national workshop on allocation and management of · pdf file1 hanoi, may 22, 2003 national...

1

Hanoi, May 22, 2003

National workshop onallocation and managementof natural forest incommunity forestry

workshopproceedings

2

TAble of contents

Preface 3

Abbreviations 5

Opening adressDr. Nguyen Hong QuanDeputy Director of the Department for Forestry DevelopmentChairman of the National Working Group onCommunity Forest Management ............................................................... 6

Introduction to the workshop's objectives and major results to beachieved by the workshop

Ernst Kuester Team Leader ADB Forestry Sector ProjectMember of the Core-Group of the National Working Group on CommunityForest Management ................................................................................. 9

Report on achievements and experiences with forest land allocation inSon la province

Vu Duc ThuanForest Protection Sub-Department Son La ........................................... 12

The allocation of natural forests in Dac Lac opportunities and challengesNguyen Van XuanDirecrtor of Dak Lak Forest Development Sub-department....................... 19

Report on experimental community- based forest management models inthe province of Thua Thien Hue

Tran Huu BanhDirector Sub- DFD Thua Thien Hue............................................................ 31

Report on the monitoring and evaluation system for the methodology ofcommunity forest protection regulation - experience from Lai Chau

Nguyen Huu AiVice Director of Lai Chau Sub-department of Forest Protection................. 35

Report on the monitoring and evaluation system for the methodology ofcommunity forest protection regulation - experience from Lai Chau

Nguyen Huu AiVice Director of Lai Chai Sub-department of Forest Protection................... 45

The allocation of land, contracting of forest and management ofcommunity forests in hoa binh province

Bui Van ChucHead of Hoa Binh Sub Forest Development Department........................... 54

Assessing the effectiveness of the management of community forest in

3

Cao Bang provinceVu LongMember of the National Working group on Community ForestManagement................................................................................................ 61

Survey report on allocation of existing forest and benefit sharing policy inSon La province

Pham Xuan PhuongPolicy Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development........... 75

Report on community forest management in Gia Lai province Nguyen Van PhongVice Director DARD Gia Lai........................................................................ 85

Introduction to an outline procedure for the establishment of CFM pilotschemes prepared in the NWG CFMErnst Kuester, CTA Forest Sector Project / ADB........................................ 86

Introduction to an action matrix on further steps to complete andimplement the outline procedure for the establishment of CFM pilotschemesNguyen Kim Hai , Deputy CTA Forest Sector Project / ADB...................... 88

Discussions ................................................................................................ 101

Workshop findings and recomendations..................................................... 105

Agenda of the Workshop ............................................................................ 108

Participant list.............................................................................................. 110

Member list of Core Group of National Working Group on CommunityForest Management in Vietnam.................................................................. 114

National Workshop on Allocation and Managment of Natural Forestin Community Forestry, Hanoi, 22nd May 2003

4

Preface

Recently, forestland has been allocated to village communities andhouseholds for the purpose of sustainable forest management and utilization.Particularly, several provinces have taken the initiate to allocate existingnatural forests to local communities in order to strengthen the managementcapacity and sustainable use with the harmonization between State’s benefitsand those of local community.

Initial assessments have shown that community forest management hasproved to be very effective since it is socio-economy feasible, ecologicallysustainable sound and appropriate with traditional culture and farmingpractices of most Vietnam’s ethnic minority groups.

Nevertheless, pilot forestland allocation in different localities has beencarried out in different ways and processes. The already allocated naturalforest being cut and destroyed is still the case in some places for manyreasons, one of which raises the need of power decentralization, capacitybuilding, clear responsibility and sharing benefits for community in forestmanagement, protection and utilization.

Provincial reports have also shown that issues of technical, organizational,institutional, and legal and policy issues need to take into full account thepromotion of community forest management (CFM). There is, in particular,still a shortage of models of comprehensive CFM with the synchronization ofall implementation steps, from the allocation procedures to the institutionalarrangements. In order to address these issues, as well as the orientation foractivities related to CFM it is necessary to do research, to collect opinionsand recommendations from experienced international and nationalspecialists. The National Workshop on Allocation and Management ofNatural Forest in Community Forestry, which was held in Hanoi on 22nd

May 2003, is an effort to clarify the above-mentioned issues.

This workshop proceedings presents the results of evaluation of forestlandallocation and polices to promote CFM, based on a number of recent casestudies organized by the National Working Group on CFM throughoutVietnam. It also provides an overview of a procedure for the establishment ofCFM pilot schemes, which will be implemented in the coming years inVietnam.


5

We hope that this proceedings will help leaders, managers, policy-makers atall level and readers to realise the important role of community forestmanagement in the overall forest management system in Vietnam. Furtherthe proceedings shall create awareness and the basis for policy-makers inreviewing all the issues towards supporting the promotion and expansioncommunity forest management in Vietnam.

The Department of Forestry and the National Working Group on CommunityForest Management are pleased to introduce this proceedings to the readersand apologise for any shortcomings during the preparation of this documentand look forward to receiving your valueable comments.

Department of ForestryNational Working Group on Community Forest Management


6

Abbreviations

ADB/FSP Asian Development Bank/Forest Sector Project

5MHRP Five Million Hectare Reforestation Program

CF Community Forestry

CFM Community Forest Management

CFMB Communal Forest Management

DARD Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

FSSP Forestry Sector Support Program

ETSP Extension and Training Support Project for Forestryand Agriculture in the Upland

GOV Goverment of Vietnam

LTC Land Tenure Certificates

MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Developmen t

NGO Non- government organisation

NTFP Non-timber forest products

NWG-CFM National Working Group on Community ForestManagement

PC People's Committee

PFMB Protection Forest Management Board

SFDP Song Da Social Forest Development Project

SFE State Forest Enterprise

SUFMB Special Forest Management Boards


7

Opening address

By Dr. Nguyen Hong QuanDeputy Director of the Department for Forestry Development

Chairman of the National Working Group on Community Forest Management

Distinguished guests,Ladies and Gentlemen,

On behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD),the National Working Group on Community Forest Management (NWGCFM) and several projects, it is my great honor to welcome therepresentatives from various international organisations, NGOs, programsand projects, the representatives from the central and local governmentagencies to the Workshop on 'Allocation and Management of NaturalForests in Community Forestry'.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Forestry sector has been making important strategic shifts from theState-controlled forestry to people-managed forestry and graduallydecentralising forest management. In this renovation process, different typesof forest management such as forest management through privateenterprises, households and local communities, etc. have come into being.Each of these management types has its own strengths and weaknesses,which need to be reviewed, evaluated and effectively and appropriatelydeveloped.

In Vietnam, community forests have been in existence for a long time,closely associated with the existence of the communities and their culture. Itis preliminarily estimated that presently communities have been involved inthe management of 2.5 million hectares of forestland (with and withoutforest cover), accounting for nearly 14% of the planned forestland areasnationwide covering 1,023 communes, 146 districts and 24 provinces.Reality has proved that community forest management is one of best forms


8

of forest management, which is efficient, cost-effective, and is advocated bylocal people.

However, from the legal perspectives, community is not recognized as anindependent and legal unit. Consequently, community is not granted LandUse Certificate as well as incapable of obtaining loans from banks like otherorganizations and households despite having allocated forestland andcontracted forests.

Nevertheless, several provinces have initiavely allocated forestland to localcommunities and asked the Governement for permission to experiment onthe allocation of existing natural forests to local communities andhouseholds. The pioneers are Son La province with around 105,000 hectaresof natural forests being allocated, then comes Dac Lac with 8,000 hectares. Itcan be said that the allocation of natural forests is strongly supported by thelocal people because it has gradually attached their benefits to forests, andharmonised their benefits with the State’s. In many places, forests aremanaged well after being allocated to local community or individualhouseholds under appropriate regulations and benefit-sharing policies whichhave been made by the local community guided and approved by the localauthorities.

On the other hand, many regulations under laws have been issued, creatingfavourable conditions for the community development. At the same time, theNational Assembly, the Party and the Government are reviewing all theissues towards the betterment of the community development in general andthe community forest management in particular.

To anticipate the Government’s renovations, we should take a step ahead todeal with the remaining problems due to the fact that the allocation of naturalforests and the community forest management are in the trial stage; theimplementation duration is not long enough; technical, institutional andpolicy problems should be studied and tested for completion.

Hence, the Department for Forestry Development in cooperation with theNational Working Group (NWG) on Community Forest Management(CFM), the Social Forestry Development Project Song Da, the ADB ForetrySector Project and others organise the Workshop on 'Allocation andManagement of Natural Forests in Community Forestry'


9

This workshop is the follow-up of the two previous Workshops beingorganised in 2000 and 2001. Its objectives are as follows:

To preliminarily evaluate the results of forest land allocation and policiesto promote CFM, based on a number of recent case studies organized bythe NWG CFM throughout Vietnam

To introduce a procedure for the establishment of CFM pilot schemesprepared by the NWG CFM

To discuss further steps to apply the procedure in pilot communes.

At this Workshop, we hope to receive a lot of valuable comments andcontributions of the participants from central to local agencies andinternational organisations as well as continuous support and sharing ofexperiences in the future. All this should contribute to the development ofcommunity forest management in Vietnam and to the successfulimplementation of the five million hectare reforestation program.

Finally, I would like to wish you all the best and wish the Workshop a greatsuccess.

Thank you for your attention.


10

Introduction to the workshop's objectives and majorresults to be achieved by the workshop

by Ernst KuesterTeam Leader ADB Forestry Sector Project

Member of the Core-Group of theNational Working Group on Community Forest Management

Dear Dr. Quan,Distinguished Guests,Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please allow me to convey my appreciation particularly to the representativesfrom local governments and projects working in rural areas of Vietnam that youcould find the time to participate in this workshop. We know that you had a longtravel, and we hope that the results of this workshop will somewhat compensateyou for the efforts and time you have put into joining this workshop.

As Dr. Quan has pointed out in his opening remarks, Vietnam’s forestry sector isseeing important shifts from centralized, state-controlled forestry to moredecentralized, people-managed forestry. Ongoing policy developments indicatethat the process of decentralization and public administration reform will furthergain momentum, with CFM as possibly one approach to be given priorityattention in the restructuring of the forestry sector. According to latestdiscussions regarding the amendment of the land law, in future not onlyhouseholds, but also village communities may receive red book certificates forforestry land. This opens a new chapter for the development of CFM in Vietnamas it allows for decentralized, people-centered CFM schemes based on localtraditions and resources.

Over the recent years, the process of policy development has been supported bythe National Working Group on Community Forest Management through aseries of studies, workshops, and inputs into the ongoing process of formulatinglaws and by-laws pertaining to community forestry. In this, the working groupcould make use of relevant field experience made in an increasing number ofprojects throughout Vietnam. In the absence of a consistent legal and regulatoryframework for the different technical and organizational aspects of CFM, theworking group rather focused on the issue of land tenure, i.e. land use planning


11

and land allocation. However, with the latest policy developments, it is now timefor us to address the full range of technical and organizational aspects ofecologically, economically and socially viable community forestry schemes.Given Vietnams rich and diverse history of community forestry as pointed outby Dr. Quan, our task will not be to newly introduce CFM to rural communities,but rather to link traditional CFM systems with supporting systems in view ofpoverty alleviation and sustainable forest resource management, where needed.To clarify the outline and main contents of such supporting systems will be themain task of this workshop.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Dr. Quan has as the first objective of this workshop mentioned “topreliminarily evaluate the results of forest land allocation and policies topromote CFM, based on a number of recent case studies organized bythe NWG CFM throughout Vietnam”. This objective will be addressed duringthe morning session when different regions will present their experiences withdifferent aspects of forests, land and people related to CFM. While somepresentations focus on specific issues such as land allocation, others ratherengage in discussing a broader spectrum of topics related to a morecomprehensive CFM system.

During the afternoon session, we will address the other 2 objectives of thisworkshop:

To introduce a procedure for the establishment of CFM pilot schemesprepared by the NWG CFM,

To discuss further steps to apply the procedure in pilot communes.

The procedure prepared by the Working Group foresees a series of 4 steps forthe establishment of CFM schemes, namely:

1. Application for Long Term CFM permit2. Establishment Phase (up to 5 years)3. Evaluation4. Implementation Phase.

The Working Group has provided all participants with handouts informingabout the details of the proposed procedure.


12

While the Working Group understands that CFM development needs to cater fora wide range of technical and organizational approaches in line with varyinglocal conditions, there is on the other hand a clear need to somewhat harmonizeand standardize supporting systems in ongoing projects, if we want to helpshaping future supporting systems of the government which will materialize asresult of the policy changes.

In this respect we hope very much that the group discussions in the afternoonwill help to complete the outline procedure, and that eventually commitments bydifferent parties may be reached to engage in testing selected technical and/ororganizational aspects of the procedure under field conditions within ongoingprojects. It is hoped that first experiences from such field tests will be availableat the end of the year, in time for submitting valuable inputs to the Governmentfor the preparation of regulations and guidelines to enact the land law in it’samended form.

I wish us all a successful workshop, and a pleasant time of interacting with andlearning from each other.

Thank you for your attention.


13

Report on Achievements and Experiences withForest Land Allocation in Son la province

Vu Duc ThuanForest Protection Sub-Department Son La

1. Background

Son La is a mountainous province in the North of Vietnam covering an area of1,421,000 ha including 1,034,110 ha of forest land (of which 310,000 ha areexisting forest), 147,360 ha of agricultural land, and 293,530 ha of lime-stonemountains and other land types. The province comprises one capital town, 9districts and 201 communes with around 3,000 villages.

Lime-stone mountains cover 80% of the area; 80% of area has an altitude ofmore than 600 m above sea level; more than 80% of the area has a slope ofabove 25o. Those are the difficult features for socio-economic development inSon La. The province is lying in the basin of two big rivers (Da and Ma rivers)and most of the forest land in the province is classified as special-use forestand crucial watershed protection forest. Thus it is of utmost importance toprotect and develop the existing forest and afforestation area (under FiveMillion Ha Program), in order to well manage the watershed and prevent soilerosion into the Son La dam.

In recent years, exhaustion of forest resources urges the provincial authority tofind solutions like leasing and allocating forestry land, encouraging farming,and investing in agro-forestry. In Son La, traditional forestry is moving tosocial forestry with the aim of protecting and managing special-use forest,protection forest and production forest by incorporating agro-forestrymethods.

With the support from national and international projects, there are manystudies and methodologies which are implemented successfully in theprovinces such as: Participatory Land Use Planning and Land Allocation(1996 – 1998), Elaboration of Participatory Forest Protection andDevelopment Regulations at village level (1999-2000); demarcation ofboundaries between agricultural and forest lands and especially, forest landallocation to owners for long-term management and utilization.

Forest allocation to households and village communities is a big program ofSon La province over the last 3 years. It is planed to complete the program in


14

2003. Some results and lessons drawn from the implementation process areintroduced in the following parts.

2. Son La’s policy and orientation in forest land allocation

Due to the move from traditional forest management to social forestry, Son Laprovince has issued several policies and detailed action plans for the programon allocating forest land and forests to households, organizations and villagecommunities.1. Forest land allocation means allocating existing forest, plantation and bare

land to households, groups of households, communities, organizations,Special-use Forest Management Boards, and Protection ForestManagement Boards. Provision of forest land use titles for owners covers a50 year time period.

2. Existing forest with an area of more than 1,000 ha is allocated to Special-use or Watershed Protection Forest Management Boards.

3. Bare land, natural regeneration, and scattered forests in the villages areallocated to households, individuals, communities and social organizationsas well as forestry sections.

4. The forest land and forest allocation policy is to be applied in the wholeprovince between year 2000 – 2003.

5. Study tours to Dak Lak province have been conducted to learn from theexperience of allocating forest land and forests in Dak Lak.

6. Allocation of existing forest has been piloted in Mai Son district andlessons were drawn from this pilot for the wide implementation in thewhole province.

7. Based on experience from pilot allocation for promoting forestdevelopment, the subsequent forest and forest land situation is to bemonitored.

8. Forest allocation result maps, data aggregation, and cadastral files aremanaged in electronic formats in order to strengthen the informationtechnology application in forest management tasks.

9. Unemployed graduates from forestry, agriculture and cadastral colleges areencouraged to get involved in making allocation by offering them 2 yearcontracts to reduce redundant labor in the province.


15

2. Results

2.1. Results in the pilot area

From March to July 2003, 193 ha of regenerating forest Ib and Ic wereallocated to 86 owners with land use titles in the pilot site (Plot 6, Hat Lotcommune, Mai Son district). A provincial workshop was organized in Son Lato evaluate the pilot implementation. It was reported that local peoplepositively respond to being allocated with forest land. The allocation also hadpositive impacts on the allocated forest, such as encouraging owners to cleargrass for enriching the forest with economic trees like Taiwanese bambooshoots and fruit trees.

Based on those achievements, Son La Provincial People’s Committee decidedto upscale the allocation of forest land and existing forest in the wholeprovince starting in 2000 and planning to complete this program in 2003

Allocation of forest land and forest has been implemented for 2 years andcovered 159 communes. The remaining communes are being covered nowand are planed to be completed at the end of 2003. Those 41 communes areunder management of Special-use and Watershed Protection ForestManagement Boards. The forest and forest land in border areas are allocatedto army units.

Based on reports from field implementation, institutions such as protectionunits, cadastral sections and the provincial evaluation team, some specificcharacteristics were highlighted in the allocation process as follows:

1. Areas allocated to households are mainly crucial and less crucialprotection forests, production forest Ia, Ib, regenerating forest Ic, youngforest IIa, IIb, or poor forest IIa1. Rich forests with high standingvolume are rarely allocated to households, instead these forests areallocated to communities, organizations in the village, and groups ofhouseholds.

2. Holy forests and forests in micro-watersheds (also called communityforests) are allocated to communities only.

3. Existing forest, which is far from villages, is mainly allocated to groupsof households, as it is difficult for individuals to manage remote forestplots.

4. People who live in communes located near district centers have a higherdemand for receiving forest allocations than those who live in remoteareas. Awareness of local people in the communes near district centers


16

is better than of people in remote communes even though in remoteareas there are more forests with high quality and large area.Furthermore, in remote areas, there is almost no access to market forforest products, thus local people there do not yet care about thebenefits they can have after receiving forest allocations.

5. The percentage of forest allocated to households within a village varieswith ethnic groups and cultivation habit. For Thai people, morehouseholds are allocated with existing forest than for H’Mong people,where forest is allocated mainly to groups of households andcommunities.

6. Recently, four Special-use Forest Management Boards were establishedin Son La (Ta Xua board in Phu Bac Yen district, Xuan Nha Board inMoc Chau district, Sop Cop Board in Song Ma district and Copia Boardin Thuan Chau district). The total area allocated to those four boards isabout 100,000 ha. However, slow speed to complete all procedures alsoaffects the allocation process to those boards.

7. Up to now, none of the 10 planned Watershed Protection ForestManagement Boards is yet established, thus all the existing forest(about 100,000 ha) belonging to those boards is temporarily allocated tostate forest enterprises in the districts.

2.2. Achievements

- The Forest land and forest allocation policy in Son La is accepted andsupported by the local people. The policy is also in line with governmentlaws and appropriate to the local conditions.

- Allocating forest land, especially allocating existing forest tohouseholds, individuals, groups of households and communities in orderto clearly define the ownership of the forests is an important solution and"brave action" of Son La province to effectively manage the forestresources and to suitably share the benefits of forest production.

- According to the evaluation report for 2001, existing forests that wereallocated to households, groups of households, communities and socialorganizations are well managed and protected. The area of illegallydestroyed forest has declined significantly. Awareness of local people onforest protection and management is strengthened when being providedwith land use titles for forest land. They actively manage their ownresources by investing in afforestation, and planting fruit trees in theallocated area.

- Files and maps from allocation results are managed electronically withsuitable software. This is a success in applying information technology inforest management to improve the forest management system. Itfacilitates effective updating of changes in forest resources, forest land,


17

and ownership, as well as providing a firm planning base for theprovince’s long-term plan for forestry development.

- Forest land and forest allocation in Son La has combined investmentresources and used aerial photo interpretation and forest land maps of theGeneral Department of Cadastral in the year of 2000 and 2001, thus theimplementation time and costs are reduced.

3. Experiences and outstanding issues

Son La is in the last stage of the forest allocation process – the provision offorest land use title for owners. However, so far experiences are still limitedwith regard to disseminating the policy, allocating land in the field, and themethodology for conducting the process in the field. Detailed conclusions andan intensive evaluation of the forest land and existing forest allocation impactsto households remains to be done.

3.1. Provincial law system and implementation

Son La Provincial People’s Committee has issued 11 legal papers to conductthe process. These are covering issues regarding establishing the project onforestry land allocation and existing forest allocation, implementation policiesand guidelines, financial standards, technical guidelines, directives anddecisions to assign responsibilities to sectors and institutions at differentlevels, and the decision to establish consulting groups and steering boards atprovincial and district levels.

The province assigned the Provincial Forest Protection Department and theProvincial Cadastral Department to play main roles in the process incooperation with the relevant institutions and the Steering boards for forestland and existing forest allocation at district level.

Implementation activities and cooperation among institutions in the provinceare effective, and the legal papers provide a generally adequate basis ofsupport and guidance.

3.2. Provincial Decision 3011

Based on the Government Decree 163/1999/ND-CP and experience fromallocating existing forest in Dak Lak, Son La province elaborated a policy onbenefit sharing and obligations of forest owners, and implemented theprogram on forest land allocation. There are, however, some limits as follows:

- Forest land and existing forest allocation policy in Son La was issuedbefore the Government Decision 178/2001/QD-CP and basically is in


18

line with this Decision, except that 178 defines higher benefit shares tothe farmer after harvesting.

- It is regulated that the minimum area allocated to households is 0.5 ha,but in fact, plantations allocated to households by Program 219 and 327with green book certificates in the past, are very small and scattered,causing difficulties in protection and management.

- Area for allocation to communities is regulated to be between 30 ha and500 ha, but in fact some communities are allocated with more than 500ha or less than 30 ha.

- Decision 3011 lacks the detailed instruction regarding benefit sharingfor forests categorized from IIIa2 upwards, i.e. for medium and richforests.

- When allocating plantations which were established with investmentfrom the Government or from international projects, benefit sharingratios and obligations regarding repayment of investments are notregulated in detail. Still, Son La province is allocating these areas tohouseholds for protection and management.

- The province added more benefit rights to owners who are communitiesand regulated that organizations cannot purchase or transfer theallocated area.

3.3. Policy dissemination

To support field officers in implementing the allocation activity and fulfilltheir roles in implementing the forest land allocation policy, training coursesfrom provincial level to district level were organized with budget andmethodology support from the Social Forestry Development Project (SFDP)Song Da. Training focused on technical field work, communication skills withfarmers, and skills to organize a meeting at village level.

To implement democracy in forest land and existing forest allocation, agreeon land use planning and to define the details for allocating forest, farmers areactive in discussion and giving their opinions in meetings. District officers arethe facilitators only and this improvement is aiming at strengtheningdemocracy in forest management.

3.4. Field work

Following plot demarcation in the field, sketch maps are drawn. These sketchmaps are exact as they are based on interpreted rectified aerial maps VN 2000(1:10,000) which cover individual plots, total area and forest status in 2000.


19

Field officers only need to revise properly the current forest status (changessince 2000) and define boundaries among owners.

Forest volume measurement and status definition are applied with simplemeasurement methods: measuring tree height according to Blume-Leiss(‘Pumlay’); measuring basal area according to Bitterlich (‘Pitecnich’).However, due to difficult topography and the fact that most forests arecategorized as regenerated and poor forests, forest volume measurement andforest status definition are difficult and time-consuming, and accuracy is low.Measuring the allocated area and defining demarcation among owners issupported by village management boards. This solution effectively helpsforest owners to avoid conflict since they demarcate the area themselves in thefield.

Measuring forest volume by mathematical formulas creates suspicion fromfarmers as they do not trust the measuring method of field officers.

3.5. Office work

The cadastral dossier system for forest land of Son La province comprises 16table forms . Even though computers are utilized for data processing, there arestill some impediments as follows:

- The Forest sector and cadastral sector use two different symbol systemsand different plot measurement methods, thus all maps and tables haveto be adjusted to be in line with those two systems.

- The allocation program is using two budget resources (from provinciallevel and from ‘Project on administrative map elaboration’ of GeneralCadastral Department) thus there must be two separate output files tomeet the demand from those different two institutions.

- Maps after implementation include forest planning and forest currentsituation map; forest land and forest allocation map (for forestrysector); and a cadastral map for forest land (for cadastral sector).

- Another difficulty is how to agree on the content of forest land use title(Red book certificate) as the area of forest land types and forest types,forest status and forest volume must be indicated clearly in thecertificate.

4. Recommendations and proposals

Forest land and forest allocation in Son La has achieved several results: therights and obligations of owners are more clearly defined, and the approachreceives support from the local people. It can be seen that allocating forest


20

land and existing forest is really an effective approach and is a good basis forlong term sustainable forest management.

4.1. Recommendations

After receiving allocated forest land and forest, the owners urgently needfunds to invest in forest. Providing funds particularly encourages forestowners to manage and protect forest. Forest land allocation is only the firststep in the process of sustainable forest management. Furthermore elaborationof a suitable benefit sharing policy for each location and each ethnic group isvery important.

It is necessary to provide suitable trainings and technical guidelines tohouseholds who are allocated with forest land and existing forest. Farmersneed market information so that they can decide themselves which trees willbe planted, and when is the most suitable time for planting in order to managethe allocated area in the most effective way.

The specific characteristics of Son La province are that sloping land andlimestone mountains are dominant features and transportation is difficult.Furthermore, most forests are watershed protection forests, thus forestproductivity is limited.

4.2. Proposals

Farmers should receive more information on rights and obligations (land law,decision 178, etc.) in local language after they have been allocated forest andforest land.

The Government needs to provide investments for households who areallocated with forest and forest land for regeneration and plantation in thebeginning years and allow people to sell forest products in the market.

A pool of commune level extensionists is required in order to support farmersin forest management and development. Training courses need to be providedfor commune level forest officers, so they are sufficiently qualified in forestmanagement and production and are able to support local people in solvingconflicts and pursuing violations of village regulations.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) needs toevaluate allocation models in Son La, Dak Lak and Thanh Hoa provinces todraw lessons and refine the technical guidelines for forest land and existing


21

forest allocation policy, as well as the benefit sharing policy to upscale toother provinces.

The Social Forestry Development Project (SFDP) Song Da needs to continueits supports to relevant institution in evaluating the process and impact ofallocation and in proposing solutions to Son La provincial authority. Theproject also should continue to experiment in some pilots for raising forestproductivity by improved forest management and should initiate an evaluationto upscale this methodology.


The allocation of natural forests in dak lakopportunities and challenges

Nguyen Van XuanDirecrtor of Dak Lak Forest Development Sub-department

1. Background

Dak Lak has a large area of forest scattering on a large scale which has beenplaying an important environmental, social and economic role in theHighlands as well as in the lower delta provinces. According to the inventoryof forest conducted in December 2002, Dak Lak has 992,357.3 hectares offorest, of which 981,627.2 hectares are natural forest.

However, the forest in Dak Lak has degraded seriously in terms of area andquality in the past few years, especially between 1996 and 2000 under theimpact of various factors like population growth pressure, slash and burn,deforestation to grow industrial crops, etc. To bar this problem, along withother solutions, Dak Lak Provincial People's Committee has launched aprogram to allocate the management of forest and forest land to households,groups of households, and local communities, which is called theProgramme of land and forest land allocation. Dak Lak Provincial People'sCommittee has provided financial supports and directed the ProvincialDepartment of Agriculture and Rural Development to be in charge of makingthe policy of benefits for households and individuals who receive forest landand forest to manage and use for long-term forestry purposes. After finishingthe draft policy, the Provincial Department of Agriculture and RuralDevelopment has hosted more than five conferences to collect opinionscontributed by bodies from local to central levels so as to complete the draftpolicy and put it into effect. In addition, the forestry consultant group onforest allocation and management formed by the Department has compiledmanuals on forest land allocation techniques with the participation of thepeople for the application in Dak Lak. Every year Dak Lak People'sCommittee assigned the implementation of the forest and forest landallocation plans to the province's bodies concerned.

2. Methods of allocation


2.1. Allocation approach

The initial idea of the forest land allocation programme was to experimentthe allocation to households. However, through practical survey we realizedthat the traditional community organizations like village, family and clan, etcare typical of most ethnic groups. These traditional organizations, hence, canbe seen as a potential factor to help the management of forest resources inthe high land. Despite not being recognized as a social organization, thistraditional type of organization is still in existence. Unlike other socio-economic organizations, these traditional organizations have taken part in themanagement of forest for ages. Their members have been living adjacentlyto forest with close connection for ages and, hence, have a lot of experiencesin forest management and protection.

While State organizations still face with difficulties regarding humanresource, finance, policy, etc in the management and protection of forest,especially in remote areas, it is really necessary to enhance the role oftraditional community organizations.

The allocation of land and forest to communities meets the demands andwishes of high land ethnic population. Forest land has traditionally been themain cultivation land of local ethnic communities. Due to the on-goingscarcity of agricultural land, the allocation of forest land solves the problemsof people's land for production. Life long adjacent residence and close familyrelationship have resulted in the habits of living and working in groups ofhouseholds. As a result, households can help and protect each other so whenwe allocated land and forest at village 6, Dak R'Tin commune, Dak R'Lapdistrict, Dak Lak province, 64 out of 73 households voted for the allocationto household groups.

Another case also supports the necessity of land and forest allocation tocommunity. At Dak Phoi commune, Lak district, Dak Lak province, we haveallocated 2000 hectares of forest and forest land to some individuals andhouseholds living in 4 villages of the commune. Because some householdsdid not receive any forest land, those recipients shared their allocated landwith other households, forming groups of household users. Obviously, inareas like these, people of M'nong ethic group still wish to maintain the clan-level communities.


Therefore, in the past years, Dak Lak has actively experimented theallocation of forest and forest land to groups of households and communitiesalong with to households. The results are as follows:

14,336.4 hectares of forest and forest land have been allocated to3,243 households.

1,542 hectares have been allocated to 10 groups of households,comprising 111 households.

9,007 hectares have been allocated to 24 village communitiescomprising 1065 households.

The reality of the forest and forest land allocation in Dak Lak has revealedthe strengths and weaknesses of the allocation to household groups orcommunities:

The transfer of land in Dak Lak is very common among ethnicpopulation living in local areas so the co-use of forest and forest landon the base of community forest is the biding factor of any forms ofland transfer.

It is in line with the living and working habits of people because themanagement has been allocated to people while their traditionalmanagement remains.

Amid the serious illegal deforestation, it is necessary to have strongforest management organizations like groups of households or villagecommunity to ensure effective protection of the allocated forest.

The uneven distribution of forest resources has negatively affected theequality in the allocation of forest land to households. The alternativeallocation of land to groups of households would regulate the benefitsamong households.

The allocation of land to groups of households can reduce costs,human resource and time required.

People's participation in the process of land tenure and forest landallocation in some communities has helped to ensure satisfactoryresults.

Forest land tenure certificates have been established in somecommunities.

Ethnic communities living adjacently to forest tend to be unaware ofmarketing and forest business techniques.


Commune-level forestry offices, district-level agricultural landadministration offices lack forestry officials so communityconsultancy on forest business management is still restricted.

Communities face difficulties in applying for capital loans since theyhave not been regarded eligible.

Recipient communities have not been able to invest in forestryproduction.

Aid from competent bodies in the managing of forest and handling ofviolations of forest law was not adequate and timely.

Forestry extension is still weak.

2.2. Recipients:

The population belongs to ethnic minorities living on the spot such as E De,M'nong, Ja Rai, etc. or ethnic minorities from the North like Tay, Nung,Thai, etc. and the Kinh. These ethnic groups live and mix together so forestand forest land was allocated to all of them. However, according to thegeneral policy of the province, allocation priority should be given to thenative ethnic minorities so they have received 80% of the total area beingallocated. The remaining was allocated to the Kinh and the Northernminorities.

2. 3. Allocation scale: To household groups: Each group of households received between

150-200 hectares of forest and forest land. To households: on average a household was allocated between 5-10

hectares of forest and forest land. To communities: on average each community was allocated between

400-500 hectares of forest and forest land.

3. 4. Types of forest being allocated

Allocated forest comprises production forest (85%) and protection forestwith their status ranging from rich, medium, and poor to young forest. Thearea being allocated also includes land with no forest cover, which accountsfor about 30%.

3. Results of forest and forest land allocation and after-allocation forestuse


3.1. Results of the allocation of forest and forest land:

Since 1999, the total area of forest land, which has been allocated to people,is 24,885.4 hectares, ranging from young forest to rich forest and land withno forest cover. The area being allocated annually is as follows:

Year Area Number of households1999 7,067 5142000 1,175 782001 2,355 4002002 14,288 3,427Total 24,885.4 4,419

The specific figures for each year are illustrated in the appendix.

3.2. The after-allocation forest management and forest use

Generally, forest has been better managed and protected after being allocatedto groups of households, households and communities. Recently, with theaid of the Mekong lower section resource management project, we haveinspected to have initial assessments of the forest management andprotection after the allocation to households in Ea Sol commune, Ea Hleodistrict. Our initial comments are as follows:

In Cham village, households have formed teams which assign groups of 2-3households to take turn to regularly go on patrol in the forest. They combinemany activities like cultivating and harvesting of forest products, pasturingcows and patrolling to protect forest. The forest patrols conducted byhouseholds in other villages like Diet and Ka Ry are spontaneous. Thenumber of patrols by each household is 4-5 times per month, with themaximum being 10 times per month.Households revealed that they patrol in the day time mainly, which results inuntimely detection of deforestation happening at night.

Forest management and protection groups are not guided, directed, helped,inspected and monitored by the commune-level forestry office, and they donot specific action plans. Besides, there has not been any coordinationbetween those groups and the village communities.


In general, forest management and protection is still spontaneous andindividualized by households. Many households did not report to thecommune-level forestry office on detecting cases of deforestation. There aremany reasons for this: they are afraid of being reproved for not fulfillingtheir duties, or they have not received timely help many times after reportingto the commune-level forestry office.

Facing the recent lack of food, many households have returned to slash andburn. A number of households, after receiving land, have either cultivated inold upland fields which have been left fallow for many years, leaving openland deserted and bushes to grow in their allocated forest land, or exploitedforest land to exhaustion. The total area of cultivated land is 35 hectares, ofwhich 22.6 hectares are from allocated forest land and 12.4 hectares are fromencroachment land. This is what happened in Ka Ry village. Somehouseholds used to shifting cultivate in 150.1 hectares of forest land nowbeing allocated to 10 other households. Last year, they used 10.4 hectares ofthat land again for the cultivation of upland rice and other crops. Whatshould be noted is that this could lead to future land disputes.

As for households receiving forest, up to 70 households equaling 59% havelost their forest trees. The household with the largest area of tree felling of 4hectares is in Ka Ry village. Other households did not suffer from this losspossibly due to the far location from the roads of their forest or the lack oflarge trees in their forest. The main form of deforestation is the felling oftrees that can be used as poles for black pepper or housing wood. Thus, theclear-cut area is not too large, only about 16.4 hectares, accounting for 1% ofthe total area of land with forest cover.

It can be said that people have been aware of their ownership over theallocated forest land. There have been no cases of abusing forest land forshifting cultivation as before. No cases of encroaching forest land betweenhouseholds of each village or between villages have been reported.

Besides, with the guidance from the district-level People's Committee, EaHleo forest enterprise has built up and experimented the after-allocationagroforestry production model with 6 households in Diet village, and theinitially obtained results are satisfactory.

A matter of our concern is how to help villagers get income from forest andhow to have bioforestry solutions to foster forest. In 2002, with help from theSocio-forestry Project of Tay Nguyen University, the self-management board


of village No. 6, Dak R'Tih commune, Dak R'Lap district, designed themaintenance of natural forest in an area of 158.3 hectares of poor andmedium forest for a group of household- recipients. This was the first timethe villagers in the province had actively participated in the fostering offorest and obtained income from their allocated forest. The activity wouldhelp communities with their forest business management to get income. Itwould give people confidence and encourage them to invest in the protectionand management of forest for better income to be generated from theallocated forest and forest land.

4. Lessons from the allocation of natural forest in Dak Lak

The implementation of the forest allocation programme in the province issimply an experiment and needs to be tested through time before itsefficiency can be assessed. However, the significance is that an initialexperience in forest allocation can be drawn and this will be a great help tothe provincial forestry in the protection and management of local forestresource. A number of lessons that have been drawn are presented asfollows:

The allocation of forest and forest land needs to be preceded by landuse planning to meet the demand for land of households and thecommunity as well as to ensure long-term land use.

The allocation of forest and forest land should be conducted on theprinciple of equality with attention to be paid to poverty elimination.The matter of recipients needs to be discussed with and agreed by thecommunity and the local authorities.

This is a very important matter which should be taken into account in theallocation process. Therefore, focus should be laid on the gathering ofvillagers to work out the recipient categories in an order of preferencewith villagers' participation.

The outcome of forest allocation is the establishment of forestmanagement file for each household, group of households orcommunity.

Suitable methods need to be in use to promulgate the forest and forestland allocation policy, making villagers aware of their recipients'responsibilities and benefits. Villagers' participation should be


promoted from the stage of promulgating forest land allocation policyso that they can real insiders right from the beginning.

Forest and forest land should be allocated according to theiradjacency. The optimal way is to allocate forest land to all villages ofa commune at the same time to avoid possible disputes among villagesor illegal forest logging in areas which have not been allocated.

Forest in residential areas is often scattering, vulnerable to strongimpacts and of low quality so it should be allocated to households'management rather than to the community's management.

Co-operation and assistance of concerned bodies like authorities ofvarious levels, the forestry branch, the land administration branch andvillagers' participation in the forest allocation are essential in order toensure success.

The monitoring and evaluating of the allocation process would helpmanagement levels and people in charge of the allocation be active intheir work, and also help the parties concerned timely regulate arisingproblems.

Households' forest management and protection requires aids from thelocal authorities and competent bodies like the forestry inspection, thepolice since households tend to be incapable of dealing withviolations.

The regulations on forest management, protection and developmentshould be made by villagers. Each regulation needs to be voted for in atransparent and democratic manner. District-level, commune-levelofficials and consultants should confine their roles to motivating themaking of the regulations. The more parties participating in theregulation making process, the fewer problems arise during itsapplication to reality.

Regulations which are in line with villagers' living conditions tend tobe more effective. Compulsory regulations are likely to be rejected bypeople. The more simple and brief the language used in the regulationsis, the better people understand and remember them. More specificregulations facilitate the application and prevent possible abuse orwrong application of them.

The making process of regulations should have forestry inspectionofficials' participation to avoid any legally deviance and to facilitatefuture co-ordination.

In certain cases, regulations can be established for a group of villagesto enhance interdependence. Co-ordination of surrounding


communities should be taken into consideration to intensify theeffectiveness of the regulations.

Community of consistent ethnic and economic background, andregulations' meeting the requirements of most community memberswould ensure high feasibility of the regulations. In places where thecommunity organization is weak and incapable of managing, it is notnecessary to form a community management board. Instead, thealready-existing organizations in the community like the village, theFarmers' association or the Women's association, etc. should beconsolidated.

The regulations on forest management and protection should beapproved by the district-level authorities for the villagers to follow.

5. Recommendations to the policy concerning the allocation andmanagement of natural forest

Policy:

So far, no specific documents have been issued to guide the allocation offorest and to households or to community, resulting in numerous difficultiesto the implementation. As for the allocation of forest land to groups ofhouseholds, Dak Lak province has applied the current documents and hasissued Land Tenure Certificates so that in-group households can co-possessand co-manage the allocated forest land.

With the allocation of forest to community, Dak Lak has started and hadspecific decisions to allow 24 village communities to manage, protect andbenefit by forest. To illustrate this point, we would like to quote a decision ofDak Lak Provincial People's Committee on the approval of the allocation offorest land to 4 villages in Yang Mao commune, Krong Bong district on 23March 2002. Some basic points of this decision are as follows:

Objectives:+ To enhance forest management at the basic level through villagecommunity on the basis of developing the tradition of managing and usingforest and forest land of ethnic people living on the spot.+ To bring local households to directly manage and protect forest, do forestbusiness so people getting direct benefits from forestry activities would beresponsible for managing and maintaining forest.


+ To partly solve the problem of encroachment and illegal logging; tomaintain and enhance the watershed protection and protect the environmentin the region.

Rights:

As for production forest:+ To be allowed to intercrop agricultural crops, medical herbs, to pasturecattle, to do tourism business, to exploit construction materials like sand androck in accordance with production forest regulation.+ To be allowed to exploit forestry products excluding wood (with theexception to rare animals and plants).+ To have rights to by-products when carrying out bioforestry techniques.+ If households have demand for housing wood, which is certified by thevillage-level forest management and protection board and the commune-level People's Committee, they will be granted logging permission in theallocated production forest by the district-level People's Committee. Themaximum quota is 10 cubic metres of round timber per household.Households are exempted from resource tax on these timbers.+ To be allowed to log bamboos when this type of forest has the cover ofover 70%, and the number of old and medium bamboos of over 40%(exceptthose bamboos producing flowers) and have rights to 95% of the after-taxproduct values.+ To be given financial support by the State to plant forest. If the villagesself-invest in afforestation, they can decide how to plant trees, what kinds oftrees to plant, and they can log and use these forestry products.+ The villages' benefits of timber are as follows:

Quota First logging Second logging

Rich Medium

Poor Young Rich Medium

Poor

Initialreserve ofeachloggingcycle(m3/ha)

210 170 100 70 136.6 120 89.4

Durationof

3 5 14 39 35 35 35


maintenance (year)Initialreserve atloggingtime(m3/ha)

223.9 188.7 130 130 241.7 212.4 158.3

Intensityof logging(%)

30 28 24 24 30 30 25

Timberbenefitedby village(m3/ha)

2.62 3.43 20.28 16.22 33 29 25.7

Annualbenefit(m3/ha)

0.87 0.69 1.45 0.42 0.94 0.83 0.74

As for protection forest:+ To be financially supported by the State for protection, assisted naturalregeneration and afforestation. In case the State cannot pay for annual forestmanagement and protection, village is entitled to 100% of logging products.+ To be entitled to logging forestry products other than timber (except rareanimals and plants) and to exemption from resource tax on these products.+ To be allowed to log dead trees, falling trees, disease-affected and twistedtrees according to logging plans approved by the competent levels.+ To be entailed to logging of bamboos with the maximum logging intensityof 30% (except bamboos producing flowers) when the bamboo forest has thecover of 80%, and have rights to all these products after paying tax.+ To be allowed to use perennial industrial trees to plant protection forest orintercrop with forest trees according to approved plans.+ Villages self-invest in afforestation are entitled to 100% of loggingproducts with the maximum annual logging of 10% of their area ofafforestation.+ The villages' benefits of timber are as follows:

Indicator First logging Second logging

Rich Mediu Poor Young Rich Mediu Poor


m mInitialreserve ofeachloggingrotation(m3/ha)

210 170 100 70 165.7 139.6 96.2

Durationofmaintenance (year)

3 5 14 39 35 35 35

Initialreserve atloggingtime(m3/ha)

223.9 188.7 130 130 293.3 247.2 170.3

Intensityof logging(%)

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Timberbenefitedby village(m3/ha)

26.2 22.08 15.21 15.21 34.3 28.9 19.9

Annualbenefit(m3/ha)

8.73 4.42 1.09 0.39 0.98 0.83 0.57

The planning procedures of logging of the two kinds of forests must followcurrent regulations.

Responsibilities:

Villages are responsible for good management and protection of theallocated forest and forest land as well as preventing forest fire, slashand burn, and illegal logging. If forest or timber is lost, the village-level forest management and protection board will be dealt withaccording to provisions of law.

Every quarter, the village-level forest management and protectionboard has to report their village's forest management, protection anddevelopment to the commune-level forestry board. If there are any


violations against forest, they have to report immediately to thecompetent levels for timely handling.

Villages are responsible for mobilizing human resource and capital toprotect and develop forest.

Return the allocated forest resource when the contract of landallocation ends or when this contract is terminated before the due date.

Pay taxes and fulfil other financial obligations. Return forest and forest land when the State issues decision to recover

land. Fulfil other obligations as defined in the allocation contract.

From the implementation of forest and forest land allocation in Dak Lak, wehave noticed some issues that need to be clarified and consolidated:

A number of policies concerning benefits from the allocation of forestand forest land like the logging for domestic wood, forestry by-products, loans to invest in forest development, supporting the forestryextension, etc. need to be further specified to match with villagers'needs and wants.

Policies concerning the allocation of forest and forest land such asland allocation to community and benefits of recipients need to besupplemented.

Approaches in forest allocation should attach to forest landmanagement traditions and practices of ethnic communities.

The autonomy ability of villages in the management and developmentof forestry production (making forestry production plans, planning,technical designing, handling violations, etc) should be enhanced.

Integrating ethnic knowledge with bioforestry techniques to makeforest management technical solutions.

Integrating community forestry development research with thedevelopment of forestry techniques with community's participationafter the allocation of forest land.

Forest survey methods should be simple enough for the community toapply, facilitating the monitoring and supervising of competentauthorities.

Setting up simple technical norms in the logging and forestmaintenance.

Applying simple techniques in the logging, transporting andprocessing of forestry products so community can afford.


Policies to provide financial supports and tax preferences should beissued. Policies concerning preferences given to recipients should beclear, simple and easy to implement.

Illegal logging still happens in some places although forest and forestland have been allocated. Therefore, there should be regional or inter-regional commitment or regulations to ensure better co-ordinationbetween the parties concerned, the inter-monitoring, the co-ordinationof law executing bodies and the implementation of the community.

There needs to be a mechanism to arouse the role of forestmanagement and production of the district and commune levels, whichhave been assigned to State-owned enterprises for a long time. Forestmanagement and production at various levels, especially at the districtand commune levels should become a component in the State's annualmanagement planning. People should simply need to submit forestrybusiness files to the district level, and the district-level AgriculturalOffice and Land Administration Office, in turn, are supposed tosubmit to the provincial level. The administrative management role ofthe commune-level People's Committee should be enhanced tomonitor and supervise overall forestry activities.

The development of human resource should be further boostedthrough training courses, visits, and agricultural and forestry extensionwith the focus on village communities, Forestry Board and district-level specialized bodies. Institutes, universities and provincial expertsshould be mobilized. If necessary, the method of farmer learning fromfarmer can be applied.

Communities receiving poor or exhausted forest should be givenexternal financial support which could be preferential capital sources,financial sources from projects or from programmes to supportvulnerable communes such as the 135 programme, the povertyelimination programme, financial supports from non-governmentalorganizations, investment capital from co-operation with businesses.

Only when villagers are fully aware of their rights will they activelyparticipate in making and implementing regulations. Hence, policiesconcerning benefits of recipients should be clear, complete,understandable and should ensure that villagers receive satisfactorybenefits corresponding to their investment in forest.

As for the allocation of forest and forest land to village community,the rights and responsibilities of the village-level forest managementboard as well as every villager should be specified to avoid possible


problems arising. Those who have achievements in the management,protection and development of forest should be rewarded timely andsatisfactorily.

To make regulations highly effective, community should be given theright to handle any minor violations against forest. However,situations where "the will of the ruler must yield to the people'scustoms" should be avoided to prevent any obstacles to production orpossible abuse of regulations on forest management and protection forillegal logging.

These are a number of our initial remarks and recommendations drawn fromthe experimental allocation of forest and forest land programme in Dak Lak.We hope that these experiences will contribute to enhancing the efficiency offorest management, protection and development of Vietnam's forestry.


Report on experimental community- based forestmanagement models in the province

of thua thien hue

By Tran Huu Banh Director Sub- DFD Thua Thien Hue

I. Background In this report, the only object mentioned is the management of natural forestsbased on the community's participation.

As a matter of fact, forest management is understood by all those concernedas the management of existing natural forests, in which the protection ofnatural forests is considered as the corner stone of all forestry activities. Inreality, protection of natural forests is a difficult problem with no satisfactorysolution.

Currently, most of the natural forests in Vietnam is under the management ofstate-run enterprises, and only a small some is under the management offorestry cooperatives. Most of the natural forests are poor or restoredforests. Their management of natural forests, however, has not achievedexpected results. That is why, households and individuals are regarded asimportant subjects directly participating in the management of natural forestsunder the Government current policies.

The organization, management, protection of forests in our country ispresently a major problem faced by the forestry branch as well as authoritiesof all levels.

Despite so many efforts on guidelines, directions and organized measures,there exists a reality that natural forests are being constantly devastated withdifferent causes.

Who are devastating forests? Why are they doing that? Why aren't theyinvolved in preventing the devastation of forests? The commonly givenanswer is that the local residents and their indifferent attitude towards the


other people's behaviors of forest devastation are causing major damages tonatural forests for various reasons: living requirements, jobs, incomes,pressure of demands and needs of forest products regardless of theirawareness or unawareness of the significance and importance of theprotection of forests.

From this understanding, a variety of ideas have been put forwards, whichhave been formalized by the State in the forms of policies effectuated duringthe recent years, that is the policy for allocation of natural forests tohouseholds(mainly) for protection.

Yet, there is still major existing problem left by the policy. At only 50,000VND/ha is the cost leased for only five-year protection. Then, who will beresponsible for the protection of forests after the five years goes by? Whereis finance to be sought to cover the protection of all the natural forests whilethe state budget is still limited. On the other hand, if forests are allocated tohouseholds alone, they are not capable of protecting them for the allocatedforests are located in remote areas with complicated terrain and in large area,and there are frequently-seen conflicts between the households and thecommunity if these households are so active in performing their functions.Practically, the policy has not been able to create a driving force toencourage local residents to protect forests. Those who are allocated withforests to protect are in fact hiremen, not owners of the forests.

To deal with the above-mentioned problems, Decision 178/2001/QD-TTg onthe benefits and duties of households allocated or leased with forests andforestland was issued by the Prime Minister on November, 12, 2001. Theobjects to be adjusted in this decision are only households and individuals.The new policy has really paved way for an economic driving force, whichhas made households and individuals more actively involved in forestry inthe forms of forests and forestland hire, lease and allocation. Despite all that,the above-mentioned policy has solved only the necessary condition; andwhether it can be implemented in reality depends on sufficient condition,that is, the specific capacity of each subject (households or individuals), andthe characteristics of distribution of forest land and natural forest resourcesin each locality.

The remaining natural forests in Vietnam in general and in Thua Thien Huein particular are often located in remote and mountainous areas withcomplicated terrain features such as high peaks, high stilt, resulting indifficulties in clearly and precisely defining the boundaries between forests


and forest land of different households or individuals. Besides natural andterrain characteristics, social characteristics should be taken into account:most of the population in the natural forest areas is of low learning standards,backward production techniques, limited awareness and knowledge ofmanagement and sustainable exploitation of forests and forest resources. Asa result, many forestry activities should be community-based for there is nopoint trying to allocate forests and forest land to households or individualswhen it is practically impossible.

The question arising from this is which subject will be able to be responsiblefor the forests and forest land that households and individuals have notmanaged or have managed ineffectively so as to meet the requirements ofnatural forest management and sustainable exploitation

Based on analyses of problems from reality, various small-scale socialinvestigations have been conducted to collect the opinions and ideas from theresidents living around the natural forests with the topic "Who is the best inthe management of natural forests ?" The results of these investigationshows that "In the present situation," as majority of interviewees say, "theGovernment should lease or allocate forests for protection for a longstabilized duration to the community of village with the participation ofall the villagers under a policy aiming at their and their community'slong-term benefits from the results of forest protection."

The notion of "community" here is understood as the population of peopleliving together in a village/mountainous village or hamlet.

Following the above-mentioned suggestion, with the help of projectPROFOR (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development) since 2000,Department of Agriculture and Rural D0evelopment of Thua Thien - Huehas worked in coordination with Thua Thien - Hue Forest ProtectionDepartment, People's Committee of Phu Loc district , Phu Loc forestprotection unit, People's Committee of concerned communes to study,develop and build experimental models of natural forest allocation to villagesfor protection , management and benefit from them.

2. Process of developing the models

In 2002, Thuy Yen Thuong village of Loc Thuy commune, Phu Loc districtwas chosen as a pilot site. The initial success of Thuy Yen Thuong Model


has encouraged the neighboring villages and communes to ask the districtGovernment to further allocation of natural forests to them as it was done inThuy Yen Thuong. In 2001, such villages as Phu Hai 2 (Loc Vinhcommune), Thuy Duong village (Loc Tien commune) of Phu Loc districtwere selected to further the experimental model. The success of the modelsin Phu Loc has been spread. The other districts in the province suggested toexpand the model. Since 2002 with the help from The Finnish Program forrural development, department of agriculture and rural development of ThuaThien - Hue has been working in co-ordination with the Department ofInvestment and Planning, People's Committee of Phong Dien district todevelop the model of forest allocation to communities of villages of PhongSon commune, Phong Dien district.

The above-mentioned models were developed based on the principles thatlater models inheriting the achievements and experience from earlier onesbecome better and better. Villages selected to take part in the model are thepoor ones adjacent to the allocated forests. Before allocation was done, thoserelated economic agencies, especially state forestry enterprises, managementboards, and cooperatives had been asked whether they were capable ofmanaging the forests intended to allocate to the community. The answerfrom them was a big No, and they want the forests to be allocated to othersubjects."

The forest allocation done in the villages are shown in the following table:

village commune/district

population

house-holds

naturalarea (ha)

forestryarea (ha)

allocatedforestarea (ha)

allocationyear

Thuy YenThuong

Loc Thuy,Phu Loc

1,860 331 2,975 2,508 405 2000

Thuy Duong Loc Tien,Phu Loc

890 170 2,399 2,073 512 2001

Phu Hai Loc Vinh,Phu Loc

233 40 690 636 253 2001

Total 2,983 541 6,064 5,217 1,170

On average a household in these villages was allocated an area of 2.16 ha ofnatural forest.

3. Defining the purposes of natural forest allocation to communities


- Contributing to effective protection of the areas of the existingnatural forests of big timber trees in order to highlight theirdifferent functions and actions to serve the socio-economicdevelopment, security and national defense, and culture andtourism in locality.

- Making forests have their owners, making both the community andeach individual link their life and their own benefits to theprotection and development of natural forests. From that, impetuswill be given to the protection and development of forests in thewhole region.

- Contributing to forestry reorganisation, job generation and lifeenhancement to the community both physically and spiritually. Notonly to implement "hunger eradication and poverty reduction" butalso to come to enrich from the forests.

4. Identifying types of forest, duration and authority to allocate

4.1. Types of forests, scopes of area, and quality of forest to be allocated

There are two options to choose: i) the first is to allocate natural forests tohouseholds for protection according to the current policy and continue toaccept the constantly threatening risk of forest devastation, ii) the second isto try allocating certain natural forests to communities for protection byoffering them benefits from the forests according to their protection andsustainable development of natural forests. And the second option waschosen.

If the natural forests are under good tending, they will certainly have a goodtendency of growth and their protective function will improve, serving theproduction and life of local people, first of all the communities allocatedwith forest management.

4. 2. Allocation duration

During the implemention of the pilot models, we haven't been able to definehow many years the duration will last. However, we aim at longer andstabilized allocation of natural forests. If the community does well in theprotection of natural forests for the first 3 years, after an initial summary forassessment, the provincial People's Committee will be asked to propose the


Government to promulgate a general policy and define the duration of forestallocation at 50 years as currently stipulated. Land-use certificates will beissued to communities allocated with forests. In this case, the provincialPeople's Committee will be asked to apply the principle of "Feedback infavor of the subjects allocated with forests". If the Government still does nothave the policy, it would be applied that all the households in the communitywill be allocated with the indivisable area of land. (Item 3, clause 36, LandLaw).

4.3. Authority to allocate forests

This is only an experimental model. Therefore the department of agricultureand rural development has given advice and got agreement from theprovincial Departments and district People's Committees to submit theproject to the provincial People's Committee to appove and give decisions onallocation of natural forests to communities for management and benefitshare.

5. Responsibilities, rights, duties and benefits of the village

5. 1. Responsibilities:

The community and each individual have to organize themselves andactively take part in the protection of forests in accordance with the plan forallocation of natural forests (for management and protection of forests) asapproved by concerned authority and regulated by Law.

5.2. Rights:

The village has all the rights of a real forest owner, that is, to manage forestresources, use forests and forest land in accordance with the law, and to havethe right to own the forest property values as stipulated by the Government.Any impact on the forest must be agreed by the village. Any violationuncovered by the village, it has right to deal with by writing a report of thecase, confiscating the tools and things stolen and referring to legalenforcement agency to deal with. The village can set up a fund with thecontributions from the people, budget for rewarding, Government supportsand income from the forest allocated as stipulated in the plan for forestallocation. The collection and expense of the fund are done in accordancewith the plan for management and protection of natural forests and with


detailed stipulations in the village's convention for forest protection anddecided by the people under the control and inspection by the communePeople's Committee.

5.3. Duties:

Each individual and the community should participate in the building andeffectuating the village's convention for management and protection offorests in accordance with the current law, contributing to the protection andsustainable development of the forests, at the same time, performing all theduties of the forest owner.

5.4. Benefits

5.4.1. Mechanism of benefit sharing principle

Besides the rights given by the current policy on natural forest allocation, wesuggest the mechanism of benefit share based on the following principle:

All those villagers who are involved in the protection of forests will benefitfrom its result according to the growth rate of the forests to ensure asustainable forest management.

For the forest resources:

The rate of benefit will be defined based on the result of the protection offorests.

- If the growth rate of the forest is about 2%/year the village's benefitwill be 50% the amount of the increase in timber.

- If the growth rate of the forest is above 1 cubic meter/ha/year thevillage's benefit will be 30% the amount of the increase in timber.

- If the growth rate of the forest is above 0.5 cubic meter/ha/year thevillage's benefit will be 20% the amount of the increase in timber.

- If the growth rate of the forest is less than 0.5 cubic meter/ha/year thevillage's benefit will be 10% the amount of the increase in timber.

- If the allocated forest shows no growth rate, the village will get nobenefit and the forest will be withdrawn.


During the first 10 years, an advance of timber exploitation can be made tomeet the pressing demands for wood but not exceeding 50 cubicmeters/years and the cutting should be done carefully and selectively. Whenthe forests reach its full growth, the village can exploit enough amount oftimber growth they can benefit. Besides, the village has the right to exploitother forest products: hunting ordinary forest animals under the guidance ofthe forest-protection unit, respecting the principle of not damaging theforests. The village can decide what to do with the their forest products.Benefiting as regulated starts from one year after the decision of allocation isissued.

For other forest resources:

The village is permitted to exploit, use natural resources in their allocatedforests without causing damage to the forests and the environment. Forexample, it can exploit sand, stone, pebble, water, springs, landscapes todevelop ecological tourism.

5.4.2. Formalities and procedures of getting benefits

For timber:

Every year the village makes a proposal defining the plan for exploitingtimber based on the above-mentioned principle of benefit share with theconfirmation of the commune People's Committee and local forest protectionunit . They all together carry out affirmation of the location, number of treesto be cut, the cutting method and transport so that it causes minimumdamage to the protective function of the forests, write a report, invite agencyof authority to come and stamp the logs with their stamp-hammer and thansubmit the proposal to the provincial People's Committee for exploitationlicense via suggestion from the department of agriculture and ruraldevelopment. During the process of exploitation the village have to informthe local forest protection unit to confirm and stamp the logs with theirhammer before transporting them out of the forests. Meanwhile, the villagehave to perform the duties to the State.

For other forest products


The village have to make a proposal submitted to the department ofagriculture and rural development for exploitation license under the guidanceand inspection of local forest protection unit, the confirmation of thecommune People's Committee. For those forest products of group II A onlythe provincial People's Committee can give license for exploitation accordingto proposal of the department of agriculture and rural development.

For ordinary forest animals

Ordinary forest animals such as wild pigs, deer, sambar, cervine.... can behunted. Before doing this, the village have to make a proposal with theconfirmation of the commune People's Committee and local forest protectionunit and then submit to the provincial forest protection department to givelicense for hunting, and guide, control and observation to ensure the growthand development of forests animals..

Other natural resources: can be exploited by the village withpermission from the commune People's Committee.

5.4.3. Other benefits

During its forest protection activities, if the village uncovers violators with areport, the confiscated will be kept by the village for use. After auctioningthe confiscated, the money will be divided in the following share: 70% goesto the village's common fund, the rest 30% will be used as reward, 10% ofwhich will go to the commune People's Committee to set up the fund forforest protection, 30% of which will belong to those who uncover and arrestthe violator, and deal with the case of violation, the rest 60% will go to thevillage's anti-deforestation fund. Besides, if the legal reinforcement agencydecide to fine the violator, the village will receive 30% of the fine above andit will be divided the same way as above-mentioned. As for violators whorun away, the confiscated goes to the State, and village will be given suitableexpenditure together with 30% award as above-mentioned.

The mechanism, principle and procedures of getting the benefits mentionedabove have been applied to the village of Thuy Yen Thuong. Because othervillages were allocated with natural forests after Decision 178/2001/QD-TTg, we apply the new policy to them the same way as applied tohouseholds and individuals.


The similarities between the two policies of benefit mechanism

Product to benefit from Decision 178 (for protection forests) andModels in communities of Thuy Yen Thuong,Thuy Duong, Phu Hai 2

1 Forest by-products 100%2 Falling trees, broken trees, dead trees 100%3 Secondary plants, mixed cultivation 100%4 Growing perennial agricultural plants Yes5 Selected exploitation when the forest reach the

mass of timber of M>120m3/ha<20%

6 management and protection of the forest: good/not good

much/ little benefit

7 Land for farming production <20%

The differences between the two policies of benefit mechanism

Item Decision 178/2001/TTg Models in Thuy Yen Thuong,Thuy Duong, Phu Hai 2

1 Objects allocated with forests households, individuals Village community (consisting ofmany households together)

2 Timber benefit rate whenM>12Om3/ha

≤ 20% ≤20% and ≤50% of the growthmass of the forest

-contributing to the communebudget

10-15% Feedback for Thuy Yen Thuong

- without forest growth still getting benefit if M> 120m3/ha

Withdrawing of forests

- with forest growth butM < 120m3/ha

no benefit Advance given

3 Financial support 50,000 VND/ha Advance of 50m3/year/10years

4 Land for farming or fishery ≤ 20% no rate regulated

5 Ecological tourism no Yes

6 Other natural resources (sand,stone...)

no Yes

7 land for accomodation 200m2 available only in Phu Hai 2

8 Hunting ordinary forest animals no yes if permitted by the forestprotection unit


6. Outputs of natural forest allocation

The outputs of natural forest allocation consist of:

The results of surveys on the local forest resources with mapsenclosed.

The plan for management and protection of forests after natural forestallocation in the village of Thuy Yen Thuong with maps of planningon natural forest management and protection.

Decision of the provincial People's Committee to approve the project. Decision of the provincial People's Committee to allocate natural

forests to communities The village's Convention on forest protection and development of

Thuy Yen Thuong Decision of the district People's Committee to ratify the contents of the

village's on forest protection and development of Thuy Yen Thuong Minute of forest transfer

7. Result of forest management and protection after allocation

It is still too early to state the effectiveness and possibility of the spreadingof this model. It is necessary to further observe, modify, summarize, andcomplete the model before reaching the crucial conclusions which can beused as bases to propose agencies of authority to issue policies thatencourage communities to receive allocated natural forests for management,protection and benefiting from them.

The initial results can be summarized as follows:

1. All the households in the community allocated withnatural forests believe that the forests are theirs, andcollectively owned by the whole community. They canbenefit from them if they perform well their managementand protection of the allocated forests. (It is of course justthe right to use the land and forestland).

2. With this awareness and the bond of the village'sConvention for forest protection and development, made


by themselves, the villagers have carried out initialsuccessful management and protection of the forests. Inalmost all the villages allocated with natural forests therehave been no case of illegal exploitation of the forestscommitted by their villagers. The communities haveactively cooperated with the local forest protection forceto prevent and arrest outsiders doing illegal activitiessuch as logging, hunting, setting traps for animals andgetting other forest products... The villagers' indifferentattitude towards the devastation of the natural forests inthe locality has come to an end. The village have beenactive in organizing their own force to protect theirforests or cooperate with the local forest protection unit topatrol the forests periodically or randomly. Thehouseholds in the village take turn to do the task ofprotection of the forests.

3. The village have thought of enriching their forests bygiving and gathering several ideas and suggestions torelevant agencies in an attempt to have moreopportunities for investment and more measures forenriching the forests. They have paid their attention to thedevelopment of the forests' potentials and resources so asto create more jobs and improve their income ( ecologicaltourism, exploiting sand, stone...)

4. The protection of forests done by the village has beencontrolled and inspected by the local forest protectionunit and the local authorities every 6 months and everyyear. The villages' forest protection is considered to bereally effective. As a result, the village of Thuy YenThuong was the first to reach the starting time of gettingbenefits. It has submit a proposal for exploitation of thetimber in advanve according to the approved plan. Theprovincial department of agriculture and ruraldevelopment and the district office of agriculture andrural development are improving the formalities for thevillage to get the benefit in timber in 2003.

5. It is reasonable to have the community build theirconvention of forest protection when the forests havebeen allocated to them because now the communityprotects what belongs to them, that is theirproperty.(Otherwise, why does the community need to


build a community's convention for forest protectionwhile the forests are not theirs and they do not benefitanything from their protection? Will such a convention befeasible and respected by the villagers?)

8. Issues drawn from experimental models

8.1. Identifying the necessary and sufficient conditions of the subject tobe allocated natural forests as pilot model

8.1.1 Necessary conditions

The village to be allocated forests must be the one founded bythe commune People's Committee and has the capablemanagement board respected by the villagers. The villagemanagement system is clearly-defined (subject with strongmanagement).

The natural forests in the locality are being devastated and theirprotection is a pressing issue, not to be delayed any longer fromthe view of the local people and authorities. (Endangered objectof protection)

A great majority of the households in the community wish to beallocated with natural forests to protect and benefit from it.(Thecommunity's will and wish)

8.1.2. Sufficient conditions

The local forest protection unit must consist of capable and skilled,experienced people with good qualities and respected by the localpeople and authorities (law enforcement and reliance for strongsubject)

The village should have good access to communication means tofacilitate the usual direction, coordination and monitoring. (Goodopportunities to boost coordination and deal with situations)

There are, in locality, supporting investment projects andopportunities to create more jobs for the residents in the community(Jobs and income)


The protection of forests should be the concern of the partycommittee, the People's Committee and all mass organizations. Thecommune People's Committee can perform its function as a statemanagement body (political system of high awareness of forestprotection)

8.2. Identifying the kinds of natural forests to be allocated tocommunities for management and protection and benefiting from

The forests to be allocated are small, situated in "independent" areasnear the community of population. The residents have certainexperience in management of these forests, inheriting from theirancestors. They are village forests situated in the mountainous, hillyand plain areas which are still maintained in many places. They areunder the village's management for the benefits of the wholecommunity, not to be allocated to individuals or households and this isaccepted by the community.

The forest with protective significance (both natural forests and man-made forests) near the resident areas that cannot be allocated tohouseholds concerning the 3 aspects of economy, protection andhumanity should be allocated to the community.

The forests in remote areas which link to life and production ofvillages, especially of ethnic minority people, where the managementboards or state forestry enterprises cannot manage better than thecommunity itself.

9. The problems to be further settled and some suggestions

1. Currently, the village's legal subject status in civil legal relations andinteractions has not been mentioned in the civil law. The legal role ofthe village has just been recognized by the regulations of grassrootsdemocracy issued as an attachment to the decree 29/1998/ND-CPdated 11/May 1998 of the Government. But it is still not clearlydefined and specified. Therefore, the agencies of authority shouldstudy to identify the village's legal subject status (in form of groups ofhouseholds or profession associations, for example). The Governmentshould issue as early as possible legal documents to identify theposition, role, function and responsibilities of the village in moredetails. For a temporary solution, it can be applied that allocation of


indivisible land is given to communities for forest and forestlandmanagement, forming a co-ownership institution in forest andforestland management by all the households and individuals ( inaccordance to Item 3, clause 36, Land Law).

2. In the future, once the allocation of forests to the community ispermitted by the law, it is imperative to further study to clarify the so-ownership institution of forest property and the right to forest andforestland use in these models.

3. In reality, those forests that can provide timber are mostly managed bystate forestry enterprises, only natural and restored forests that cannotgive timber before long, or rich forests where logging is impossibleare considered to give to other subjects. That makes it impossible forhouseholds, individuals as well as communities to feel willing toreceive forests for protection, tending and get benefits. Therefore,there must be equal opportunities in the management of forests for allthe subjects.

4. In fact, the current management of forests done by the community hasindicated that the people are enthusiastic and have a sense ofresponsibility. However, almost all the communities lack necessaryskills and techniques in effective management of forests. So theyneeds constant assistance from forestry officials and forest protectionunits in the first few years. For the long run, there must be programs tosupport and strengthen forestry management capacity by givingtraining courses in management skills and forestry techniques... to thevillage heads, key farmers, and other members of the community sothat they can manage their forests in an initiative way.

5. Currently, the district People's Committee has no staff in charge offorestry to assist it in state management of forestry. In order tomultiply the model of natural forest allocation to village communitiesin the future, it is necessary now to build a system of forestryorganisation at district level, which is stable and strong enough toadvise the district People's Committee in the development of socialand community forestry.

The pilot implementation of natural forests allocated to community with theparticipation of the loacal people and a specifically-defined benefit policy


has really resulted in a strong driving force, raising the awareness andinvolvement in protection of natural forests in each individuals and the wholecommunity. On these bases, the Department of agriculture and ruraldevelopment will observe, assess, sum-up, withdraw experience spread itwhere similar and suitable all over the province.

Allocation of natural forests to communities to protect and enjoy benefitsfrom them is a really new issue which is not yet stipulated by theGovernment. However, in order to meet the wish and demands of the localpeople, responding to the intensive support from the provincial People'sCommittee and other relevant functional units and departments, thedepartment of agriculture and rural development tries its best to developeand implement these experimental models. For the models to operateeffectively and to be multiplied, the department of agriculture and ruraldevelopment would like the authorities of all levels and all the relevantdepartments and organs to offer help in lines and directions, guidance as wellas to settle the existing problems so that the department of agriculture andrural development will be able to guide the communities not only in effectiveprotection of the natural forests but also in development of communityforestry in locality.

If the models of allocation of natural forests to local communities areformalized by the Government's policies, then together with households,individuals, the communities will contribute to finding the answer to thequestion: Who are the best to protect the natural forests if state forestryenterprises and protection & special-use forest management boards don't?The model, at the same time, will help solve the problems of natural forestmanagement in particular and forestland in general in the process of stateforestry enterprise reform.


Report on the monitoring and evaluation systemfor the methodology of community forest

protection regulation - experience from Lai chau

Nguyen Huu AiVice Director of Lai Chai Sub-department of Forest Protection

1. The situation of making and implementing village forest protectionregulations in Lai Chau province

Implementing Circular No 56 dated September 30th, 1999 of the Ministry ofAgriculture and Rural Development, which guides the elaboration of forestprotection and management regulations at village level, the Sub-departmentof Forest Protection Lai Chau in cooperation with the Social ForestryDevelopment Project (SFDP) selected some districts for pilotingparticipatory elaboration of these regulations. The districts were Tua Chua,Tuan Giao and Dien Bien. After monitoring and evaluating theimplementation of regulations for some time, the impact on forest protectionof village communities are apparent: Every member in the village activelyparticipates in the process of making and implementing the regulations, andthe method is in line with the ideas and expectations of local people. In orderto upscale the methodology to the whole province, the Sub-department ofForest Protection Lai Chau in coordination with relating institutionssupported the Provincial People’s Committee to officially approve andpromulgate the “Guidelines for making forest protection regulations” to beapplied in the entire province.

2. Methodology of Participatory forest protection regulations making

For a long time, the Forestry sector including the Forest Protection force hasbeen paying special attention to the forest protection regulations, which weremostly made for special use forest, protection forest, and forests prone toburning. Those regulations were made by the Forest Protection staff or bythe Forest management board, and then were brought to the villagecommunities where they were implemented. In fact, those regulations did notprove their impact on forest protection, as villagers did not really adhere tothem. The reason was a lack of ownership of villagers towards the


regulations, as they were not involved in making the regulations and theywere not aware of their roles, obligations, and benefits in forest protection.Moreover, community forest was not yet defined and some parts of theexternally made regulations were not in line with local traditions andcustoms, and did not realistically take into account local requirements withregard to forest protection and management.

Aiming at resolving the problem, based on the Circular No 56TT/NN-KL onguiding the elaboration of forest protection and management regulations atvillage level, and with support from SFDP, the Sub-department of ForestProtection Lai Chau has piloted the methodology of participatory elaborationof forest protection regulations at village level.

2.1. Requirements of making forest protection regulations at village level

Each village has to make its own regulations that are relevant to theconditions of that village.

Regulations have to be made by the villagers. They are the ones whoactively participate in the discussions and meetings of making theregulations; and then implement and enforce these rules themselves.

The regulations should be concise, easy to understand and realisticallytaking into account the forest protection and management of thevillage.

The regulations made by villagers should be in line with the directionsand orientation of the Party and Government. They also shouldincorporate good local customs and traditions.

2.2. Steps for making village forest protection regulations

Step 1: Preparation

Before making the regulations, the Forest Protection Staff in each communeshould prepare in advance all necessary documents, and legal papers relatingto the forest protection, and maps of the commune and of each village.

Step 2: Village meeting

The village meeting should be chaired by the village head and the eldest inthe village with the facilitation of the commune forest protection staff orcommune forest extension staff.


The participants of the meeting include all target groups like the young, theold, men and women with as many participants as possible.

Main contents of the village meeting:

Discussion on the current status of local forest protection, the benefits ofvillagers and community taking part in the forest protection; informing thevillagers about forest-protection related policies, legal basis and regulations.

Give explanation why the village community should take the leading role inmaking the regulations and why the regulations should be approved byrelevant authorities.

Discussion to make the regulations: Villagers discuss and draft the ‘forestprotection map’ of the village on which they indicate the forest blocks forprotection, the area for exploitation serving household needs, the area foranimal grazing and the area for upland cultivation. The indication is made byvillagers depending on their location-specific features. (This activity is called“general planning” in the methodology.)

On the basis of this forest protection map, villagers discuss and propose theforest protection regulations for individual blocks. Each regulation isapproved by the whole group and if there is any regulation that is not agreedby a large majority, it should be re-discussed. (This activity is called“Specific regulation” in the methodology).

Before ending the meeting, the chairman presents once more the regulationsmade as a whole to all villagers and they all sign the meeting minutes.

Step 3: Completing the regulations

After the meeting, the Forest protection staff together with the communeforestry staff go through all the regulations for reviewing the wording. Thenthe regulations are presented to the communal people’s committee (CPC).The CPC of each commune is responsible for submitting to the district theregulations of villages in the commune for appraisal and approval.

Step 4: Appraising and approving the regulations


The regulations submitted by the CPC of each commune are appraised by thedistrict forest protection unit and the district legal section and officiallyapproved by the District People’s Committee.

Step 5: Feeding back the regulations to the village

The forest protection staff is in charge of feeding back the regulations toeach village after they are officially approved. He does this in cooperationwith the village head by arranging a meeting to announce the approvedregulations to all villagers and requesting their commitment forimplementation and enforcement. At the same time, an explanation shouldbe given in case a part of the regulations has not been approved. Theapproved that regulations of every village are printed on paper (size 40 X 60cm), in 3 colours by the Sub-Department of Forest Protection and then copiesare delivered to each household of the village. This regulation sheet shouldbe hung in a suitable place in the house.

Step 6: Monitoring and evaluating the regulation implementationThe district forest protection unit should cooperate with the communalauthorities and village management board to do the regular monitoring andthe evaluation of forest protection regulation implementation in each village.

2.3. Strong points of the methodology for participatory elaboration offorest protection regulations

With the participation of villagers, the regulations reflect villagers’wishes and expectations in forest protection.

The regulations help to incorporate and develop the cultural traditionsand available experiences of local people in forest protection.

They provide encouragement and motivation for villagers to join incommunity forest protection and to mutually share benefits from theforest.

They contribute to the implementation of Local democracy andconsecutively bring it into people’s lives.

They enhance the role and responsibility of the community, andespecially the elders in villages when treating the violations.

2.4. Weak points of the methodology for participatory elaboration offorest protection regulations


It takes time to make the regulations with this participatory method.The training and information dissemination should be done thoroughlyin each village, especially where the average literacy is low.

Applying this participatory methodology requires capacity buildingfor all the forestry staff involved in up-scaling of the methodology.

The application of the methodology requires financing for making andprinting the regulations.

The elders and village heads should be the ones who obtain broadknowledge and get respect from the villagers.

3. Results of making forest protection regulations in Lai Chau province

After 4 years with the coordination of relating departments and the supportfrom SFDP, the Sub-department of Forest Protection Lai Chau has facilitatedelaboration of forest protection regulations in 1,791 villages in 145communes covering a total of 75,831 households. Until now, the Sub-department of Forest Protection Lai Chau have printed and handed out36,000 leaflets of forest protection regulations to households.

Through monitoring the implementation of regulations, it can be seen thatthere is a decrease in violation cases of forest protection in the province,particularly cases of slash and burn, which are normally the main cause offorest fire. See below table for more details.

Table of forest fire and losses within 5 years in Lai Chau

Losses (ha)No Year

No offorestfires Total area Natural

forestVegetation Plantation Grass

1 1998 246 2,632.80 315.00 127.1 120.62 2.070.1

2 1999 68 318.40 281.35 37.00

3 2000 4 18.50 1.57 16.88

4 2001 72 436.70 0.99 62.57 25.89 347.3

5 2002 51 164.57 2.00 122.17 38.20 2.2


Total 470 3,730.3 601.01 333.75 222.97 2572.8

The impact of regulation implementation is not only proven in the reductionof forest fire but also in raising awareness of people in community forestprotection.In fact, random checks in some villages show the differences in specificareas (high area, low area, area of Thai people, area of Hmong people, etc).

Evaluation results: the regulations are well made and implemented; thereremain some, but fewer violation cases; the major punishment is warning. Insome areas, the punishment is based on a combination of legal regulationswith village customs. Fire can be fined with less than 20,000 VND orequivalent, e.g. some wine or chicken, or pork or even providing communallabour for repairing the water supply system, etc. Some other areas takestronger measures like excluding a violator from the village via a villagemeeting if he breaks the rules more than three times. All the fines collectedfrom violators are transparently aggregated into the financial records of thevillage management board, for example the ones in Phieng Loi and Na Loivillages, Thanh Minh commune, Dien Bien Phu town.

However, assessment and observation in some places show that thesignboards of regulations made by the Forest protection staff could not provetheir effect. Contrary to this, in some areas like in Na Loi village, (ThanhMinh commune, Dien Bien Phu town), Na en, and Na muoi (Cha Tocommune, Muong Nhe district), local people say that external people, evensoldiers stationed in the area, dare not violate when seeing the notice boardof the village regulations. Though they are small wooden boards withregulations written in paint or charcoal, local people obey them with sincereattitude.

4. Participatory Approach of monitoring and evaluating theregulations

4.1. The need for establishing a monitoring and evaluation system forforest protection regulations in Lai Chau province

The methodology of elaborating participatory forest protection regulation atvillage level is new and has only recently been widely applied to the wholeprovince. The new methodology serves the purpose of combining


communities’ experience in forest protection with current requirements offorest protection and management. In order to adjust the regulations to beincreasingly appropriate to the real situation of forest protection, it isnecessary to regularly monitor and evaluate their implementation.

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the regulations aims at amending andrevising the methodology concerning its content and approach to better applyto the villagers and to be more in line with the legal basis. Moreover, anM&E system also helps to enhance the capacity of forest protection staff intheir work by raising their awareness of the rights and obligations ofcommunity forest protection. From that they can support and encouragecommunity members to take part in the village forest protection andmanagement.

4.2. Method to establish the M&E system for forest protectionregulation at village level in Lai Chau province

(i) Set up the working group with clear task distribution.(ii) Design an evaluation outline, elaborate a table system and

evaluation criteria as well as questionnaires (see annexes Ia, Ib, Icfor more details).1

(iii) Establish the M&E system for forest protection regulations fromdistrict forest protection unit to communal level (see annex II –Organisational chart – for more details).

(iv) Select the location, identify the number of villages for pilotevaluation.

4.2. 1 Evaluate the regulations in the field

Evaluation approach:

In order to ensure the validity of the information collected, the evaluation offorest protection regulation at village have to be done parallel with 2approaches:

- Internal evaluation done by the village management board.- External evaluation done by Forest protection ranger.

1 Please refer to documents available at the SFDP library


Evaluation activities at village level:Both approaches can be done in either one of the following ways:

- Conduct Village meeting;- Interview representative groups of households;- Interview each household.

In interviews the questionnaires and criteria prepared (annexes Ia, Ib) areused for villagers to discuss and give their answers.

Contents for regulation evaluation:

Evaluate the process of making the regulation.

Use questioning method for collecting the information of regulation makingprocess of the village (ask about the participants and the steps of makingregulations).

Evaluate the process of regulation implementation.

Evaluate the implementation of the regulations (including the participantswho implement, monitor and enforce regulations and address violations),what are difficulties during the implementation and what should be revisedin the regulations.

Evaluate the awareness of villagers about the regulations.

Assess if the regulations are in line with the customs and traditions of localpeople. How do villagers treat violations? What needs to be externallysupported for better enforcement of the regulation?

4.2.2 Data aggregation and analysis

After the field work, all the information collected is aggregated and analysedby the district forest protection staff according to specific criteria, such as thedegree of participation in the process of making and implementing theregulations, the awareness of villagers and people’s recommendations toadjust the regulations (see annex III: Aggregation table of evaluationresults).


Actually, within the 10 villages evaluated in Dien Bien district, there wasonly one village where villagers recommended to revise the regulations, forinstance, requesting that the violation fine that the village can collect shouldbe higher and the power of the village head should be extended.

4.2. 3 Conducting a workshop and finalizing the material for M&E

After piloting the application of M&E approach and finalizing the material,the Sub-department of Forest Protection Lai Chau conducted one workshopon the finalization of the M&E system for the forest protection regulations inLai Chau province.

Participants in the workshop were the provincial departments like theDepartment of Legal Affairs, Department of Agriculture and RuralDevelopment and line agencies of the Sub-department of Forest Protection.Especially recognized were the representatives of the Policy Department andthe Forest Protection

Department of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Focus of the workshop was to discuss the following contents: structure andorganization of M&E, approach of M&E, M&E criteria and time frame forM&E.

Upon completion of the workshop, the Sub-department of Forest Protectionaggregated all the opinions contributed into the material of “Guidelines forM&E of the forest protection regulation” to be approved and adapted to thewhole province. Please refer to the guidelines for Monitoring and Evaluationof the forest protection regulation available at the SFDP library.

5. Conclusions and recommendations

5.1. Conclusions regarding the elaboration and enforcement ofregulations

The participatory elaboration of community forest protection regulation is anew methodology that proves its conformity with the reality of villages inforest protection.

It reflects the wishes and expectations of villagers in forest protection.


It encourages and makes use of the role and responsibility ofcommunity members taking part in forest protection.

It helps to improve the effectiveness of local forest protection.

5.2. Conclusions regarding the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) ofregulations

The objective of establishing an M&E system is to provide timelyadjustments and amendments to the regulations during implementation. Thisalso contributes to the improvement of forest protection and management atvillage level. In Lai Chau province, an appropriate M&E system has beenestablished.


The pilot monitoring and evaluarion of village forest protection regulationhas been done only on small scale (10 villages in one commune), so theinformation is limited and guidelines cannot be as perfect as expected.Therefore, in order to finalise the method as well as to upscale themethodology, the Sub-department of Forest Protection Lai Chau would liketo continue the cooperation with counter-parts and SFDP Song da indisseminating, monitoring and evaluating the methodology for the whole LaiChau province.

Staff at different levels (district, communal and village) need to enhancetheir capacity when working on this methodology. Therefore, we propose tothe Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, that projects andorganisations support us in training to build up capacity for staff when up-scaling the methodology and applying the M&E system for areas withsimilar features as Lai Chau province.

For the staff of Forest protection line agencies, there should be a systematicstandardized training on this approach of working with local target groups inorder to better fulfill the job of facilitating and encouraging people in forestprotection at local level.


The allocation of land, contracting of forest andmanagement of community forests in hoa binh

province

Bui Van ChucHead of Hoa Binh Sub Forest Development Department

Hoa Binh is a mountainous province with 11 districts and provincial towns,214 quarters, communes, and towns, 1896 villages which comprise 136,761households and 759,555 people of 7 different ethnic groups being Muong,Kinh, Dao, Tay, Thai, H'Mong, Chinese. Muong accounts for 60% of thepopulation, Kinh 31% and others 9%.

Total area of natural land 466,252 hectares- The area of forest land (with forest cover) 200,173 hectares+ Natural forest 146,470 hectares+ Plantations 53,703 hectares- The area of agricultural land 66,759 hectares- Special-use land and residential land 33,171 hectares- Unused land 166,149 hectares+ Flat land with agricultural capacity 3,126 hectares+ Hilly land with forestry capacity 133,000 hectares+ Water surface, rivers and streams, rocky mountains 33,879 hectares

1.The allocation of land and contracting of forest

Since the implementation of the Decree No. 02/CP of the Government on theallocation of forestry land to organizations, households and individuals forlong-term forestry purposes in 1992, Hoa Binh has issued Land TenureCertificates of 237,259 hectares of forest and forest land to 65,826households and communes (excluding land under the management of forestenterprises and other organizations). Of those, the area of natural forest is129,917 hectares (118,765 hectares allocated to households and 11,151hectares to communes), the area of plantations is 7,248 hectares, and the areaof open land and bare hills is 100,093 hectares.


2. Problems in the allocation of land and contracting of forest in HoaBinh

- The allocation of forest and forest land was conducted before the land useplans were born so after the planning of three kinds of forest, theimplementation of the plans faced with many difficulties and had to relylargely on people's stance.

- The area of forest land allocated to households on the principle ofegalitarianism is inconsiderable, hence, it is difficult to manage, protect,build and develop forest. In some places, the allocation does not follow therequired process so the recipients are not aware of their roles and duties,their area and demarcations in the fieldof their allocated forest land, resultingin the absence of their close attachment to the forest, especially naturalforest.

- The protection of most natural forests in districts and communes, afterbeing allocated, needs to be conducted in a community sense since thesenatural forests belong to the community although they have been allocated tohouseholds.

- Organizations like Forest Enterprises, the Management Board of theprotection forest, the Management Board of natural reserves (special useforest) have not been allocated forest land (they have not received the LandTenure Certificates).

3. Collecting and building regulation of forest management, protectionand development.

3.1. The necessity of the implementation of the regulation of forestmanagement, protection and development.

Vietnamese village has been formed and developed through many historicalperiods. It is a socio-economic organization playing an important role inpeople's life. Village is not only a residential area but also a production unit.It is a dinstinct and diversified social organization. In the village life,autonomous agreement and regulation has been in existence for a long time,which ensures that all the community members live accordint to a realizedrule. Despite not being legally binding, the agreement, known as village


regulation, is very effective as it is encoded by the community membersthemselves.

The research and collection of traditional regulations on community forestmanagement and protection is very necessary to enhance the efficiency ofthe management, use and protection of forest resources, maintain naturalresource development, and create a production environment and policysystem in line with each local (village, commune, area, etc). The building ofcommunity forest management and protection is significant as it can promotetraditional values and ethnic knowledge of each local and act as a basic driveofo the implementation of forest management and protection from basiclevel.

In order to enforce the State's management of forest, enhance responsibilitiesand encourage organizations and individuals to protect, develop forest andboost forestry benefits for the sake of national building and protection, theParty and the Government have issued policies and legal documents toprotect and develop forest, which include:

- The Decree No. 174-HDBT dated 17 January 1992 by the Council ofMinisters on the implementation of forest protection and development.

- Decree No. 02/CP by the Prime Minister on the allocation of forestland to organizations and individuals for long-term forestry purposes.

- Decree No. 01/CP dated 04 January 1995 by the Government on theallocation of forest and agricultural land to State-owned enterprises.

- Decree No. 163/CP/1999/ND-CP dated 16 November 1999 by theGovernment concerning the allocation and lease of forest land toorganizations, households and individuals for long-term forestrypurposes.

- Decision No. 245/QD-TTg dated 21 December 1998 by the PrimeMinister on the exercise of State Managerial responsibility of variouslevels concerning forest s and forest land.

- Decision No. 08/QD-TTg dated 11 January 2001 by the PrimeMinister issuing Regulation on Management of Special use,Protection, Production and Natural forests.

Various levels and branches have issued legal documents defining forestprotection and development, and recently defining the exercise of democracyamong people. Locals nationwide have exercised the democracy regulationsamong residential communityies including the democracy regulations onforest protection and development.


However, in reality, the application of the State's legal documents has notbeen conducted thoroughly and strictly. The reasons are:

- People's low legal awareness and knowledge, and difficulties in life.- The failure of laws in regulating people's everyday behaviour.

Therefore, the building of forest protection and development regulation isnecessary and important, contributing a major part to the State's exercise oflaws and developing people's ownership rights. The regulation would be anuseful tool in campaigns and movements to preserve security, order, hygieneand environment, contributing to the formation of a civilized life, cultivatingneighbourhood unity and interdependence. It also helps to protect thenational resource, alleviate poverty, and build up a beautiful and wealthynation.

Forest protection and development regulation is a legal document which issystemized and detailed so as to preserve and develop the beautiful colours,traditions, customs and habits of people in protecting and developing localforests, and map out plans to protect the forest resource and the ecology andlandscape, afforest and protect water points. The basic content defined in theregulation are new moral rules agreed by the community members in orderto protect and develop forest in accordance with the current laws andapproved by the authorities. Once the regulation has become a legaldocument detailed to suit each community, it has specific process and isconducted thoroughly.

3.2.. Regulation on forest management and protection.

3.2.1. General definitions

The regulation on forest management and protection defines measures tomanage, protect and develop community forests, and everybody as well asevery household is supposed to observe all the definitions listed in thisregulation.

The regulation applies to the community forest management, protection anddevelopment in the village ... commune ... district ... province. Any violationsof any definitions of this regulation will be criticised, educated andsanctioned according to the law.


Households and local people have good performance will be recommendedby local authorities for competent State authorities' reward.

3.2.2. Responsibilities of the local community and people.

i) Strictly observe the Party's policies and the Government's lawsas well as regulations on forest management and protection.

ii) Actively participate in the protection of forests (natural forests,plantations) in areas under the management of communes andvillages. Strictly follow regulations on forest fire prevention andfight. On detecting any forest fire, inform the local forestguards, the Forest Inspection officials in the commune, or thecommune-level People's Committee, and participate in the fightgainst fire.

iii) Any burning for plantation must be approved in advance by thevillage head or the forest guards, and it must be as planned.

iv) The formation of village forest guards must be agreed and votedfor by the people under the direction and management of thevillage chief.

v) Detect and denounce any illegal logging, consuming, trafickingand storing of forestry products and any deliberatedeforestation. Participate in the arrest of the culprits to help thevillage head, the forest guards and the competent authority.

vi) Any violations need to be handled as agreed by the commune,villages and the competent authority according to the law.

vii) Every village household has to warmly respond to the plantationTet held by the village head by planting between 10 and 15trees on either side of the village road.

3.2.3. Regulations on the management, protection and development offorest and other resources in the village.

i) No illegal logging, consuming, traficking, storing and using ofwood and other forestry products.

ii) No illegal hunting and using of wild animals.iii) No slash and burn under forest cover.iv) No pasturing in young forests or regenerated forests.v) No use of fire of any forms in the forest.


vi) No illegal occupying of natural forest land or plantations as wellas the others' land to avoid disputes.

vii) No use of explosive, electric shock, chemicals to catch fish inthe local rivers and streams.

viii) No reckless use of explosive or digging to get rock, whichcauses soil erosion. Any rock exploitation must be approved byconcerned level.

3.2.4. Rights and responsibilities of the commune and people.

i) Having the right to all their forest products and all intermediaryproducts from contracted plantation and forest protection, freelymarketing their products and getting fees from forest plntationand protection.

ii) Being entitled to the State's policies giving priority to peoplewho inhabit, protect and develop forests.

iii) Being allowed to ask the concerned level to consider theirnecessary demands for wood and other foresty products, havingthe right to forest benefits after having fulfilled theirresponsibilities and commitment.

a) Recipients:

Priority is given to village projects, projects serving agriculture, the buildingand repairing projects of villages and of households of social policy who arefacing housing and essential wood furniture difficulties.

Poor households that are instrumental in forest protection as voted by villagepeople.

b)Purposes:- Wood for coffins.- Wood as materials of production and building of village projects.- Wood for furniture.- Wood for housing.

i) Being allocated land for plantation, being contracted forests forprotection and participating in forest plantation and protectionheld by villages.


ii) Pasturing cattles and poultry under tree canopy for economicdevelopment as defined by regulations.

iii) Developing household economy through agroforestryproduction.

iv) Applying technological advances and intensive harvesting todevelop production, learning experiences and buildingagroforestry production models.

v) Conducting surveys, sowing for seedlings and plnating ethnicplants, and experimeting imported plants of high value andprecious plants.

3.2.5. Responsibilities and duties of the head of village.

3.2.5.1.Responsibilities:

i) Guiding and directing people to carry out the regulation, protectand manage the community forest.

ii) Conciliating and settling disputes and violations of forestprotection regulation.

iii) Supervising and speeding up the inspection of the forest guards.iv) Detecting and recommending good examples in forest

protection to higher levels for rewarding.

3.2.5.2.Duties:

i) Certifying households' logging application for domestic usebefore submitting to the competent levels.

ii) Preventing and making out reports of violations of forestprotection regulations for the conpetent levels' settlement.

iii) Proposing change of any forest guards making mistakes orlacking enthusiasm in performance.

iv) Holding periodical or urgent meetings to assess the forestguards' performance.

v) Holding meetings to criticise households violating the villageregulation.

4. Organizing and enforcing the implementation of the regulation.


Organizations and forest guards of the village are responsible for thevillagers' observation of regulation. Those who strictly observe the regulationshould be recommended for vaiours forms of rewarding.

Any violation of the regulation should be sanctioned according to thecommune's decision.

When a majority of the population (over 2/3 of the total votes) votes for theeffect, amendment or supplement of the regulation at the village meeting, itwill be reported to the Commune-level People's Committee and People'sCouncil forconsideration before being submitted to the Chairman of theDistrict-level People's Committee for his approval. Only then will it beenforced and come into effect.

This regulation will take effect from the day of its promulgation by theDistrict-level People's Committee.


Assessing the effectiveness of the management ofcommunity forest in Cao Bang province

Vu LongMember of the National Working group

on Community Forest Management

Abstract

Village is a basic social unit in Vietnam's countryside. Community forestwas mentioned in Decree No. 17/HDBT dated 17 January 1992 by theGovernment on the implementation of the Law on Forest Protection andDevelopment (1991), but not in the Amended Land Law and other under-lawdocuments guiding the implementation of forest land allocation (Decree No.02/CP, Decree No. 163). In reality, however, community forest is found inexistence and on the development trend in many northern provinces.

Many researches on specific models of community forest management hasbeen reported at the two National Workshop on community forestmanagement (2000, 2001), but none has been done on the management ofcommunity forest at the provincial level.

Assessing the effectiveness of community forest management in Cao Bangprovince is to further clarify the management of community forest within agreater extent. The main conclusions drawn from this research are:

In reality, community forest is found to exist in Cao Bang province,especially in areas where Tay and Nung ethnic people live. 50% of thevillages in the province have community forest with the total area ofcommunity forest under management accounting for 10.5% the provincialforest land area.

The common types of community forest are: holy forest, water pointprotection forest, village protection forest, and domestic use forest.

Community forest is to serve the common interests of the communityregarding first their spirit followed by the ecology and fuel wood. Self-sufficient forest products are still limited.

With the community forest protection regulation in effect, themanagement and protection of community forest have proved to be as


good as that of household-owned forest. However, community effortshave not been mobilized to boost the regeneration or afforestation.

For community forest to exist and develop effectively, it is important tohave powerful village chief (village head, village patriarch) and a villageregulation on forest protection which matches the custom, knowledge anddistinct features of each ethnic community.

Districts have assigned the management of community forest to villages,but only some of them have issued Land Tenure Certificates. Specificrights have not been defined.

1. Background of Cao Bang province

Cao Bang is a border mountainous province in the North of Vietnam with thearea of 6,690.72 square kilometres and the population of 494,724 people. Itspopulation distribution of 74 people/km2 is of average level compared withthat of other mountainous provinces. Cao Bang is inhabited by over 10 ethnicgroups of which Tay ethnic minority accounts for 42.58%, Nung 32.8%, Dao9.6%, H'Mong 8.4%, Kinh 4.67% and several other ethnic minorities. Theyreside in quite dinstinct areas: Tay, Nung and Kinh groups live in all 11districts and towns with the largest number in Hoa An district; Nung ethnicminority concentrates in Quang Uyen and Phuc Hoa districts; H'Mong inBao Lac district; and Dao in Nguyen Binh district.

The current forest area is 208,586 hectares with the forest cover of 31.2%.Natural forest area is 199,973 hectares, accounting for 95.67% with mainlyyoung forests. Plantations area is only 8913 hectares, occupying 4.43%. Thetotal area of unused land, rivers, streams and rocky mountains is 332,147hectares, equaling 49.62% of the province's total area of natural land.Planned forest land area is 337,000 hectares, accounting for 56.35% of thetotal area of the province, of which protection and special use forest landarea is 20.7% and production forest area is 35.65%.

Table 1: Planning of three types of forest

Total Protectionforest

Special useforest

Productionforest

Total 337,000 129,500 10,100 197,400With forest 208,600 94,490 6,800 106,900


Withoutforest

128,400 34,600 3,300 90,500

The remaining total forest reserve is 5.9 million cubic metres of wood and2.3 million bamboo trees. Forest has been exhaustedly logged. The area oferoded land is up to 13.9% of the total natural land area of the province.Despite being a mountainous, high land province, Cao Bang's ecologydeserves attention.

Cao Bang has allocated forest land since 1990, and so far has allocated319,345.9 hectares, equivalent to 94.7% of the province's total forest landarea. Recipients of forest land are mainly households and "collectives". Thearea of forest land allocated to "collectives" is 84,728 hectares, being25.54% of the already allocated forest land. As explained by the province,"collectives" include social and political organizations of village-level likethe Women's Association, the Veteran Association, etc, schools, armedforces and villages. The Allocation Decision of district-level People'sCommittee writes: allocate to village collectives, meaning to villagecommunity. "Collectives" are not understood as collective economic unitslike agricultural collectives.

Table 2: Area of forest land managed and protected by community(collective)

Unit: HectareOf which

No Towns anddistricts

Total area offorest landmanaged bycommunity

Area ofallocated forestland

Area of landtraditionallymanaged bycommunity

Area of landcontracted forprotection

1 Town 203.8 170 60.8 -2 Hoa An 8,540.3 1,233.2 - 7,037.13 Ha Quang 3131.5 2634.4 - 508.14 Thong Nong 23433 5071.15 18361.96 -5 Tra Linh 13898.3 - 1139.6 12758.76 Quang Hoa 5089.5 766.4 4323.1 -7 Trung Khanh 2025.78 2008.78 17 -8 Thach An 1251.1 959.3 255.8 -9 Bao Lac 33407.3 33177.8 - 229.510 Bao Lam 302.5 187.6 - 114.911 Nguyen Binh 23635.34 18036.44 3485.5 2131.412 Ha Lang 10272.0 2570.0 3382.0 4320.0


Whole ofprovince

125199.51 66804.09 31025.76 27369.7

(Source: Cao Bang Forest ProtectionDepartment)

According to the above table, the area of forest land traditionally managedby village community is 31025.76 hectares, accounting for 9.70% of theforest land already allocated.

2. Assessing and analyzing the results obtained in community forestmanagement in Cao Bang province.

2.1. The current state of community forest in Cao Bang as seen throughsurvey data

Based on the above-mentioned features, to assess correctly the real state ofthe community forest of Cao Bang province we have opted 3 representativedistricts (sample) to be researched

Districts CharactersThong Nong Mountainous sub-region, to the East, mainly Tay

minorityQuang Uyen Mountainous sub-region, to the West, mainly Nung

minorityNguyen Binh Mountainous sub-region, to the South West, mainly

Dao minority

with one or two communes from each district being selected as surveysamples.

2.1.1. The current state of community forest in Thong Nong district

Table 3: Results of forest land allocation of Thong Nong district (July 2002)

No.

Commune Area of forest landalready allocated

1 Da Thong 3135.95


2 Ngoc Dong 2088.863 Luong can 897.344 Yen Son 1467.045 Can Yen 2177.626 Luong Thong 4145.797 Thanh Long 560.608 Binh Lang 1346.109 Vi Quang 847.6

Total 16,666.90

(Source: Thong Nong Forest Protection Unit, August 2002)

The total area of forest land already allocated accounts for 52.54% of thewhole district's forest land area.

Table 4: Forest land allocation to villages of Thong Nong district(July 2002)

No. Commune Totalnumberofvillages

No. ofvillageswithcommunityforest

% ofvillageswithcommunity forest

Area ofcommunity forest

Area offorest landalreadyallocated

% ofcommu-nityforest

Area offorest ofallocatedorganiza-tions

% ofcommunityforestcomparedwithorganiza-tions

Wholedistrict

164 74 45 3855.44 16666.9 23 359.88 11.6 times

1 Ngoc Dong 16 8 50.00 678.96 3135.95 21.6 0 -2 Da Thong 26 15 57.64 615.14 2088.86 29.45 19.04 32.33 Luong Can 12 5 41.00 132.02 897.34 15 217.66 0.604 Yen Son 9 4 44.00 317.26 1467.04 25.28 0 1.05 Can Yen 29 17 58.60 1088.62 2177.62 50 90.48 12 times6 Luong

Thong32 9 28.00 553.26 4145.79 12.34 32 17.2 times

7 Thanh 13 1 - 25.8 560.6 4.5 0 -


Long*8 Binh Lang 15 10 66.60 217.3 1346.1 32.2 0 -9 Vi Quang 12 6 50.00 253.35 847.6 59.79 0 -

(*) Allocation started in 2000 and is still in process)

Pie chart: Proportion of villages with community forest

1

2

Comments:

The proportion of villages with community forest is 48.68%; the area ofcommunity forest is 3855.44 hectares, accounting for 23% of the total areaof community forest already allocated in the district. The average area ofcommunity forest per village is 52 hectares. The village with the largest areaof community forest is Na Thin village of Cau Yen commune with 176.56hectare. The village with the smallest area of community forest is Keovillage of Binh Lang commune with 0.8 hectare. In comparison with the areaof forest allocated to fundamental political-social organizations and armedforces, the area of community forest is much greater (11.6 times). Hence,community forest is the second largest in terms of area behind householdforest.

Community forest land consists mainly of forest at states Ib, IIa,b,c, IIIc andsecular trees. Community forest comprises the following types:

i) Holy forest (dong slan in Tay language)ii) Ghost forest: village cemetary, found under forest of high trees.iii) Water point forest

1. Villagewithoutcommunityforest

2. Village withcommunity


iv) Village protection forestv) Domestic forestry product forest

2.1.2. The current state of community forest in Quang Uyen district

Table 5: The state of forest land allocation to villages of Quang Uyendistrict (December 2002)

NoCommunes Total

numberofvillages

No. ofvillageswithcommunityforest

Percentageof villageswithcommunityforest

Area ofcommunityforest

Area offorest landalreadyallocated

Percentage ofcommunityforest

Wholedistrict

197 182 92.4 2905.68 17884.7 16.2

1 Chi Thao 27 21 77 355.78 1890.1 18.82 Hong Dinh 17 12 70 161.20 1025.7 15.73 Doc Lap 10 10 100 86.70 943.5 9.24 Tu Do 13 9 69.2 250 1063.3 23.55 Cai Bo 14 14 100 426.9 1687.3 25.36 Quoc Dan 10 10 100 37.20 782.4 4.77 Phi Hai 26 26 100 351.30 3917.4 8.98 Quoc Phong 10 10 100 258.60 962.4 26.89 Quang

Hung15 15 100 292.50 1293.9 22.5

10 Hoang Hai 26 18 413.50 1738 23.711 Hong

Quang18 18 100 180 1650 10.9

12 Binh Lang 11 11 100 92 937.7 9.8

A remarkable feature of Quang Uyen district is the presence of communityforest in 92.4% villages although its area only occupies 16.2% of the totalarea of allocated forest land. The average area of community forest pervillage is 15.96 ha.

Pie chart: proportion of villages with community forest


1

2

Pie chart: Structure of owned forest area

1

2

2.1.3. The current state of community forest in Nguyen Binh district

Table 6: Results of forest land allocation to households and villages (August2002)

Commune Total No. of % of Area of Area of % of Minorities Minorities


1.Forests belongto households2. Forestsbelong to


No. numberof

villages

villageswith

community

forest

villageswith

community

forest

community

forest

forestland

alreadyallocate

d

community

forest

greaterthan 50%

smallerthan 50%-

30%

1 NguyenBinh town

14 2 14 106 228 46.5 Tay

2 Tam Kim 16 4 25 163.8 2316 7 Tay Dao3 Thinh

Vuong4 0 0 0 3839.9 0 Dao

4 Ca Thanh 14 9 64.3 225.5 2824.2 8 Dao5 Bac Hop 9 0 0 0 1279.6 0 Tay6 Phan Thanh 14 1 7.1 4.3 3675.4 - Dao7 Quang

Thanh16 0 0 0 3390.4 0 Dao

8 TrieuNguyen

10 0 0 0 2163 0 Dao

9 MinhThanh

7 0 0 0 1356.9 0 Tay

10 Hung Dao 9 3 33.3 73.7 2022.4 3.6 Dao11 Tinh Tuc

town6 2 33.3 142.5 996.86 14.3 Tay Kinh

12 Vu Nong 15 5 33.3 143.6 970.7 14.4 Dao13 Minh Tam 12 0 0 0 416.8 0 Tay14 Thai Hoc 13 0 0 0 1008.5 Dao15 Mai Long 16 0 0 0 3391.7 0 Dao16 Yen Lac 7 0 0 0 1039.5 0 Dao17 Hoa Tham 9 4 44 173.7 3402.6 5.8 Dao18 The Duc 13 0 0 0 1561.8 0 Dao Tay19 Lang Mon 7 0 0 0 950 0 Tay20 Thanh

Cong15 4 26.6 143.4 4465.8 3.2 Dao

Wholedistrict

226 34 15.4 1204 41299.8 2.91

In Nguyen Binh district, the proportion of Dao ethnic population is highwhile the proportion of villages with community forest is low, only 15.4%.Many villages of Tay minority do not have community forest. Throughinvestigation it is known that pre-revolution villages used to have holy forest,but as a revolutionary base with early enlightening which regards prayingsupertitious, this habit has been removed. The area of community forestmakes up a small proportion, only 2.91%; the average area of forest pervillage is 35 ha, mainly young forest (Ic, IIa,b,c). The District-level People'sCommittee has issued Forest Land Tenure Certificates to villages, in which itwrites: "allocate to village collectives..."

2.1.4. Collection of community forest data in three districts: Thong Nong,Quang Uyen and Nguyen Binh


Table 7: Collection of community forest data in the three districts

No.

District Totalnumber ofvillages

Villageswithcommunity forest

% ofvillageswithcommunityforest

Area ofcommunity forest(ha)

Area offorestlandalreadyallocated (ha)

% ofcommunityforest

1 ThongNong

164 74 45 3855.44 16666.9 23

2 QuangUyen

197 182 92.4 2905.68 17884.7 16.2

3 NguyenBinh

226 34 15.4 1204 41299.8 2.91

Total 587 290 49.4 7965.12 75851.4 10.5

Pie chart: proportion of villages with community forest

1

2

Pie chart: Structure of owned forest area



1

2

2.1.5. Collection of interview results.

Provincial and district-level officials (15 questionnaires)

No. Questions Results1 The existence of community forest Yes: 93.3% No: 6.67%2 Is community forest common? Yes: 86.7% No: 13.3%3 Ethnic minorities? Tay: 93.3%, Nung: 66.7%, Dao: 53.3%,

H'Mong: 46.7%4 Ways of management rights Habitually: 73.3%

Granted: 53.3%Others: 33.3%

5 Common kinds of community forest? Holy forest: 80%Water point forest, PH:100%Fuel wood forest: 53.3%

6 Kinds of community forest land Natural forest: 100%Planted forest: 13.3%DTDT: 20%

7 Reasons for existence of community forest Habitual: 80%Hard to be equally divided: 33.3%In remote location: 6.67%

8 Ways to manage and exploit communityforest

It is reasonable to accord to villageregulation: 100%

9 Should community forest beacknowledged?

Yes: 100% No: 0%

10 Should land tenure certificates be granted tovillages?

-Yes: 80% No: 20%-It writes in certificates: granted to villages(village chief unmentioned)

11 What rights to be granted to villages? -Long-term management and use.-Rights not granted: transfer, inheritence,collateral, lease, capital share contribution

12 Trends of community forest development Already exists, no further expansion (esp.holy forest).Can be expanded in remote areas, far fromhouseholds

Commune-level officials (12 questionnnaires)

1. Forests belongto village

2. Forests belongto households


No. Questions Results1 Community forest exists in which

minorities's location?Tay: 58.3%, Nung: 83.3%, Daoand H'Mong: 58.3%

2 Kinds of community forest land? Natural forest: 100%Planted forest: 8.33%DTDT: 25%

3 Common kinds of communityforest?

Holy forest: 85%Water point forest, PH:100%Fuel wood forest: 83.3%

4 Reasons for existence ofcommunity forest?

Habitual: 41%Hard to be equally divided: 25%Of remote location: 8.3%

5 Is community forest in dispute? Yes: 16.7% No: 83.3%6 Do villages have forest protection

regulation?Yes: 100%

7 Is regulation approved bycommune?

Yes: 100%

8 Should community forest beacknowledged?

Yes: 50% No: 50%

9 Should community forest bedeveloped?

Yes: 91.7% No: 8.3%

Village-level officials (8 questionnaires)

No. Questions Results1 Does community forest exist? Yes: 87.5% No: 12.5%2 Is there any community forest

protection regulation?Yes: 87% No: 12.5%

3 Is there any regulation on theexploitation of wood and forestyproducts?

Yes:50% No: 50%

4 Do villagers observe communityforest protection regulation?

Yes: 75% No: 25%

5 Is community forest in dispute? Yes: 62.5% No: 37.5%

The collection of interview results resembles conclusions drawn from surveydata.


3. Conclusions and recommendations:

3.1. Conlusions:

1.In reality, community forest is found to exist commonly in Cao Bangprovince, especially in areas where Tay and Nung ethnic groups live.

The commonality is assessed through the following criteria:

The proportion of villages with community forest: As can be seen fromthe three districts under investigation, typically 50% of the villages havecommunity forest. The district with the highest proportion is Quang Uyenwith 92.4%, and Thong Nong is on average with 45% of its villageshaving community forest. These are the two districts where Tay and Nungethnic minorties live concentratedly. The district with the lowestproportion of community forest is Nguyen Binh with only 15.4%, whereDao ethnic population is large. 93.3% of provincial and district-levelofficials being interviewed confiemed the existence of community forest.

The size of community forest: the area of community forest accounts for10.5% of the forest land already allocated. The district with the highestfigure is Thong Nong, 23%. The average level is 16.2% in Quang Uyendistrict, and the lowest is 2.91% in Nguyen Binh district. It is estimatedthat the total area of community forest under management is about 22,000ha distributed throughout the province.

2. Community forest under management is mainly natural forest with amajor part being young forest in the process of restoration and the remainingforest of high trees being strictly protected (holy forest, water pointprotection forest).

3. Common kinds of community forest:

i) Holy forestii) Water point protection forestiii) Village protection forestiv) Domestic forestry product forest


Holy forest, ghost forest, protection and water point forest are often locatednear villages and fields, and have been identifed according to long-standinghabits, while fuel wood forest tens to be far from villages (those located nearvillages are divided to households who have adjacent fields).

4. The purposes of community forest are to serve the common intersts of thecommunity regarding first their spirit followed by ecology (water point andvilage protection). Presently, forest logging for commercial purposes is stilllimited, being the secondary target.

5. The management and protection of community forest are comparativelygood compared to household-owned forest.

ommunity forest is managed in accordance with community forestmanagement regulation which is encoded by the communities on the basis ofinheriting the traditions and supplementing with new regulations on forestprotection. Currently, two forest protection regulations are in effectconcurrently:

"Official" regulation: has been codified under the Forestry Inspectionoffcials' guidance in accordance with the Circular No. 56 of the Ministryof Agriculture and Rural Development, and has been approved by theDistrict-level People's Committee. It has been computer processed,printed and alluminated before being handed to every village. The contentof the forest protection regulation resemble from village to village,especially regarding the prohibitions.

Hand-written or unwritten regulation encoded by the village communityin consideration of each village's specific situation and tradition. (Itreceives no approval).

We can see that the village people better understand, remember and observetheir own regulation. The use of forestry products from community forest(the logging for wood, fuel wood and bamboo) of the community or thehouseholds are decided by the village community depending on the capacityof the forest. Generally, no cases of abusing forest or deforestation arereported.

A noticeable shortcoming of the management of community forest is thefailure in mobilizing the community's efforts to boost the regeneration or


afforestation. Forest management is conducted according to the personalexperience of the village chief.

6. The important conditions for community forest to exist and developeffectively are to have a powerful village chief (head of village, villagepatriarch), a forest protection regulation which is in line with the habits,knowledge and disctint characters of each ethnic community.

Regarding the preservation of the ethnic cultural colours, protecting holyforest, a kind of community forest, is preserving an important object-culturalform, helping the community to preserve their belief. The disappearance ofholy forest would mean no more site for the community's in-forestworshiping and festival activities.

7. Local policy about community forest: Despite the fact the province has notissued any documents concerning the allocation of forest land to villages,every district has allocated forest land to villages and householdsconcurrently. Some districts have even issued Forest Land TenureCertificates to villages. Nevertheless, which rights are given to villages toaccompany the allocation of forest land and whether they have the samerights as households have not been mentioned by any authority levels.Village-level officials simply do their management work as usual.


The provincial People's Committee of Cao Bang should issue a documentguiding districts in the allocation of forest land and issuance of Land TenureCertificates to villages with community forest. It is possible to temporarilydefine the rights of villages having community forest as the long-term landuse rights, self-management and use of forest resources in accordance withthe community's regulation (provided it is not against the Law on ForestProtection and Development) to meet the demands of the community andpeople.

Communities should be encouraged to build up their own community forestprotection regulation according to the characters and habits of eachcommunity. The same forest protection regulations should not be applied toevery community. Propagandization and explanation of the forest protectionlaw among communities, particularly to village heads and village patriarchesshould be intensified.


When conducting the National Five Million Hectare ReforestationProgramme, priorities should be given to the contracting of assisted naturalregeneration and reforestation of community forest so as villages aremotivated and energized to cultivate community forest. Getting people'sinvolvement in community forest planting and management can also serve toconsolidate the community.


Survey report on allocation of existing forestand benefit sharing policy in Son La province

Pham Xuan PhuongPolicy Department

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

1. Abstract

The report provides an overview of the situation of allocating existing forestin some communes in Son La province. It compares the differences betweennational policy and provincial policy on benefit sharing and analyses thepractical implementation in the study sites. Based on this survey, first results,outstanding issues and topics arising during the implementation process arepresented. Furthermore impacts of allocation to households, individuals andcommunities in the study sites are analyzed. The report also identifies someproposals for refining the national policy on allocation. Besides, the reportprovides survey outputs on application of the benefit sharing policy for forestallocated to households, individuals and communities. Finally, some issuesthat require further study are identified in order to refine the benefit sharingpolicy to be suitable with local conditions.

2. Background

Allocation of existing forest to households and individuals is regulated inGovernment Decree 02/CP dated 15 January 1994 on forest land allocationto organizations, households and individuals for sustainable long-term use asforest, as well as in Government Decree 163/1999/ND-CP dated 16November 1999 on forest land allocation and leasing to organizations,households and individuals for long-term and stable utilization with forestrypurpose (this Decree replaces Decree 02/CP).

Regarding practical implementation, there are two different opinions: Someargue that, existing forest is created by nature and thus is a national assetwhich has to be managed and utilized by the Government through itsinstitutions.


Others argue in contrast that, even though existing forest is a national asset,it is not necessary to allocate existing forest to government institutions butinstead Government can allocate it to households and individuals formanagement and utilization. There should be, however, clear regulations toensure that the allocated forest is properly managed. According to thisopinion, over past years, state forest management has proven as notsuccessful and neither in line with the Forestry Development Strategy whichis changing from State Forestry to Social Forestry nor with the economicmulti-sector diversification policy in Vietnam.

Due to those different opinions, up to now only few provinces have startedallocating existing forest to households and individuals. Son La is one of theprovinces piloting allocation of existing forest to households, individuals andcommunities. It is understood that allocating existing forest is still a newissue and needs further study. With the support from the Social ForestryDevelopment Project (SFDP) Song Da, a study was carried out to survey howallocation of existing forest and the benefit sharing policy are applied in 3communes in Son La province (Sap Vat commune in Yen Chau district,Chieng Ly commune in Thuan Chau district, and Chieng Ngan commune inSon La town). The analysis method is Participatory Rapid Appraisal (PRA)and expert consultation. Due to the limited scope of the study the report canonly provide some preliminary insights into the implementation process ofallocating existing forest and benefit sharing policy in the study sites. Basedon these insights some proposals relating to the implementation of allocatingexisting forest and benefit sharing in that area are made.

3. Results of applying allocation and benefit sharing at study sites3.1 Application of allocation policy

There are some Decrees and Circulars relating to allocation at national andprovincial level as follows:

The national policy on allocation is regulated in Government Decree163/1999/ND-CP (1999) and the Circular 62/2000/TTLT/BNN-TCDC ofMinistry of Agriculture and Rural Development and General Department ofCadastral (now is Ministry of Resources and Environment) dated 6 June2000 guiding implementation of Decree 163.

Allocation policy details for Son La province are regulated in Decision3011/QD-UB dated 12 December 2000 of Son La People’s Committee on


temporarily issuing the allocation policy for forest land and existing forest inthe province.

The study is aiming at answering several questions: To whom is the forestallocated? Which area is allocated? Which type of forest is allocated andhow is it allocated? What are the impacts on forest after it is allocated topeople? And how is the awareness of local people regarding allocation ofexisting forest to households and individuals?


The study results in the sites are summarized in the table below:

Provincial policyIssue National policy(regulated by theGovernment andMinistries)

Decision 3011 and 3010 Practicalimplementation in 3communes

Households, individualsOrganizations

Households, individualsOrganizations

Households,individualsOrganizations

Groups of households Groups of households

1. Beneficiarygroups forexisting forestallocation

Village communities; socialassociations at village andcommune levels

Village communities;social associations atvillage and communelevels

Households: < 30 ha Households, groups ofhouseholds: 0.5 - 30 ha

Households, groupsof households: < 30ha

Organizations: accordingto approved projects

State enterprises (StateForest Enterprises, Foreststations...): 5,000 ha –15,000 ha

2. Area limit forforest landallocation

Other organizations(Village community), socialorganizations (youth union,Farmers’ Union...): 30 ha –50 ha

Community: < 30 ha

3. Limit offorest allocation

Not regulated in detail Not regulated in detail

4. Forest typesallocated tohouseholds andindividuals

Production forestProtection forest (verycrucial and crucialprotection forests): <5,000 haSpecial-used forests: <1,000 ha

Prior to AEF (productionforest; less crucialprotection forest), forest isclassified as poor forest,young forest (only smallareas) and forest nearresidential area.Plantations financed underProgram 327, 661, 747 andnot classified as verycrucial protection forests orspecial used forests.

Production forestProtection forest(irrespective ofprotection level)Plantations financedunder Program 327,661, 747 and locatingin planned area forprotection forests (irrespective ofprotection level)

5. Forestallocated togroups ofhouseholds

Not clearly regulated Prior to AEF (productionforest; less crucialprotection forest) forest isclassified as poor forest,


young forest (only smallarea) and forest nearresidential area

6. Forestsallocated tovillagecommunitiesandorganisations

Not regulated - Very crucial forests,crucial forest, special-useforests with small area andscattered (less than 1,000ha)

Protection forest (nodifferentiation of verycrucial or crucial forests)

7. Existingforest allocatedto households

Forest land withoutforest (IC)Regenerating forests(IIA, IIB), poor forests(IIIA1)Medium forests (IIA2,IIA3)Rich forests (IIB, IV)

Forestry land withoutforests (IB, IC)Regenerating young forests(IIA, IIB, IIIA1)

Following local people’sconcept:- Bare land- Regenerating forests,young forests

8. Existingforest allocatedto groups ofhouseholds(hhs),communities

Not regulated Forest land without forests(IB, IC)Regenerating young forests(IIA, IIB, IIIA1)

Following local people’sconcept:- Regenerating forests,young forests- Old forests

9. Allocationduration

50 years 50 yearsGroups of households: 50yearsVillage communities,organisations: 50 years

50 yearsVillage communities,organisations: 50 years

10. Authoritiesresponsible forallocation to hhs

District People’sCommittee

District People’s Committee District People’sCommittee

11. Authoritiesresponsible forallocation togroups of hhs,villagecommunities,and organi-sations at village& communelevel

Not regulated District People’s Committee District People’sCommittee

3.2. Benefit sharing policy

Following are some Decrees and Circulars relating to benefit sharing atnational and provincial level:

National Policy on benefit sharing is regulated in Decision 178/2001/QD-TTg dated 12 November 2001 by the Prime Minister on benefits and


obligation of households, and individuals who are allocated, leased andcontracted with forest and forest land.

Application of benefit sharing in Son La province is regulated in Decision3011/QD-UB dated 12 December 2000 of Son La People’s Committee ontemporarily issuing the allocation policy for forest land and existing forest inthe province.

Results from the survey on benefit sharing to households and individuals areshown in the table below:

Provincial policyIssue National policy(regulated by theGovernment andMinistries)

Decision 3011 and 3010 Practicalimplementation in 3communes

1. Targetedgroups of benefitsharing

Households, individuals Households, individualsOrganizations (it is not clearif communities are included)

HouseholdsGroups of households,village communities,social associations atvillage and communelevels

- Forest land withoutforests (IC)

Forest land without forest(IB, IC)

Regenerated forests (IIB,IIC), poor forest (IIA1)

Regenerated forest (IIA,IIB), poor forest (IIIA1)

Medium forest (IIIA2,IIIA3)

Medium forest: not yetregulated

2. Regulation ofbenefit sharingfor differentforest status

Rich forest (IIB, IV) Rich forest: not yet regulated

Forest status is recordedin allocation files/papersbut households don’t careabout it since they don’tunderstand why the foreststatus needs to bementioned/recorded.

3. Rights /benefit fromforests allocatedto households

Timber for housebuildingFuel woodThinning productsNon-timber forestproducts.Main exploitable productsMaximum 20 % of landwithout forest, which isplanned for protectionforest, can be used foragricultural oraquaculture production.

Timber for house buildingFuel woodThinning productsNon-timber forest products.For crucial protection forestalong the Da river which isplanned for residential areaand agroforestry production,households can use 30 % ofthe area for house buildingand agro-aquacultureproduction

Timber for housebuildingFuel woodThinning productsNon-timber forestproducts.Households can not plantagricultural crops inallocated forest landwithout forest


4. Rights /benefit fromforests allocatedto communities

Not regulated Timber for house buildingFuel woodThinning productsNon-timber forest products.Main exploitable products

Timber for housebuildingFuel woodThinning productsNon-timber forestproducts.

5. Regulation on percentage of benefit from harvested productsIC forest: 100% (themaximum ?? Extractionrate is 30%)

For IB forest, householdscan receive 100% ofproductsIC forests (not enrichedforests): 85%IC forest (enriched forests):90%

IIA, IIB, IIIA1 forests:70% - 80%

After 5 to 7 years: 30%After 7 to 10 years: 50%More than 10 years: 70%(including group of households)

Households areallocated withexisting forestwhich is plannedfor productionforests

IIIA2, IIIA3, IIIB, IVforests: Householdsbenefit 2% of exploitedproducts after paying tax

benefit sharing not regulated Land receivers don’tknow about how tobenefit from mainexploitable products

Households arelocated with lesscrucialprotectionforests

Not regulated (similar tothe case of productionforest)

Forest Ic (must be enriched):Households benefit 90% –95%IIA, IIB, IIIA1 forests:After 5 to 7 years: 35% offorest outputFrom 7 to 10 years: 55%More than 10 years: 75%

6. Investmentand credit policyfor forestallocated tohousehold

Households can borrowmoney with preferentialinterest rate – 5.4% andcan return the borrowedmoney after harvestingmain products.Households can borrowless than 10 million VNDwithout collateral

Households can borrowmoney with preferentialinterest rate and return allthe money including interestrate after harvesting mainproducts

Households cannotborrow money directlyfrom banks for plantationPeople don’t know aboutborrowing money frombanks


3.3. Main assessment3.3.1. Achievement

In general, the allocation policy for existing forest in Son La province is inline with existing laws. Additional target groups are eligible for beingallocated with existing forest. They are: groups of households, villagecommunities, and social organisations at village and commune level. Theprovince also regulates the area limit for forest land allocation to each targetgroup and this is very suitable for the specific situation of Son La provinceand fulfills the purpose of giving forests to the real owners.

Blocks of existing forest, which are allocated to communities, groups ofhouseholds and social organizations at village and commune level, are thosethat cannot be allocated to separate households. This applies to forests alongcommune and village borders, to conflict areas or to small scattered forestplots, which cannot be allocated to enterprises. If those forests are notallocated to those target groups (village communities, groups of householdsand social organisations) they would become ownerless.

Son La province has the policy to allocate poor and exhausted forests, andyoung regenerating forests to groups of households, individuals andcommunities. This is a careful pilot experiment, which can serve as a basisfor then allocating all types of existing forests to households and individuals.People allocated with forest recognize clearly that they are forest owners andtheir rights are ensured by the Government. Therefore they follow theirobligations to protect forests.

About 90% of interviewed households think that the area allocated to theirhousehold actually belongs to them. Only households who have receivedforest allocations are entitled to exploit and use their forest areas and areresponsible to reforest them.

Forests, which are allocated to households and individuals, are well protectedand the area of forest destruction is significantly reduced.Forests, which are allocated to communities, are well protected.

3.3.2. Disadvantages and limitations

a. Land allocation


There is a time lag between land allocation and provision of land use titles,only 30% - 40% of allocated land is provided with land use title.Some officers responsible for allocating land are not clear enough aboutcorrectly defining the forest status and they sometimes simplify the foreststatus definition. Thus the benefit sharing for households in the future will bedifficult and not objective.About 80% of interviewed households think that households only need topatrol the forest but do not need to employ silvicultural measures forincreasing forest productivity.

The allocation is still egad and some suppose that allocating existing forest isa hunger eradication and poverty alleviation measure done in order togenerate income for people in difficult situation.

b. Benefit sharing

Benefit sharing from forest for people allocated with forest depends on foresttypes. However, the distinction between production forest and protectionforest in the study sites is not yet clear. Definition of benefit sharing forpeople is rather difficult, especially regarding allocation of very crucialprotection forest since legally very crucial protection forest is only harvestedat low extraction rates, and thus the economic outputs and hence thecontribution to household income are low.

Benefit from forest for people allocated with forest depends on forest status(or forest types) but the forest status definition in the field is still over-simplified and mainly decided by Forest Protection officers by filing in theallocation documents. Farmers are not aware or do not care about the foreststatus. This may create difficulties during benefit sharing later on.

A number of farmers are not clear about the benefit they can receive fromthe allocated forest.

30% of interviewed households think that households are entitled to theentire harvest and use of the main exploitable products. They are not awarethat they have to return a percentage of harvested products to localauthorities depending on the forest status when being allocated.

30% of interviewed households assume that they only can harvest non-timber forest products (like fuel wood, bamboo shoots, etc.). They are not


aware that they can harvest some main products, thus they do not care aboutwhich forest type (production forest or protection forest) is allocated to them.

It is regulated in some sites that annual crops cannot be planted on forestland before the canopy closes. Even though it is positive to protect forest,this regulation negatively affects food production of households. Somehouseholds lack food in 3 to 5 months while according to Decision 178,people allocated with forest land have the right to use a maximum of 20% ofthe area without forest cover for agricultural production.

As much as 90% of interviewed households are interested in using part ofthe forest land without forest cover for agricultural production.3.3.2. Outstanding issues

The purpose of allocating existing forest to communities is to manage thatforest more effectively. However, question remain regarding elaboration ofproper policies for communities e.g. for benefit sharing from forest, forinvestment and credit, regarding rights of communities after being allocated(to change ownership or to sell) or regarding who is authorized to allocateforest to communities. Another issue is that presently communities mainlymanage forest by protection only, instead of applying silviculturalmanagement techniques. Thus it is important to encourage communities toemploy suitable silvicultural measures to to increase forest productivity.

In some places, forest plots allocated to households are scattered. Thus thequestion remains how to concentrate forest land into viable managementmodels.In some locations the entire forest land was allocated to households thusthere is no more land reserve for distribution. The question is how to allocateland for new households (of new couples) or immigrated households orreturning retired officials.

Most households who are allocated with regenerated forests are poor. As theGovernment does currently not provide a budget to support them in the earlystage, most of the allocated forest land is used for agricultural cultivation,not for afforestation.

4. Recommendations


i) Son La province needs to evaluate allocation of existing forestto households, individuals and communities focusing on the followingissues:

Inventorying the existing forest area allocated to each target group(households and communities) regarding forest type (special-use forest,protection forest, production forest) and regarding forest status (I, II, III,IV).

Evaluating the allocation method and implementation steps. Especially,status definition of existing forest is very important before allocating tohouseholds. Improvements for those steps need to be addressed.

Studying impacts of allocating existing forest in some sites of the projectarea on the awareness of local people when being allocated with forestand assessing whether the allocated existing forest is protected and wellmanaged.

Drawing lessons from existing forest allocation experiences and definingoutstanding issues that need to be addressed.

There should be studies to evaluate and compare the effectiveness ofallocating existing forest to target groups such as households, individuals,village communities and social organisations at village and communelevel.

ii) Studying and elaborating policies to support the allocationprocess for existing forest, e.g. by investment and creditpolicies, forestry and agricultural extension, tax incentivepolicy, and a forest product marketing policy.

iii) Elaborating the benefit sharing policy for households andcommunities focusing on the following issues:

Regulating benefit sharing for each target group who is allocated withforest land (households, individuals, communities); for each forest types(special-used forest, protection forest and production forest); for eachforest status (I, II, II, IV).

Regulating benefit sharing of each target group who is allocated withbarren land, existing forest, and plantation. There should be clearregulations on barren land, which is not yet afforested, regarding its usefor agricultural and aquacultural production.

5. Conclusion


i) Existing forest allocation to households and individuals iscompletely in line with current laws.

ii) Concurrent with allocation of existing forest, the Governmentneeds to have support policies and clearly regulate duties andrights of forest owners, so they will be more responsible inforest protection and management.

iii) Allocation of existing forest to village communities and socialorganizations at village and commune level is completelysuitable for Son La situation. However, there should beregulations for those communities and organizations aiming atmore effective forest management.

iv) Son La province needs to study and evaluate results of existingforest allocation to households, individuals, communities inpractice in order to draw lessons for future up-scaling.


Report oncommunity forest management

in gia lai province

Nguyen Van PhongVice Director DARD Gia Lai

Introduction

At present, forest management is major issue, which requires not only theattention of the State Government, but also the participation of thecommunities living close to forests.

Community forest management is a system to manage forests, in which thelocal communities have their rights (according to traditions and/or accordingto regulations officially), with regards to forest resources. They are the mainactors and beneficiaries in the management and the use of forests and forestlands.The use of forest resources following practice of community forestmanagement can be applied to all functions of forests, as long asmanagement techniques and local community set-ups follow the regulationson forest zoning and are suitable to the functions of the forest in given area.

Community forest management regulates the organization, management,techniques and financing of the management and utilization activities offorests and forest lands with the purpose of increasing the benefits for localcommunities, while ensuring the sustainability of forest resources.

The forestry sector is in the transition process of moving from state forestryto people forestry (or social forestry). New factors in forest resourcesmanagement have emerged and are emerging, where communities arepositive factors, participating in forest resources management and playingincreasingly important role in the forest management system.

At present Gia Lai Province has 728.372 ha of natural forests that areallocated to organizations and management levels. However, the forestmanagement at commune level is affected directly by the communities livingclose to forests. The pressure of these communities on forest resources are


increasing continuously. People are in the need of lands for agriculturalproduction, of timber and fire wood for their daily life. They also need otherforest products. Therefore, the forest area in these localities are decreasing.People contracted for forest protection in projects such as 327 and 661 arereceiving meager subsidies from the State to carry out the protection. If theyonly are subsidized to protect forests, but do not have the rights to manageand to use the forests by themselves in a sustainable manner, then it cannotbe said that the management is sustainable.

Because of the above reasons, the Working group of Gia Lai Province onCommunity Forest Management has conducted a pilot survey/study oncommunity forest management in a number of communes of the province inorder to evaluate and analyze the community aspect in forest management atpresent moment and work out realistic recommendations, that are appropriateto the current regulation and policy framework, and to determine necessarysteps to implement the community-based forest management in Gia LaiProvince.

After conducting studies in some communes, CFM Working group inconjunction with TA of ADB forest sector project organized a workshop inGiaLai in March,2003 with participation of representatives of province PC,communes and line departments. The workshop reached strong agreement toimplement successfully CFM in the province in coming time. First, theworkshop got agreement on preparation for one pilot CFM model and onepilot model on forest allocation with benefit sharing according to Decision178, in order to propose a policy framework, direction as well as technicalarrangement applied in CFM.

I. The aim of community forest management

The aim of CFM is to increase in sustainable manner the benefit of localpeople in the forest area and maintain the sustainability of forest resources.

The maintenance of forest resources requires specific methods ofcomprehensive and sustainable forest management, where local communitiesplay a leading role. The management of forest lands is a responsibility ofcommune administrative bodies in accordance with a principle, that is all thetasks of the local government and administrative bodies have to be fulfilledby the lowest government level so that the services are directly andeffectively delivered to the public. The application of this principle is an


important step in the administrative reform. The rights and responsibilities oflocal communities regarding the forest use are clearly defined in communeregulations. They are based on the potential of forest resources, on thecalculation of economic feasibility, and on the traditional rules of localcommunities.

In order to reach this aim, community forest management will be composedof 6 main development components, which are:

- Natural resources;- Human resources;- Local community setups;- Enterprises and the market;- Technologies;- Information systems (the development of policies and regulations;

rights and responsibilities; coordination and consultation)The resources used by local communities include:

a) In natural forests:- Timber (a high income source for people)- Non-timber (easy to collect in forests)

b) Besides natural forests, communities also have:- Additional income source of agricultural production and agro-forestry;- The value added services by processing products.- The above income sources will contribute to the reinforcement of the

community commitments to maintain the forest by increasing theincome from forests and decreasing the pressure on forest resources.

2. Analysis and evaluation of the study results in the communes of gialai

2.1.The need of community-based forest management and protection.

Gia Lai Province consists of 14 districts and towns, 183 communes/wards,and 1,816 villages/street groups, with 78 communes in extreme difficultiesand 39,450 poor households. The total population is 1,034,089 people (dataon Dec. 31, 2001), consisting of 314,749 Jrai, 128,954 Bahnar, 572,526Kinh, and 17,860 people of other ethnic groups. According to 1998inventory, the total forest area is 750,819 ha, among which there are 728,372


ha of natural forest and 22,447 ha of planted forests. Total of timber volumeis 75.6 mill m3 and 97.9 mill bamboo.

Besides the areas allocated to the forest owners, there remain about 300,000ha of natural forests managed by the local governments with the assistanceof forest protection forces. These areas do not have specific owners and areunder the management of communes and districts. Therefore, they are noteffectively protected and used in sustainable manner. First of all, it isnecessary to agree on choosing who will be responsible for the effectivemanagement of existing forests of the province, especially of those areaswithout specific owners.

Considering the above situation, the need of community-based forestmanagement derives from the following reasons:

- CFM is suitable for far and remote areas, where the daily life andproduction of people depends much on forests. The area of forests andforest lands currently consists of nearly 50% of the total area ofnatural forests. Most of them are situated close to communities,especially the ethnic ones. The live of these communities is bound upwith forests and forest lands. CFM is needed for local people becauseof themselves and their long-term interests. Sustainable forestmanagement must ensure the long-term interests of people (especiallythe ones who are bound up with forests).

- CFM is suitable for the barter economic situation of local people.- While the State still has many difficulties in the management of far

and remote regions, it is not capable of investing a large amount tohire people for protecting forests indefinitely. If the current situationcontinues, then the management and protection of forests will notbring sustainable results. Therefore, it is necessary to assign forests tocommunities and guide them to manage, protect and use their ownareas.

- The management and development of forest resources at the momentlack the pro-active participation of local communities and are notbound-up with the rights and obligations of the involved people.Because the current policies are not specifically implemented or areabsent, local communities are not motivated and mobilized toparticipate in the management and development of forest resources.Besides, the positive points of traditional rules of some communitiesare still not popularized.


- CFM has been well implemented in many village communities, havingclear community structure with internal village conventions, andcommunity heads are often respected by other members.

- The management capability and capacity of communes andcommunity groups in carrying out organization and technical tasksrelating to CFM through the use, the protection and rearrangement offorests based on communities.

2.2. The management capability and capacity of communes:

- Commune People’s Committees: These authorities has the functions ofstate management at local level. They organize the implementation ofcommune People’s Councils. It also develop agro-forestry land useplans and work out the regulations on co-ordination different forestryorganizations in protecting and managing forests. They provideguidance to villages on the establishment and implementation of forestprotection rules. They co-operate with local forest protection officersto carry out forest protection and fire prevention works. They guidevillages in fulfilling their forest protection tasks on the contractedareas every year.

- Land officers, the Chief of Cabinets of Commune People’s Council,Police Section, Partisan Teams, Commune Section of Forestry, Sectionof Finance, Medical Centres, Schools, Women Unions, FarmerAssociations, Veterans Associations, Youth Unions, CommuneFatherland Front Committees: These organizations assist People’sCommittees in developing management plans for forests and forestlands, propagate and mobilize people to participate in protection anddevelopment of forests, to stabilize their lives, to organize agro-forestry production, industries, handicrafts and services.

Regarding the capability and capacity of commune governments on studiedsites, the following has been observed:

- Communes are administrative units with the governmentalmanagement functions and they manage all administrative activities atcommune level. The zoning plans and management plans for the useof agro-forestry lands in the area are developed at commune level.

- Commune Forestry Boards generally are only formalistic. TheDecision 245/CP on devolving forest management at district andcommune levels is not thoroughly and concretely implemented in the


Province. The forestry cadres of communes do not have salary funds.Generally, the operation of Sections of Forestry is based on officerswith concurrent responsibilities, who lack training and guidelines onforestry professional knowledge.

Decree 77/CP on administrative fines and Decree 17/CP on amendments andcorrections to the Decree 77/CP: During the process of implementation,communities use internal rules of villages and only pass on to functionalbodies at higher levels major infringements. However, there are still cases,which are not processed timely and appropriately in accordance withregulations.

Decree 163: Continues to allocate lands to organizations, households andcommunities for management. The purpose is to heighten people’s attitudetowards the management and use of forestry lands, thereby contributing tothe mitigation of illegal exploitation of forest products and of slash-and-burncultivation. However, there are difficult issues to be studied and solved. Theyare:

- For the communities, who receive depleted forests and do not haveany income from the forests, and then what can they use for theirliving and production so as to maintain and develop the forests.

- At present, banks do not accept forest land use certificates ascollaterals for loans.

2.3.The management capability and capacity of villages:

- The people’s boards of villages include village heads, deputy villageheads and secretaries. They manage all sorts of production andadministration activities within villages.

- The boards of village patriarch include the patriarch, the juniorpatriarch.

- They fulfill the tasks of Fatherland Front within villages.- Village policemen ensure security and deals with administrative cases.- Village partisans protect the village military security.- Village Fatherland Fronts communicate and propagate the Party’s

policies and guidelines as well as the state regulations for mutual helpand union of people.

- Branches of the Youth League gather and educate young people inimproving cultural live and helping each other in production.


- Village Women Unions help their members in obtaining loans forproduction and propagate different movements.

- Religious set-ups educate communities in ethics and ways of life.

3. Recommendations to the central, provincial and district leaders

The appropriateness of study results: The study meets research objectivesand requirements at selected sites. These sites all have villages with forests,where ethnic groups participate in forest protection.

The practicality of the study results: The collected information sufficientlyand lively reflects activities that currently happen at studied sites.

3.1. To the Central level.

Correct and Amend: Civil Code, Law on Forest Protection and Development,Law on Promotion of Domestic Investment, Land Law, and Law onOrganization of People’s Councils and People’s Committees at DifferentLevels are recommended for amendments with the following contents:identification of the role and responsibilities of villages (as legal entities);identification of the role (responsibilities, mandate, and rights) of villageheads; definition of village communities as subjects entitled to be allocatedwith forests and forestry lands.

Sub-law regulations: Decree 163/CP, Decree 01/CP, Decree 43/CP onProffered Investments, Decree 29/CP on the Ordinance on Democracy atCommune Level, Decree 04/CP on the Guidelines on Amended Land Law,Decree 17/ H§BT on the Guidelines on the Law on Forest Protection andDevelopment, Decision 245/TTg are recommended for amendments with thefollowing contents: communities are entities entitled to profferedinvestments, the benefit policies for communities participating in forestmanagement to be extended; identification of role and responsibilities ofvillage heads.

The State has to stipulate the legal status of village communities andacknowledge CFM as a form of management existing in parallel with otherforest management forms.

3.2. To provincial level:


The protection forests, which are within the boundaries of a commune, avillage, or of few communes but not large enough to form a Protection ForestManagement Board (because the area is less then 1,000 ha) are to beallocated to communities to manage in accordance with the protection forestregulations.

The production, which are still not allocated to any owner, or dispersedproduction forests, which are closed to communities belonging to ProtectionForest Management Boards or Forestry Enterprises, are to be allocated tocommunities to manage in accordance with the regulations on managementof production forests;

3.3. To implement a pilot model of CFM in Gia Lai Province.

To conduct the contracting of forests to benefiting households andcommunities according to Decision 178.Identify necessary steps to implement sustainable community-based forestmanagement in Gia Lai Province:

- Revise the forestry areas that still do not have specific owners;- Identify contracting terms and conditions for the allocation of forestry

lands to communities as:- Having a village head or a representative of the village, who is legally

elected by people and acknowledged by the Commune People’sCommittee;

- The community has the need to manage forests, and the forestsallocated to them directly serve communities interests;

- The community has plans for the management and the use of foreststhat are acknowledged by the community itself and by the communePeople’s Committee, and acknowledged by the district People’sCommittee.

- The community has the convention on forest management andprotection developed by itself, acknowledged by the communePeople’s Committee, and approved by the district People’s Committee.

- Training and experience exchange visits on CFM, on relatedprofessional topics, and on agricultural and forestry extensiontechniques.

- Using PTD after allocating lands and forests to communities.- Developing benefit policies and distributing benefits to communities.- Developing the convention on community-based forest management.

Developing a system of sivilculture techniques and methods.


- Developing markets for local forest products.- Developing a forest protection and regeneration fund of the village.

This fund is to be derived from following sources: the money comingfrom selling of forest products exploited in community forests, themoney sponsored by domestic and international organizations andpersons, the penalties on infringement of forest protection conventionof the village.

- The forest protection fund can be used for following activities:payments to people who manage and protect forests, expenses on fireprotection and fighting of harmful pests, expenses for planting newforests, for planting additional trees, for enriching and forestmaintenance.

3.4. Identify directions for CFM in Gia Lai province.

The direction of the state, the localities (the province and its districts andcommunes), and of ADB Project.

At present, as the result of Project 661, forests are contracted out tohouseholds for protection. The payment for forest protection is paid with therate of VND 35,000 to 50,000 per ha per year. The forests are protectedunder an agreement signed between Protection Forest Management Boardsor forestry enterprises and households, with the witness of the communePeople's Committees. According to this agreement, people are entitled onlyto receive contracted amount of payment, to collect non-timber forestproducts in small scale, and to enjoy the environmental benefits as a result offorest protection activities (soil protection, water source protection, erosionprevention, wind obstruction). Suppose the State is run out of the budget forcontracting out forests and does not have other alternatives, perhaps peoplewill stop receiving forests for protection. In that case, some people will againdestroy or use the forests illegally in order to meet the interests of their lives.

According to Song Ba Development of Protection Forest Project, which isbeing implemented in 6 districts and 15 communes of Gia Lai Province,forests are contracted out to household groups, and the State issues the landuse rights for households. The project will end in 2003. The payment forforest protection is VND 50,000 per ha per year.


The situation requires that a new approach in allocating community forestsfor long-term management and use must be based on the followingdirections:

- Carry out pilot allocation of forest to village communities;- The forests to be allocated: production forests and protection forests

that do not have management owners;- The maximum term of contracts is 50 years;- The district People's Committee sign the decisions on forest allocation

and issue "Read Books" for Village CFM Board.- The implementation of forest management, protection and utilization

plans is conducted by Forestry Protection Groups (consisted of fewhouseholds), under the management and coordination of the VillageCFM Board.

3.5. Recommendations related to the planning of CFM in Gia LaiProvince.

- Based on the area of forests and forest lands that the district People'sCommittee allocates to communities, CFM Boards establish yearlyand short-term CFM plans and present to all community members forcomments and agreement.

- The management plans of community forests are acknowledged by thecommune People's Committee and approved by the district People'sCommittee.

3.6. Feasible methods of forest inventory, sivilculture techniques, andcommunity-based forest use.

Technical methods must ensure the following principles and requirements:- Simplicity and practicality;- Containment of only basic factors and relevant issues;- Low input (finance, training, extension and monitoring)- Easy to control and monitor- Sustainability (economically, ecologically, and socially)- Low risks on over-exploitation of natural resources.- Opened for further development- Recommendations on surveys of community forests: Simple and

Rapid Assessment. It is possible to classify and map forests accordingto three following states:


State A: includes natural forests with rich and mediumpotentials (of more than 110 m3/ha), that are immediatelyavailable for timber production.

State B: includes young forests, the forests recovered afterslash and burn cultivation and after timber exploitation, withthe common diameter of regenerated timber trees from 10 cmto 35 cm, that need to grow for many years before beingexploited.

State C: includes empty lands, grass patches, with bushes andregenerated trees of small quantities that need additionalplanting of multi-purpose trees and need growing andprotection for few decades before being exploited.

- Recommendation on sivilculture techniques and combination ofagricultural and forestry techniques applicable to CFM.

- Management, protection, and fire protection of forests.- Zoning for growing and regeneration.- Forest maintaining and tending.- Enriching forests by ago-forestry trees of high values, indigenous

timber trees, and beneficial non-timber trees (such as bamboo,bamboo shoots, cinnamon, fruit trees, etc.)

- Forest planting- Forest exploitation:

+ Based on the structure and development rules of certainforest sections, functional organizations determine minimumdiameters of trees (or groups of tree spices) that can beexploited, so as the dimensions of exploitable trees are easilyrecognized by people.+ Determine the exploitation area for each year based onexploitation cycle.+ Determine maximum number of exploitable trees perhectare. + Determine the species to be prohibited fromexploitation.+ Exploitation techniques: cutting down by gas saws or handsaws, using small transport means.

- Producing timber locally by ring saws or plate saws. Products arebasic sawn timber for production and wood articles for local needs.


- Exploitation and processing of non-timber forest products litsea (b�il�i skin, rattan, bamboo shoots, bulbul (bông �ót), canarium, speciesof bamboo, and the like)

- Cultivation of agricultural species and livestock on empty areas withinforests.

3.7. Roles and functions of village and commune governments andcommunity groups in organizing, planning, approving and controllingof sustainable forest use and management.

Roles and responsibilities of commune governments:- Developing agricultural and forestry land use plans for the commune

area;- Developing forest management plan for the commune area;- Guiding villages in developing their forest management plans;- Summarizing forest management plans of villages for presenting to the

district People's Committee for approval and allocation of lands;- Controlling, guiding and monitoring the implementation of forest

management plans of communities every year.- Summarizing yearly activities reports of communities for presenting to

the district People's Committee.

Roles and functions of village governments:- Forming the village CFM Board;- Grouping households with group leaders and assistant to group

leaders;- Developing participatory forest management plans;- Assigning implementation tasks of the forest management plan to

household groups;- Controlling and monitoring the implementation of forest protection

plans. Controlling the exploitation of forests and non-timber forestproducts. Monitoring the distribution of benefits from forests to thecommunity;

- Develop and implement expense plan for the forest protection andregeneration fund;

- Prepare periodical progress reports to the commune government.

3.8. Necessary controlling instruments and approval/permission system:


Phase 1: Preparation of materials for approval and official allocation oflands:

- Identifying the area for forest allocation on the basis of the agreementbetween the province, the district and the commune;

- Agreeing on the map and boundaries of forests;- Developing CFM plan;- Establishing groups and developing conventions;- Submitting land allocation proposal from the commune to the district;- Preparing documents for approval and official allocation of lands to

the commune/villages.

Phase II: Development of detailed management plan after land allocated- Developing participatory management plans.- District PC formally approves detailed forest management plans.- Implementation of approved forest management plans, monitoring and

evaluation of activities. Communities may sign long-term sub-contracts with separate households, household groups, publicorganizations, or with whole villages based on the forest managementand protection plans.

- Reviewing and amending plans using participatory methods.

Village CFM Board is responsible for the management of Forest Protectionand Regeneration Fund. All deposits and withdrawals must be completelyand timely recorded. The balance sheets and reports must be opened to thecommunities before the end of management terms, and handovered tosuccessors with the witness of commune legislation cadres. The Fund isunder the control and monitoring of the commune Chief of Budget Board.

Village CFM prepares documents for timber exploitation with the assistanceof Commune Forestry Board, presents to Department of Agriculture forreview and approval and for the issuance of the timber exploitationpermission to communities.

Officers of the Commune Forestry Board cooperate with the ForestProtection unit in the area to control and monitor timber exploitation.

Village CFM Board organizes, controls and monitors the processing oftimber and other non-timber forest products in the village.


3.9. The assignment of tasks and distribution of benefits between villageand commune levels (in accordance with decision 178/Q�-TTg).

Rights and responsibilities of villages:- Responsible for the protection of allocated forest area;- Mobilizing funds and human resources to develop forest funds.- Ensuring that the intervention measures, such as thinning,

exploitation, and enrichment of forests have proper designs approvedby authorized professional organizations;

- Ensuring that no illegal transactions of lands and forests occurs;- Returning forest funds at the end of allocation term.- Paying taxes in accordance legal regulations.- Entitle to receive the Land Use Rights (the "Red Book") for the

village.- Entitle to conduct agricultural production on previously cultivated

lands.- Entitled to the exploitation of non-timber products in the area of

allocated forests.- Entitled to a timber exploitation permission of no more than 10 m3 of

round wood for every 20 years with the purpose of house building.- Protecting and rearing of natural forests. After paying taxes to the

State, entitle to enjoy exploited timber at the following rates:

In State A: the village community receives 2%, the rest is allocatedto the commune budget;In State B: the village receives 80%, the rest is allocated to thecommune budget;In State C: the village receives 100%.

Rights and responsibilities of communes:

Responsibilities:

- Participating and guiding the planning and zoning of lands and forestsin villages;

- Establishing the Commune Forestry Board that provides professionalguidelines to forest management activities in villages.

- Signing the decision of establishment of Village CFM Boards andprovide guidance on the activities of these boards.


Benefit:- After paying taxes to the State, entitle to enjoy exploited timber at the

following rates:In State A: entitle to receive the remainder of collected productsafter deducting 2% to villages.In State B: 20% of products.

Entitle to forest products after allocating a portion to villages in order to usein following cases:

- Supporting the protection, zoning and regeneration of forests;- Paying subsidies to forestry and forest protection cadres in the

commune area;- Supporting forestry extension;- Supporting in providing seedlings.- The support system necessary to implement community-based forest

management.- After being allocated with forests, the community needs to be

supported on:- Organization of management: Formation of CFM Boards and

establishment of forest protection conventions. Commune ForestryBoard, Forestry Protection Division, District Division of Economydirectly control the application of forest protection laws.

- Supporting communities in development of agro-forestry techniques tocarry out business on forests and forests lands;

- Commune PC and Village Board of Self-Government assist people inaccessing production development loans;

- Forestry enterprises and Protection Forest Management Board provideconsultation to communities on sivilculture designs such as rearing,thinning, enrichment and exploitation of forests.

- Commune Forestry Board, Forestry Protection Division assistcommunities in completing procedures for timber exploitation;

- Agro-Forestry Promotion Centre strengthen the promotion activitiesby providing market information about forest products;

- Continuous promotion and organization of CFM as well asdevelopment of forest protection conventions based on traditionalrules;

- Reviewing and improving the policies on allocation of agriculturallands (Decree 163 allows the lands to be allocated only toorganizations, persons and households), extending the allocation tovillage communities;


- Studying further amendments to policies on benefits from timberproducts to make them appropriate to each type of forests;

- Strengthening Commune Forestry Boards and professionalorganizations so that they closely co-operate with communities inmonitoring the management and use of forests;

- Providing supports to agro-forestry promotion, development of agro-forestry techniques, dissemination of market information, andprocessing of forest products;

- Proceeding with preferred loans for households doing business onforests.

- Continuing the forestry land use planning, allocating forestry lands toother villages/communes.


Discussions

In the afternoon section, the workshop participants were divided into threeworking groups to discuss the following topics:

- Review and completion of the action matrix on CFM pilot schemes,particularly the great attention should be paid on technical issues suchas methods for forest classification, forest allocation, forest resourceinventory and survey, regulations on forest logging for thecommunities.

- Institutional arrangements and supporting systems for implementingthe CFM pilot schemes.

The former topic was discussed by group 1 and 2. The group 1 comprised thetechnical experts from Northern Mountainous and Midland Region ofVietnam, while the group 2 consisted of technical experts from NorthernCentral Region and Central Highlands of Vietnam.

The later topic was discussed by group 3, which included leaders, managers,and policy-makers from MARD, Team Leaders from several projects andprograms and program officers from different NGOs.

The results of group discussions are presented in the following tables.


Discusion results of working groups 1 and 2 on review and completionof the action matrix on CFM pilot schemes

Procedural steps Supporting activities Projects/Locations RecommendationsEU Son La-LaiChau

Introduction andincreasingawareness for localpeople on CFM pilotschemesApproval byauthorities/agenciesfor implementing theCFM pilot schemes

SFDP - Chieng Hac-Yen ChauMuong Pon - §ienBien

Need agreement or approval fromlocal authorities (District PC orProvincial PC)

FROFOR Phu loc -Hue

Supporting agency: Sub-DFD orSub FPD

Step 1:Initiation of CFMpilot schemes

DFD Gia Lai NWG on CFM

Clarify SFE's boundarySFDP Need to change the words for

easier understanding such as'allocate land' or 'allocate to' donot use ' 'land tenure', ownership'

SNV Hue, FSP/ADB Villagers volunteer to participateNeed simplified guideline andcriteria for forest classification butstill follows state forestclassification (3 types for villages

Clarify boundary atvillage level

Helvetas ETSP Need to change the priority in thesupporting activitiesSimplify the forest classification inaccordance with local peopleknowledge

Step 2: Clarification offorest landallocation

Manage updated data

Cooperate with FIPIand sub-FIPI atprovinces

SFDP Simple, based on local availableresources

Manage updated data

Step 3:Inventory offorest resourceincludingclassification offorest state Clarify tenure rights of utilization

of forest productsSFDP, FSP/ADB Issues of post-harvesting, training

enough TOTs for local.Step 4:Establishment ofcommunity-based controllingand reportingsystems

Step 5: Training and trainingprogram

SFDP Simple training manuals


Implementationoftraining/coachingmeasures

Step 6:Implementationof yearly workand harvestingplans

Inspection,evaluation andprogress report

Simplify format for Inspection,evaluation and progress report,elaborate the harvestingregulation for CFM


Discusion results of working group 3 on institutional arrangements andsupporting systems for implementing the CFM pilot schemes

The working group 3 has proposed following recommendations:

- MARD will propose to parliament to amend the land law to allow forForest Land Allocation to village communities. This includes alsoforest land with still existing natural forests (estimated area of about2.9 million hectare) which can only be allocated to villagecommunities, not to individual households or group of households.

- The intention of the NGW CFM to initiate CFM pilot schemes inselected communes is agreed and supported. It is proposed that alsoNGO’s and professional associations such as farmer associationsshould be involved in these pilot schemes, not only donor-assistedprojects.

- It was agreed to include also special use forests in the CFM pilotschemes.

- Although forest land allocation will focus on village communities, theCFM pilots should encompass whole communes, not only individualvillage, as to allow for proper management and controllingmechanisms.

- It is recommended to review and amend the provisions in the 661program in order to provide financial support to forest-dwellingcommunities to bridge the time gap between the planting/tendingphase and the time when timber harvesting can start, and createincomes from alternative, non-forestry activities.

- The outline procedure and action matrix proposed by the NWG CFMis agreed. It is, however, suggested to include the following tasks inthe action matrix:

- Create procedures and regulations of supporting systems for CFMdevelopment

- Design and disseminate technologies to support income generationfrom non-forestry activities in forest-dwelling communities

- Assist forest-dwelling communities to pro-actively mobilize fundsfrom ongoing government programs/projects and own resources.

- The CFM pilot initiative will be reported to the leadership of MARD.It is recommended to also inform the FSSP and eventually seek apermanent link between the NWG CFM and existing FSSPinformation media in order to better disseminate information andpublications of the NWG CFM.


Workshop findings and conclusions

The workshop highly appreciated eight reports made by the NationalWorking Group and various provinces on the allocation of natural forests andthe community forest management, and one report on the plan to establishthe community forest management. The workshop has spent time thoroughlydiscussing this plan, and has received valuable ideas from managers,scientists and field officers.

1. Viewpoint:

- The workshop has asserted that community forest management is oneof many forms of forest management, which should be paid attentionto for the sake of its development.

- Community forest management is an objective fact in line with thesocial, cultural and economic life of mountainous ethnic minoritypeople, and its magnitude is manifested through its great area coveringmany midland mountainous provinces with natural forests.

- The allocation of natural forests should be boosted, and thecommunity forest management should be developed steadilyaccording to an appropriate plan, a scientific method in line with thepractical requirements so as to ensure the achievement of theobjectives of stable forest management and higher people's income.

2. Community forest management has such advantages as thesimplification of the allocation of forest and forestland, more efficientforest protection, prevention of deforestation, saving the State from investingin forest protection contracts. Also, the community participation in theallocation of forest and forestland as well as their protection andmanagement helps to enhance people's awareness. Receiving benefits fromforest makes them more attached to forest, and equality in the communityprofit sharing is created.

3. In the workshop we have shared experiences, methods, andexperimental results of various projects and provinces.

Results:


- The method and procedure for the allocation of forest and forest landwith people participation has been formed; recipients, allocationduration, allocation portion and implementation steps have beenidentified.

- Forest use plans have been made.- Plans to manage, protect, build and develop forests have been built.- Community forest management regulations have been built.- Benefit policy has been formed.- Community forest management and protection have been arranged.

Experiences

- People should be able to actually participate in the allocation of forestand forestland, and activities concerning forest management,protection and use.

- Regulations applied to community should be documented andsystematized but simple and understandable.

- Attention should be paid to the community traditional practices anddemarcation.

- It is more effective to allocate forests to community than tohouseholds in areas where the people's cultural standard is low and themarket for logs is bustling.

- Scattering forests and forests of small area should be allocated tocommunity. Community should be given both poor and rich forest inorder to get income soon.

- Support should be provided to community especially after theallocation to enable them to well manage, protect and use the allocatedforest according to land use plans. Support also helps with the buildingof village plans and regulations. Technical and financial support,propaganda, people universalizing and organizing, and supports fromlocal organizations concerned should be enhanced, etc.

4. Outstanding issues

- The most serious problem is that the current law and policy have notrealized community as legally eligible so as to be entitled to rights offorest allocation and credit provision, etc. Fortunately, the problem hasalready been under the State consideration and will be sorted out in thecoming time.

- Methodologies, guidance procedures, and results of land use plans,land and forest allocation, villages' plans and regulations building, and


benefit policies of different projects (Song Da SFDP project, forexample) are different and only locally effective. They have not beeninstitutionalized nationwide to create a frame for large-scaleapplication.

- On the other hand, the methodologies, procedures and guidancementioned above are generally suitable, but their implementation inreality has failed to follow the right method and the necessary steps.For example, the people have not participated actually or fully in theallocation of land and forest due to their restricted language masteryand cultural standard, the hastening implementation and the lack ofofficers capable of accessing the villagers.

- Many policy issues have not been agreed such as: the kinds of forestto be allocated to the community, the conditions that the communityhave to meet so as to be allocated land and forest; duration and quotaof allocation; the rate of benefits when few forest products are sold.After-allocation support has been given to people in many ways asmentioned above but is still below the required level to ensureefficient community forest management, protection, building and use.

- Some technical procedures and policies of the State only suit theconditions of businesses, and cannot be applied to community.Examples can be the method to count, measure and assess resources,bioforestry procedures, procedures and regulations on logging(minimum logging diameter is too large; logging cycle is too long;standard of logging forest is too high, etc).

- The local organizations and staff, especially the commune-level forestinspection and forestry extension units, have not met the quantitativeand qualitative requirements.

5. Work to be done in the coming time

In order to solve the above-mentioned problems, to deal with the communityforest management-related problems, as well as to anticipate any legalchanges of the State concerning community forest management, the NationalWorking Group on community forest management in coordination with theADB Forestry Area Project have drafted a plan to establish experimentalcommunity forest management, which includes seven main points. Theworkshop has spent quite a great deal of time discussing this plan. Basically,all the representatives have agreed with the main points of the plan, thechoice of the counterparts to be in charge of the implementation, and askedthe concerned projects, international donors to carry out the plan. The


representatives have also contributed their ideas to the workshop. We arepleased to welcome all your opinions to the perfection of the plan.


Workshop Agenda

Date and Time Topic Presenter Chairman

21/5/2003Afternoon

Arrival of participants (check -in of theparticipants from outside Ha Noi in Thang LoiHotel )

22/5/2003Morning8h00- 8h30 Welcome address by General Director

Department for Forestry Development

Introduction to the workshop's objectives andmajor results to be achieved by the workshop

Dr. Nguyen HongQuan, DeputyDirector of DFD,Chairman NWGCFM

Ernst Kuester, CTAFSP ADB

8h30-8h50 Experiences of natural forest allocation in SonLa

Vu Van Thuan,Forest ProtectionSub-Dep. Son La

8h50-9h10 Experiences of natural forest allocation in DacLac

Nguyen Van XuanDirector of sub DFDDac Lac

9h10-9h30 Pilot models on community - based forestmanagement in Thua Thien Hue

Tran Huu Banh,Director Sub DFDThua Thien Hue

Dr. Nguyen HongQuan, DeputyDirector DFD

9h30-9h50 Methodology for evaluation and monitoringthe village forest protection regulations -experiences from Lai Chau

Nguyen Van Ai, ViceDirector of Sub FPDLai Chau

Mr. Ha Cong Tuan,Deputy DirectorFPD

9h50- 10h15 Coffee and Tea break

10h15-10h35 Forest Protection Regulation at village level inHoa Binh

Bui Van Chuc,Director of Sub DFDHoa Binh

Mr. Ha Cong Tuan,Deputy DirectorFPD

10h35- 10h55 Assessment of forest management at villagelevel in Cao Bang

Vu Long, Forestryexpert

10h55–11h15 Implementation of land allocation and benefitsharing policies in Son La

Pham Xuan Phuong,Policy Department

11h15-11h35 Presentation of main findings andrecommendations of community forestmanagement study in Gia Lai

Nguyen Van Phong,DARD Gia Lai

Mr. Ngo Dinh Tho,Deputy DirectorPolicy Dep

11h35-12h00 Discussion on summary findings andrecommendations of the case studies

Dr. Nguyen HongQuan

12h00- 13h30 Lunch Break


Date and Time Topic Presenter Chairman

Afternoon13h30-13h50 Introduction to an outline procedure for the

establishment of CFM pilot schemes preparedin the NWG CFM

Ernst Kuester, CTAFSP ADB

Dr. Nguyen HongQuan

13h50-14h15 Introduction to an action matrix on furthersteps to complete and implement the outlineprocedure for the establishment of CFM pilotschemes

Nguyen Kim HaiFSP ADB

Dr. Nguyen HongQuan

14h15-16h00 Group DiscussionsReview and completion of the action matrixGroup 1: Northern Mountain Region

Group 2: Northern CentralRegion CentralHighland Region

Group 3: Selected CTA’s/ and Donor Representatives

Pham Quoc TuanPierre- Yves Suter

Nguyen Kim HaiRuedi Felber

Dr. Nguyen HongQuanDr. Nguyen Hai Nam

16h00-16h20 Coffee and Tea Break

16h20-16h50 Presentation of discussion results of 3 workinggroups(10 minutes each group)

Working grouprepresentatives

16h50-17h00 Workshop wrap -up- Summary of conclusions- Suggestions and recommendations- Acknowledgements

Dr. Nguyen HongQuan

23/5/2003Morning

Departure of participants from outside Hanoi

List of workshop's participants

No Name Position Contact1 Bui Xuan Nhan Vice Director Sub DFD Hoa Binh

Phone: 018-852795, Fax:MP: 0913044314

2 Chi Thi Ty Program officer SNV VietnamPhone: 846371, Fax:Email: [email protected]

3 Christinag Shakya Expert Extension and Training Support Project forForestry and Agriculture in the upland ETSP HanoiPhone: 8329833, Fax: 8329834

4 Chu DInh Quang Head ofDivision

Department for Forestry DevelopmentForest Management and utilization DivisionPhone: 8438 813, Fax: 8 438793

5 Drake Hocking Co Project -Director

EU Cao Bang-Bac Can Rural DevelopmentProjectPhone: 026-855801, Fax: [email protected]

6 Elke Foerster CTA SFDP (Song Da)Phone: 8214771, Fax: 8214765Email: [email protected]

7 Dao Cong Khanh Project Director Afforestation KFW 3 ProjectPhone: 8219173Email: [email protected]

8 Do Nhu Khoa Head ofDivision

Forest Protection DepartmentForest Management and Protection DivisionPhone: Fax: 7335685

9 Do Van Lien Project Director DARD Thanh Hoa, Forest Sector Project ADBThanh HoaPhone: 037-852507, Fax: 037 857 602

10 Dinh Van Duc DeputyDirector

Sub DFD Hoa BinhPhone: 018-852224; Fax: 018-853789

11 Ernst Kuester CTA Forest Sector Project/ADBPhone: 9715694, Fax:9715689Email: [email protected]

12 Gerard Neville CTA IUCN, NTFP ProjectPhone: 9320970 Fax: 9320996Email: [email protected]

13 Ha Cong Tuan DeputyDirector

Forest Protection DepartmentPhone: 091-322-3397, Fax: 7335685Email: [email protected]

14 Huynh Hong Ngoc Office Manager SFDP (Song Da)_Phone: 8214771, Fax: 8214765Email: [email protected]

16 James Hardcastle Projectcoordinator

Central Truong Son InitiativeWWF Indochina programPhone: 733 8387, Fax: 7338388

15 Juhani Harkonen Forestry expert EU Son la -Lai Chau projectPhone: [email protected]

16 Khong Trung Project Director Sub FPD, Forest Sector Project/ADB Quang TriPhone/Fax: 053-852978

17 Luong Van Tien Director Management Board for Forestry Projects

National Workshop on Allocation and Management of Natural Forestin Community Forestry, Hanoi, 22nd May 2003

127

/ProjectDirector

Forest Sector Project/ADBPhone: 8212276, Fax: 9715689

18 Le Minh Tue FieldCoordinator

Forest Sector Project/ADBPhone: 9715694, Fax:9715689

19 Le Thi Thua Head ofDivision

Department for Forestry Development PlanningDivisionPhone: 8438 814, Fax: 8 438793

20 Le Trong Thua Teacher ETSPHue [email protected]

21 Le Van Am Project officer DARD Bac Can, Vietnam- Finland ForestryProject

22 Laslo Pancel CTA GTZ -REFAS projectPhone: 7330048Email: [email protected]

23 Lo Quang Chieu Forestry Expert Sub-FPD Lai chauPhone: 023-824814, Fax: 023-824157

24 Mark Infield CTA Phu Luong- Cuc Phuong Coservation Project25 Ngo Dinh Tho Deputy

DirectorPolicy Director, MARDPhone: 8434678, Fax: 8438233

26. Ngo Sy Hoai Interpretor MARD27 Nguyen Van Xuan Director Sub DFD Dac Lac

Phone: 0509-52533; Fax: 0509-5243028 Nguyen Dinh Chuong Director DARD Cao Bang

29 Nguyen Huu Thien Projectcoordinator

SFDP (Song Da)Phone: 8214771, Fax: 8214765Email: [email protected]

30 Nguyen Hai Nam Program officer UNDP Ha noi27-29 Phan Boi ChauPhone: 9421495 ext [email protected]

31 Nguyen Hong Quan DeputyDirector/ChairmanNWG CFM

Department for Forestry DevelopmentPhone: 8438 803, Fax: 8 438793

32 Nguyen Huy Dung Forestry Expert FIPI, Thanh tri. Ha noiPhone:8615513, Fax: [email protected]

33 Nguyen Kim Hai Project fieldcoordinator

Forest Sector Project /ADBPhone: 9715694, Fax: 971689

34 Nguyen Nam Son Vice Director DARD Thanh HoaPhone: 037-752024 Fax: 037-850821

35 Nguyen Ngoc Lung Chairman Vietnam Forestry Association, VIFAPhone: [email protected]

36 Nguyen Quang Minh Director Sub FPD Cao Bang

37 Nguyen Quang Tan Researcher TOEB2 Dac lac38 Nguyen Quoc Binh Teacher ETSP

Agriculture and Forestry University Thu Duc


128

39 Nguyen Tuong Van Forestry expert Department for Forestry DevelopmentPlanning DivisionPhone: 8438 814, Fax: 8 [email protected]

40 Nguyen Thanh Nam Expert Office MARDLegal DivisionPhone: 7335617, Fax: 7335617

41 Nguyen Thi Chuyen Researcher Forest Science Institute of Vietnam42 Nguyen Thi Yen Program

OfficerIUCN Ha noi13 Tran Hung DaoPhone:9330012Email: [email protected]

43 Nguyen Tien Lam Vice Director Sub DFD Nghe AnPhone: 038-832137; Fax: 038- 832015

44 Nguyen Van Ai Vice Director Sub FPD Lai ChauPhone: 023-824814, Fax: 023-824157

45 Nguyen Van Chua Project Co-Director

EU Son La- Lai Chau ProjectPhone: 023-810706Email: [email protected]

46 Nguyen Van Lan Expert/Projectcoordinator

Personnel and Organisation Dep/, MARD,REFAS ProjectPhone: 7330048; Fax: 7330082

47 Nguyen Van Phong Vice Director DARD Gia LaiPhone: 059-823710; Fax: 059- 826173MP: 0913437506

48 Nguyen Van Thieu Vice DirectorProject Director

Sub FPD Gia LaiForest Sector ProjectPhone: 059-827783, Fax: 059-871033

49 Pham Ngoc Kien Project officer DARD Bac canVietnam-Finland Forestry Project

50 Pham Nguyen Khoi Project officer EU Bac Can Rural Development Project51 Pham Quoc Tuan NWG on CFM

SecretariatSFDp (Song Da) /NWG CFMPhone: 8214771, Fax: 8214765Email: [email protected]

52 Pham Thi Van Anh Office Manager GFA Office in Hanoi54 Le Van HuuFax: 9420752, Fax:9432502

53 Pham Xuan Phuong Senior expert Policy DepartmentPhone: 8434678, Fax: [email protected]

54 Pierre- Yves Suter Advisor Extension and Training Support Project forForestry and Agriculture in the upland ETSP HanoiPhone: 8329833, Fax: 8329834Email: [email protected]

55 Quan Trong Khiem Projectcoordinator

Forest Sector Project /ADBPhone: 9715694, Fax:9715689

56 Ruedi Felber Advisor Extension and Training Support Project forForestry and Agriculture in the upland ETSP HoChi Minh cityPhone: (08) 8974557, Fax: :(08) 8961707


129

Email: [email protected] Ruedi Luethi Advisor ETSP Hoa Binh

Phone: 8329833, Fax: 8329834Email: [email protected]

58 Sheelagh O'Reilly Advisor WB Hunger Eradication and Poverty Alleviationin Northern Mountainous Areas ProjectPhone: 7338456, Email: [email protected]

59 To Xuan Phuc Researcher Hanoi Agriculture University60 Ta Thi Tinh Secretary Department for Forestry Development

Tel: 7334.402, Fax: 8-438-79361 Tran Huu Nghi Project

coordinator ETSP Dac [email protected]

62 Tran Manh Dat Teacher ETSP Hue, Hue [email protected]

63 Tran DInh Dam Interpreter Ministry of Foreign Affair64 Tran Huu Banh Director Sub DFD Thua Thien Hue

Phone: 054-826126; Fax: 054-84581765 Tranh Van Khanh Vice Director DARD Quang Tri

Phone: 053-852544, Fax: 05385501366 Tran Van Khan Project Co-

directorEU Rural Development Project026-855801, Fax: 026-855802

67 Tran Van Linh Vice Director Sub DFD Gia laiPhone: 059-823710; Fax: 059- 826173

68 Trinh Duc Huy DeputyDirector

MARD Office- Legal divisionPhone: 7335617, Fax: [email protected]

69 Vuong Xuan Tinh Deputy ChiefEditor

Ethnographic StudyPhone: 9784867, Fax: 9711435

70 Vo Di Viet Vice Director DARD Nghe AnPhone: 038-832137; Fax: 038- 832015

71 Vu Dinh Quang Project officer IUCN, NTFPPhone: 9320970 Fax: 9320996Email: [email protected]

72 Vu Duc Thuan Forestry expert Sub FPD Son laPhone: 022-854458, Fax; 022-857636

73 Vu Long Forestry expert Vietnam Forestry Association VIFAPhone: 7562389Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

130


Member list of Core Group of National Working Groupon Community Forest Management in Vietnam

Name Position Contact Address

1.Ngo Dinh Tho ChairmanNWGCFM

Department of ForesrtyTel: 8 438-792, Fax: 8 438-793Mobile

2.Nguyen Kim Hai SecretaryNWGCFM

Forest Sector Project / ADBTel: 9715693, Fax: 9715688Mobile: 0913226706Email: [email protected]

3. Pham Xuan Phuong Member Legal Department, MARDTel:

4. Nguyen Tuong Van Member Department of ForesrtyTel: 8 438-814, Fax: 8 438-793Mobile: 0912350526Email:[email protected]

5. Nguyen Hai Nam Member UNDP Hanoi, 27-29 Phan Boi ChauPhone: 9421495 ext 113Email: [email protected]

6. Ernst Kuester Member Forest Sector Project / ADBTel: 9715694, Fax: 9715689Email: [email protected]

7. Elke Foester Member Song Da Social Forestry DevelopmentProjectTel: 8-214771, Fax: 8-214765Email: [email protected]

8. Pierr Yues Suter Member ETSP /HelvetasLa Thanh Hotel 218 Doi CanPhone: 8329833, Fax: 8329834Email: [email protected]

Task No. Task Location Timing Leading Supporting0 Formalized CFM Application by Communes 1. Hanoi 6/2003 MARD DFD SFDP Song Da- Name of commune, participating villages, forest land area (Ms. Van) ADB FSP - 2. 7/2003 SFDP Song Da

KfW 3- ADB FSP

ETSP Helvetas- RDDL Dak Lak

3. Hanoi MARD NWG CFM SFDP Song DaADB FSP

1 Clarification of forest land allocation 1. Hanoi 6/2003 MARD DFD SFDP Song Daa Overview over forest land (ha) and ownership categories KfW 3

- Unallocated forest land to be allocated to CFM system ADB FSPETSP Helvetas

2. Hanoi 6/2003 MARD Policy Departm. SFDP Song Da(Mr. Phuong) ADB FSP

b

c

2 1. Hanoi 7/2003 MARD DFD SFDP Song Da(Dr. Quan) ADB FSP

2. MARD NWG CFM SFDP Song DaADB FSPHelvetas ETSP

3. Hanoi 11/2003 NWG CFM core group VIFA

3 1. Hanoi 7/2003 MARD DFD SFDP Song Da(Ms.Van) KfW 3

a Long term forest development and utilization vision (50 years) 2. Hanoi 9/2003 MARD DFD ADB FSPb Five-year forest management and investment plan c Yearly Working and Harvesting Pland Economic feasibilitye Benefit sharing arrangements 3. Hanoi 9/2003 MARD Policy Departm.

(Mr. Phuong)4. 10/2003 - MARD NWG CFM SFDP Song Da

9/2004 ADB FSP5. Hanoi NWG CFM core group Helvetas ETSP

RDDL Dak Lak

Clarification of arrangements with households/organisations that agree to include their forest land in the CFM systemPreparation of proposal for forest land allocation to villages communities/group of households that will participate in the CFM system

Minutes of Meeting of respective meetings in participating village(s)Request to grant CFM permit and provide the necessary supporting systems

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

Preparation of forest development and utilization planning base

Preparation of draft guidelines for Participatory Forest Management PlanningPreparation of draft harvesting regulations for main forest types as guideline for province governments to issue respective regulations

10-11/ 2004

Preparation of an example of a CFM permit request

Presentations to DARD senior level and FSSP; mobilization of additional funds to NWG CFM for CFM pilot schemes, if necessary

8-10/ 2003

Procedural Steps in Establishment of CFM Pilot SchemesNo.

National Working Group for Community Forestry ManagementMatrix on Establishment of CFM Pilot Schemes in 2003 - 2004

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

Clarification of legal aspects of forest land allocation to village communities

Preparation of draft guidelines for Participatory Forest Resource Inventory

People, institutions that were involved in formulating the application

MARD NWG CFM DARDs province level

Son La, Hoa Binh, Gia Lai, Dak Lak, Thanh Hoa

Review and simplification of forest classification criteria and guidelines for production and protection forests in view of integrated silviculture systems in CFM

(based on existing materials from SFDP Song Da, KfW and ADB FSP)

Agreement with involved province and district PPCs on CFM pilot schemes

MARD Management Board for Forestry Projects

III-IV/ 2003

Review of field tests and preparation of final guidelines

Test of planning, harvesting and benefit sharing guidelines in selected CFM pilot schemesReview of field tests and preparation of final guidelines

Preparation of draft guidelines for benefit sharing

Involved Parties



Test of inventory guidelines in selected CFM pilot schemes

Supporting Action for Completion of Guidelines and Procedures

Task No. Task Location Timing Leading SupportingPreparation of an example of a CFM permit



Involved PartiesSupporting Action for Completion of Guidelines and Procedures

4 1. Hanoi 9/2003 MARD PD (Mr.Phuong) SFDP Song DaMoF ?? ADB FSP

2. 10/2003- SFDP Song Da9/2004 ADB FSP

3. Hanoi NWG CFM core group Helvetas ETSPRDDL Dak Lak

5 Implementation of training / coaching measures 1. NWG CFM core group SFDP Song Daa Inventory methods KfW 3b Forest development and management planning 2. Adjust to ADB FSP

workplan Helvetas ETSPHelvetas RDDL Dak Lak

c Economic feasibility and benefit sharing arrangements 3. d Harvesting and Processinge Community organizations development

6 Implementation of yearly work and harvesting plans 1. NWG CFM core group SFDP Song Daa Reforestation/Afforestation ADB FSPb Tending Helvetas ETSPc Harvesting RDDL Dak Lak

7 1. Hanoi 03/2004 MARD DFD + PD SFDP Song DaNWG CFM core group ADB FSP

2. Helvetas ETSPRDDL Dak Lak

3. Hanoi NWG CFM core group

10/2003 onwards

10-11/ 2004

Test of accounting and financial reporting guidelines in selected CFM pilot schemes


10-11/ 2004

7-11/ 2004

10-11/ 2004

Preparation of draft guidelines for inspection and evaluation of CFM schemes by District


Preparation of training and extension materials and approaches for CFM development

Determination of contents and costs for standard training courses eligible for financing out of government programmes


Establishment of community-based controlling and reporting systems

Evaluation of performance during establishment phase

Test of inspection and evaluation guidelines in selected CFM pilot schemes

Hanoi, based on pilot schemes in Son La, Hoa Binh, Gia Lai, Dak Lak, Thanh Hoa

Ongoing guidance and support of CFM pilot schemes in selected locations, regular exchange of information among pilot schemes via NWG CFM



Preparation of draft guidelines for financial management and reporting at village/commune level

07-09/ 2004

Development of curricula for training of trainers

NhiÖm vô No. NhiÖm vô Location Timing Leading Supporting0 Néi dung ®Ò nghÞ QLLNC§ 1. Hanoi 6/2003 MARD DFD SFDP Song Da- (Ms. Van) ADB FSP

2. 7/2003 SFDP Song Da- Ng−êi vµ çc ®¬n vÞ tham gia vµo x©y dùng ®Ò nghÞ KfW 3- Biªn b¶n häp cña çc th«n tham gia ADB FSP- ETSP Helvetas

RDDL Dak Lak3. Hanoi MARD NWG CFM SFDP Song Da

ADB FSP

1 Lµm râ viÖc giao ®Êt rõng 1. Hanoi 6/2003 MARD DFD SFDP Song Daa Tæng quan ®Êt rõng vµ çc lo¹i së h÷u KfW 3

- §Êt rõng ch−a giao sÏ ®−îc ®−a vµo QLRC§ ADB FSPETSP Helvetas

2. Hanoi 6/2003 MARD Policy SFDP Song Da(Mr. Phuong) ADB FSP

b

c

2 1. Hanoi 7/2003 MARD DFD SFDP Song Da(Dr. Quan) ADB FSP

2. MARD NWG CFM SFDP Song DaADB FSPHelvetas ETSP

3. Hanoi 11/2003 NWG CFM core group VIFA

3 1. Hanoi 7/2003 MARD DFD SFDP Song Da(Ms.Van) KfW 3

a KÕ ho¹ch dµi h¹n sö dông vµ ph¸t triÓn rõng (50 n¨m) 2. Hanoi 9/2003 MARD DFD ADB FSPb KÕ ho¹ch qun lý rõng vµ ®Çu t− 5 n¨m c KÕ ho¹ch ho¹t ®éng vµ khai th¸c hµng n¨md TÝnh kh¶ thi vÒ kinh tÕe X¾p xÕp chia sÎ lîi nhuËn 3. Preparation of draft guidelines for benefit Hanoi 9/2003 MARD PD (Mr.Phuong)

4. 10/2003 - MARD NWG CFM SFDP Song Da9/2004 ADB FSP


Tªn x·, th«n tham gia, tæng diÖn tÝch ®Êt rõng ®−a vµo QLRC§

§Ò nghÞ tµi trî kinh phÝ cho QLRC§ vµ cung cÊp hÖ thèng hç trî cÇn thiÕt

X©y dùng ph−¬ng ¸n giao ®Êt rõng cho céng ®ång th«n/nhãm hé sÏ tham gia vµo hÖ thèng QLRC§.

- §Êt rõng ®· giao cho hé gia ®×nh sÏ ®−îc ®−a vµo hÖ thèng QLRC§- §Êt rõng ®· giao cho tæ chøc sÏ ®−îc ®−a vµo hÖ thèng QLRC§

Agreement with involved province and district PPCs on CFM pilot schemes

Preparation of draft harvesting regulations for main forest types as guideline for province governments to issue respective regulations

10-11/ 2004


Preparation of an example of a CFM permit request

Presentations to DARD senior level and FSSP; mobilization of additional funds to NWG CFM for CFM pilot schemes, if necessary

ChuÈn bÞ c¬ së x©y dùng kÕ ho¹ch sö dông vµ ph¸t triÓn

rõng

Preparation of draft guidelines for Participatory Forest Management Planning


§iÒu tra nguån rõng bao gåm c¶ ph©n lo¹i ®Êt rõng

(phßng hé, s¶n xuÊt vµ ®Æc dông)

Clarification of legal aspects of forest land allocation to village communities

Preparation of draft guidelines for Participatory Forest Resource InventoryTest of inventory guidelines in selected CFM pilot schemes

Supporting Action for Completion of Guidelines and Procedures

MARD Management Board for Forestry Projects

III-IV/ 2003


Review and simplification of forest classification criteria and guidelines for production and protection forests in view of integrated silviculture systems in CFM

Lµm râ çc tho¶ thuËn víi hé gia ®×nh/tæ chøc ®· ®−îc giao ®Êt rõng vµ thèng nhÊt ®−a nh÷ng diÖn tÝch ®Êt nµy vµo hÖ thèng QLRC§.


Test of planning, harvesting and benefit sharing guidelines in selected CFM pilot schemesReview of field tests and preparation of final guidelines

Involved Parties


MARD NWG CFM DARDs province level


(based on existing materials from SFDP Song Da, KfW and ADB FSP)

8-10/ 2003

NhiÖm vô No. NhiÖm vô Location Timing Leading SupportingPreparation of an example of a CFM permit


Supporting Action for Completion of Guidelines and ProceduresProcedural Steps in Establishment of CFM Pilot SchemesNo.

Involved Parties

4 1. Hanoi 9/2003 MARD PD (Mr.Phuong) SFDP Song DaMoF ?? ADB FSP

2. 10/2003- SFDP Song Da9/2004 ADB FSP


5 Thùc thi c¸c ho¹t ®éng ®µo t¹o/ hç trî kÌm cÆp 1. NWG CFM core group SFDP Song Daa Ph−¬ng ph¸p ®iÒu tra KfW 3b LËp kÕ ho¹ch qu¶n lý vµ ph¸t triÓn rõng 2. Adjust to ADB FSP

workplan Helvetas ETSPHelvetas RDDL Dak Lak

c TÝnh kh¶ thi vÒ kinh tÕ vµ nh÷ng x¾p xÕp chia sÎ lîi nhuËn 3. d Khai th¸c vµ chÕ biÕne Ph¸t triÓn tæ chøc céng ®ång

6 Thùc thi kÕ ho¹ch khai th¸c vµ ho¹t ®éng hµng n¨m 1. NWG CFM core group SFDP Song Daa Trång rõng/t¸i t¹o rõng ADB FSPb Ch¨m sãc Helvetas ETSPc Khai th¸c RDDL Dak Lak

7 1. Hanoi 03/2004 MARD DFD + PD SFDP Song DaNWG CFM core group ADB FSP

2. Helvetas ETSPRDDL Dak Lak

3. Hanoi NWG CFM core group

10/2003 onwards

10-11/ 2004

Test of accounting and financial reporting guidelines in selected CFM pilot schemes


Development of curricula for training of trainers

10-11/ 2004

Preparation of draft guidelines for inspection and evaluation of CFM schemes by District


Preparation of training and extension materials and approaches for CFM development

Determination of contents and costs for standard training courses eligible for financing out of government programmes

ThiÕt lËp hÖ thèng b¸o c¸o vµ kiÓm tra dùa vµo céng ®ång

§¸nh gi¸ kÕt qu¶ cña giai ®o¹n thiÕt lËp

Test of inspection and evaluation guidelines in selected CFM pilot schemes


Ongoing guidance and support of CFM pilot schemes in selected locations, regular exchange of information among pilot schemes via NWG CFM



10-11/ 2004

7-11/ 2004

07-09/ 2004


Preparation of draft guidelines for financial management and reporting at village/commune level

Annex 1

Commune: District: Province:

I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV Village Leaders Commune Leaders

1

a

b

c

2

3

a

b

c

d

e

4

5

a

b

c

d

e

6

a

b

c

7

8

Year 4

Overview over forest land (ha) and ownership categories

Clarification of forest land allocation

- Forest land allocated to organisations to be included in CFM system

Economic feasibility

Year 5 Responsible (Name)Task

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

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

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

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

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

PROPOSED WORK SCHEDULE DURING CFM ESTABLISHMENT PHASE

Reforestation/Afforestation

Tending

Establishment of community-based controlling and reporting systems

Long term forest development and utilization plan (50 years)

Five-year forest management and investment plan

Yearly Working and Harvesting Plan

Implementation of yearly work and harvesting plans

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

Harvesting

Preparation of forest development and utilization planning base

Benefit sharing arrangements

Community organizations development

Implementation of training / coaching measures

Harvesting and Processing

Inventory methods

Forest development and management planning

Economic feasibility and benefit sharing arrangements

Evaluation of performance during establishment phase

national workshop on allocation and management of · pdf file1 hanoi, may 22, 2003 national...

Documents