Community Forest Management:Intervention and local response,

Hanh Dich case

Pham Van Dung

March 2014

Rationality

• Conflicts between the view of outsiders and that of the ethnic indigenous communities

• Challenging the term of ‘development’ and its induced intervention in local community

• Insight of the Thai community to consolidate an argument against the mainstream views and approaches

• Find recommendations from the community perspectives

Research questions

• 1) How have the Thai people in Hanh Dichcommune, Que Phong district been obtaining and using their ancestor land and forest, preserving their customary laws, and maintaining their livelihood security;

• 2) How has the Thai ethnic group in Hanh Dich commune been responding to the outsiders’ views, approaches and intervention?

Approach

• Review:– Literature from social anthropology on customary law,

land rights and livelihoods

– Relevant research on Thai ethnic group.

– (Unpublished) archive of SPERI research

• In-depth, semi-structured interviews.

• Observation (landscape and people’s activities), taking notes, taking pictures and recording.

• Use quantitative data from SPERI’s customary law research in 2010.

Field research

• Combined with SPERI research and support activities.

• Around 10 focal informants (prestigious, knowledgeable elders, experienced farmers, women and youths.

• (Optional) informal talks with local officials (e.g. communal leaders, district department of natural resources and environment, state forest protection unit).

• Present results to community representatives and SPERI staff to get comments

Obtained information from SPERI

• Analysis of Thai cultural values (especially relating to forest management) according to SPERI analytical frame (human ecology interaction)

• Timeline of interventions and identified actors

• Actor analysis

• Comparative analysis of the role of customary law in forestland management

Forestland mangt. & interventions (1)

• Pre-1945: Community forest and the role of Chaudin (land owner)– Traditional forest land use planning (watershed, San forest, Dong (cemestry),

regeneration forests).– Rotational shifting cultivation– Traditional rituals (Laksua, Tesan, new crop festival)

• Transitional time (1945 - 1960)– Not many changes except the change of state power claim

• 1946 & 1959 Constitutions: recognized private land ownership

• Collectivization (1960s - mid-1980s)– All production means (icld. Land, forest belonged to cooperatives)– Establishment of state agricultural and forestry enterprises– Management of workpoints– Traditional rituals were considered as superstitious

Forestland mangt. & interventions (2)

• Ordinance 147- LCT dated 11 Sept, 1972: forests and forestlandbelong to state

• 1980, 1992 & 2013 Constitutions: only ‘the entire people’s ownership of land’

• 1987: First land law: the entire people’s ownership of land, state incorporate management of land

• 1993 Land law: clarify the rights of land users

• 1993: Phu Phuong forest enterprise formally established (21,346 ha, of which 10,059 ha / 18,026 ha belongs to Hanh Dich)

Forestland mangt. & interventions (3)

• 1994: implementing Decree 364/CP of 1993, wrong mapping of border between communes of Hanh Dich and Tien Phong. Hanh Dich lost 110 ha over Sao Va waterfall.

• April 1996: According to Decree 02 of 1994: Land allocation carried by QuePhong Forest protectors: 3,100 ha to 291 households (not maps of current and land planning, not clarify borders, people did not know rights)

• 2001: Company of the pioneering youths established (11,000 ha, including 5,800 ha in Hanh Dich)

• 2003 & 2013 Land laws: state is representative of land owners

• 2003: land allocation supported by TEW: 3,360 ha to 360 households and 16 organizations (according to Decree 163/1999/ND-CP)

Forestland mangt. & interventions (4)

• 2007: Que Phong rubber company established

• 2008: two companies (Ha Tay, Huong Thao) contracted 18 households, to exploit 86 ha of bamboo for 5 years, paid VND 40,000/ ha and kept land certificates

• 2011: Company of the pioneering youths merged into Que Phong rubber company, occupies 3,805.6 ha, plans to grow 2,000 ha of rubber

• 2012: Land and forest allocation supported by SPERI according to Joint-circular 07/2011. Allocated 426.25 ha of forestland to Pom Om community

• 2013: Magt. Board of Pu Hoat Natural Conservation Area established, replaced Phu Phuong Forest protection Mangt. Board (occupies 90,741.10 ha, including 15,128.4 ha of Hanh Dich forestland - 10.551 classified as special used forest and 4,577.4 as protection forest)

Actor analysisActors Interests Viewpoint

Hanh Dich people Maintain stable livelihoodPreserve cultural values

Community land tenure should be confirmed

Company of the pioneering youths (2001-2011)

Job creationUse land, credit to get profit

Que Phong rubber company (2007-)

Rights over land and forestCredit and profit

Phu Phuong forest enterprise (1993-)Mangt. Board of Que PhongForest protection Area (2004-2013)Magt. Board of Pu HoatNatural Conservation Area (2013-)

Forest control, budget from governmentPower and income from managing forestland

Que Phong district authorities

Social economic developmentPolitical stability

Investment is welcomedLaws are enforced

TEW/ SPERI Community/ customary empowerment

Possible peaceful negotiation and cooperation

Found literatures• Kerkvliet, Benedic J. Tria. (2006). Agricultural Land in Vietnam: Markets Tempered by Family, Community and

Socialist Practices. Journal of Agrarian Change 6: 3, 285-305.• Larson, Anne M. et al. (eds.). (2010). Forest for People: Community Rights and forest Tenure Reform. London:

Earthscan.• Michaud, J. & Forsyth (eds). (2011). Moving Mountains : Ethnicity and Livelihoods in Highland China, Vietnam, and

Laos. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.• Sikor, T. & Dao MT. (2002). Agricultural policy and land use changes in a Black Thai commune of Northern Vietnam,

1952–1997. Mountain Research and Development 22, 248–255.• Sikor (2004). “Local Government in the Exercise of State Power: The politics of land allocation in Black Thai Villages”

in Kerkvliet and Marr (eds) Beyond Hanoi: Local Government in Vietnam. Singapore: Southeast Asian Studies.• Sikor, T. & Muller. (2009). The Limits of State-Led Land Reform: An Introduction. World Development 37: 8, 1307–

1316.• Sikor (2012) Tree plantations, politics of possession and the absence of land grabs in Vietnam, The Journal of Peasant

Studies, 39:3-4, 1077-1101,• SPERI (2008). Collection of research on Phuong, Hoi (traditional institutions) and natural resource management of

Thai ethnic group in Hanh Dich commune. SPERI archive.• SPERI (2008). Traditional Civil Society of Thai in Que Phong district, Nghe An province. SPERI archive.• SPERI (2011). Research on ‘Role of Customary Law in Ethnic Minority Community Development’ (not yet published).• SPERI (2012). History of forestland management and land allocation in Hanh Dich commune (written by Pham Van

Dung, SPERI archive).• SPERI (2013). Survey report on Customary law on forest protection, planning and management of the Thai ethnic

group at the villages of Pa Kim, Chieng, Khom, Pa Co of Hanh Dich commune. SPERI archive.• Tyler, Stephen R. (ed.). (2006). Communities, Livelihoods and Natural Resources: Action Research and Policy Change

in Asia. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre

Overall plan

• Mid-April – Mid July 2014: Field research in Vietnam– Update and consolidate data from the field and SPERI

archive

– Present and get comments from community and SPERI research team

– Collect related literatures of Thai culture in Vietnamese

• Mid-July – Mid September 2014: Finish literature review

• Mid-September - December 2014: Writing up case study

• End of December 2014: Complete thesis and submit