Keo Chuong Na Tong

Na Tong Da Tien 2

Kem Cong Hieu Le The Duc pac Bo

Bang Giang Phia Nguoc Phjia Tooc

Lung Cai Pac Ra 2

Ban Tou Pac Cuoi Bac Hop Ban Nua

8 8 Ban inh

Cong Trung Coc Phang Lang Yen Lung Sang 2

Lung Ong Rang Rang Lang Mon Lung Hinh

Lung Luong Ban Chien Na Leng

Lung Mai Lung Gia 2

Lung Dieu Pac Na

Truong Luong Na Ngan Keo Toong

Chi Vuong Nong Nieng

Giang Lam 7

Ban Gua D.Phong Dong Luong

Ban Chang Bo Thoc

Na Mua Chi Choi

Na Thum Na Tang

Ban Vieng Vuon Luong

Forest Restoration Programme (17) Page 52 18/11/2004

Keo Tam Hat Pan

Sam Luong Na Thoang

Tong Hoang 7

Na Quang Chi vien Phja Deng

Tong Phay Dong Luong

Si Lieng Pac Gon

14 3

Hong Viet Lung Phay Ngoc Khe Ta Nay

Na Nua Lung Lau

Na Van Ban Nhom

Na Duong Mi Ai

Ban Giang 4

De Dong

Na Teng Kham Thanh Pac Chang

Vo Rai Na Gon

Na Vai 2

Na Ky Phong Chau Na Man

Vo Au Ban Tien

11 2

Integrated


Annex 4: Strategy for delivering Tot for Commune-based extension I. Approach to the problem The rapid assessment of the province-level TOT showed that:

1. The participants still felt perplexed in conducting a commune-based TOT, they really did not know what and how to do though they had attended 4 training modules.

2. The participants showed definite differences in teaching skills and class conducting skills as well, only a few could work as a farmer trainer meanwhile the majority were not able to undertake that responsibility.

3. Training of commune-based farmer trainers is a step of TOT process but it is an important one which may decide the success of the whole TOT process and it differs definitely from the first step-the province/district-level TOT. The differences in participant composition, final results(final products of the training) of the commune-based farmer trainer training will not allow to apply the conducted modules mechanically but a re- adjustment of the training content, teaching methodology and even the structure of the training course is needed to achieve objectives and expected results.

4. The provincial TOT course participants have profound professional knowledge in different fields such as cultivation, plant protection, animal husbandry, veterinary, forestry, fruit tree but in production practice, the need for training of ordinary people is in various packets that contain many relevant topics. For instance, to develop animal husbandry, farmers need knowledge in animal husbandry, veterinary, cattle feed or to increase rice productivity, they need knowledge not only in cultivation but also in plant protection, seed production etc. In forestry field, to apply sustainable SALT cultivation effectively they should have knowledge in forestry, fruit tree, plantation of leguminous plant to make soil fertile and agriculture intercropping. All these topics should be tapped and introduced in a synchronous way.

II. Strategic Steps of commune-based TOT process. Step 1. Identify objectives, final outcomes, target participants and commune participants' training needs.

Step 2. Define major fields for the training thus designing training courses( define modules for specified courses) and compile content for teaching sessions(which comprise skills in teaching, practice and technical knowledge).

Step 3. Discuss and approve drafts of training curriculum in defined fields

Step 4. Try teaching to check the training curriculum and trainers’ ability

Step 5. Perfect the training curriculum, work out the project general training program(time frame) and field coaching plan of the PMU and trainers.

Step 6. Carry out experimental trainings in all districts where trainers are available(pilot district and ordinary one) with the scale of 3 courses/district( one course in each field)

Step 7. Sum up and evaluate the trainings, plan TOT courses for the following year, which consist of province-level refresher TOT course and plan for the expansion of TOT courses to the province’s districts.


III. Plan and implementation methodology

No

Content/methodology Expected result Time Place Who to do

Note

1 +Discussion with TOT course participants, using brainstorming methodology; group discussions. Exploitation and use of information available to organize TNA

+Objectives, expected results & training targets(commune/village extensionists) approved.

+Major training needs identified

2/02

at module 4th

CB TOT class

Khoi, Trong + trainers

Not completed yet,

Continuation of module 5th is needed

2 Preliminary agreement withparticipants on training fields(animal husbandry-veterinary; cultivation-plant protection; forestry-fruit tree)

+Home work is given to participants to design training courses in their own fields(see report on TOT module 4th )

The defined training fields are:

1. Development of animal husbandry & veterinary) 2. Increase of crops productivity (cultivation, plant protection) 3. Application of SALT models(forestry, fruit tree)

6 months for 5th module

CB and BK classes

Trainers and trainees supported by Project staff

During module 4, exercises were given to participants

This should be continued

3 + Field-based group discussions to achieve agreement on training courses designed by participants

+Discussion to select prioritised feasible training courses necessary for the organization of commune-based TOT courses

+ Supplement and perfect the design of training courses, teaching contents, teaching plan of the selected courses

+ In each field, designing of specified course which comprises modules and their training contents is done

+ Training courses in every field are selected to be tested

+ Pilot districts are chosen, main trainers for every course defined

6 months for 5th module

CB-BK classes

Trainers and trainees supported by staff from 2 components-forestry and extension

Support to trainees by the project staff in completing the design of training courses is very important


4 + Organise selected training courses

+ Select a number of participants to practise teaching under the observation by other participants and trainers

+ Discussion and evaluation to complete contents and teaching methodology for commune-based TOT courses

+ In every field, at least 1 course is selected

+ After teaching practice by some participants, the assessment of their methodology and teaching skills will be done by other trainees and trainers

+ The content of the “demonstration” course will be verified and supplemented

June

2002

In one pilot district/province

Trainers and trainees with the support from PMU staff and pilot district ARDO staff

+ In each course, 1 module will be chosen for demonstration

+ At least 1/3 of trainees will participate teaching practice

5 + Field group work is organized to complete all selected training course modules

+ District group work is organized to set up the districts’ commune-based TOT plan for 2002

+ Agreement of all general training plans for pilot district and non-piloted district and define coaching plans of trainers and PMU staff

(agriculture and forestry) for districts.

+ Training courses are designed in detail in modules to facilitate district trainers’ application into their own training courses

+ Agreement of every district plan and the project one as well to organize commune-based TOT courses.

+ Plan and coaching team for coaching work are identified in detail for districts and for the project as well

July 02

after the trial

At the provincial TOT course

Trainees and trainers with the support from PMU staff

+ Each district selects training courses of highest demand and

feasibility

+ It is not necessary to organise the same-type training courses for every district

6 + Districts implement training courses in accordance with the approved plan

+ Trainers and PMU staff( coaching team) supervise and support district trainers( possibly provincial trainers

+Commune-based TOT course participants will be provided with necessary professional knowledge and skills so that they would be able to conduct the

July-December 2002

In districts where there are

Trainees and coaching teams

Districts’ training plans should not be of the same time in order that the coaching team can take part as much as possible

Forest Restoration Programme (17) Page 56 18/11/2004 Integrated

stationed in district)

commune/village training courses for farmers in an effective way

+ District trainers’ teaching skills will be enhanced, which they have got during their practice

+ The district trainers’ weak points are discovered, improved timely and recorded with the aim of planning the following support by the project

TOT course

participants

7 Workshop organized by district trainers with the participation of concerned persons (province/district/

commune levels and coaching team ) to sum up, evaluate experiences obtained during the commune-based TOT courses

+ Establish commune-based TOT plan for 2003

+ Work out refresher training plan for district trainers(if necessary)

+ Good experiences in commune-based TOT are summed up.

+ District trainers’ common weak points and individual weak points as well are identified and discussed

+ Main solutions to overcome weak points are recommended

+ Every district and the project as well have province/commune level feasible TOT plans to implement in their annual schedule

December 2002

At province level

PMU staff(A+F

components)

The coaching team is responsible for the preparation of the workshop content, methodology and budget


(Source: MARD 2001: 5MHRP & FSSPP Final Synthesis Report) Annex 5: Organisation Chart for FSSP Partners & 5MHRP

5MHRP Project Owners

(households, communities, associations, mass organizations, cooperatives, SFEs,

forest management boards, etc.)

Pro

ject

leve

l

Provincial 5MHRP Steering Committee

(inter departmental)

Provincial Executing Committee

(inter-departmental)

Central Executing Committee

(inter-ministerial)

National 5MHRP Steering Committee (inter-ministerial)

Government

Partnership Review Committee

Thematic/Regional Government-Donor

Task Forces

International Forestry Advisory Group

(Donors and NGOs)

Inte

rnat

iona

l Pro

ject

s

PPC

MARD and other

ministries

Ministerial 5MHRP

Management UnitsPermanent Office (MARD)

DARD and other

departments

Local Program Management Board DPC, CPC, SARD

Pro

vinc

ial l

evel

N

atio

nal l

evel

Line of accountability Agency link Coordination/information exchange

Sector Support Program Coordination Mechanism


Annex 6: FSSPP Matrix of Affiliation & International Donors Source: FSSPP Coordination office, Hanoi.

BROAD GOAL The sustainable management of forests and the conservation of biodiversity to achieve: a) protection of the environment, b) improved livelihoods of people in forest dependant areas, and c) enhanced contribution of forestry to the national economy.

Reduced incidence of poor and hungry households, and reduced gap between average household income in forest dependent areas and average national household income. Long-term forest estate defined [by year 2002] Forest quality is maintained or improving. Increased contribution of forestry to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in absolute terms (not in percentage).

FOCUSED OBJECTIVE / PURPOSE1

Through coordination and collaboration between stakeholders, an effective and efficient partnership, an effective institutional and policy framework, and mobilisation of relevant resources, small and medium enterprises’ (SMEs), farm households, small economic entities and communities are sustainably managing and conserving forest resources in priority areas, leading to enhanced livelihoods of rural people.

Living standards and the proportion of poor households in forest dependent areas2 taking into account equity issues. Employment rates in the forest sector, including gender disaggregated data. Quality and quantity of forest resources in priority areas. Forest products are harvested at sustainable levels. The balance of trade in forest products is optimised. Number of households and other forest users involved in sustainable forest management and conservation activities. Area (ha) of forests under sustainable management according to approved forest management plans.

Full participation at all levels, including at planning stage Population growth rates will continue to decrease. No major economic crisis will occur The natural disaster preparedness and prevention capacity continue to improve in Vietnam National planning efforts can simultaneously promote sustainable forest management, conservation of biodiversity, and economic development

1 This objective is more focused than the Broad Goal. It refers specifically to the Objective for the Forestry Sector Support Programme (FSSP), over a ten-year (2001-2010) time period. This time period was chosen to match the current Government of Vietnam (GOV) planning periods. The focused objective stresses the idea of building a partnership among GOV and the donors who agree to contribute to the FSSP. This partnership would support the other items mentioned in the objective.


RESULT AREA 1. Effective systems for collaborative planning and monitoring of strategic developments for the forest sector adopted

Operations:

1.1.1 The FSSP Program Framework is regularly updated and increasingly used to direct joint government – donor efforts to improve quality of forestry in Vietnam.

Yearly updates of FSSP Program Framework are produced which reflect views of all concerned stakeholders. Overall review of FSSP process is carried out in participatory manner in 2003 and 2006

FSSP Office takes the lead initiative for annual Joint Review of FSSP performance and Program Framework. TEC takes the lead initiative to organize Annual Forest Sector Review Meeting discussing results of Joint Review. For both exercises Partnership Steering Committee remains ultimately responsible. All national PSC members participate. Partnership Steering Committee commissions overall review of FSSP process in 2003 and 2006 MARD responsible to conduct study and assure internal mechanism to increase coherence among agricultural, water and forestry sector policies MOSTE responsible to establish internal mechanism to take account of environmental economics and cross-sectoral environmental impact

All International Signatories participate. Finland provides TA support to FSSP office and 5MHRP Office. Other donors make additional financial contributions on voluntary basis. Support to MARD study and mechanism: to be identifiedIUCN supports environmental economics and cross-sectoral environmental impact issues in collaboration with MOSTE, MPI a.o.

1.1.2 Investments in the forest sector in Vietnam are subject to economic appraisal and increasingly planned and implemented in a harmonised manner.

New investment projects increasingly adopt harmonised planning, integrating 5 MHPR and donor funded investments After initial projects have been successful in integrating approaches a number of pilot projects are under implementation which have progressed to harmonised budgeting; integrating 5 MHPR budget, Donor financing and GoV counterpart funding Procedures outlined in the Forest Sector Manual are increasingly used to plan, approve, implement and monitor forest sector related projects by GoV (central and provincial), donor agencies and commercial actors in forest sector

MPI and MoFi propose changes in the legal scope for sector wide approaches in budget law and ODA regulations before 2004. TEC and FDD Relevant MARD departments and provincial authorities cooperate on harmonization.

As off 2003 new donor supported projects and programs larger then USD 5 mln. adopt harmonized planning, integrating 5MHRP and donor funded programs at decentralized level in commune development and forest land management (of all 3 types). Lead initiatives will be taken by WB, ADB, KfW, JBIC, EC, GEF. WB, ADB, JBIC, EC and KfW form core of ad-hoc working group for harmonizing implementation framework of larger donor supported projects at decentralized level, supported by their project preparation exercises. Other signatories assist or take lead in modules of FSM where relevant Finland provides TA support to FSSP Office and 5MHRP Office.

2 Forest dependant areas could be defined as either districts or communes with more than 20% of forest cover or forest land as measured by FIPI


1.1.3 Management Information System established and functioning, including M&E information, which together with other forms of feedback ensures that strategic planning for forest sector makes optimal use of all knowledge on forest sector in Vietnam.

Draft Forest Sector Manual prepared by end 2002 and updated on a regular basis as required. Bi-annual reports are produced on progress in implementation of FSSP Program Framework Forest Sector Manual integrates M+E results and findings from other special studies Regular briefings conducted with all stakeholders on developments relevant to FSSP FSSP web site is established and maintained on regular basis.

FSSP Office responsible for overall development of Forest Sector Manual 2001-2004 and maintenance beyond that. Module development can be decentralized to relevant national and international partners. TEC has responsibility to assure development of the M&E system for FSSP, but might need to institutionalize that for the sector within MARD, but outside FSSP structure. FSSP Office. TEC FSSP Office

To be identified (URGENT) GTZ/Refas (?) IUCN (?) takes lead in M&E system design; Finland increasingly takes over in M&E operationalisation through support to FSSP CO.

RESULT AREA 2. Policy, legal and Institutional Framework to harmonise national-provincial policies for forest land and resources in place

Operations 2.1.1 MARD’s technical departments at central level and forest institutions at Provincial level are operating in line with redefined mandates as defined in 2001 MARD administrative reform process

Linked to promulgation of results of administrative reform process in 2.4.1 concerning shifts in mandates and staff redeployment Efficiency and effectiveness of MARD technical departments and provincial forest institutions improved in policy making, planning and implementation of investment projects and in supportive capacity building measures

Office of MARD is focal point for administrative reform Policy Dept. on policy and legal issues MoFi, MARD Dept. Planning & Investment and Dept. Finance & Accounts on budgeting and financial management MARD O&P for HRD strategy and implementation MARD FDD for establishment of 5MHRP projects.

Germany (Refas) takes lead in coordinating donor support from ADB, UNDP and others to forestry sector admin. reform at central level. WB and ADB with Neth. co-financing, while inviting other signatories to join, consider linking policy, institutional and legal reform incl. implementation progress at decentralized level with sectoral budget support, backed up by TA where required, from 2004 onwards. WB, ADB and other major programs and projects mainstreams support to capacity building of DARD, FPD and general depts. at decentralized level according to functional mandates. WB integrates MARD/Forestry in PER and follow-up capacity building

2.1.2 Commercial sector’s role in managing forest resources increased

Percentage of forestry product value attained by commercial economic sector compared to gross forestry value increased by … % Percentage of labourers in the commercial sector compared to forestry labourers on the government payroll

Central level: FDD, Agricultural, forest products processing and Rural Occupations.Provincial People's Committees National Working Group on SFM Commercial sector parties (processing and marketing associations: to be identified)

WB takes lead role in supporting SFE and SOE renovation in production forest management and processing and marketing. At decentralized level it includes other signatories according to geographical presence (EC, JICA?). Subsidiary lead roles by WWF (with WB?) on SFM and IUCN on NTFPs

2.1.3 Emphasis in policy making and planning in forest sector has shifted from national to provincial

Increasing number of Provinces have Forest Development Plans in place which guide natural

Provincial People's Committees, MARD, MPI Relevant signatories depending on geographical location GTZ/Refas (?) continue lead work on Prov. Forest Dev.


level resource managementCommon Planning Frameworks which integrate all proposed forest sector interventions from GoV, donors and commercial sector

Plans SNV supports decentralisation of FSSP to North-Central Coast AEZ

RESULT AREA 3. Macro Land Use Planning to select priority areas for project investment consolidated and implemented

Operations: 3.1.1 Effective and efficient macro and meso-level Land Use Planning systems and procedures to identify priority areas for investment3.

National and provincial processes of identification of priority areas for investment for different categories of forest land completed. Priority vulnerable watersheds and mini-watersheds in each agro-ecological region are identified. Priority ‘forest dependent’ communes in each agro-ecological region, provinces and districts are identified according to agreed environmental and socio-economic criteria (see RA 4). Priority areas for biodiversity conservation and wildlife habitat corridors are defined, and investment needs for strengthening the Special Use Forest Area System are identified (see RA 6). Cross border cooperation in Special Use and Protection Forest planning and management is strengthened. Mechanisms used for better coordination between forest sector and land administration agencies on harmonization of land data and land classification and allocation procedures.

DFD , FPD, and FIPI form coalition for national and AEZ level for SUF system prioritisation (building on existing work already done), corridor identification and watershed prioritisation. Molisa/CEMMA data on poorest commune identification (building on existing work) overlaid with FIPI data. PPC at provincial level FPD/CRES for strategic planning and pilot testing for SUF and corridor identification in North Central Coast

Support at central level largely to be identified, potential link to national component of next ADB and WB programs

On the conservation side developments are towards landscape-ecological planning supported by national Conservation Trust Fund by GEF, Neth. and possibly others; at AEZ level: WWF, Birdlife and ADB for Central Highlands; WWF and Neth.for South East; EC and FFI for North Central Coast; EC for north and north-west; WB for South Central Coast

Potential link beyond conservation objectives to major forestry/rural development programs by AEZ (ref. RA 4), but then to be specified

3.1.2 Forest monitoring system in place providing relevant data on forest area and quality at national,

Baseline for FDS and 5MHP forest area and quality monitoring (focusing on forest dependent

FIPI/Sub-FIPI and GDLA/DLA lead coalition on transparent and unified forest resources

FAO possibly in coalition with yet to be identified international partners provide support for national

3 In the Program Framework “macro” level land use planning covers the national and agro-ecological regional levels of resolution, “meso” level covers the province and district levels of land use planning and land administration, while “micro” level relates to commune land use planning and forest area management planning.


regional and priority watershed levels, and fed into on-going strategic planning4 (see RA 6, 9).

areas) is completed. Monitoring studies and reports on forest area and quality at national, regional and priority watershed levels produced as required.

monitoring FIPI, FSIV on development of forest and biodiversity quality criteria and monitoring systems

forest resource monitoring To be identified for development of forest and biodiversity quality criteria and monitoring systems

RESULT AREA 4: Integrated (micro) land use planning / allocation leading to the development and implementation of commune development plans adopted

Operations:

4.1.1 Forest land that is eligible to be allocated to communes, households or other local non-state units5, is equitably distributed and effectively managed.

Number of communes, households or other non-state units with allocated forest land or entering into other forms of agreement with province and district authorities. Area of forest land of different categories brought under sustainable commune management in different provinces and agro-ecological regions. Local rules and regulations (commune and village conventions) are developed for forest protection and use through transparent participatory processes and approved. Equitable allocation of forest land to households and equitable distribution of benefits from tree and forest products. Joint and integrated approaches to community forestry by 5MHP and donor assisted projects in are introduced in a number of pilot localities. Small and medium scale processing of tree and forest products promoted (see RA 9).

PPC, provincial departments (incl. DARD, DLA, and others) and authorities at all levels (district, communes) Pivotal roles for DARD and DLA on land allocation Community Forestry Network, authorities at district and commune levels. Cross-linkages with GoV poverty reduction programs (135, fixed cultivation & settlement) Socio-economic monitoring, social impact audit studies and base-line studies: to be identified (national and regional research institutes and universities) MARD Policy Dept., provincial authories and relavant provincial departments.

Important linkage to RA 6 as many programs and projects support commune development planning in relation to the management and protection of forests and forest land. Larger forestry-rural development programs are to pay specific attention to mainstreaming institutional capacity building for public sector management at provincial level and for research-training-extension linkages at provincial and AEZ levels and are to pay specific attention to harmonisation with GoV and 5MHRP implementation mechanisms. Different roles of different types of organizations can be recognized in AEZ coalitions, esp. difference between innovation/piloting, capacity building and up-scaling. North-West: WB, EC, IFAD on up-scaled rural development investment programs with GTZ, Finland, CARE in innovation roles North Central Coast: ADB with upscaled rural development program; EC Nghe Anh-Pu Mat

4 This Result Area would encompass forest area and quality monitoring in relation to the goals and objectives of both the Forest Sector Development Strategy and 5MHP. Ideally this would be linked to the specific targets and indicators on environmental sustainability that are currently being development by GOVN under the International Development Targets. 5 Other non-state units is here defined as including: a) farm households, cooperatives, and other units that are eligible for land allocation, and b) forest “user group” structures that may be appropriate in different regions and amongst different ethnic groups based on household groups, hamlets, extended family or clan structures etc.


expanding to AEZ; SNV TT Hue expanding to AEZ, UNDP/PROFOR in innovation role Hue; Finland in innovation role Quang Tri Central Highlands: ADB (Neth. co-financing) in upscaled rural development investment; WB (Neth. co-financing) Kontum (till 2004); UNDP/PROFOR in innovation role Mekong: WB (co-financing from Denmark) Coastal Wetlands

RESULT AREA 5: SFE renovation implemented

Operations: 5.1.1 Current land use and tenure under SFEs known and influences determinations of appropriate management organisation and decisions on the assignment of functions to SFEs.

Data of current land use and tenure under SFEs Forest inventory and land tenure data sufficient to identify and delineate commercially viable forest management units collected by the end of 2002.

FIPI; CIEM (MPI) MARD Policy Dept., provincial authories and relavant provincial departments.

WB (Netherlands co-financing) (upscaling) takes lead at national level on SFE renovation issues, incl. policy, strategy and legal support and national level cross-linkages to land management EC: Nghe An SNV TT Hue

5.1.2 A proportion of SFEs rationalised and restructured to assume responsibilities and functions as commercial enterprises.

Selected SFEs allocated proposed wood supply areas (RA 9.2) Commercial SFEs operating profitably Commercial SFEs have realistic business plans Impact of renovation process on SFE households/ workers in terms of access to land, capital and other assets and services.

Provincial authorities MARD Policy Dept., provincial authories and relavant provincial departments, corporations using forestland.

5.1.2 + 5.1.3 combined by AEZ WB: option 1 provides national support; option 2 provides support to a particular AEZ ADB: Central Highlands GTZ provides provincial policy and strategy support in selected provinces (Thanh Hoa, Dak Lak) EC: Nghe An DANIDA (?) Other areas: to be identified

5.1.3 A proportion of SFEs rationalised and restructured to assume responsibilities and functions as Forest Protection Management Boards (FPMBs) and Special Use Forest Management Boards

Selected FPMBs/ SUFMBs have unambiguously defined forest areas under their jurisdiction. FPMBs/ SUFMBs have management plans for

Provincial authorities, related provincial departments

Conservation NGOs for SUFMBs EC (Pu Mat) WWF in the area around Cat Tien: Tri An (Netherlands) (turning SFE in Protected Areas)


(SUFMBs). their forest units. FPMBs/ SUFMBs have adequate staff and funds to meet their responsibilities Impact of renovation process on SFE households/ workers in terms of access to land, capital and other assets and services.

RESULT AREA 6: Sustainable forest management planning and implementation accomplished based on the different functions of the three types of forests

Operations:

6.1.1 The long-term benefits of the 5MHRP investments are maximised through sustainable forest management of the priority forests (identified through sub-results of R3).

Percentage of 5MHRP projects involving priority forest areas for which forest boundaries, owners and users have been clearly identified and sustainable forest management plans negotiated and under implementation. Number and quality of investment plans and area management plans completed and under implementation for priority Special Use Forests. Appropriate mechanisms in place to ensure communes and villages are adequately informed and involved in planning and decision-making in forest management.

FSIV, MARD FDD to develop strategy and program for development and testing of collaborative forest management systems incl. community based silvicultural techniques for various AEZ in collaboration with regional research capacity. National Working Group on SFM develops criteria and indicators for SFM and test and promote their application and monitoring FIPI, MARD Policy Dept., and district, commune authorities for further development of guidelines for management and investment planning for forest areas, incorporating participatory approaches, innovative management regimes and SFM criteria FPD for training and education of management and protection staff for SUF and Protection Forests

Important linkage to RA 4 as many programs and projects support commune development planning in relation to the management and protection of forests and forest land. Ref. to RA 4 for regional involvement of donors and organizations Larger forestry-rural development programs are to pay specific attention to mainstreaming institutional capacity building for public sector management at provincial level and for research-training-extension linkages at provincial and AEZ levels and are to pay specific attention to harmonisation with GoV and 5MHRP implementation mechanisms. Different roles of different types of organizations can be recognized in AEZ coalitions, esp. difference between innovation/piloting, capacity building and up-scaling Multi-donor Trust Fund to be established for support to SUF management, aligned with national and 5MHRP mechanisms ADB, WWF, Birdlife form coalition on support to conservation and SFM Central Highlands (Neth. co-financing) WWF (Swiss financing) supports Nat. Working


Group on SFM, more attention to be identified to SFM of plantation forestry (FAO?, KfW?) UNDP/Profor supports piloting collaborative management EC/UNDP/SEARCA: Small Grants Programme to Promote Tropical Forests EC: Nghe An, North-North-West Multi-donor Conservation Trust Fund supports FIPI on management and investment planning : more to be identified SNV, JICA support to forestry development TT Hue EC/FFI: Hoang Lien Mountains Strengthening training and education of management and protection staff for SUF and Protection Forests: to be identified Denmark supports seed and planting material quality and supply structures

6.1.2 Forest area and quality enhanced through effective restoration of degraded forest landscapes and rehabilitation of forest productivity.

By 2003, management plans offer clear scope for monitoring forest area and quality. By 2008, forest area and quality indicators are being measured and show improvements.

PPC, DOSTE and DARD on development of Provincial Forest Plans , Prov. Environment Plans and appropriate EIA of socio-econ. Development plans (ref. RA 7 K-G-C)

WWF/IUCN (forest reborn initiative; funding to be identified) Others: to be identified EC: Nghe An, North-North-West


RESULT AREA 7: Sustainable use and conservation of indigenous forest flora and fauna developed and integrated into biodiversity conservation

Operations: 7.1.1 The use of indigenous species and assisted natural regeneration techniques in reforestation, agroforestry and NTFP development programmes is substantially increased.

At least 80% of all tree nurseries produce some indigenous species by 20086. Ratio of the area under assisted natural regeneration to the area planted annually increases to at least 50% in all mountainous agro-ecological zones by 2008. Planting material of indigenous species is available in all agro-ecological zones by 2004.

FIPI and FSIV on the direction of an adequate and relevant research agenda in cooperation with regional AEZ research capacity

IUCN-Neth. on NTFP Netherlands (Tropenbos) Sweden (CIFOR) Afforestation; to be identified; (larger afforestation programs might set aside a % of area for indigenous spp. reforestation) EC: Nghe An for natural regeneration GTZ-SFDP for natural regeneration EC/TRP: Agarwood Production

7.1.2 Sustainable use regimes for a significant number of indigenous forest species and their habitats are developed and incorporated into forest management plans.

Sustainable use regimes developed and incorporated for at least ten species in each agro-ecosystem zone by 2005.

FIPI, FPD, DFD

7.1.3 Key indigenous species that are in short supply or threatened with local extinction are domesticated and the appropriate technology transfer is incorporated into relevant forestry programmes.

At least two new indigenous fauna species involved in captive breeding programmes and ten new indigenous flora species domesticated by 2005.

FPD National Parks could become a driving force and knowledge centre

EPRC, FFI Universities and Zoos abroad Overall support and funding still inadequate EC/TRP: Agarwood production

7.1.4 The harvest and trade in threatened species is more effectively regulated to conserve forest biodiversity.

The percentage of interceptions of illegal trade in endangered wildlife species increases to at least 50% of the estimated total trade by 2008. Pilot schemes that support self-regulation approaches to using and conserving forest biodiversity (eg. registered collectors, collector associations). Mechanisms for cross-border cooperation in the

FPD, General Department of Customs, local authorities at all level.

International Fora: to be identified TRAFFIC (funding to be identified)

6 An alternative standard that may be more difficult to measure is: the ratio of the number of seedlings of indigenous species planted to the number of seedlings of exotic species planted in one year is higher than 50% in all agro-ecological zones by 2008.


regulation of the trade of tree and forest products are further utilised and expanded (see RA 3).

RESULT AREA 8: An integrated system of demand-driven and appropriate research, extension, education and training developed and implemented7

Operations: 8.1.1 Research, education, training and extension organisations are successfully collaborating on the development and application of integrated approaches, methods and techniques.

Application and documentation of innovative approaches to integrated and demand driven research, education and extension. Approaches and methods are successfully scaled up. Changes made in inter-institutional roles, responsibilities and relationships and formation of collaborative partnerships between institutions Institutional and HRD analysis and planning carried out for each institution in forest sector research, education and training in the integrated system. Implementation of capacity-building measures for institutions and personnel. Donor funded projects and programs are working towards mainstreaming their support with national, regional and provincial research, education and training organiszations. Donor funded projects and programs are coordinating their capacity building efforts with responsible Organisational and Personnel Departments at central and provincial levels.

MARD Dept. O&P Provincial Dept. O&P FDD, Provincial Extension Centres Universities, Secondary Forestry Schools, Vocational Training Schools FIPI, FSIV MOET, MOLISA

Multi-lateral and other large donors with AEZ or provincial focus mainstream research, education and extension support Switzerland takes lead at central level in coherent support to RA 8, esp. extension with linkages to education and training Netherlands for forestry sector vocational training system with linkages to extension Germany (?) Cross-linkages to ADB support to vocational training Sweden and Netherlands (incl. Tropenbos) provide coordinated support to strategic research International NGO’s in buffer zones of protected areas (e.g. IUCN/ WWF Forest Restoration)

7 This Result Area relates to the institutional capacity to deliver demand driven, appropriate and cost effective services in research, extension, educational and training. The specific needs and technical content of research, training and extension programs are defined under the ‘capacity building’ headings under each of the other Result Areas.


8.1.2 Effective training and extension is provided to farmers and other forest users (including the commercial sector) on technical and managerial topics, skills and competencies as identified under the other Result Areas .

Training courses and other learning mechanisms developed and delivered to farmers and other forest users. Research, training and extension activities provide at least 80% of the critical technical inputs of the 5MHRP by 2005. Regular monitoring of training and extension targets and impact through carrying out tracer studies on application of learning in the work place in order to revise and update plans and content.

DARD, Prov. Extension Centres, District and Commune PC; local vocational training schools?, private sector? Impact monitoring: Provincial DARD, Provincial Dept. O&P

Multi-lateral and other large donors with AEZ or provincial focus mainstream research, education and extension support Ref. 8.1.1

8.1.3 Effective education and training is provided for both new staff and existing staff in forest sector institutions on technical and managerial topics, skills and competencies as identified under the other Result Areas.

Number of new and existing staff at professional, technical and vocational levels obtaining qualifications to approved standards. Graduates from professional, technical and vocational training apply their learning.

Universities, Secondary Forestry Schools, Vocational Training Schools

Multi-lateral and other large donors with AEZ or provincial focus mainstream research, education and extension support Ref. 8.1.1

Forest Restoration Programme (17) Page 69 18/11/2004 Integrated

8 Data must include evaluation of options for achieving supply-demand balance from domestic sources and imports net of exports Production forecasts from management plans Sub-result 6, and consumption and market data from Sub-result 9, incorporated.

RESULT AREA 9: Forest Products in targeted areas being marketed and processed at a sustainable rate.

Operations: 9.1.1 Existing plantation areas expanded, where appropriate, to create viable wood supply units to support processing industries.

Timber supply zones designated and capable of achieving supply targets.

FDD, Planning Dept., FIPI. All major donors involved in reforestation: World Bank, KfW, ADB, EC, JICA, JBIC (?) and others Studies under way on tree and forest products sub-sector strategic planning8, and policy and planned by WB and WWF Australia supports small project on role of carbon sequestration Public Private Partnership of donors with private sector, (mainly garden furniture exporters, like Scan Com): WWF , Ford Foundation, WWF (SDC), Birdlife with TFT (GEF)

9.1.2 Harvesting and transport systems upgraded and costs reduced

Delivered wood costs internationally competitive.

FDD To be identified, currently no donor actively involved, except with some studies planned by World Bank and KfW

9.1.3 Small and medium scale processing of tree and forest products promoted (see RA 8)

Provincial and Commune Forest Development Plans contain proposals and resources for promotion of SMEs.

MARD Dept. of Products Processing and Rural Occupations

To be identified, no donor yet actively with projects involved, but maybe part of WB and ADB forest sector loans


Annex 7: Summary of user rights and responsibilities on allocated forest land

Table 8: The Rights and Responsibilities of Households under the 5MHRP (Source: MARD/ADB 2001. Study on the Policy and Institutional Framework for

Forest Resources Management.

Forest Category Tenure Rights Government Subsidy Responsibilities

SPECIAL USE • Forest Protection

Contract

(i) No land tenure (ii) limited use rights

(see II); (iii) Management

Board holds Land Use Certificate

(i) 50,000 VND/ha/yr. for no more than 5 years;

(ii) gather fire wood, fruits and Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP);

(iii) right to plant and use alternating tree products which have no adverse impact on special use

(i) implement all clauses in contract;

(ii) protect and manage main tree crop and soils;

(iii) No slash & burn; (iv) be approved by

FPD annual monitoring

SPECIAL USE • Supplementary

Planting Contract

(i) No land tenure; (ii) limited use rights



(i) 1.8million VND/ha for first year of planting;

(ii) 6 yrs. Maintenance payments total of 0.8 million VND/ha;

(iii) gather fire wood, fruits and NTFP’s;

(iv) right to plant and use interplanted tree products which have no adverse impact on special use


(ii) Plant only trees which are native species or suited to the ecological system as stated in contract;

(iii) be approved by FPD annual monitoring

PROTECTION FOREST (very critical & critical areas) • Forest Protection

Contract

(i) No land tenure; (ii) limited use rights



(i) 50,000 VND/ha/yr. for no more than 5 years;

(ii) gather fire wood, fruits and NTFP’s;

(iii) right to plant and use alternatives which have no adverse impact


(ii) protect main tree crop and soils;

(iii) No slash & burn; (iv) be approved by

FPD annual monitoring

WATERSHED AREA • Protection and

Enrichment Planting Contract

No land tenure (i) 2.5 million dg/ha for first year and three years of maintenance;

(ii) 50,000 VND/ha/yr. if FPC is issued;

(iii) gather fire wood, fruits and NTFP’s;

(iv) right to plant and use alternatives which have no adverse impact


(ii) Plant only trees named in contract;

(iii) be approved by FPD annual monitoring

PRODUCTION FOREST And less critical and not critical forests • Land allocation

50 year term for perennial crops

(i) 2 ha per household for annual crops and 30 ha per household for perennial crops.

(ii) Households get primary access to production forest if they plant rare and precious tree species, they get 2 million dong/ha

(iii) Having right to own forest products

(i) Must use land sustainably;

(ii) Self determination of tree species, plantation technology and exploitation period;

(iii) Pay tax under law

• Forestland lease for area greater then allocated land.

Mutually agreeable between household and landowner.

(i) Same as above; (ii) No allowance to

determine purposes;

(iii) Pay rent on time.


Annex 8: Summary of Project Activity Outputs (1999-2004) Table 3.1 Summary of Forestry Component & Partners’ Activity Outputs (1999-2004)

Log Frame Ref Activity Unit Total Output

Cao Bang

Bac Kan

Comments

Provincial forest sector agencies upgraded(staff trained, equipment, capacities)

No. of agencies 13 7 6 DARD, FPD, DNRE, FIPU, FDS-5MHRPMBs, Dt. PBM’s

courses 71 30 41 ToT for Extension, LUPLA & CBFM

trainees 1,620 703 917

courses 211 114 97 Tech. staff training, Dist. & Commune

trainees 4,729 2,210 2,519

courses 219 89 130 VEW and Farmer training

trainees 5,604 2,531 3,173

Content training courses includedappropriate at different levels:

extension methods, social forestrPRA tools, LUPLA & CBFM ski

& methods, nursery techniques,plantation techniques, basic

computer use, GPS/GIS techniqueand remote sensing interpretatio

LUPLA & CBFM Guidelines issued Provinces 2 1 1 cooperation with FINNIDA in B

Communes 24 15 9

ha 53,348 27,012 26,336 LUPLA carried out in 12 Communes

Red Books 6,065 6,065 not yet BK administrative problems rema

CBFM Houses supported Number 35 16 19 Including needed furniture & equipment for meetings and traini

eate enabling environment sustainable forestry

anagement.

ntitutional development"

apacity building"

rtaining to Log Frame dicators Numbers 14, 16, , 32, 33, 34

CBFM Groups trained Number 181 111 70

Significant adoption of one A/F practice No. of practices 4 3 4 A/F practices adopted: SALT, frutrees, chestnuts, silvi-pasture

Agroforestry Trials Number 1,731 254 1,480 very diverse and varied

forestry 157 107 50

fruits 134 75 59

prove agroforestry skills mong householders.

g Frame Indicator 35

Village Nurseries operating

chestnuts 150 150 0

operated by farmer families or groups of families, using mainly

select on-site mother trees

Forest plantation (inc.woodlot) 750 ha ha 2,245 1,905 340

Protected natural regeneration 6000 ha ha 9,393 6,833 2,560

Forest enrichment (addl.planting) 250 ha ha 1,393 1183 210

Indigenous tree species screening trial Number 3 3 0

store quality and quantity forest cover.

rtaining to Log Frame dicators Numbers 4, 11, , 37, 38

Upland agroforestry & SALT models Number 48 11 37

Market analysis and development for forest-based products

No of products 7 5 2 chestnuts, incense, honey, mushrooms, medicinal plants (3

Special interest groups established Groups 127 104 23 bees, mushrooms, chestnuts

Chestnut development (many activities) Districts 3 3 0 training, extension, inputs

prove processing and arketing of non timber est products.

g Frame Indicators 39,

Chestnut Processing Centre Number 1 1 0 pilot-scale for product developmn


Annex 9: Forest Inventory Classes in Vietnam NATIONAL FOREST INVENTORY CLASSIFICATION (based on S.Kainulainen 2002)

Identification • Compartments (1000 ha, Arabic numbering) • Blocks (100 ha, Arabic numbering) • Stands (about 10 ha, lower-case letters, uniform with natural and

silvicultural measurements) The Stand ID is not compulsory for special use and protection forests. Forest Category 1. Special Use forest (nature preservation, protection of historical and cultural relics): 1.1. National parks (sub-zones: Strictly protected, ecological rehabilitation, Service and administration. Buffer zones) 1.2. Nature conservation areas (sub-zones: Strictly protected, ecological rehabilitation, Service and administration. Buffer zones) 1.2a Nature reserves 1.2b Habitat preservation areas 1.3. Cultural, historical and environmental forests (classification 1. Very essential, 2. Essential) 2. Protection forests 2.1. Watershed protection 2.2. Wind and sand breaks 2.3. Wave breaks 2.4. Protection for ecology and landscape 3. Natural production forests 3a. Tree dominated forests 3b. Bamboo dominated forests 3c. Mainly non-wood production Forest Status Basing on current status of forest, it is indicated by categories:

1. Category I: grass plat, brushland, or appearance of regenerated timbers

Includes 3 sub-categories

- Ia: Bare hill denuded land, grass land

- Ib: Grassland, brushland, and low density of regenrated timbers

- Ic: Brushland and higher density of regenerated timbers

2. Category II: forest of recovered trees or young trees of D < 20cm (after cultivation and exploitation period)

Includes 2 sub-categories:


- IIa: forest of revovered pioneers, small diameter, low density

- IIb: forest of recovered pioneers in, larger diameter, higher density

The capacity of this type of forest is not quantitative or about 25-40 m3/ha.

3. Category III: exploitation forest

Includes 3 sub-categories:

- IIIa: IIIa1: fully-cut forest, coverage density 0.2-0.3, G < 10m2/ha, M = 60-70 m3/ha

IIIa2: fully-cut and forest being recovered, coverage density > 0.3, G = 10-16 m2/ha,

M = 75-90 m3/ha

IIIa3: fully-cut and forest being recovered, coverage density > 0.5, G > 16-21 m2/ha,

M = 90-200 m3/ha

- IIIb: forest being cut at low level, remaining high capacity

IIIb1: Coverage density > 0.6, G > 21-26 m2/ha, M > 200 m3/ha

IIIb2: Coverage density > 0.7, G > 26-30 m2/ha, M > 200 m3/ha

4. Category IV: primary forest and secondary forest,

high capacity, coverage density > 0.8, G > 30 m2/ha, M > 200 m3/ha.

Additionally, forest is identified as:

- Category of wood/bamboo (mixture)

- Category of pure vau-bamboo. D ≥ 4cm; N > 2000 trees/ha

- Category of pure nua-bamboo. D ≥ 2.5cm; N > 3000 trees/ha

and such trees are equal spread in the area.

integrated forest restoration programme - mekonginfo · integrated forest restoration programme ......

Documents