Livelihood

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Forest Sector Support Program & Partnership -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dinh Duc Thuan and Forestry University Research Team “Forestry, Poverty Reduction and Rural Livelihoods in Vietnam” 4 pictures With funding from: The Royal Netherlands Embassy Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation Swedish International Development Agency December 2005 LIST OF KEY RESEARCHERS 1. Inception Report 1 No Name Dr. Dinh Duc Thuan 2 3 4 Dr. Dang Tung Hoa Mr. Per A. Eriksson Dr. Nguyen Ba Ngai Profession Forestry Economics, Social Forestry Social Forestry Rural Development Social Forestry Organisation Vietnam Forestry University Vietnam Forestry University FTP Finland Vietnam Forestry University 2. Field Consultation Research 1 No Name Dr. Dinh Duc Thuan 2 3 4 Dr. Dang Tung Hoa Dr. Nguyen Van Ha Dr. Le Trong Hung 5 6 Pham Quang Vinh Tran Ngoc Hai 7 Ma. Tran Thi Thu Ha 8 Ma. Nguyen Thi Phuong Ass. Prof. Dr. Bao Huy Dr. Vo Hung 9 10 Profession Forestry Economics, Social Forestry Social Forestry Forestry Economics Natural Resource Economics Silviculture, Agroforestry Forestry Protection Management, Social Forestry Forestry Economics, Social Forestry Social Forestry Silviculture, Social Forestry Silviculture, Social Forestry Organisation Vietnam Forestry University Vietnam Forestry University Vietnam Forestry University Vietnam Forestry University Vietnam Forestry University Vietnam Forestry University Vietnam Forestry University Vietnam Forestry University Tay Nguyen University Tay Nguyen University 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research on “Forestry, Poverty Reduction and Rural Livelihoods in Vietnam” received the support of finance and ideas from SDC (Switzerland), SIDA (Sweden) and the Royal Embassy of Netherlands. The research team would like to express sincere thanks to the Forest Sector Support Program Coodination Office, for creating all necessary conditions for carrying out the research, especially to effective support and consultation of Dr. Paula Williams, the CTA of the program. Sincere thanks to Mr. Per A. Ericksson, Expert from FTP- Finland for his support to the research team in the inception report preparation, and to Mr. Ernst Kuerster who edited the report in English. In the implementation of the research, the research team also has received support from the Board of Directors of Vietnam Forestry University, and consultation on the contents and methodology for the research from experts. Special thanks to Dr. Pham Xuan Phuong, Department of Legislation of MARD, Dr. Nguyen Ba Ngai, Head of Scientific Management and International Cooperation, Vietnam Forestry University and many other experts. The research team sincerely thanks Ass. Prof. Trieu Van Hung, Director of Department of Science and Technology, MARD, and Ass. Prof. Nguyen Hoang Nghia, Deputy Director of Forestry Science Institute of Vietnam, for their review and opinions on the research. Special thanks to the local people and government officers of 4 research sites in four provinces Bac Kan, Thanh Hoa, Quang Tri and Dak Nong, for sharing information and support in spirit and materials in the research process. A lot of thanks also to staff of Social Forestry Training Center, Scientific Management and International Cooperation, Vietnam Forestry University for their participation and collaboration for the completion of the research. The research team has tried to do its best with the time avaialbe, but reconises that the research still has shortcoming in contents, methodology and illustration. All opinions are highly appreciated and should be sent to: Social Forestry Training Center, Vietnam Forestry University - Xuan Mai - Ha Tay, Tel: 034-840043, Fax: 034-840042, E-mail: sfsp.xm@hn.vnn.vn 2 TABLE OF CONTENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 2 LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................ 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 6 1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 14 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. Background ........................................................................................................14 Introduction ........................................................................................................14 Objective of the study ........................................................................................16 Objective of Inception Report............................................................................16 Methodology to develop the Inception Report ..................................................16 2. CONCEPTUAL BASIS AND DRAFT STRUCTURE OF NATIONAL FORESTRY STRATEGY (20062020) ......................................................................................................................... 17 2.1. Forests and Forestry Development ....................................................................17 2.2. Forest-dependent people and forestry-related livelihoods.................................17 2.3. The Draft Structure of the National Forestry Strategy 2006-2020 ....................19 3. LITERATURE REVIEW: KEY ISSUES RELEVANT TO THE NATIONAL FORESTRY STRATEGY .................................................................................................................................. 19 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. Sustainable forest management, poverty reduction and rural livelihoods .........20 Forest conservation, protection and other forest environment services.............22 The 661 Project ..................................................................................................25 Processing and Trading of Timber and Non-timber Forest Products ................27 Forest Research, Extension, Education and Training ........................................29 Forest laws and Institutional Framework, Planning and Monitoring ................32 4. PROGRAM WISE INPUTS TO THE NATIONAL FORESTRY STRATEGY ................................ 34 4.1. Program for sustainable forest management......................................................34 4.2. Program for forest protection, conservation and environmental services .........35 4.3. Five million hectare reforestation program (661 project ).................................36 4.4. Program for wood and forest product processing trade .....................................36 4.5. Program for forestry research , extension, education & training.......................37 4.6. Program for strengthening forest sector policy, institutional, planning &monitoring...............................................................................................................37 4.7. Summary of key issues, objectives and strategic solutions ...............................38 5. FIELD CONSULTATION RESEARCH ............................................................................... 39 5.1. Objectives and results of the field consultation research...................................39 5.2. Methodology and organization of the research..................................................39 5.3. Natural and socio-economic conditions of research sites ..................................44 5.4. Main findings and analysis of field consultation research.................................46 5.5. Proposal on contents to be included in National Forestry Strategy for period 2006 - 2020 ................................................................................................................89 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................... 95 6.1. Conclusions ........................................................................................................95 6.2. Recommendations..............................................................................................97 7. ANNEXES ................................................................................................................... 98 3 LIST OF TABLE Table 1: Key issues, objectives ans solutions...........................................................................38 Table 2: Survey sample selection criteria.................................................................................40 Table 3: Composition by ethnic group and gender of interviewees .........................................43 Table 4: Field research process ................................................................................................43 Table 5: Characteristics of people, labor, average incomes, expenditures, and costs of surveyed household groups ......................................................................................................47 Table 6: Summary of key issues in 4 provinces .......................................................................69 Table 7: Prioritization of key issues by ethnic minority communities .....................................70 Table 8: Prioritization of key issues by district staff ................................................................71 Table 9: Prioritization of key issues by provincial staff...........................................................72 Table 10: Ideas on poverty reduction and livelihood improvement objectives from group discussions ................................................................................................................................74 Table 11: Solutions for poverty reduction considered in group discussions............................82 Table 12: Solutions and related stakeholders ...........................................................................87 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Method for field consultations research....................................................................40 Figure 2: Study areas ................................................................................................................42 Figure 3: Cost income flow of three household economic groups ...........................................49 Figure 4: Income from forestry of household groups...............................................................51 LIST OF ANNEXS Annex 1: List of references ......................................................................................................99 Annex 2: List of participants of field consultation research...................................................103 Annex 3: Checklist of semistructure interview ........................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Annex 4: Checklist of case study ...........................................................................................116 Annex 5: Group discussion framework..................................................................................122 Annex 6: Results of houshold interview.................................................................................131 Annex 7: List of interviewees (household, case study, semi-structured) ..............................142 4 LIST OF ACRONYMS 5 MHRP Five Million Hectare Reforestation Program CDP Commune Development Plan CF Community Forestry CFM Community Forestry Management CFWG Community Forestry Working Group CIFOR Centre for International Forestry Research CRD Centre for Rural Development DARD Department of Agriculture and Rural Development ETSP Extension and Training Support Project FFS Farmers Forest Management School FSSP&P Forest Sector Support Program and Partnership M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development NFS National Forestry Strategy NGO Non Government Organisation NTFP Non Timber Forest Products PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal PTD Participatory Technology Development RETE Research Extension Training Education SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SFEs State Forest Enterprises SFSP Social Forestry Training Support Program SIDA Swedish International Development Authority VDP Village Development Plan 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. In November 2001, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development signed an agreement with international partners to establish a Forest Sector Support Program & Partnership (FSSP&P). Poverty reduction and promotion of rural livelihood is one of the main objectives of the FSSP & P: “ A better understanding of the actual and potential contribution of trees and forest resources to rural livelihoods, poverty reduction and environmental protection in the different agro-ecological regions of the country”. 2. In 2004, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development determined to reformulate a national forest strategy for the period between 2006 and 2020. The new National Forest Strategy must reflect the policy changes at macro level and coordinate the development framework of programs supporting the Forest Sector Support Program and Partnership. Currently, a National Socio-Economic Development Plan (NSEDP) for 2006-2010 is under formulation. As a result, the MARD has put special emphasis on the necessity to connect forestry development to the poverty reduction and rural livelihood improvement objectives. 3. This report and the field study have origins in a proposal for a study on “Forestry, Poverty Reduction and Rural Livelihoods in Vietnam”, formulated by the Community Forestry Working Group, and financed by SIDA, the Royal Netherlands Embassy and the Swiss International Development Agency. The proposal was offered in August of 2003 in a bidding process, which was concluded in November of 2004. In January of 2005 it was decided that the task could finally go ahead. 4. It is to be understood that poverty reduction is more than a mere concern for income and food. Factors relating to control over and use of assets, power to define situations in ones own language and concepts, of vulnerability and sustainability are included in a deeper understanding of poverty and its manifestations. Issues of gender, ethnicity, language proficiency and literacy, and access to and understanding of the administrative system are other factors that can be closely linked to poverty and mutually reinforcing. So is the capacity to engage in economic activities and to negotiate casual solutions with the formal system. 5. The livelihood can be described as a combination of resources and capabilities that a person has, in connection with decisions and activities they are performing, in an effort to earn a living as well as to fulfil their objectives and desires (DFID 2001). Criteria for sustainable livelihoods include: food security, natural environment improvement, community environment improvement, material condition improvement, and protection from shocks and risks. 6. The overall objective of the study was to provide specific advice to the policy formulation process on how forests and forest-based products can sustainably contribute to improving the living conditions of forest-dependent people of Vietnam. It was expected to provide information on the possibilities and constraints of the relationship between forestry and poverty reduction. The study was expected to feed into the ongoing policy review process, and contribute to furthering the social objectives of forestry development. The study was conducted in two phases. First an in inception report was prepared, and then field consultations were conducted. 7. The objectives of the inception report were to: (1) provide recommendations relating to forestry, poverty reduction and rural livelihoods for the new National Forestry Strategy 6 and the development of a sector monitoring and evaluation system; (2) identify specific objectives and approaches for field consultation research; and (3) offer subsequent proposals for further activities following the consolidation of the literature review and field consultations. 8. Relevant existing and proposed policies have been reviewed and analyzed. Specifically, the report sets out to identify known and emerging concerns over the implementation and reformulation of existing polices and existing gaps in knowledge that can be identified in the literature. The review has been conducted and the key issues identified from within the policy formulation process of the Vietnamese administration, including research organizations, line agencies and key persons. 9. The report and subsequent study were intended to feed directly into the ongoing policy review and they are thus structured according to the five NFS programs; 1) sustainable forest management; 2) Forest protection, conservation and environmental services; 3) Timber and forest product processing and trade; 4) Forest research, extension, training and education; and 5) Strengthening forest sector policy, organizational, planning and monitoring frameworks. In addition, input are provided on the 661 project. 10. Literature review shows that land allocation in Vietnam has been based on the ability to invest in the land, with labor and capital. As poor people, including the ethnic minorities who are the majority of forest-dependent people, has a shortage of both labor and funds, the policy has had the effect of excluding them from a larger share of the land allocation. There may be more fundamental flaws in these policies. While land use plans have been the prerequisite for land allocation, the appropriateness of the policies can be debated, in particular as most households have chosen not to follow the plans, but instead have used the land for food production. This is reflected on a large scale: one source states that only 20-30% of the allocated land have been used as projected by the Government land-use plan (Eleine and Dubois 1998). 11. Presently it is recognized that there are a range of problems inherent in the past policies and development practices regarding forests and forest lands. In particular the increased attention to poverty eradication and economic development of the whole country, has cast light upon the fact that the forest areas are coinciding with areas of deep and persistent poverty. Present activities have by and large omitted considerations of how to use and develop forest resources sustainably and for the benefit of forest dependent people. The focus has been on agriculture and on protection, not economic development, of forests. Past policies have been formulated and implemented with only limited input from the forest-dependent peoples themselves. 12. While it has been established that land and forest allocation to households and to groups has positive effects, the dominant method of allocation has been through contract agreements between SFEs and households. Much of the production forests are controlled by the SFEs while households have received a large proportion of the bare forestlands. As much as two-thirds of the good forest areas are allocated to SFEs, and only 10 % of the total forest area has been allocated to households (Sunderlin, Huynh Thu Ba 2005). 13. There are many reports from different parts of the country that strong implementation of protection policies have undermined the possibilities of local people to survive and prosper. There are instances where even the basic needs of local populations have been placed out of bounds: wood for construction of houses and coffins, developed agricultural lands, has been classified to be inside protection areas that cannot be used. Current forestry policies intend to conserve and develop forests, especially natural forests. The areas where there are many ethnic minority people are often the same areas 7 that should be strictly protected. The result has been that local people, mainly ethnic minorities, do not have opportunities to access forest resources, even in areas where there are few other options for economic development. 14. Some replacement efforts have been based on development of NTFPs, but it is now recognized that such solutions have had only a minimal impact on the income generating possibilities. There are indications that the availability of NTFPs are dwindling. 15. In the forestry sector has there been a sequence of major programs to improve the conditions of the forests of the country. Starting with the 327 regreening program, which was followed by the 661, also called the 5 Million ha reforestation program, much concern was centered on reforestation, environmental protection and for a variety of purposes. 16. Serious efforts to address the environmental as well as the socio-economic situation in the remote areas were made with the 327 program, which was initiated in 1992. This activity, the “regreening of the bare hills” was conceived as an integrated rural development activity. The direction was however changed to subsidized tree planting, forest protection and protection of natural forests in watershed areas. While farmers would be allowed to use of products from thinning, the final assets would be for the benefit of the investor. A large part of the funding for 327 activities was channeled through SFEs. 17. The program 661, decided in 1998, can be understood as the successor to the 327 program. It was given the objective to reforest 5 million has, and with a wider focus, i.e., the increase in forest cover was intended to serve both environmental as well as production purposes. In contrast with the top-down style of its predecessor, the 661 program should work in a decentralized and participatory way. Poverty reduction was not specified in the 327 or the 661 programs, and has not been implemented, with the exception of the creation of a large number of protection contracts. Economic efficiency was not part of the planning modalities: in retrospect, this contributed to less than optimal investments in tree planting activities, for example. The programs did not fully appreciate the strategic importance of matching tree and wood production to the marketing possibilities. There are now mature trees from these programs that cannot be used in any economic sense, as they are in locations without roads or other possibilities to market them if harvested. Many cases of technical shortcomings have also been documented, and the overall quality of plantations may be low. There are wider negative economic effects of the past policies. The ‘closing’ of the forests has had stark effects on the viability of forest-based industries and livelihood options. These effects are not restricted to the areas close to the forests, but are felt as well by all craftsmen and traders involved in production and trade of wood- and forestbased products. The economic implications are substantial: the annual volume of timber extraction has decreased from as much as 1,2 million m3 in 1995, to 300,000m3 in less than ten years (Sunderlin and Huynh Thu Ba 2005). At the same time, the exports from timber processing and trading has increased sharply, from 576 mil. $US in 2003 to 1.054 mil. $US in 2004 (Nguyen Ton Quyen 2004). A later generation of projects centered on concerns of environmental sustainability and biodiversity conservation, together with the development of land use planning, land allocation and extension methods, and support to agricultural extension. Other policy factors that have gravitated against forest-dependent and local peoples’ development opportunities, are connected to the allocation of forests and forest land, to 18. 19. 20. 21. 8 access to extension services and capital for investment, and to a lack of research tailored to the needs of the poor in the uplands. 22. The policy environment regarding forests and forestry in Vietnam can be characterized as fluid and dynamic. Policy development over the last decade has spanned a spectrum of divergent – and to some extent antagonistic – concerns. Much of the changes in policy have come as conclusions drawn from field experiences, in international as well as in national programs. International cooperation programs have introduced participatory methods, village-level planning and environmental concerns on a large scale. Lately, innovative consultative methods have been developed and refined as part of the poverty eradication efforts. 23. It is now recognized that policies that withdraw productive assets from the local –often poor- people, without viable replacements, cannot be sustainable, and run the risk of becoming increasingly unpopular. Forestry plans mainly mention forestry activities, such as silviculture, forest extraction, processing and trading of forest products. Poverty and livelihood improvement are rarely mentioned in the plans. There is a lack of participatory monitoring and evaluation of forestry activities. While it has been accepted that planning should be participatory, the fundamental questions regarding the rights to the products from the forests are still disputed. Such questions pertain even to the new possibilities that have opened up. Recent examples are payments from the increased tourism and from research and exploitation of biodiversity resources in forests. Present policies may however exclude local people from drawing financial benefits from such activities, as control rests with the Management Boards. 24. These are in fact issues that have been recurrent throughout a long period of forestry and environment development in the poor uplands of Vietnam. Most of these issues can be subsumed under questions of access and control: to information, resources, influence, capital and markets. Given the range and complexities of issues such as the above, the present study intended to address the key questions that can be formulated. An initial list is to be found under section 4, “Programme-Wise Input to the Forestry Strategy”. Implementation of the field consultations provided poor and forest dependent people the opportunity to express their ideas, and to comment upon the suggested forestry policies. 25. Based on the literature reviews and opinions of experts, 11 key issues were identified for forest-dependent people in highland areas, 3 objectives and 6 strategic solutions were proposed for poverty reduction and improving the living conditions for forestdependent people. These contents were discussed at a technical workshop organized by the FSSP&P and were presented at the National Strategy Workshop organized from 9 to 11 June 2005 in Ha Long, Quang Ninh province. 26. The objectives of the field consultation research were: (1) to ecamine key issues of forest-dependent people and discover new issues; (2) to analyze and evaluate appropriateness, feasibility, and priority of objectives and strategic solutions for poverty reduction and improving the living conditions of forest-dependent people; and (3) to make recommendations for implementation, monitoring and evaluation of poverty reduction solutions relevant to the National Forestry Strategy (2006-2020). 27. The research used 4 field consultation research methods with a survey sample as follows: case studies on 48 households; interviews with 160 households; semistructured interviews with 36 people; and 76 group discussions with a total of 782 participants including 24,04% Tay, 25,7% Thai, 22,12% Van Kieu, and 25,7% Mnong minority groups. The proportion of male and female for the survey sample is 64,2% and 35,8%, respectively. 9 28. Based up on the criteria for district, commune and village selection, the study team together with local staff chose the following districts, communes and villages: (1) Bac Kan province: Coc Xa and Khuoi Thieu village, Ha Vi commune and at Na Ca and Quan village, Nguyen Phuc commune, Bach Thong district; (2) Thanh Hoa province: Lua and Na Nghiu village, Yen Nhan commune and at Can and Ruong village, Bat Mon commune, Thuong Xuan district; (3) Quang Tri province: Huc Nghi and La To village, Huc Nghi commune, and at Voi and Ke village, Ta Long commune, Dakrong commune; and (4) Dak Nong province: Bu Nor and Bu Dung village, Dak R’Tih comme, and at Village 2 and 3, Quang Truc commune, Dak Rlap district. 29. Based on the criteria for forest-dependent households and case studies selection, the study team together with village staff used officially available lists of villagers and households in villages from which interviewees and households for case studies were randomly chosen. Semi-structured interviewees were chosen according to their functional and professional characteristics at relevant levels. 30. The field consultation research team consisted of 32 forestry staff, including 3 Ph.D. in economics, 1 Ph.D. in social forestry, 2 Ph.D. in forestry and masters and engineers in social forestry of the Social Forestry Training Center, Forestry University of Vietnam, and the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, Tay Nguyen University. 31. The duration for field consultation research was 19 days, including 3 days for training and pre-testing of tools for field consultation research, 5 days for the preparation visit, 5 days for working at the village level, 1 day for working at the commune level, 2 days for working at the district level, 1 day for provincial seminar, and 2 days for data consolidation and documentation. 32. Data were synthesized and analyzed as follows: (1) questionnaires were quantitatively consolidated and analyzed by criteria and frequency; (2) for semi-structured interviews and group discussions, the qualitative method was used based on arranging information by criteria following an account of their frequency; (3) case studies of household were both qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed by a method of counting average indices and their frequency. 33. In the study areas, the total average natural land area for one village varied from 1.000 ha to 1.500 ha of which forestry land area occupies over 70% with an average forest cover of over 70%. The ethnic groups of Tay in Bac Kan province and Thai in Thanh Hoa have been basically allocated with land, but issuance of red books is still delayed and in many places local people can not identify their land areas in the field. The Van Kieu community in Quang Tri has not been allocated with land, while for the M'nong community in Dak Nong pilot land allocation has been initiated in some villages. In economic structure, the icome of livestock raising and agriculture activities occupy over 70%. The population density ranges between 25-40 people/km2 with an average population growth over 3% per year. The structure of infrastructure belongs to Class 3. Generally for highland communities, production is just for self-sufficiency one and markets have not yet been developed. Health systems in the villages have not yet been formed. Local people mainly cure their health problems with indigenous herbs. Culture and education are developed only slowly, and the rate of children going to secondary and elementary schools is very low. 34. According to the old poverty classification criteria, poor households still make up 50% of the sample while the rate of middle and good household is 30% and 20%, respectively. Average income per capita is only 140.000 VND per month. If the new poverty standard of 200.000 VND per person and month is applied, the rate of poor households is much higher. Moreover, the level of sustainability of middle income households, who have just escaped from poverty, is still low. 10 35. The analysis of the economic structure of household groups (e.g. income - cost flows and cost/ income) indicates that the cost-over-income ratio in good household is 65% while those of middle (who has just escaped from poverty) and poor household groups are 70% and 105%, respectively. 36. There are significant differences in proportion income structures from forestry among the study areas. In Bac Can province, income from forestry generates for middle households 32.8% of the total household income, for good households 16.8%, and for poor households only 4.4%. For Tay Nguyen province the corresponding figures are 40% for good and 17% for poor households. 37. The majority of household groups participating in the field consultation research put their emphasis on improving awareness and developing human resources in the future. Furthermore, improvement of infrastructure such as roads, electricity networks, irrigation schemes, schools, health posts and information systems are strategic solutions that concern all household groups. However, each household group has its own livelihood strategies: the poor group gives highest priority to food security, support of seed and techniques for production process, and provision of favorably low rate loans and medicine. The middle group (which just escaped from poverty) puts high priority on improvement of agricultural and forestry techniques and improvement of administrative procedures in producing and trading forest products. Finally, the good income group puts priority on income diversification, especially from non-agricultural activities, and investments to ensuring that their children receive a better education and exchange of production experiences. 38. Results from the field consultation research confirm that 11 key issues of forestdependent people in highland areas are as follows: (1) Forest land allocation by itself does not help the poor overcome their poverty; (2) People have limited legal rights to use forest resources, especially those living in protection and special use forest areas; (3) Unmitigated conflicts exist among protection, conservation and poverty reduction objectives in forest management and utilization; (4) Equity in forest land and forest contracting among SFE, protection forest board, national parks, communities and households is not ensured; (5) Income from NTFP is decreasing; (6) Program 661 has little direct impact on incomes of the poor; (7) Wood processing has little impact on poverty reduction; (8) The poor receive little benefit from forestry extension and research; (9) Forestry policy is not clear to local people; (10) the administrative system is too complicated to provide transparent access to relevant legal products; and (11) limited participation of local people in planning, monitoring and evaluation. 39. Apart from the above key issues, other important issues have been identified, including: (1) Local people being unable to access wood and non-timber markets; and (2) Local people lacking land for agricultural cultivation. 40. Based on the priority ranking in 76 group discussions, the top priotities for key issues of forest-dependent people in highland areas were: (1) forestry policy is not clear to local people; (2) the poor receive little benefit from forestry extension and research, and income from NTFP is decreasing; (3) forest land allocation by itself does not help the poor overcome their poverty, and the administrative system is too complicated for providing transparent access to relevant legal products; (4) there are unmitigated conflicts among the objectives of forest protection, conservation and poverty reduction, and wood processing has little impact on poverty reduction; and (5) people have limited legal rights to use forest resources. 41. There are different concerns among minority communities and administrative staff at relevant levels about key issues of forest-dependent people in highland areas. For example, Tay people in Bac Kan insist that the most important issue is that poor households have received too little benefit from forestry extension and research. Thai 11 Comment [EK1]: Unclear. Please claify! 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. people in Thanh Hoa suggest that forest land allocation by itself does not help the poor overcome their poverty. Van Kieu people voiced great concerns about unclear forestry policies related to local communities, while Mnong people consider as the most important issue, that wood processing has had little impact on poverty reduction. Generally, there are two key issues that attract the concerns of all communities: incomes from NTFP are decreasing, and poor households receive too little benefit from forestry extension and research. Forestry officials at district level identified as key issues that (1) forest land allocation by itself does not help the poor overcome their poverty, and (2) program 661 has little direct impact on income of the poor. Issues of (1) incomes from NTFP are decreasing and (2) little participation of local people in planning, monitoring and evaluation of forestry activities are the two key issues that attracted the attentions provincial forestry officials. Field consultation research confirms 3 objectives of poverty reduction and improving the living conditions for forest dependent people. These are: (1) to increase income based on forests and forestland for the poor forest dependent people and help these people diversify their income; (2) to create forestry-related employment and incomegenerating opportunities for rural households, especially poor ethnic minority households; and (3) to improve rural livelihoods based on forestry development. Results from group discussions indicate that these objectives are relevant and necessary to be addressed. Results from the field consultation research confirm 6 strategic solutions for poverty reduction and improving the living conditions for forest-dependent people. The shortterm strategic solutions include: (1) implementing community-based multi-purpose forest management, which requires a change in the current criteria for forest classification and carrying out forestry land allocation to communities for management; (2) participatory extension development in highland areas. This solution requires a major change in extension method and increasing investment for communities in highland areas; (3) increasing payment from environmental services which involves forest valuation and establishing an inter-sectoral payment mechanism and (4) developing joint forest management which requires a major change in function, tasks and working mechanism of forestry institutions in relation to local people and communities. The long-term strategic solutions include: (1) forest plantation economy development for highland areas which requires a change in planning and investment policy for afforestation in highland areas and (2) wood and NTFP processing development in highland areas. The later solution was assessed during group discussions as realizable and feasible. To monitor and evaluate the achievement of objectives and strategic solutions of poverty reduction and rural livelihood improvement for forest dependent people in highland areas, the study team has proposed 19 criteria for monitoring and evaluation by people’s committees at different levels. Based on the research results, the study team proposes 4 key issues of forest-dependent people in highland areas that should be considered into the program for sustainable forest development in the National Forest Strategy (2006-2020) as follows: (1) forestry land allocation alone does not help the poor to overcome poverty; (2) local people have limited legal rights to use forest resources, especially those living in protection and special use forest areas; (3) the NTFP resource are more and more exhausted, resulting in decreasing contributions to the livelihoods of local people; and (4) the administrative system is too complicated to ensure transparent access to relevant legal products. Two strategic solutions proposed are: (1) implementing community-based multi-purpose 12 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. forest management and (2) forest plantation economy development for high land areas with 8 specific activities. The study team proposes 2 key issues of forest-dependent people in highland areas that should be considered for the program for forest protection, bio-diversity conservation and environmental services in the National Forest Strategy (2006-2020) as follows: (1) there are conflicts among objectives of forest protection, bio-diversity conservation and improvement of the living conditions of local people in highland areas, and (2) equity in forest land and forest contracting among SFE, protection forest board, national parks, communities and households is not ensured. The study team also proposes two strategic solutions as follows: (1) developing joint forest management, and (2) payments for environmental protection services, with 5 specific activities. The study team proposes 1 key issue that should be considered for the program for trading and processing of wood and NTFPs in the National Forest Strategy (2006-2020) as follows: Local people and communities in highland areas have received little benefit from wood and NTFP processing and trading. The study team also proposes to apply a solution for wood and NTFP processing development with 5 specific activities. The study team proposes 1 key issue that should be considered for the program for forestry extension research, education and training in the National Forest Strategy (2006-2020) as follows: the poor have received little benefit from forestry extension and research. A strategic solution proposed by the study team is: to develop participatory extension in highland areas with 5 specific activities. Based on the research results, the study also team proposes 2 key issues that should be considered for the program for improvement of forest institution, policy, planning and evaluation of forest activities in the National Forest Strategy (2006-2020) as follows: (1) forestry policy is not clear to local people and (2) there is little participation of local people in planning, monitoring and evaluation of forestry activities. The strategic solutions proposed are: to examine and establish policies and benefit mechanisms for highland area people and to renovate planning, monitoring, and evaluation of forestry activities using participatory approaches with 3 specific activities. The study team proposes 1 key issue that should be considered for project 661 as follows: to date, the 661 project has little direct impact on income of the poor, 5 specific activities are proposed to add this issues. To build upon this study on “Forestry, Poverty Reduction and Rural Livelihood in Vietnam”, the study team has proposed at least three areas for further research: (1) study the impact of forestry policy and forestry development project on poverty production and rural livelihood improvement in highland areas; (2) study solutions to organize and combine activities of different state institutions and development programs for poverty reduction and rural livelihood improvement in highland areas; and (3) establish strategic solutions for poverty reduction and rural livelihood improvement of forest-dependent people for each specific ecological region. 13 1. Background and Introduction 1.1. Background This report and field study has its origins in a proposal for a study on “Forestry, Poverty Reduction and Rural Livelihoods in Vietnam”, formulated by the Community Forestry Working Group, to be financed by Sida, the Netherlands and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. The proposal was offered in August of 2003 in a bidding process, which was concluded in May of 2004. In January of 2005 it was decided that the task could finally go ahead, and a team of researchers from the Vietnam Forestry University set in motion a policy and literature review. The team was to be supported by a total of 1 month of international consultancy support. As a refined guide to the undertaking, an updated set of Terms of Reference (final draft, 28.2.05) was formulated by the FSSP Coodination office, which had taken over from the CFWG as the basic for the study. This was in consideration of the long gestation time of the proposal, and the subsequent changes in knowledge, policy processes and organization pertaining to the issues surrounding forests, forestry and poverty eradication in Vietnam. Upon the arrival of the international consultant and in the initial meeting with the FSSP CO, it was realized by the research team that the original study proposal was to be completely discarded. The undertaking thus shifted from implementation of the original proposal to formulation of another study with a different strategy and consequently, design. The main considerations for this change was a wish to align the study with the ongoing policy review in the forestry sector as part of the formulation of a new National Forestry Strategy (NFS, 20062020). Social concerns are to be included in all aspects of the policy review. There was also a strong aspiration that the study should be able to feed its results from reviews and field consultations into the policy review, by mid-2005. The draft Terms of Reference underlined the importance of formulating the study in close cooperation with a larger number of stakeholders and the taking into account conclusions and experiences from a number of recent research and development projects. The detailed design was left to the team to finalize. The work to formulate the new study under the new conditions thus began by the team by mid-March, and has then progressed at a steady pace. The team refocused the policy and literature reviews, identified of key issues for consultations, prepared the design framework and conducted the field consultation research. 1.2. Introduction Policy In November 2001, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development signed an agreement with the international partners on a Forest Sector Support Program & Partnership (FSSP & P). Poverty reduction and promotion of rural livelihoods are among the main objectives of FSSP & P. In the program framework of FSSP, Result Area 4, activity 4.2.3 identified the activity of a “better understanding of the actual and potential contribution of trees and forest resources to rural livelihoods, poverty reduction and environmental protection in the different agro-ecological regions of the country”. The Prime Minister of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam approved “The comprehensive strategy on growth and poverty reduction” on 21 May 2002, in which hunger eradication and 14 poverty reduction is considered a component of 10-year socio-economic development strategy of all branches and all provinces in the country (2001-2010). In 2004, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development decided to reformulate a National Forest Strategy for the period between 2006 and 2020. The new National Forest Strategy must reflect the policy changes at macro level and incorporate elements of the programme framework of the Forest Sector Support Program and Partnership. Currently, a National Socio-Economic Development Plan for the period of 2006-2010 is under formulation. As a result, MARD has put special emphasis on the necessity to connect forestry development to the poverty reduction and rural livelihood improvement objectives. At present an overriding concern of the government is the relationship between forestry development and poverty reduction and how to improve rural livelihoods through sustainable measures. How to increase the income from the forest for poor and forest-dependent people remains a big and complex issue, which requires further clarification. It has been mentioned to the team from several key persons in the MARD, that this study will contribute in a substantial way to guide the policymakers in these matters. Programme/Projects There have been a number of programs and projects where international organizations and non government organizations have initiated many activities on forestry and rural development, aiming at poverty reduction and rural livelihood improvement in Vietnam. For example, the Mountain and Rural Development Programme (MRDP) of Sida as well as the Extension and Training Support Project (ETSP), of Helvetas developed Village Development Plans (VDP) and Commune Development Plans (CDP) as instruments for local planning and influence over development efforts. The European Union projects conducted activities on commune-based forest management. Sida supported the Tu Ne land and forest allocation project. These projects applied new methods and approaches of allocation and management of land and forest resources, to improve the livelihood for farmers and communities. Research Recently, several research efforts on the relationship between forestry, poverty reduction and improved rural livelihoods in Vietnam have been conducted. IPRI (2003) conducted research on poverty reduction and inequity in Vietnam. GTZ compiled a forest and poverty map in pilot provinces. The VDR (2003) also conducted a “participatory poverty reduction evaluation”. William Sunderlin and Huynh Thu Ba (2004) conducted a literature review on poverty reduction and forestry in Vietnam. The relationship between forestry and poverty reduction was analyzed according to 6 variables: changing from forest land to agriculture production land; wood; non timber forest products; payment for environment services; jobs and indirect benefits. William Sunderlin conducted as well research on “Poverty reduction in upland communities of the Mekong region through improving community and industrial forestry”. The Humbold University (Berlin, Germany) has been collaborating with Dak Lak Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to conduct a research on developing tools for assessing ecological impact and poverty reduction through forest land allocation. Some other research projects relating to forestry, poverty reduction and rural livelihood in Vietnam are also being implemented. The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) has proposed a research project on forestry and poverty reduction, “Mapping of 15 poverty and forests in the Mekong Region”. The MARD’s Committee for the Advancement of Women is carrying out a study on “Gender issues in Forestry”, which is intended to feed into the the formulation of the National Forest Strategy in the same way as the study on forestry and poverty. 1.3. Objective of the study The general objective of the field-based study is to provide specific advice to the policy formulation process on how forests and forest-based products can sustainably contribute to improving the living conditions of forest-dependent people of Vietnam. It is expected to provide information on the possibilities and constraints of the relationship between forestry and poverty reduction. The study is expected to feed into the ongoing policy review process, and contribute to furthering the social objectives of forestry development in particular how to improve the life of the forest-dependent people, and how the National Forestry Strategy for the period 2006-2020 can identify solutions for poverty reduction and rural livelihoods. The specific objective of the field-based study is to consult with stakeholders on different levels and in different locations of the country, on what activities and in which areas or which policies have made and could make the greatest impact on their ability to ‘get rich from the forest’. 1.4. Objective of Inception Report The general objective of the Inception Report was to report on the current policies and state of knowledge regarding the importance of forests and forest-derived benefits, for all people who are forest-dependent. The overall concern for the review was finding information on how to make the forests matter in improving the living standards of the forest-dependent people The specific objective of the inception report are to: (1) provide inputs relating to forestry, poverty reduction and rural livelihoods for the new National Forestry Strategy and the development of a sector monitoring and evaluation system; (2) identify specific objectives and approaches for field consultation research; and (3) offer recommendations for follow-up coming activities. 1.5. Methodology to develop the Inception Report This analysis was derived from a literature review based on some government policies and instructions together with reports, studies, research reports and issue papers. The team has had consultations and working sessions with key people involved in the formulation process of the NFS, the Gender Study Group consultants, and with the FSSP Co, as well as with MARD specialists. Relevant existing and proposed policies have been reviewed and analyzed. Specifically, the report set out to identify known and emerging concerns over the implementation and reformulation of existing polices and existing gaps in knowledge that can be identified in the literature. The review was conducted and the key issues identified from within the policy formulation process of the Vietnamese administration, including research organizations, line agencies and key persons. As such, there is at present more emphasis on issues of concern to native stakeholders than to issues raised in the works of foreign researchers and organizations. Through a careful analysis of the policy concerns and existing gaps in knowledge, a range of issues that should be investigated through a series of field-based consultations with involved stakeholders were identified. 16 The report was the first step in the proposed study on forestry, poverty and livelihoods. The subsequent steps were: • Finalization of the design and implementation of a field-based consultative study; • Compilation and analysis of field data, with a workshop to discuss and disseminate results; and • Finalization of conclusions from the research and workshop, including formulation of recommendations for the policy process. 2. Conceptual basis and draft structure of National Forestry Strategy (2006-2020) 2.1. Forests and Forestry Development The forests of Vietnam are classified into three groups: production forests, protection forests, and special-use forest. Forestry Development refers to establishment of new plantations, and maintenance and improvement of existing forests. It also encompasses the exploitation and processing of forest-based products, and other related activities. 2.2. Forest-dependent people and forestry-related livelihoods There are several methods to identify the “forest-dependent-people” and depending on the method there can be substantial differences in the numbers of people that fall within the category. Depending on the variables chosen, the number of people dependent on forests in Vietnam can vary from 15 million to 25 million people. For the benefit of this report, the team will use an expanded concept of who is forest dependent. To the localized definition that is commonly used, a fourth category is addedi. Forest-dependent people thus includes: • Poor communities and villages located in remote, upland and border areas that contain large amounts of land that is legally designated as protection forest, and that are generally remote from industrial commercial opportunities. • Areas where State Forest Enterprises (SFEs) or Watershed Management Boards are the primary land holders, and where particular circumstances apply for existing and former SFE employees and indigenous communities in the areas. • Communes and villages located on the borders of or within Special Use Forests, National Parks and Protected Areas of high biodiversity value, where special regulations and prohibitions apply with respect to land allocation and use of forest products. • All people who in one way or the other are dependent on the products from the forests: for example furniture-makers, whether located in urban areas or in the uplands, are forest-dependent. Poverty 17 The relation of poverty to rural livelihoods and to forest-dependent people has been underlined in an increasing number of publications, both local and international . There are several interpretations of ‘poverty’, representing a spectrum from a simple and seemingly straightforward understanding based on the limited money earned from different activities, or products consumed by a target group. At the other end of the spectrum, understandings and definitions of poverty encompass the possibility for ‘poor’ people not only to earn some income or produce bare necessities but also to be able to choose economic strategies by virtue of controlling the production environment. There is also an acknowledgement for people to be able to interpret situations in their own languages, using their indigenous concepts, formulating solutions and lines of action according to their own knowledge and judgment, and consequently being in control over the social and cultural means as well as over the material. Here is an emphasis on the possibility and space for action by the target group. Here is as well a concern for processes of inclusion and exclusion, that will define which group or who within a group may be able to take advantage of possibilities opening up, and conversely, may be kept from realizing opportunities open to others. Issues of gender, ethnicity, language proficiency and literacy, access to and understanding of the administrative system are other factors that can be closely linked and mutually reinforcing. So is the capacity to negotiate casual solutions with the formal system, solutions that may or may not conform to boundaries. Such interlinkages complicate a proper understanding of the real life situation of persons and groups battling with poverty, and places high demands on the sensitivity and analytical skills of any organization and individual undertaking an analysis of poverty. While the simple definitions of poverty can appear easy to encompass and apply, there is an increasing understanding that the monetary aspects only to a small degree can capture the realities and complexities of a life situation as ‘poor’. What obstructs people from taking advantage of new possibilities' What can explain that some individuals or households have been able to influence their poverty situation, and increase their wellbeing and their economic situation, while their peers are still poor ' For the purpose of the report, we will use the definition of poverty as expressed by EngbergPedersen (1999), (Blockhus, Dubois, et al, 2001). “The poor are those who cannot exploit opportunities due to lack of capacity and resources, and due to dependency on others” It is to be understood that such a definition is wider than a mere concern for income and food. Factors relating to control over assets, of vulnerability and sustainability can be subsumed under the concept of sustainable livelihoods. - Sustainable Rural Livelihoods The livelihood can be described as a combination of resources and capabilities which a person has in connection with decisions and activities they are performing in an effort to earn a living as well as to fulfill their objectives and desires (DFID 2001). Criteria for stable livelihoods include: food security, natural environment improvement, socio-community environment improvement, material condition improvement, protection from shocks and risks. Sustainable livelihoods can be characterized by being (FAO 2001:9): • Resilient in the face of external shocks and stresses 18 • Independent from external support (or supported by means that are in themselves economically and institutionally sustainable) • Adapted to maintaining the long term productivity of natural resources • Sustainable without undermining or compromising the livelihood options open to others In order to attain a state of sustainability it is commonly understood that a community, a household or a person need an array of assets, conceptualized as ‘the five forms of capital required for sustainable livelihoods’(FAO 2001): • Natural capital: natural resources such as land, forests, water and pastures • Physical capital, which can be subsumed in three categories; private, such as farm animals and implements; public, such as roads, utilities; social infrastructure; such as schools and hospitals • Financial capital: cash as income or savings, which is or can be made liquid • Human capital: health, nutritional levels, educational standards and skills • Social capital: kinship, friendship, social relationships of any kind, upon which a person can rely in order to expand livelihood options, including relations to formal organizations 2.3. The Draft Structure of the National Forestry Strategy 2006-2020 The draft national forestry strategy will consist of 8 sections: 1) Basis for the national forestry strategy, 2) Context for forest sector development, 3) State of forest sector and future trends, 4) Vision and objectives, 5) Forest sector development programs, 6) Action plan up to 2020, 7) Strategy implementation and 8) Monitoring and updating the strategy. The forestry, poverty reduction and rural livelihoods study will give inputs direct to 5 forest sector development programs, they are: • Program for sustainable forest management • Program for forest protection, conservation and environmental services • Program for wood and forest product processing and trade • Program for forestry research, extension, education & training • Program for strengthening forest sector policy, institutional, financial & monitoring. Each above program consists of 8 main sections, they are: background, overview of the program, vision, key issues, objectives, solutions, action plan and resource requirements and impacts. 3. Literature Review: key Issues Relevant to the National Forestry Strategy The literature review is focused on the issues: what and how is the actual and potential contribution to the poverty reduction and rural livelihoods by forest and forestry development in Vietnam, in each program of NFS. CIFOR has published a research study on “Poverty Alleviation and Forests in Vietnam” (Sunderlin and Huynh Thu Ba 2005). This research is based on a literature review and gives a 19 very good overview of the relationship between forestry, poverty reduction and rural livelihoods improvement. There are remaining knowledge gaps and in order to give a program-wise input to the national forestry strategy, it is necessary to include the following: • The relationship among forest, forestry development, poverty reduction and rural livelihoods specified according to 3 types of forests, • The contribution of timber and forest products processing and trade and • The role of research, extension, education and training, • The institutional set-up, • The monitoring and evaluation of poverty reduction and improvements of rural livelihoods In an effort to contribute to the development of a national forestry strategy, we intend to analyze the relationship between forest, poverty reduction and rural livelihoods on the six programs of the national forestry strategy, and the six types of forest resource use that can potentially assist the process of poverty alleviation, following FAO (Sunderlin and Huynh Thu Ba 2005). 3.1. Sustainable forest management, poverty reduction and rural livelihoods 3.1.1. Conversion of forests to agriculture Currently, poor communes account for 23% of the total number of communes all over the country. This is equivalent to 50% of the total natural area, 66% of which is forestland. As of 2002, 70% of the minority groups were living in poverty. Land and forest allocation for households and groups of household with clearly defined obligations and rights has positive effect on the poor farmers within the community and household groups (Helvetas Vietnam 2002:9) According to Sunderlin and Huynh Thu Ba (2005) only poor land and bare hills were allocated to households, while good land was allocated to state forestry enterprises. These would re-allocate the forests to households on a contract basis. Two thirds of the areas were assigned to state forestry enterprises for reallocation purposes. Only 10% out of the total forest area was directly allocated to households. As the poor households did not have money for reforestation, it did appear as if land allocation and forest contracting were not important factors in agricultural production or in rural livelihoods. On the other hand, land allocation and forest contracting have widened the gap between the poor and the rich. In other words, land allocation did not help the poor overcome their poverty. Swinkels (2004: 9) asserted that the areas of perennial plants owned by 20% of the poorest only equaled to a half of 20% of the rich households. The minority groups in the North East and the regions in the Central Tonkin had forest areas 10 times larger than that of the Kinh people in this areas. There were however a series of difficulties for the poor people in using of the forest land for income generation. Many of the poorest households had mainly relied on forest land for their livelihoods, and it appeared that there were some factors which constrained them in using forest land for poverty reduction. Other researchers found that bare lands were allocated to households and wooded lands were assigned to State Forestry Enterprises. Farmers could directly decide on the use of about 8.5 millions ha of forestry land, of which 60% was bare land. At the same time, the farmers had to depend on the State Forestry Enterprises which have 8.4 million has of wooded land. Currently, 405 State Forestry Enterprises have been managing 4.6 millions ha of forestry land, including 2.8 millions ha of natural forests, accounting for 25% of the total area of forestry land, 45% of which is forestry land and 38% is production forests. There were remaining 20 inequalities in the land allocation practices. Forestry workers and wealthy households were normally allocated more land than poor households. The poor were also allocated land of less quality, located further away (Blockhus 2001:21). Much of the allocated forestry land has been used for food production by households. One information source has shown that only 20-30% of the allocated land have been implemented as projected by the Government land-use plan (Eleine and Dubois 1998). One of the powerful activities in conversion of forestland into agricultural land was the development of perennial industrial crops such as coffee, rubber, and cashew trees. At present there is not much information available regarding the impact of such industrial tree production on poverty reduction. Furthermore, there remains a conflict of interests between afforestation and the development of cattle raising among communities in different mountain villages, even among households of the same village. These contradictions have significantly reduced the effectiveness of afforestation efforts (Poverty Task Force 2003:75). Community Forestry has been legally accepted in the revised Law on Forest Protection and Development which was approved by the National Assembly in November 2004. The law defines the terms and conditions for land and forest allocation to communities. Community forestry could help to reduce the level of poverty because it provides a significant economic motive for people involved in forest protection. The transfer of decision-making powers to communities could also be an essential foundation for improvement of living standards (Sunderlin, Huynh Thu Ba 2005:52). Blockhaus asserted that poverty reduction could be leveraged thanks to the share of community benefits. On the other hand, community forestry could lower the power of local authorities and limit the effectiveness of forest management by the people (Blockhaus et al 2001:55). 3.1.2. Natural forest timbers and planted timbers The volume of annual timber exploitation has decreased from 800.000 - 1.200.000 m3 in 1995 to 300.000 m3. Sunderlin and Huynh Thu Ba (2005) have clearly analyzed the benefits for the poor people from natural exploitation activities and timber production from small-sized planted forest. They emphasize that millions of ha of timber forests have been exploited in the last 50 years in Vietnam. Like in other countries, most of these benefits have accrued to the state budget, while local people did not benefit. Poor rural people have been largely excluded from direct benefits from timber harvesting. Timber products from the planted forest are one of the important income sources for households. However, commercial-scale harvesting of timber is rarely seen as relevant to local people. Afforestation to supply material for paper production could be seen as the best method for poverty reduction. However, afforestation has currently been a non-profitable business activity, even for those who have official land use rights and investment capability for afforestation (Sunderlin, Huynh Thu Ba 2005:29). 3.1.3. Non-timber forest products According to Nguyen Sinh Cuc (2003), NTFP collection - known earlier as additional forest product collection - provides 13,7% of the income from forestry activities of households in rural areas. In areas where there are many natural forests and in areas where many ethnic minorities are living, the proportion of the forestry income derived from NTFPs is higher. But in comparison to the total income of households, contribution from NTFP collection is very low. 21 For the production land and for the forest, the role of non-timber forest products in poverty reduction was mainly based on firewood and bamboo shoots. Firewood was the most economical type of non-timber forest product, normally accounting for 2/3 of the total nontimber forest product income of households. Bamboo shoot was a source of basic income as well as a supplementary food supply in hunger areas, especially during the crop intervals (Sunderlin, Huynh Thu Ba 2005: 37). In Nghe An province, income from non-timber forest products accounted for 15-35% of the total income and 70-100% for the poor households (Poverty Task Force 2003). 3.1.4. Payment for environmental services Afforestation could impact poverty reduction and sustainable rural livelihoods through regenerating of the soil within a multi-cropping agriculture system, through maintaining water amount and quality. In the projects in Ha Tinh and Tra Vinh, which concentrated on afforestation of the mangrove areas, researchers concluded that there was a close relationship between improvement of food security and forest management (Sunderlin, Huynh Thu Ba 2005: 44). 3.1.5. Job creation Afforestation could create more jobs through activities such as investing in nurseries and plantations, taking care of the planted forests, engaging in wood exploitation and processing. It is still unclear how much such activities could impact the livelihood of the poor people. According to Sunderlin, jobs in the forest industry could hardly become a solution for poverty alleviation because this industry only accounts for a relatively small ratio in the total labor force (Sunderlin, Huynh Thu Ba 2005:46). The same attention has not been accorded to exploitation, processing, and services related to forestry products. According to PAC (2004:7), not many poor people wanted work in afforestation as it was badly paid. There were however many poor people willing to work in the bamboo exploitation, because of low risks, in spite of low income. 3.1.6. Indirect Impacts There were indirect impacts as results of economic activities based on forest resources. Such impact can result in the improvement of the livelihood of those living close to forests, and also in improving the socio-economic conditions in the region (internal multiple effects). There were also other effects of income from forestry development. Afforestation could also indirectly have an impact the poverty reduction and stable rural livelihoods via support activities, such as roads opening wood exploitation areas, and the building of rural infrastructure as in the 327 Project. State Forest Enterprises also had an impact on the socialculture environment of the local communities. However, there has not been any research on the indirect impacts of these activities on poverty reduction and rural livelihoods in the mountainous areas. 3.2. Forest conservation, protection and other forest environment services 3.2.1. Conversion of forest land into agriculture production land Implementation of conservation and protection forest systems limited the conversion of forest land to agricultural land and caused a loss of production land in many places. The result was that it reduced the self-sufficiency in food and contributed to a loss of income for people who lived by the cultivation of forest and industrial plants on a wide scale. 22 The research results at the buffer zone of the Tam Dao National Park showed that production land of households in the villages was lost (Do Thi Ha 2003:5). Field research in the buffer zone of the Ba Be national park showed that the establishment, and subsequent extension of the National Park (1995) caused a loss of production land for the local people (Bui Minh Vu 2001:35). Research at 5 sites of the special-use forest zone and the watershed management forests of Nghe An, Quang Binh, Binh Phuoc, Lam Dong, Nam Dinh found that the establishment of special-use forest and watershed protection forests reduced the areas and operational spaces of communes and local people (Nguyen Huan 2002:11). Government policies to allocate special-use and protection forest land to the state organizations for long-term and sustainable management, rather than to the households and individuals, has not solved the issues of lack of land and food security and the improvement of rural livelihoods in the mountainous regions. Survey results from Na Co village, Khang Ninh Commune, Ba Be District in Bac Can Province have clearly proven that point. Up to 70 % of the households had permanent agricultural lands (mainly for corn and rice) located in the Park’s buffer zone; these fields were on good soil. The Management Board of the Park discouraged people to cultivate these agriculture lands, and convinced them to replace cultivation with perennial trees. This has resulted in a loss of food supply as the owners were mainly poor people with a little agriculture land. Some of them did not even have agriculture land in other places (Bui Minh Vu 2001:37). 3.2.2. Timber Timber exploitation from the conservation forests, both legal and illegal, was for a long period one of the means of income for poor people who relied on forests. Slack forest management gave a chance to increase income for local people. This contributed to poverty reduction but did not ensure sustainable rural livelihoods. Research results in some places show that people with income were those who conducted illegal forest exploitation. Those who followed the national regulations on forest protection did not have any income from the forest. Research in Bac Can clearly proved this point. Income from illegal timber harvesting, was around ND 100,000/day/person, while income from other sources was only VND 20,000-30,000/day/person. Benefits from the forest accounted for 28% of the gross income (CRD 2004:11). Site research at the buffer zone of the Ba Be National Park showed that the establishment of the Park caused people who were living by the forest to lose their sources of wood and firewood for household use. They also lost their grazing lands, and in some cases they were forced to illegally exploit timber for house building, firewood, and for coffins. , They did not have any legal sources to satisfy their basic needs. Strict management of the buffer zone has caused a loss of income from the natural forest (timber and non-timber products) for the local people (Pham Xuan Phuong 2003:23). In forests that were not closely managed, was there often illegal exploitation of timber by local people. This was often to meet their essential needs, such as building houses, breeding facilities, coffins, etc. In some cases local authorities (communes) gave licenses to exploit the forests, without approval from District People’s Committee (contrary to current regulations) (Pham Xuan Phuong 2003:23). Timber in watershed management forests played a part in poverty reduction and rural livelihoods 23 In the protection forests where a Forest Management Board has been organized was the timber exploitation made more difficult for the local people because all exploitation activities in these forests were considered illegal. In protection forests without a particular management entity, were the Commune People’s Committees in charge of state management. In necessary cases, timber was exploited from these forests, to solve the need for building houses and breeding facilities, and for household furniture for the local people. In such places were the forests often illegally exploited, but it generated an important source of income for the poor households (Vu Huu Tuynh 1999:72). As an impact of the policy on closure of natural forests and the strict control have the local people lost some income. The loss of revenue from forests which have been placed under closure and strict control has in some regions reached 30 - 40% of the gross income. There were not any alternative income sources to offset the losses (Vu Huu Tuynh 1999:71). So far, there has not been any source of information to show how illegal timber exploitation activities contributed to poverty reduction. Timber extraction from the community-managed forests has significantly contributed to meet the demand of timber and firewood for members of these communities, to satisfy their own needs. The extraction helped reduce poverty and ensure rural livelihoods. According to data released by the Department of Forest Management in June 2001, most of these areas are protection forests (to preserve water sources for the direct use of the communities) and forests providing traditional forest products for the communities (hunting, bamboo shoot and medicinal herbs). These forests play important roles not only in production but also in the traditions and religious life of the communities. It appears that the communities had all the power of making decisions regarding protection and use, as well as enjoying the benefits from the forest (MARD 2002). 3.2.3. Non - timber forest products Production of NTFPs outside the forests has contributed more to hunger eradication and poverty reduction than production inside the conservation forest ecosystem. The appropriate land for development of non-timber forest products external to forest are much more available than areas inside the forest. In Khang Ninh commune in the buffer zone of Ba Be national park, an average of 15% of the household economy is sourced from NTFPs (includes 10% from fire wood and 5% from others). There are differences in the use of NTFPs between villages, but generally it is firewood, bamboo of different types for house construction, bamboo shoot and some other minor products (less important, none of them is typical). And all of these types of NTFPs have been exhausted (Raintree, Le thi Phi and Nguyen Van Duong 2002). Similar results apply to the case of the buffer zone of Ke Go, Ha Tinh. Field research in this area showed that nearly all households had trees for non-timber forest products in their own gardens (Littooy 1995:42). A survey in Cam My commune in the buffer zone of Ke Go national conservation area in Cam Xuyen district, Ha Tinh province shows that if firewood, charcoal production and fishing are excluded, the yearly income from NTFPs is only 52.000 VND which is a very small proportion of the household income. The research conducted by Nguyen Ba Ngai in 7 communes of the buffer zone of the Ba Vi National Park illustrates the dependency of communities on forest resources. Although the need for exploiting non-timber forest products such as herbs, rattan, bamboo shoots and 24 mushroom was high, was their contribution only around 10% of the community income (Nguyen Ba Ngai 2002). 3.2.4. Environment Services Case studies show that the project for forestry development of households (VIE/96/014) in 5 mountainous provinces of Cao Bang, Thai Nguyen, Lang Son, Quang Ninh and Bac Giang provided households with seedlings for reforestation in special-use and protection forests (Nguyen Xuan Nguyen 1998:18). At present, the income from activities of research, scientific experiments, development of resorts, and of ecological and environmental tourism in the special-use forest has been placed under control of the National Board of Forest Management. The local people apparently had almost no benefit from these activities. 3.2.5. Jobs From the employment aspect has the conservation of special-use forest contracted thousands of households living inside or close to the forests, to participate in afforestation and protection as well as forest zoning for regeneration purposes (MARD 2002). Contract agreements on protection forests have created jobs for thousands of households living inside or near the forests. In recent years, the villages participating in forest management also benefited from the creation of thousands of jobs in the rural and mountainous areas. A larger number of forestry jobs has been created in the rural areas when the Government issued a policy for allocation of decentralized protection forest areas (within the boundaries of villages and communes), to households and individuals, and for long term and sustainable use, for forestry purposes (CRD 2004:11). 3.2.6. Indirect Benefits The Government’s policy to define the special-use and protection forests and establishment of Boards of Forest Management has had an impact on the improvement of rural infrastructure in the remote areas. It has especially helped to build inter-district, inter -commune road systems, rural market places, and inter-commune cultural centers. Some national parks which had income from tourism services have partly contributed to the local budget by investment into the communities within the buffer zones. Such investment has commonly been for socioeconomic development and for initial support to the people involved in the afforestation, in an effort to provide firewood for the communities (Pham Xuan Phuong 2003). 3.3. The 661 Project 3.3.1. The 661 project and poverty reduction objective The project for reforestation of 5 million hectares was approved at the Second Round, Assembly Term No.10 by the Prime Minister, under the Decision No.661/QD-TTg (1998). One of the three objectives of the project was the“ effective use of bare land and bare hills, creation of jobs for workers in an effort to eradicate hunger, reduce poverty, settle down living and cultivation and increase income for the local people living in the rural and mountainous areas”. Beside the recognized achievements on forest protection and development, were the results of the second objective -to eradicate hunger and reduce poverty - small in comparison with other programs. Better results have been reported from the National Targeted Program of hunger eradication, poverty reduction and job creation and the Program of Socio-Economic 25 Development of 2,235 specially poor communes (the 135 Program) with the coordination of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (Nguyen Hai Nam 2001). It is unclear to what extent forest- based poverty alleviation and massive reforestation either are or will be compatible. A great deal is unknown about the potential for using forests for poverty alleviation and about the compatibility of poverty alleviation and reforestation within the 5 MHRP (Sunderlin, Huynh Thu Ba 2005:51). At present the 661 Project is in its 7th year of operation. There are no investigations, evaluations or research on the results in terms of its hunger eradication and poverty reduction objective. Nearly no information relating to results or impact can be found in government reports, annual and periodical reports of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, and the Department of Forestry (Do Thi Ha 2003:5). 3.3.2. The 661 Project and Land Allocation, Forest Contracting and Forestry Land Use According to the research conducted by Pham Xuan Phuong and his associates in 2004 in 4 provinces of Son La, Dien Bien, Gia Lai and Dac Lac, the ratio of using allocated forestry land for forestry production remained quite low. This was found to be depending on the investment capability from various sources, including investments from the 661 Project (Pham Xuan Phuong 2004). The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development has pointed out that the 661 Project could only be successfully implemented on allocated land. Therefore the objects to be included in the 661 Project were allocated land with clear ownership. This was a reasonable policy and focused on the investment aspect. However, many areas have been allocated so far but they have not been used or they have been used for agriculture or seasonal production. One of the reasons was the limitations of the investment sources of the 661 Project (Pham Xuan Phuong 2004). Even under the current forest protection contracting policy, was the budget for the 661 Project not enough. This has also been confirmed by the Government. The lack of capital in the 661 Project resulted in the allocated forestry land areas not been used or used for other purposes than the intended. The surveys in Thanh Hoa, Son La and Dien Bien have shown that many farmers have been aware that once the forestry land for protection afforestation or protection forest were allocated to the households or communities, the funds for investment should be provided by the Government. As the investment capital from the 661 Project has not been available, the farmers would not use the areas for forestry, and would use those areas for production of food or other seasonal crops (Pham Xuan Phuong 2004). In short, the 661 Project has played some particular roles in land and forest allocation and in the use of forestry land, by fostering the land and forest allocation process in localities, through identifying the investment objects for the 661 Project as land and forest with clear ownership. The project helped to increase the percentage of allocated land areas to be used for the right purposes. However, it is necessary to research, evaluate and summarize the role of the 661 Project in land allocation, forest contracting and use of forestry land at the community level, in terms of hunger eradication, poverty reduction and rural livelihoods (MARD 2002). 3.3.3. The 661 Project and the plantation of timber production forest Compared with the previous 327 Program which mainly focused on protection forest, the 661 Project considered timber production from plantations as the major strategy of the program for reforestation of 5 million has. One of the targets was to create favorable conditions for farmers and enterprises to plant 3 million has of production forests (pulpwood timber, pit props, specialty trees, high-value trees, etc), in addition to 2 million has of industrial trees and 26 1 million has of fruit trees. This went together with encouraging organizations and individuals to utilize the empty areas as woodlots (MARD 2001). The income of households from production afforestation came mainly from contracts with the State Forestry Enterprises. This has also been considered as the contribution of the 661 Project in job creation for the farmers in the mountainous areas. In the near future, there will bee three issues, which will require further attention within the investment framework of the 661 Project (ADB 2001): • The current regulations on procedures and certification for timber circulation provided by the Provincial Department of Agriculture and Rural Development would not be suitable to a large number of households in the remote areas. • Timber demands in the market have increased but prices of plantation timber remains low • Multi-level timber trading system would be a disadvantage for the farmers 3.3.4. The 661 Project and development of non-timber forest products There has not been much thought on the development of non-timber forest products in the 661 Project. Neither the documentation nor the annual reports of the project provide information on the role of non-timber forest products. The 661 Project did not offer any clear answer about the position of non-timber forest products for investment and forest development. 3.3.5. The 661 Project, job creation and income improvement for the communities One of the important objectives of the 661 Project was to create jobs and improve income for the communities, through participation in the 661 Project activities. Annual reports of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development on the implementation of the 661 Project did not, however, have statistics on job creation and the improvement of income. The jobs created from the 661 Project can be divided into 3 categories: the jobs relating to contracting for forest protection, to forest zoning for regeneration and to afforestation contracts according to the Decision No. 01/CP. Many areas had been contracted to individuals, households, and communities by the Department of Management of protection and special-use forests, using the capital of the 661 Project. Although statistics on the areas, the total capital assigned for contracting, and the number of workers involved was not available, it must be quite big numbers. This has contributed to solving at least the seasonal redundancies of labor in many communities (MARD 2001). According to the 5 MHRP Central Board of Management, the program has tended to focus on forest protection contracting in order to create jobs. Too little attention was paid to the exploitation and processing of forest products as well as to the provision of services. This is an issue that needs further adjustment by the Project in the period 2006-2010, when the new strategy on forestry development would prioritize the development of forestry product processing and forestry services (MARD 2002). 3.4. Processing and Trading of Timber and Non-timber Forest Products 3.4.1. Processing and trading of timber products 27 There are currently 1200 enterprises working in the wood-processing sector nationwide, 300 of which are specialized for the export market. Timber cutting and semi processing takes 60% of the production capacity. Fine wood work is 30% and artificial board is 10%. Total amount of raw materials processed every year is 4 million m3, producing 2.2 million m3 of processed wood and 210.000m3 of material for artificial board. The exports in 2003 was 576 million USD and in 2004 1.054 million USD (Nguyen Ton Quyen 2004). There is a wide network of totally 167.500 small sawmills and joinery workshops which are placed near or inside forests, or in the rural areas of delta regions. This wood processing involves 0,5 million laborers and tens of thousands of job sites. However, the processing and trading of timber products have very little impact on poverty reduction in uplands areas. The poor have marginal benefits from timber trade (Block, Dubous 2001). 3.4.2. Timber and non timber craft products Rattan and bamboo craft Bamboo and rattan manufacturing are typical handicrafts of Vietnam. At present 713 villages specialize in bamboo and rattan manufacturing, representing 24% of all crafting villages in Vietnam. These villages are dispersed all over the country from suburban areas around the cities to the mountainous regions. More than half of the villages are located in the Red river delta. There are villages with many centuries of traditional production, and there is also a development of new villages, indicating the dynamic situation in the sector. There are some constraints in the development of bamboo and rattan crafting villages. Raw materials have become exhausted, supplies unsustainable and more expensive, resulting in increased prices of products, especially for rattan. Although the handicraft businesses based on rattan and bamboo have significant impact on poverty reduction and rural livelihoods in the delta, their impact in the mountainous areas is limited (JICA& MARD 2004). Joinery Joinery has developed since the 4th century when boat construction started. Joinery is strongly developed in the old cities of Hue and Ha Noi, in particular in areas where there are a lot of historic and cultural relics. There are many joinery villages in the Red river delta and some are scattered in the Mekong delta but they are not equally distributed over the country. The main production areas are in Ha Tay, Thai Binh, and Ninh Binh province in the North, Thanh Hoa in the centre and Can Tho in the South. The total employment in the joinery villages is 100.000, comprising 78.908 men (79%) and 20.996 women (21%). The average population is 2.094 people per village, 291 of which (13,9%) are workers involved in the production (JICA& MARD 2004). There are some constraints in the development of joinery and woodwork villages. The supply of raw materials is difficult and insecure, due to deforestation and the policy of the Government to limit timber extraction to 150.000 m3/year. Timber used for joinery and fine woodwork is in the valuable and rare groups and is indicated in the prohibition list for logging. The main sources for timber now are from Laos and Myanmar and from illegal logging. The price of timber has significantly increased in recent years, resulting in higher prices of products. Small businesses in saw milling and preliminary processing, which are scattered across the country, have made an impact on poverty reduction and rural livelihoods, especially in the mountainous area close to the raw material areas (JICA& MARD 2004). Traditional paper production 28 Do paper was originally produced in Vietnam in the Ly dynasty in the XI century. It was still used widely in the middle the XX century. Recently, new types of paper produced industrially have been increasingly used. The technologies to produce traditional paper are facing the risk to be lost. Presently there are only 10 villages producing traditional paper on a small scale, comprising 0,3% of the total of traditional employment villages. Paper villages are concentrated in several provinces in the North such as Ha Tay, Bac Ninh, Thai Binh. Totally there are 2,400 workers (1.319 male and 1087 women) employed in the business. Average income is 270,000NVD/month (JICA& MARD 2004). Markets of timber and the NTFP craft industry Markets of crafting products can be classified in 3 categories according to exportation, domestic market and home use. The domestic market includes sales to national and international tourists. Domestic sales represent more than half of the production. The international market and home use represent more than 20% each. Export earnings from timber, bamboo and rattan processing represents 50% of the total earnings in the craft industry. The earnings from bamboo and rattan crafting account for nearly 60% of the total export value (Nguyen Ton Quyen 2004). 3.4.3. Processing and trading of NTFPs Harvesting, processing and trading of NTFPs have been continuously done. Statistics on collection and trading of NTFPs are often unreliable so it difficult to assess this economic activity, but it appears that the NTFPs have been overexploited and that the supplies are exhausted (JICA&MARD 2004). 3.5. Forest Research, Extension, Education and Training 3.5.1. New approach in forest research, extension, education and training related to poverty reduction Changes in forest management practices have led to basic changes in forestry research, education and extension approaches. The “Participatory” concept was introduced in Vietnam in the early 1980s. During this period a lot of discussions took place on terminology, such as “forestry dissemination” or “forestry extension” for activities, which encourage and attract local people to be involved in forestry. Most initiatives in development of new approaches in forestry research, education and extension were introduced and tested by development projects and programs funded by donors. Participatory approaches in village development planning and extension planning were implemented by big projects. The sequel of Vietnam Sweden Forestry and Rural Development Cooperation Programs from 1980 to 2000 in 5 Northern Mountainous provinces and the Song Da Social Forestry Development Project from 1996 to 2004 in Son La and Lai Chau were the leading projects that initiated participatory approaches, which were subsequently applied by other projects. So far, dozens of forestry projects funded by donors and NGOs have applied this approach. In the North of Vietnam, many new initiatives have been tested out by NGOs in forestry research, training and extension. These include CIDSE/SNV in Thai Nguyen, Action Aid in Son La, OXFAM GB in Lao Cai, SNV in Son La and Lai Chau and GRET/PADO in Vinh Phu, Helvetas in Bac Can, Cao Bang and Hoa Binh (Shanks 2002). 29 In the 1990s, participatory rural appraisal (PRA) was used in the Mountainous Rural Development Program to develop village development plans (VDP). More than 300 VDPs developed in 5 Northern provinces were considered as successful. The Song Da Social Forestry Development Project has further developed the process for VDP. The Son La - Lai Chau Rural Development Project has applied VDP processes. The Social Forestry Support Program II (SFSP - Switzerland/Helvetas), the Extension and Training Support Project (ETSP – Switzerland/Helvetas) have implemented participatory research, Participatory Technology Development (PTD), Farmers Forest Management School (FFS) and Commune Development Plan (CDP). Government funded forestry programs and projects have also started to appreciate and apply participatory approaches. Since the implementation of 5 Million Hectare Reforestation Project in 1998, forestry research, education and extension have been improved. Applied research, training for village staff and farmers, development and transfer of demonstrations have been scaled-up. As stated in the government report in 2004 has the project 661 implemented 80 research topics, focusing on reforestation by new species and has developed 109 demonstration models with total area of 3.088 ha (MARD 2002). The main target groups of extension training activities in forestry programs of the government are commune and village staff and skilled farmers. Classical forestry extension methods were widely applied through demonstrations. The Decree 13/CP on forestry extension issued in 1993 is in many aspects not appropriate today but it has not yet been amended. Currently, at central level the forestry extension system has been changed, but without a clear direction. Extension systems at province, district and commune still apply the old approach in extension activities, which is mainly “Technology transferring” rather than extension (MARD 1998). 3.5.2. The relationship between forestry research, education and extension with poverty reduction and rural livelihoods The relation between research, education and extension with poverty reduction and rural livelihoods can be analyzed in 3 aspects: multiple use of forestry land, capacity improvement for grassroots level staff and farmers, and creating opportunities for the poor. Multiple use of forestry land by households Research and dissemination of agroforestry technologies focus on the household level through encouraging application of SALT technologies. In the 1990s, there were many highly appreciated demonstration sites with contour farming of crops on sloping lands. However, after 10 years, it is very rare to see them. It is recognized that experiments on contour farming and training for farmers on sustainable land management and forestry extension activities done by for example OXFAM, have been successful in changing land use towards sustainable land management. However, there are not many examples on good land use practices that come from forestry research, training and extension. Participatory Technology Development (PTD) was introduced by SFSP (Helvetas) in some places in Hoa Binh, Thai Nguyen, Hue and Dak Lak. The method to use 3 stakeholders such as researchers (teachers), extensionists and farmers combines research - training - extension and links indigenous knowledge of local communities to development of new technologies in forest land use. Within the conditions of a land area, farmers can identify many ideas on how to use the land economically and sustainably. Appropriate ideas are selected to develop a land use plan. Certainly it is difficult for the government system to apply this approach because it 30 requires time, field based experience and correct attitude in extension staff in their work with communities (Scheuermaier, Katz 1999). Forestry extension has contributed to an increasingly improved land use of households and to the development of forest farms, resulting in economic benefit for the households. Capacity improvement for grassroots staff (in commune/ village) and farmers Currently there is no data on forestry training for staff at grassroots level or on training of farmers. Data from the training activities in the Project 661 for the year 2004 shows already that the training need is very large. The Mountainous Rural Development Program also contributed a lot to training. TOT training was applied during this training process. TOT was applied in Vietnam when the need for extension training was high due to the development of an extension system at grassroots level, after the national extension workshop in 1997. This training approach was applied in most of the development projects, such as Participatory watershed management in Hoanh Bo-Quang Ninh FAO/BELGIUM (1996-2002), Son La-Lai Chau Rural Development Project. The Song Da project in particular, developed a set of TOT standards. It is recognized that forestry training provided to grass root staff and farmers has contributed a lot to improving the capacity at community level. The objective of training of grass root staff is the improvement of skills and of capacity for management of forestry activities. Different techniques for Land Use Planning and Land Allocation (LUP-LA), for Village Development Plans (VDP) and for Commune Development Plans (CDP) have been introduced in many localities by different programs and projects. The main difference with the government programs is the use of PRA and the training given to commune and village staff at the beginning of each process (Helvetas Vietnam 2002). Commonly the training content focused on technologies such as land use, forest zoning for protection, nursery management, forest plantation and tending of forests, and on NTFP management. Very few projects has provided training on forest products, post harvest technologies, processing and marketing of forest products, or on household management for farmers. This is a gap in the training provided so far. Opportunities for the poor After the national workshop on extension in 1997 the development of an extension system at grassroots level has contributed to the improvement of livelihoods of poor people. Many research projects have proven the disadvantage of poor people in accessing natural resources as well as taking advantage of support from outsiders. The situation improved when there were national programs that worked on hunger alleviation and poverty reduction. However, recent research has shown that poor households still face difficulties to access extension services and to apply introduced technologies. Poor households often live in remote areas where the market is not well developed. They often have limited access to social services and to forestry research, training and extension (MPI/PAC 2004). Additionally, there is no government system that is capable of providing training and extension activities in the poorest areas. The recommendation here is that the poverty reduction focus should be emphasised in forestry research, training and extension programs in poor areas with poor people. Extension systems should be improved, especially for extension staff to be able to solve issues related to gender equity and ethinic diversity. Research and experiments on new species, varieties and technologies are very limited in poor areas with poor people. Selection of households to develop demonstration models often concentrate on better off households. There has not been much training needs assessment 31 done for poor people. Training does not focus on poor groups. The proportion of poor people attending training courses is often low. Poor people are often from ethnic minorities, and face problems in language and customs in accessing training and extension services. Conversely, many of the extension staff are Kinh people who do not know minority languages and do not understand the customs of the target groups (MPI/ PAC 2004). 3.6. Forest laws and Institutional Framework, Planning and Monitoring Current forestry policies intend to conserve and develop forests, especially natural forests. This fact leads to the fact that the areas where there are many ethnic minority people are the same areas that should be strictly protected. The result has been that local people do not have opportunities to access forest resources. The benefits from forests are reduced while there are no policies to compensate for this loss. This can be seen as a conflict between forest conservation on hand and poverty reduction and improvement of rural livelihoods on the other (Ngo Dinh Tho et al. 2004). Based on discussions with Legal Department of MARD, the relationship among forests, poverty reduction and rural livelihoods in forest laws, institutional framework, financial and monitoring has been clarified as follow. 3.6.1. Forest laws and institutional framework Forest and forestry land allocation As defined by current law, the land area to be allocated to households and individuals depends on the production capacity (labor, capital, management ability) of each household/individual. Therefore, poor people often get less land, and there are examples that poor people did not get any land allocated because they did not meet the criteria above.Households can be allocated natural forests, which are categorized as production forests. But there are no guidelines formulated for this, so most of the provinces have only allocated bare land to households. Natural forests are still given to state units. This causes inequity during the allocation process (Ngo Dinh Tho 2004). Before the 2004 revision of the Forest Development and Protection Law, the natural forests that were considered as protection forests were allocated only to state-run organizations for management. In effect, the natural forests exist only in the high mountainous areas where poor and ethnic minority people live. So it is very difficult for them to generate income through access to the forest resources for management and use. The government has a policy to assign the management of national parks, natural conservation areas, and very important protection areas to state run organizations. Strict protection has resulted in limited access for local people to forest products, and limited opportunities for income generation from tourism or other sources. At the same time, support from government is very limited and in some areas there is no support at all. In recent years the government has promulgated a policy to establish additional natural conservation areas or to upgrade some conservation areas into national parks. This requires an increase of the forest area assigned to conservation purposes. This enlargement of protection areas results in the loss of production land for local farmers, including their forest gardens and grazing land, without an existing policy to compensate for their losses (Ngo Dinh Tho 2004). The Land Law defines that people who are allocated land have 6 rights. There has however been no formulation of guidelines to implement these rights, in particular regarding land with natural forest. In such areas, the only rights that can be exercised are the rights to exchange and to inherit. Furthermore, there are possibilities that forest and forestland allocation to 32 households and individuals can be in conflict with allocation to communities (Pham Xuan Phuong 2004). What are the effects of the allocation policies'. How do households and individuals manage and use the forests and land allocated to them' How much of the areas have been used for forestry purposes' What is the efficiency of planted forests' How do changes in actual forestry land use happen' Forest and forestry land contracting policy Following the provisions of the law, poor households face difficulties to benefit from the contracting of forest and forest land, as labor and capital are not available in poor households in rural mountainous areas. The instructions from government state that the Management Boards of special-use forests and protection forests sign contracts with households to do forest protection, zoning for regeneration and forest plantation. The timeframe for such management is normally a period of 50 years. The budget for the contracts is depending on the yearly allocations, which at present is enough only for 30 - 40% of the need. This leads to the contracting of only a limited number of households while in areas where most households are poor and of minority origin. The volatile budget has led many Forest Management Boards to implement contracting on a daily basis and not by long term contracts as intended in the Decree 01/CP. Therefore local people actually are employees for these management boards, and their access to the forest resources is limited. As defined by law, the government only provides budget for the protection and zoning for regeneration of special-use forests for a period of 5 years. After this period, the contracted party cannot in principle collect NTFPs, thinning- or timber products. There is a risk that contract holders can become loggers or do other damage to the forests, if they are excluded from all benefits from protection. There has been confusion between the policy on contracting and the poverty reduction policy. The policy on contracting defines that payment should be directly made to forest protectors. In some remote areas, such payments have however been used as an aid fund to solve other difficulties of local communities. Investment and credit policies As defined by law, households must develop a business plan in order to borrow money from the banks with the Special Interest System for forest plantation. This is not appropriate for poor people in the mountainous areas. Additionally, the cash flow for credits in the Special Interest System comes from the savings of other people. Because of this, the banks in some localities do not lend money to the poor because it is difficult for them to pay in time. It also happens that the banks lend money without consideration of the growth cycle of crops. This leads to a situation where the money needs to be paid back to the banks before the trees are available for harvesting. The result is that poor people rarely borrow money from the bank for forest plantation. This in turn results in the inappropriate use of forestry land for extensive farming, or just leaving the land as bare land because they do not have money to plant forests. Benefit sharing This policy is appropriate for household which are better off or average, and for the areas where the economy is developed. It is not really appropriate for poor people and the remote 33 areas. The Policy related to timber extraction does not ensure the equity. The Regulations on the levels of benefit from forests are too complicated and difficult to implement. 3.6.2. Planning and Monitoring of the Sector Forestry plans mainly mention forestry activities such as silviculture, forest extraction, processing and trading of forest products. Poverty and livelihood improvement is rarely mentioned in the plans. One of the important objectives of Project 661 is to contribute to the creation of jobs and income for people in the mountainous areas. It was however not clearly defined how to fill this objective with specific activities. There is a lack of involvement by local people and communities in developing forest planning. The objective to engage around 8-9 million laborers in forestry activities was put into the forestry development strategy to 2010. There was however no program or no activities defined which should contribute to poverty reduction and improvement of rural livelihoods. There is a lack of participatory monitoring and evaluation of forestry activities. There was not enough attention paid to the monitoring and cooperation between forestry development and poverty reduction organizations. This is partly due to the fact that there is a separate poverty reduction program where the forestry sector only contributes a small part. 3.6.3. Summary of literature review The actual and potential contribution of forests and forestry development to poverty reduction and rural livelihoods were analyzed for 6 programs of NFS. Regarding sustainable forest management and forest conservation, protection and environmental services, the review is based on six models of forest resource use that can potentially assist the process of poverty reduction. Some key issues relevant to the national forestry strategy in each program that impact on poverty reduction and the improvement of rural livelihoods have been identified. They are: the rights and benefits of forest dependent people to use land and forest resources in natural forests and plantations, the lack of participation by communities in the management of in special-use and protection forests, the non-benefit from timber and forest product processing for the poor in remote areas, the low participation of local people in research, extension, training and in policy, planning and monitoring in forestry sector. 4. Program wise inputs to the national forestry strategy 4.1. Program for sustainable forest management 4.1.1. Key issues In natural forests: 1) People don't have right to use the forest and draw the benefit from the forest, 2) Contribution of natural forest to livelihoods though illegal utilization, 3) Contribution of natural forest to livelihoods improvement declines because of increasing resources scarcity, 4) Most land still under SFEs control, small areas allocated to household ,5) No proper benefit sharing with local household and communities because so little land allocated to households and communities, payments for contracted labor, 6) Reduced availability of NTFP resources with negative impacts on people's livelihoods In forest plantation: 1) Inadequate incentive framework and market - orientation, 2) Silvicultural and nursery management techniques have too often been based on low intensity approaches and partly out dated techniques, 3) Inadequate investment because financing is flat rate and not flexible, 4) Scattered plantation resources and unbalanced wood supply. 34 4.1.2. Objective To increase the contribution of natural and plantation forest for poverty reduction and livelihoods in the mountainous areas 4.1.3. Solutions a. For natural forests: 1) Priority areas for CF brought under sustainable multiple use based on CF, 2) Access to NTFPs and wood products ensured, 3) Some income from commercial operations, 4) Most potential areas for CF brought under sustainable multiple use based community forestry ,5) Improved land tenure, 6) Access to NTFPs and raw materials for wood products ensured 7) off- farm employment creates revenue 8) Commercialized SFEs managing large areas jointly, with expanded leases for community forests, 9) Benefitsharing systems piloted in CFs and joint SFEs – community operations, 10) Large areas of natural forests under community management where benefits derive from sustainable utilization, 11) Benefit - sharing systems or contract payments adopted in SFEs co - managed areas. b. For forest plantation: 1) Develop a national wood production and industry development plan, 2) Develop guidelines and instructions for forest plantation and management ,3) Map existing plantation areas and rationalize the plantation resources base by liquidating unviable plantations, 4) Promote establishment of industrial forest plantation joint ventures between Vietnamese companies and individuals and foreign investors, 5) Establishment and management of plantation by smallholders and communities, focussing on priority. 4.2. Program for forest protection, conservation and environmental services 4.2.1. Key issues 1) Insufficient involvement of local people in forest management, 2) lack of support and cooperation with local authorities and law enforcement agencies, 3) Weak provisions for engaging local communities, 4) Weak human and operational capacities, 5) Forest protection contracts do not bring efficient incentives for farmers and forest users, 6) Funds allocated for forest conservation have not been used efficiently, 7) Overall levels of investment in conservation are low, 8) Investment for forest conservation is not adequately prioritized, 9) The regulation on forest plantation and conservation is too strict and not suitable to local conditions, 10) Due to the establishment and expansion of conservation forest have local people lost their land, 11) No straight connection between environmental services, Ecotourism and benefit to local communities. 4.2.2. Objective To improve the benefit from protection and special- use forest to local people and communities 4.2.3. Solutions 1) Encourage social forestry and sustainable land use in protection forests, 2) Improve the ability of the forest protection force, involved organizations and local communities in implementation of the law, 3) Improve the ability to making plans, monitoring and evaluating forest protection activities of the management boards and communities, 4) Establish appropriate and feasible beneficial policies in order to support the communities in sustainable forest management, 5) Formulate a mechanism to improve efficiency in special- use forest management, 6) Formulate a mechanism for increasing the investment funds for special-use 35 forest, 7) Formulate a mechanism to prioritize investments for special- use forests, 8) Consider local people ‘s livelihoods in the regulation on development of a regulation on protection though production, 9) Reclassify the land , intensification of production, 10) Redistribution of the land of the commune and SFEs, 11) Socio-economic development of buffer zones though supporting afforestation and NTFP development, 12) Develop Ecotourism co- management between special use forest management board and communities, 13) Develop a method to put value to environmental services and to pay the local communities for such services, 14) To ensure that the payment from Eco-tourism goes straight to communities. 4.3. Five million hectare reforestation program (661 project ) 4.3.1. Key issues 1) The structure of 3 types of forests in 661 project is not appropriate, 2) Lack of concrete activities to reach the poverty reduction objective, 3) Lack of coordination between 661 project and other project in poverty reduction, 4) Lack of M&E indicators for poverty reduction, 5) No impact assessment of forestry development on poverty reduction and rural livelihoods, 6) No community participation in project management, 7) Lack of human resources development strategy. 4.3.2. Objective To update and improve the socio-economic objective formulation, implementation and the M&E of 661 project. 4.3.3. Solutions 1) Inventory and adjust the forest estate of three forest types, 2) Re-regulate the structure of the three types of forest, especially between protection and production forest, 3) Identify the activities of people related to poverty reduction and rural livelihoods, 4) Integration of 661 project into project steering committees at provincial level, 5) Develop M&E indicators for poverty reduction, 6) Carry out research on impact of forestry development on poverty reduction and rural livelihoods, 7) Establishment of community component in 661 project, 8) To include a human resources development strategy in the 661 project. 4.4. Program for wood and forest product processing trade 4.4.1. Key issues 1) Weak link and weak planning between industry and raw material development, 2) Distorted markets disturbing the link between the local producer and industry/ producer, 3) Reduced availability of NTFP resources, 4) Low quality and inefficiency in production and processing of NTFPs, 5) Bamboo and rattan handicraft processing have impact on poverty reduction in low land areas, but not in remote areas, 6) Small wood processing unit close to raw material areas have impact on poverty reduction but too few are in operation. 4.4.2. Objective To increase the impact from wood and forest products processing and trade on socioeconomic development at local level. 36 4.4.3. Solutions 1) Prepare long-term and medium term action plans for integrated ( large-scale and small medium enterprises ) wood processing and wood production, 2) Invest in the development of a secure and competitive raw material base for the industry, 3) Transparency and integration between farmers and producers, 4) Establish market information systems, including industry statistics and newsletters, 5) Develop a planning for production and processing of NTFPs, 6) Improve the supply of NTFPs through sustainable forest management conservation and protection, 7) Promote use of improved stoves, 8) Provide extension services to help villagers to improve NTFP processing, 9) Develop the production of high quality raw materials of bamboo and rattan in remote areas, 10) Support the establishment of small wood processing units in raw material areas. 4.5. Program for forestry research , extension, education & training 4.5.1. Key issues 1) Weak link between research, training and extension, 2) Weak link between research and producers, 3) Lack of participatory research and extension, 4) Research and extension mainly focus on plantation establishment and not on marketing and processing, 5) Weak participatory M&E in forestry extension activities, 6) Lack of forestry extension at grassroots level, 7) Lack of human resources development at grassroots level. 4.5.2. Objective To improve the ability of the forest research, extension, education and training programs to support the livelihoods of forest dependent people and communities. 4.5.3. Solutions 1) Establishment of RETE networking, 2) Establishment of a fund for applied research mainly controlled by the producers, 3) Establishment of a coordination mechanism between farmers, researchers and extensionists, 4) Research and extension should be comprehensive and include all steps of production, processing and trade, 5) Establishment of a coordination mechanism on M &E in extension, 6) Develop a grassroots level forestry extension, 7) Develop the human resources at grassroots level. 4.6. Program for strengthening forest sector policy, institutional, planning &monitoring 4.6.1. Key issues 1) Unequal land and forest allocation, 2) Low investment norm in the policy on forest establishment, 3) No initial investment support, high interest rate and complicated procedure for borrowing money from the bank, 4) Regulation on forest exploitation is not suitable for households, 5) Unclear and low feasibility in the policy on benefit sharing, 6) Policy on market development is not clear, 7) Policy dissemination is not efficient, 8) The forest related organization system is complicated and overlapping, 9) There is only a small amount of detailed forestry planning at commune level. 10) Lack of participatory planning at grassroots level, 11) Lack of participatory M&E in the forestry sector. 37 4.6.2. Objective Enhance the relevant forestry policies, organization, planning and M&E to improve the life conditions of forest dependent people. 4.6.3. Solutions 1) Allocate natural forests to communities, 2) Allocate land and forest to household and communities, 3) Increasing the investment norm, focusing on protection and special use forest only, 4) Support the initial investment for production forest directly to household and communities, 5) Simplify procedure for borrowing money from the bank, 6) Support the SFEs reform process, 7) Allocate redundant SFEs forest land to household and communities, 8) Develop regulation on forest exploitation benefiting to household and communities, 9) Improvement of benefit sharing policy, 10) Develop a clear market policy for forest products, 11) Diversify the means of forest dissemination, 12) Simplify and clarify the forest related organization at provincial and district levels, 13) Strengthen the organization at commune level. 4.7. Summary of key issues, objectives and strategic solutions From the above analysis, key issues, objectives and strategic solutions are summarized in the following table: Table 1: Key issues, objectives ans solutions No. Key issues Strategic objectives 1 Allocation of forestry land does Targets to increase not help forest dependent people income through overcome poverty diversifying income sources from forest 2 Common people have little legal Targets to create job usage right of forest products opportunities from forest and forestry development Is there any conflict among forest Targets to improve protection, forest preservation livelihoods and life improvement of common people 4 5. 6. 7. There does not exist the equality Others objectives in the land and forest allocation between forest cooperative and household The income from NTFP has been decreasing Project number 661 have less direct impact on the income of poor households Timber and non-timber product processing has little impact on poverty reduction Strategic solutions Increasing income from environmental services Community based management of multipurpose forest Co-management of forest of state-run forestation yards, households and communities Participatory forestry extension development Shifting from natural and extensive forest economy to processing connected intensive forest economy Development of nontimber forest product commodity economy Other solutions 38 8. Poor people get few benefits from forestry extension and research 9. Forestry policies are not clear to people 10 The procedures are complicated for accessing and circulating legal products from forest 11 The villagers have very few opportunities involve in the planning, planning, monitoring and assessing forest activities 12 Other issues Source: Summary from literature These key issues, objectives and solutions will be tested through field consultation research. 5. Field consultation research 5.1. Objectives and results of the field consultation research Objectives of the field consultation research were: • To ecamine the validity of key issues of forest dependent people in highland areas and discover new issues. • To analyse and evaluate appropriateness, feasibility and priority of objectives and strategic solutions for forest based poverty reduction strategies. • To make recommendations for implementations, monitoring and evaluation of poverty reduction solutions relevant to 2006 - 2020 National Forestry Strategy. 5.2. Methodology and organization of the research 5.2.1. Overall approach • Key issues of forest dependent people in high land areas, objectives and solutions for poverty reduction strategies and rural livelihoods improvement have been identified during the inception stage and are the basis for interviews and group discussions among stakeholders in the field. • The contents proposed to be included in National Forestry Strategy have been synthesized from qualitative and quantitative analysis of the field consultation research. 39 5.2.2. Methodology for field consultation research The methodology applied in field consultation research included household direct interviews, semi-structured interviews, case studies, and group discussions, of which group discussion was the main tool in the research process. Field consultation research method Case studies on household economy: 3 types of households: Poor, poverty overcome and good income/village x 16 village, 48 households Household level Village, commune, district and province Main findings Economic situation and in linkage to forestry Questionnaires: - 10 households/village x 16 villages - 160 participated Forestry management context in linkage to community living and proposals Group discussion from village to province levels: - 4 groups/village x 16= 64 groups - 1 group/commune x 8 = 8 groups - 1 group /4 districts = 4 groups - 1 group/4 provinces = 4 groups 538 participant’s times Key issues in forestry development in linkage to poverty reduction Objectives and solutions in linkage to poverty reduction and household livelihood strategies Commune and district semistructured interviews: - 3 persons/commune x 8 = 24 persons - 3 persons/district x 4 = 12 persons 36 participated Cross checking, quantitative, qualitative information consolidation and analysis Figure 1: Methodology for field consultation research 5.2.3. Criteria for survey sample selection and research sites The criteria for sample selection presented in table 2: Table 2: Survey sample selection criteria Selection criteria for districts, communes and villages selection Criteria for forest dependent households selection Criteria for household selection for household economy case study in linkage to forestry Criteria for local staff selection for consultation at different levels High forest cover rate, low average per capita agricultural area low average household agricultural area Representatives of poor, poverty overcome and good income households Leaders of villages, communes, districts and persons in charge of forestry 40 Living location of local ethnic minorities High level of NTFP sales and consumption Local communities, villagers participating in forestry activities and with allocated and contracted forests Dependent on products from forests Many forest products sold to market and consumed by housholds Poverty classification based on national standards Staff relating to agricultural and forestry extension an rural development, forestry at commune, district and province levels Belong to poor households, low average per capita income Representatives of different organizations like women union, youth league... Having diverse indegenous knowledge on natural resources management The four provinces selected as research sites include Bac Can, Thanh Hoa, Quang Tri and Dak Nong. These 4 provinces represent 4 ecological zones of Vietnam with different natural characteristics, and are living areas of 4 ethnic minority groups: Tay, Thai, Van Kieu and M’nong. Based on the criteria for district, commune, village selection presented in table 1, the research team together with local province staff selected districts, communes, villager for the research as follows: 1. Bac Kan province: The villages of Coc Xa and Khuoi Thien of Na Ri commune, and Na Ca and Quan of Nguyen Phuc commune of Bach Thong district. 2. Thanh Hoa province: The villages of Nguu and Na Nghia of Yen Nhan commune, and Can and Ruong of Bat Mot commune in Thuong Xuan district. 3. Quang Tri province: The villages of Huc Nghi and La To of Huc Nghi commune, and Voi and Ke of Ta long commune in DakRong district. 4. DakNong province: The villages of: Bu Non and Bu Dung of Dak R’Tich commune, and villages No. 2 and No. 3 of Quang Truc commune in DakRlap district. Based on the criteria for forest dependent households and case study household selection, the research team together with village staff made a list of households for the research interview targets, and households were selected randomly from the available lists. Respondents for semi-structured interviews have been selected in accordance with their functions and professional backgrounds at different administrative levels. 41 Bac Kan Thanh Hoa Quang Tri No 1 2 Province Bac Kan District Bach Thong T hanh Hoa Thuong Xuan Quang Tri Commune Ha Vi Nguyen Phuc Yen Nhan Dak Rong Bat Mot Huc Nghi 3 Ta Long Dak R’Tih 4 Dak Nong Total 4 Dak Rlap 4 Quang Truc 8 Village Coc Xa Khuoi Thieu Na Ca Quan Lua Na Nghiu Can Ruong Huc Nghi La To Voi Ke Bu Nơr Bu ng Village 2 Village 3 16 Dak Nong Figure 2: Study areas 42 5.2.4. Size and structure of survey sample Size and structure of survey samples are presented in table 3: Table 3: Composition by ethnic group and gender of interviewees Household interview (160 persons) Gender Nations Total of people Kinh Tay Persons Hoa Nung Van Kieu Thai M,Nong Male Female 34 2 40 40 40 125 35 21,25 % 4 2,5 1,25 25 25 25 78,12 21,88 Household case studies (48 households) Persons 12 12 12 12 41 7 % 25 25 25 25 85,41 14,59 Group discussion (76 groups=538 persons) Persons Semi-structured interview (36 persons) Persons % Total (782 persons) % % 10 133 3 140 112 140 312 226 1,85 24,72 0,5 26,02 20,81 26,02 57,9 42 9 9 9 9 24 12 25 25 25 25 66,7 33,3 10 188 4 5 201 173 201 502 280 1,27 24,04 0,5 0,6 25,7 22,12 25,7 64,2 35,8 Source: Data from field consultation 5.2.5. Research process and organization The field consultation research is carried out with the steps in table 3: Table 4: Field research process Steps Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Total Activities Method training and pilot implementation Preparation visit to the field - Questionnaires in villages - Group discussion in villages Time (days) 3 5 2 2 - Case studies in villages - Data consolidation in villages - Semi-structured interviews and group discussion in communes - Semi-structured interviews and group discussion in districts 1 1 - Data consolidation - Seminar in provinces 1 1 - Data consolidation and documentation 2 19 1 43 5.2.6. Data consolidation and analysis method Questionnaires are analyzed quantitatively on the basis of indicators and appearance frequency. Consolidation of semi–structured interviews and group discussions is done using qualitative analysis method on the basis of information on key issues, which are later on arranged in accordance with appearance frequency. Case studies are analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively using the method of average indicator calculation and description of general frequency. 5.3. Natural and socio-economic conditions of research sites Based on the results of the research and direct investigations in 16 villages, it is possible to identify basic features of the natural and socio-economic conditions of forest dependent highland communities as follows: 5.3.1. Land The average land area per village ranges from 1,000 to 1,500 ha, of which forestry land area occupies over 70%. Areas for paddy rice, uphill field rice, and industrial crops range from 5% – 10%. Many communes have land use plans at commune level, which focus, however, on agricultural land. Villages have almost no land use plans, especially those in forest areas. Average areas of forestry land per household range from 5-10 ha. People in communities of the North basically have been allocated with land, however, issuance of the land use certificates (red book) is still late, and in many places local households find it hard to exactly locate their areas in the field. Van Kieu community has not yet been allocated with land. Land allocation was initiated to M’nong people on a pilot scale in some villages. 5.3.2. Economic structure The economic structure of communities is mainly agricultural, main products are annual crops such as uphill field rice, paddy rice, cassava, maize. Industrial crops such as coffee, pepper, and cashew just started to develop in the Central Highlands. Poultry raising is just small scale. Incomes from forests come mainly from non-timber forest products harvesting and fees for forest protection. Other sub-occupations are nearly not yet developed. In agriculture, livestock raising occupies over 70%, forestry is about over 20%. Forestry incomes especially from NTFPs as a “security net” for poor households are of only little importance. 5.3.3. Forest resources Average forest cover rates at over 70%, and the quality of forests is at a high level in comparison to that of the whole country. Three types of forest exist in the study areas: Production, protection and special use forests. Timber needs of local communities for house 44 construction, muffins, firewood and several non-timber forest products are met by local forest resources. 5.3.4. Population and labor In average, one village has about 60-70 households and a population of 300 to 400 persons. The average number of persons per household ranges from 5-6 persons, with an average number of laborers per household of 2.3 persons. Population density is 25 to 40persons/ km2, and average population growth is over 3% annually. 5.3.5. Community land and forest management mechanism Land and forests on the territory of village communities are managed in the following forms: Household management Household group management Management under contract with state-run organizations Community management. In village communities, management forms are integrated with each other. Household management shows many shortcomings, while community based management has only recently been legally restored and thus could not yet bring into play its functions and potentials. Household group management gives good results in many communities. Coordination of stakeholders in communities, as well as organizations in and outside of communities in forest management and protection is still very unstructured and often weak. • • • • 5.3.6. Infrastructure In recent years, infrastructure has been improved considerably due to investment from programs 125, 134 (program for specially difficult communes), rural development projects etc. But in general infrastructure like roads, electricity, irrigation is still badly developed. Infrastructure in the sample communes rates class 3 (for less developed infrastructure), i.e. for example no access roads for cars to commune centers (or only in dry seasons), no electricity (or only for under 30 % of households), little irrigation, unstable housing for 70% of households. 5.3.7. Market situation In general, production patterns of highland communities are subsistence-oriented. Markets are not yet developed or very localized and scattered, infrastructure is simple. To purchase additional food items and basic consumer goods, people have to spend all day going to far-away markets and exchange commodities. 5.3.8. Health, culture and education Health systems in the villages have not yet been formed. Local people mainly cure their health problems with indigenous herbs. Culture and education are developing only slowly, and the rate of children going to secondary and elementary schools is very low. 45 5.4. Main findings and analysis of field consultation research 5.4.1. Household economy and strategy for livelihoods of household economic groups in communities 5.4.1.1. Classification of household economic groups in communities According to the old classification criteria, the rate of poor households is still around 50%, the rates of middle and good household are 30% and 20% respectively. The average monthly income per capita is about 140.000 VND in North and Central highland provinces, which is rather high if compared with e.g. Quang Tri province which has lower per capita incomes. While not much difference was found for the size of allocated land or the average number of laborers per household, significant differences occurred in the income between good-, middle- and low-income households groups. Average annual income of good-income households is 26.4 million VND, middle-income households 18 million VND, and poor ousehold 8.3 millions VND. Per capita incomes for good, middle-level, and poor household groups are 4.612 million, 3.178 million and 1.454 million VND respectively. If the new poverty line of 200.000 VND/person/month (or 2.4 million VND/person/year) is applied, the gap with per capita incomes of the poor household group is still large, and the level of sustainability among poverty overcome households still low. The characteristics of household groups are presented in the following table 5: 46 Table 5: Characteristics of people, labor, average incomes, expenditures, and costs of surveyed household groups Criteria Unit Household groups Middle/Poverty overcome Good income 1.Land 2. Area of forestry land 3. Number of people 4. Number of laborers 5. Income 6. Costs 7. Rate of revenue/cost 8.Per capita income 9. Per capita cost Ha/hh Ha/hh Person/ hh Person/ hh 1000V ND/hh 1000V ND/hh % VND/ person/ year VND/ person/ year B.K T.Hoa 5,36 17,1 Q.Tri 0,89 N 14,1 Average 9,36 B.K T.Hoa 3,73 6,42 Poor Q.Tri 0,46 N 15,4 Average 6,5 B.K T.Hoa 1,64 8,89 Q.Tri 0,89 N 13,3 Average 6,8 4,27 16,72 0 10,4 7,84 3,37 5,5 0 10,7 4,89 1,22 8,7 0 10,8 5,18 5,5 5 6 6,5 5,75 4,25 4 7,75 7,8 5,95 4,25 7 7,25 6,5 6,25 2,75 3 2,75 2,8 2,5 3 2,75 2,75 2,75 3 2,75 29970 25621 29353 20629 26393 16582 15417 22374 17890 18052 10517 7074 4040 11546 8294 22771 16900 13829 15201 17171 13099 11009 12832 13575 12628 10371 8988 4828 9046 8308 76 66 47 73 65 79 71 57 75 70 98 127 120 78 105 5449 5124 4923 2952 4612 3901 3854 2887 2106 3187 2474 1010 557 1776 1454 4.140 3.380 2305 2338 3040 3082 2752 1656 1740 2307 2440 1284 666 1391 1445 2,83 Source: From field consultation Here: B.K is Bac Kan province, T. Hoa is Thanh Hoa province, Q. Tri is Quang Tri province, N is Dak Nong provinc 47 5.4.1.2. Expenditure/revenue flows of household groups An analysis of the expenditure/revenue flow of household groups provides the following results • Total incomes of households are low, average annual incomes of households vary from 12 million VND (poor households) to 18 millions (poverty overcome households) and 21 million VND (good income households). The incomes were calculated on the basis of all products produced by households (subsistence and market production). Incomes of people living close to forests are low, and production mainly ensures food security. • Production costs for all households are also low and range annually between 600,0001,000,000 VND mainly for seeds and seedlings with only very limited investments into fertilizer, pesticide and watering. Income effects of crop cultivation are therefore low; the potentials of commercial species/industrial crops such as coffee, cashew, and fruit trees are not properly utilized. • Balancing cash incomes and production and living costs for the of 3 household economy groups shows that annual cash savings are still low with 2.5 million VND for poor, 4 million VND middle income, 5.5 million VND for good income households. This cash surplus is not invested into production, but used for buying living facilities, house construction, and health. Almost all poor and middle-income households do not save any cash. • Monthly per capita income is calculated from total income of households. The result shows that the poor household group has an average monthly per capita income of 150,000 VND, the poverty-overcome household group 180,000 VND, and the good income household group 250,000 VND. Based on the old poverty line of 80,000 VND, the groups of poor and middle-level income households have escaped poverty. However, if the new poverty line of 200.000 VND/month is applied, then middle-level income group drops back to the poor group, and only good income household can be considered as having escaped poverty. The analysis shows that incomes are low and living conditions still very difficult, with no savings for reinvestments into production and development of cultural and spiritual life. 48 Comment [EK2]: Per capita incomes are not reduced by costs! Figure 3: Cost income flow of three household economic groups Production cost/HH/year Expenditure/revenue flow of 3 HH VND//year 25,000,000 1,500,000 20,000,000 1,172,500 1,200,000 Revenue flow/HH/year Balance/year 15,000,000 10,000,000 1,076,250 VND 900,000 651,250 600,000 5,000,000 300,000 - Poorr Middle - Good income Poor Middle Good income Per capita income/month 246,077 250,000 200,000 175,556 139,679 150,000 VND 100,000 50,000 - Poor Middle Good Income sources of the household economic groups are quite diverse including the incomes from home gardens, milpa cultivation, forestry, livestock raising, industrial crops and other sources. While middle-level and good income households have higher incomes from forestry, livestock raising, industrial crops and other professions, the poor households get income mainly from annual crops and have only limited access to forestry and commercial crops. Livestock raising plays an important role in household income and is of particular importance for middle-level income households. Many households have substantial incomes from forests like from NTFPs collection or illegal wood exploitation. Particularly good income households have best access to forest resources including “illegal” forest utilization. Analyze the sources of incomes for the 3 household income groups, 6 independent variables were identified: Annual crops, home garden, livestock raising, industrial crops, forestry, and others. Initial regression results show that incomes from annual crops, home gardens, industrial crops and other professions have no significant impact on the variation of incomes of the 3 household groups. Therefore, the regression model was revised to focus on only 2 independent variables of forestry and livestock raising. While it is common knowledge that cultivation improvement, more effective use of milpa area, home gardens, intensive cultivation of industrial crops, as well as professional off- Comment [EK3]: This is not understandable for the reader, and the figues are also not evident from tables. I have deleted this paragraph. farm employments significantly increase incomes of rural households, the reality of forestdependent communities in highland areas as analyzed in this study shows that in the absence Comment [EK4]: Not clear. What is constant 9' I have totally rephrased this paragraph. 49 of supportive infrastructure and lack of market access, forestry and livestock are the two sources of income which make for the difference between poor and better-off households. This suggests that fast impacts on poverty reduction in forest-dependent communities in highland areas can under the given circumstances first of all be expected from forestry and livestock development. 5.4.1.3. Structure of income from forestry among household groups The importance of incomes from forestry varies between different provinces: In Bac Can income from forestry of middle income households makes for 32.8% of total incomes, and for good income and poor households 16.8% and 4.4% respectively. In Thanh Hoa, the percentages for good income, middle and poor households amount to 9%, 20.4% and 23.9% respectively. The analysis of household incomes in Tay Nguyen (Central Highlands) reveals that forestry has a great potential for improving income of the poor. However, households have high forestry income mainly from illegal source such as timber harvest, firewood harvest. Forestry incomes make for good households for nearly 40% of total incomes, but for poor households only 17%. This finding is in contract to the repeatedly heard statement that poor households depend much on forests and have greater income from forests. In reality, good income households have more favorable conditions and better opportunities to access - legally or illegally - forest resources, since they can afford machineries to exploit forest products, have better market links, and better contacts to relevant authorities. Therefore, it is necessary to create more favorable conditions also for the poor layers of highland communities to enjoy benefits from forests through means of e.g. land allocation to communities, and the development of community-based production and marketing organizations. 50 Figure 4: Income from forestry of household groups p so 'g c nghi Ttthu of n il thu/h a lâm % Rate vnh income from forestry to HH income 39% 40% 30% 17% 20% 6% 10% 0% Poor Middle 5.4.1.4. Livelihoods strategies of household groups The strategies for livelihood improvement of the majority of household focus on improving awareness and development of human resources. Improvement of infrastructure such as roads, electricity, irrigation, schools, health centers and information system are strategic solutions of concern for all household groups. However, each group has its own priorities: • The poor group gives priority to food security solution, seed support and technical support to improved production processes, favorable loan rates for livestock, and support to healthcare. • The middle income group highly prioritizes the improvement of agricultural and forestry techniques, income diversification, improvement of administrative procedures in producing and trading products. • The good income group puts priority on income diversification especially from offfarm activities, better education for their children, and gaining additional knowledge and experiences. 5.4.2. Key issues of highland forest dependent people 5.4.2.1. Land allocation does not help the poor overcome poverty a. Test using questionnaire results The survey results show that 50% of interviewed households had been allocated with forest land at an average area of 1.56 ha/household, while 10.6% of households have signed contracts with forestry organizations for land in average area of 1.8 ha. Regarding forest land allocation, 51.8% of interviewees affirmed that boundaries of the land has been identified on site, 38.2% disclosed that boundaries had been determined on maps only, and 34.5% of interviewed people informed that the status of forest has been determined. 50% of interviewees said that they lack information on rights and duties when they receive land, while stated that 36.2% lack information on land allocation in general. 51 After land allocation, only few households put allocated land into effective use. 43.7% believe that they lack technical know-how, 37.5% lack of labor, 35.6% lack of funding, 31.8% lack of production materials. 30% state that the soil is bad and land is very steep and far from home, while 25.6% mentioned lack of market information. b. Case study and semi-structured interview results In Bac Kan province, results of the survey in Nguyen Phuc commune show that the land allocation process was started since 1992. Land allocation to households was carried out 3 times: The first time in 1995, the second time in 1999, and the third time in 2004. 100% of interviewed households have received forestry land with an average area of 2.6 ha. Allocated land area to good income households is not much different from that of poor households. Some poor households got less because their ancestors left them only small areas, or they had just recently moved in from other places. Wile all households participated in village meetings and identification of boundaries in the field, however, only 70% took part in boundary determination on maps, and 45% participated in forest status identification in the field. The main difficulties of households in receiving land are lack of information on land allocation, rights, duties, and labor input required. At the same time the limited number of technical staff involved in land allocation causes the land allocation process to be slower than planned. The study results show that forestry land allocation did not help forest dependent households to overcome poverty, since these households used allocated land ineffectively. Main reasons for this are: • Awareness of local people is very limited when land was allocated to them. Some households did not want to receive land because of far distance from their home • Lack of funding and labor for planting and protecting • Households have little experience in forest plantation and species selection • Low quality of forests, people cannot harvest for income generation • Complicated and time consuming procedures for exploitation • Difficulty in selling due to bad transportation system In Thanh Hoa the effect of land allocation on poverty reduction is very low. After land allocated there is no guidance or support to increase production on the allocated land. The land allocation policy is not clear, and procedures for production on area with young forests are still complicated. In many places allocated land is steep, far for residential area, and has poor soils. Furthermore, the boundaries between allocated land areas are not clear, which severely hampers effective protection of forest resources. Local people lack capital, production experiences, techniques, and information on markets, and are therefore unable to carry out effective production on allocated land. The result of field consultation research in Quang Tri shows that at present almost no land has been allocated to households or communities for management and use (the province has already policies on land allocation to households to manage and use, but this policy has not 52 been implemented because of lack of money). The results of group discussions show that local people (in 4 villages) are willing to receive land and forests to manage and use. Semi-structured interviews and discussions at province and district level in Dak Nong also indicate that land and forest allocation to local people to manage and use is appropriate and an urgent solution that should be implemented immediately for better protection of forest resources and improvement of living standards of local people. However, for land allocation to be effective, there should be planning and clear boundary identification for each allocated area and clear benefit sharing policies. In Dak Nong province, for villages allocated with land and forests (in Dak R’ Tih commune), people’s participation is very clear. Almost all households (95%) participated in village meetings, 50 to 65% of households participated in assessing steps to land and forest allocation such as boundary determination between areas of households and communities on maps and in the field, and forest resource assessment. The land and forest allocation process has thus been carried out well, and people have clear rights to make decision in forest division, and know about relevant information and policies on the allocation process. For those villages that did not have land allocation yet, two issues need to be considered: Firstly, local people do not have full information on land allocation policies of the State (40% of interviewed households). This is realistic because land and forest allocation was in the past carried out mainly by state-run forest enterprises with “quota” for forest allocation, by which people in some areas received information about land allocation policies, while those in other areas did not. This prevented local people to realize the opportunities to participate in land allocation. Besides this, over 30% of the interviewed households knew about land and forest allocation in other villages, but did not register to receive forest in their own villages because of unclear understanding their rights and duties resulting from land allocation. Thus the land allocation policy has in recent years not been disseminated fully. Allocated forests did not bring high effects to local communities due to several reasons: People lack technical know-how (60%) investment capital (50%), and allocated forests are often very poor and do not give immediate economic benefits (35% of interviewed households). Also in Tay Nguyen (Central Highlands) 50% of interviewed households had received land allocation to household groups and/or communities, while 50% had not been allocated with forests yet, but just participated in forest protection for state-owned enterprises (through the 661 Project). The survey results identify several shortcomings in forest management in view of community livelihood improvement: Land and forest allocation policies remain unclear and are not consistently implemented; responsibility of local authorities and various involved organizations to coordinate and implement support to communities in forest management and protection are not clearly determined; different administrative levels and even local people did not realize the potential of forests to help the poor; and relevant bodies and local authorities to not pay much attention to continuous support to local communities after land and forest allocation. Investments into forest production after forest allocation thus remain very low. 53 Finally, in some areas clear policies to support people with allocated land and forest do not yet exist. c. Group discussion results The unclear distinction between responsibilities of local communities and of sector agencies in forest protection and management was identified as a major problem. Furthermore, different administrative levels and even communities do not understand yet that forestry activities are relevant for poverty reduction, and many authorities do not pay much attention to support to local people after land allocation. Investment after land allocation is very small. Forestry extension is limited. Benefit sharing mechanisms are not appropriate and in many cases unclear to local people The following solutions to land and forest allocation were identified during group discussions: 1) There should be appropriate policies on support to land and forest allocation; 2) Clear policies on benefit sharing for community forests supportive to poverty reduction; 3) There should be permits for people to use appropriate forest land for high economic crops cultivation; 4) Plan specifically 3 types of forests for each region; 5)Simplify procedures for forest planning on allocated land in accordance to 02/CP degree; 6) Establish decentralization mechanism for community forest management; 7) Support to community forest management planning; 8) Increase people’s awareness on forest land and forest use; 9)Support to training and establishment of demonstration models; 10) Fund support to cultivation, livestock and forest development. Comment [EK5]: This is in contradiction with another statement that community forestry needs a "multipurpose" zoning! Please review the wording. 5.4.2.2. Local people have limited legal rights to use products from forests a. Questionnaire results When forests are allocated or contracted, households have rights to harvest and use firewood and non-timber forest products. However, for timber, the regulations are not clear in terms of benefit sharing rights, therefore legal and direct benefits from timber are low. For local people, benefits from forests are mainly from firewood harvesting (73.7% of households), food (51.8%), construction materials (44.3%), materials for handicraft (34.3%), medical herbs and plants (21.8%), while legal timber utilization is very low (28.7%). According to present policies, people living in protection and special use forest areas have certain rights in exploiting timber for house construction, but this exploitation must follow quite complicated procedures. Legal benefits from forests are therefore very limited, while illegal exploitation activities happen quite often. Benefits from forests are mainly from firewood harvesting (67.5%), food (53.7%), materials for handicraft (42.5%), medical herbs and plants (40.6%), construction materials (40.6%), fee for protection contract (21.8%), from timber (39%). Value from NTFP, firewood and protection contract fee is very low, meanwhile timber exploitation is mainly illegal from outsiders leading to unwillingness of forest protection from local people. b. Case study and semi-structured interview results In Bac Kan province, local people often go to forests to harvest and collect wood products from plantations, poor quality wood from natural forests, firewood, NTFPs like 54 Comment [EK6]: The figures are different from those in the previous paragraph, the difference is not clear. bamboo shoots, rattan, forest vegetables, and medical plants according to the needs of households. The interviews revealed that 87% of households know their rights for firewood collection, 65% their rights for timber exploitation, and 50% household their rights for construction materials and food collection. The survey results indicate that since local people have only little access to guiding documents for forest products harvesting, and policies remain unclear, people keep going into forests for illegal exploitation activities. The survey in Thanh Hoa province indicates that procedures for harvesting construction and even poor quality timber are very complicated and cannot be followed by local people. On the other hand, due to low little area size of production forest in comparison with other forest classifications, local people have only little chance to harvest wood products from forests legally. Interview results show that local people often exploit illegally timber, put traps for wildlife and sell these products for their own needs such as buying food, clothes, and medicine, although they know that wood exploitation and wildlife hunting are illegal (100% of interviewees). c. Group discussion results The group discussions identified as a major shortcoming that legislatively, people do not have sovereignty over forest resources, and that policies on benefit sharing were too complicated. While local people have to exploit and sell forest products to overcome poverty, policies and regulations make these activities "illegal". The following solutions to legalizing forest utilization by forest-dependent highland communities were identified during group discussions: 1) There should be regulations on rights of benefit sharing for forest receivers; 2)Simplify and shorten procedures for exploitation and marketing of forest products; 3) Grant rights to use forest products and stipulate quantity and types of products allowed to be exploited; 4) Allow local communities to harvest old, sick trees without permits, or with simplified procedures; 5) For production forests, consider contracting to communities for NTFP development; 6) For protection forests, contract to local people with fees based on forest growth, and to permit 20% harvest of timber volume; 7) For special use forests, involve local people into tourism activities; 8) Identify and plan specific forest areas permitted to be utilized by local communities; 9) Support people to develop other occupations and income sources in order to reduce dependence on forests; 10) Enhance local wood processing; 11) Enrich existing natural forests with high valuable species and NTFP species suitable to each area; 12) Increase dissemination of regulations on exploitation of forests products. 5.4.2.3. Conflict between forest protection, biodiversity conservation and people’s living improvement a. Questionnaire results 52.6% of interviewees stated that forest protection and conservation reduce the volume of exploited products from forests, 49.3% suggested that incomes was lower, 43.8% mentioned that forest protection and conservation reduces the crop production area, and 25% saw a reduction in the grazing area. 55 Comment [EK7]: Do all households know that this is illegal, or are they all involved in illegal activities' Please clarify! b.Case study and semi-structured results Consultation research in Dak Nong district shows that the establishment of Dak Nong conservation causes local people living in the surrounding around losing their timber source for house construction and for other necessary domestic needs of households (only some households have been granted permission for house construction timber exploitation, and it took them 24 days to get these permissions). Besides this, conservation area establishment leads to a loss of crop production and grazing area. Meanwhile people do not have any other income sources for living (due to shortage in paddy rice cultivation area, no sub-occupations like NTFP processing, handicraft, etc.), which leads to illegal harvesting and hunting. District and provincial officers at workshops thought that conservation area establishment should be linked with the State offering solutions for sustainable livelihoods of local people in core and buffer zones of the conservation area like irrigation system, improvement for paddy rice area, generation of sub-occupations (handicraft, NTFP processing), and infrastructure improvement so that local people can reach farther markets. Interviewing households in Ta Long and Huc Nghi communes in Dak Nong shows that 68% of households believe the establishment of conservation area provides a more sustainable source of water for production and living, 83% of households thought that this establishment reduces flooding in raining seasons. Key government staff of districts and provinces voiced the opinion that livelihoods of local people are closely linked with forests, and if people have other income sources, the pressure on forests will be less. Therefore it is necessary to address this issue in the establishment of conservation areas by e.g. re-classifying some protection and conservation forest areas into production forest, and to determine clear boundaries between strict protection areas, ecological rehabilitation areas, and buffer zones to allow for appropriate, specific management approaches in each area and at the same time to create employment and income opportunities for local people from rattan production, handicraft, and others. In Dak Nong, the relation between forest protection by state-owned forest enterprises (SFE) and local communities' access to forest products is considered in two aspects: Forest protection negatively affects living of households: At first, 33% of households believed that their incomes from forests were reduced. In practice, communities still collect NTFP from protection forests; only timber, firewood and some valuable NTFP are prohibited. The second impact is reduction of cultivation area, which is evident from reality: Land planted with trees by forest enterprises often includes fallow fields and also cultivated fields, which causes households to move further into forests and destroy them for agricultural cultivation. SFEs did not consider participatory land use planning which could help to link SFE plantation establishment with local traditions of land management. Positive impacts of forest protection: Over 50% of households are aware of the fact that strict forest protection by forest enterprises limits forest destruction and helps to conserve water sources for people’s living and to prevent floods. 28% of households believe that with the mix of forest protection and business activities, SFEs could invest back into villages in form of e.g. construction of meeting halls and schools. The principle legal equality in land and 56 Comment [EK8]: I forgot to mark the changes in these paragraphs, sorry! forest contracting between state-owned forest organization and individual households was acknowledged, however, such equality does not yet exist in reality for communities. Studies in Bach Thong district showed that the majority of good income households participated in protection contracts with SFE; however, benefit sharing mechanism is not clear among stakeholders. In Thanh Hoa, there is no close coordination between stakeholders in contracting land and forests, local people did not understand contract mechanism, and the areas contracted to households are not appropriate. Comment [EK9]: Unclear! The Head of Huc Nghi commune, Dak Rong district, Quang Tri indicated that before 2004, some households were hired by SFEs to plant and protect, but they did not get payments and therefore cancelled the contracts. In Dak Nong province, forest contracting is carried out for protection forests, and contracted areas are equally divided between households or even members of households. Fee for each contracted hectare is 50.000 VND. In the study area, the contracted area is determined based on number of people in households and each person received 3 ha for protection. For example, a household with 6 persons will have 18 ha of forest for protection and receive 900.000 VND per year. Around 45% of households believe that there is inequality in forest protection contracting, 43% thought contracting is not clear, and 13% believe that everything is in order. From the interviews it can be seen that inequality lies in the fact that people did not have opportunities to participate in discussions, division of protection areas, since all this is done by SFEs. This leads to the situation that some households got areas far away from settlements, some others closer ones, and sometime, the areas are also not equivalent to each other. Nearly all households believe that fee for protection is too low and not equivalent to required labor, for example 50.000 VND is just enough for 2 days going into forests. In reality, contracted protection forests are far from residential areas and on steep slopes and high mountains which makes it really difficult and time-consuming to patrol. Thus the fee for protection is considered a support to hunger reduction and has little meaning in involving communities in forest management. c. Group discussion results Participants in the group discussions reasoned that State regulations stipulating strict forest protection cause reduction of cultivation and grazing areas and products extractable from forests. Other incomes from forests do not exist, and the State does not support training to facilitate diversification of income sources. The solutions identified by the group discussions to solve the conflicts between forest protection, biodiversity conservation and people’s living are as follows: 1) Establishment of favorable regulations on forest products utilization by local communities, and collaboration mechanisms between neighboring communities; 2) Increase contracted protection areas and cost norms for protection fees; 3) Include grazing area in land use planning; 4) Support training for new occupations and support creation of new sources of income; 5) Support 57 Comment [EK10]: What does that mean' establishment of community-based wood and NTFP processing organizations; 6) Increase people’s awareness on role of forests. Comment [EK11]: Better not mention cooperatives, just leave it open 5.4.2.4. Inequality in forest and land contracting between State forestry organizations and households and communities a. Questionnaire analysis 24.37% of interviewed people believed that there is inequality in land and forest contracting between State forestry organizations and households and communities. 35.5% of interviewees would like to cultivate NTFP species on contracted areas. b. Case studies and semi-structured interviews The case study in Bach Thong district shows that the majority of households with good economic conditions participated in contracting with SFE, however there is unclear benefit sharing mechanism in contracting. In Thanh Hoa, there is no close collaboration between stakeholders in forest and land contracting. People are not clear about contracting mechanism, the area contracted to households is not appropriate and not open in land and forest contracting. Comment [EK12]: What does that mean' The Chairman of Huc Nghi commune in Dak Rong district- Quang Tri province let us know that before 2004, there are some households hired by SFE to plant, protect forest but did not get any payment so far, therefore people did not implement any protection, tending activities. In Dak Nong province, forest protection contracting is for protection forest. Usually, contracted area is divided equally among households or based on the number of persons in households. For each hectare under protection, households get 50,000 VND. In the research area, the contracting area is calculated based on the number of persons in the households and each person got 3 hectares for protection, for example, there are 6 persons in a household, then that household gets 18 hectares and 900,000 VND a year for forest protection. 45% of households thought that there is inequality in forest protection contracting, 45% is unclear, and 13 % believed that everything is good. From interviewing, it is clear that inequality exists because people were not allowed to participate in discussion, division of protection areas, all this is done by SFE. At the same time, majority of households believe that protection fee is too low, does not correspond to protection labor, for example, 50,000VND for 1 hectare protection in one year is equivalent to 2 working days in a year. In reality, forests under protection contracting are very far and on high mountains, therefore, households are difficult to organize regular patrols, and protection fee becomes a support to poverty rescue and has little meaning in involving local communities in forest management. c. Group discussion results Group discussions identified as reasons for the problems that firstly, the understanding among local people about contracting is limited. Furthermore, the poor did not get attention from enterprises; budgets for contracting are limited; collaboration in land and forest contracting is not clear and well understood; and contracting is not open to everybody. The areas contracted to households are not appropriate. The solutions identified include: 1)Clear agreements on rights and duties of stakeholders; 2) 58 Comment [EK13]: That is the same as §§ 90-93. Is it really necessary to repeat the results when they are the same like in the household interviews' Joint land use planning involving SFEs, communities and households; 3) Form coordination bodies between SFE and communities; 4) Establish forest contracting co-management demonstration models. 5.4.2.5. Income for NTFPs is declining a. Questionnaire results According to the survey results, incomes from NTFP originate mainly from 4 groups: Food (61.8%), raw materials for handicraft (48,1%), materials for construction (40%), and medical plants (38.7%). 42.5% of interviewed people believe that income from NTFP has reduced in recent years, 12% suggest that it has increased and that makes for around 20% of total household income. b. Case study and semi-structured interview results In Bac Kan province, in the recent years, NTFP income of local people among households is about 5 - 7% of total income (before around 20 - 30%). The variety of species and volume of NTFP reduces more and more; some species do not exist anymore or are very scarce such as some birds and beasts. People have to go very far to harvest. The reasons of NTFP income reduction are: • Rapid population growth leads to increased demand for NTFP; meanwhile the State imposes regulation on harvesting prevention for several product from forests • Loose management leading to illegal harvest • Not much attention to growth and development of NTFP species. • Mainly raw products are harvested and sold with little added value for local communities • Processing base nearly does not exist. In Quang Tri province, NTFP harvesting contributes considerably to income of local people (around 30% of total income). However, due to overexploitation, wrong techniques, and lack of protection and growth, NTFP volumes have severly declined over time (33/40 households affirmed that harvested volume declined very much). Solution for NTFP is land allocation to households to manage and use. With land and forest direct allocation, households will have responsibility and incentives to protect and develop NTFP species for income. Extension organization should provide guidance to local people on techniques for protection, sustainable extraction, cultivation, and harvesting of NTFPs. In Dak Nong, NTFPs are truly diverse and almost all households harvest and sell them. Nearly 90% of households harvest vegetables, bamboo and rattan shoots for own consumption and selling, 65% interviewed people harvest plants for use as medicine. The indigenous knowledge of ethnic minority groups in medical plants is a point to be noticed! 50% of households often harvest forest products for home appliances, storage facilities at home, and stables for cattle keeping from bamboo and rattan. NTFP were in the past an unnoticed resource free to everyone until they were overexploited and exhausted. 59 Comment [EK14]: Percentage is missing 23% of households think that incomes NTFPs have increased, which seems justified given the fact that with dwindling volumes market prices and thus incomes increase. However, higher prices lead in turn to overexploitation mainly by more and more people from outside areas who come into the forests to collect NTFPs in search of fast money, without the slightest consideration to sustain the resource. Since these forests are not allocated to local communities, they do not have powerful owners who could help to prevent these "hit and run" practices. c. Group discussion results Participants of the group discussions reasoned that outsiders come into the forests for illegal exploitation, which are hard to fence off due to a lack of management, harvesting and protection plans, and mechanisms, which do not exist since the forests do not have owners. Indigenous NTFPs are declining due to overexploitation and forest fires, and other NTFP species were not supplemented. Since many organizations and individuals buy NTFPs it is difficult to control the market. The proposed solutions include: 1) Policy making for NTFP development; 2) NTFP development planning for each specific region; 3) Professional village-based processing development and market enhancement; 4) Enriching forests by high valuable species with special attention to NTFP crops; 6) Model establishment for high valuable species that replace exhausted NTFP like cinnamon; 7) Selection of good NTFP species; 8) Support to NTFP crops growing and NTFP processing; 9) Community regulation establishment for NTFP management; 10) Extension for NTFP development; 11) Strengthening management planning and information on NTFP. 5.4.2.6. Little impact of 661 Project on poor households a. Questionnaire results Local people participate in the 661 Project through seedling production activities, forest planting, tending and protecting. Benefits from 661 Project are wages, jobs, grants and loans for forest planting. However, participation and direct benefits are very low illustrated by only 2 - 20% of interviewed persons participating in the 661 Project. b. Case study and semi-structured interview results In Bac Kan province, local people knew very little about the 661 Project, few knew through mass media like TV, radio or visits to other locations. In Bach Thong district territory, the 661 project was implemented in 4 communes, but the 2 communes included in this study had not bee involved in 661 Project. Activities of the project focus on forest plantation for paper raw materials and protection. These activities have been carried out from 1995. Target households of the projects are households living close to protection forests, and households with forestry land. However, due to the low protection fee cost norm, not many households have been involved in forest protection. In Thanh Hoa province, fees for protection are also low and time for protection is quite limited. The 661 Project did not concentrate on the poor, but targeted households with good working conditions (good income and rich ones). One of important objectives of 661 Project 60 is to create jobs and increase incomes of local communities though participation of households, individuals and communities in project activities. However, 661 Project funds and effect of fund utilization are low. According to the district leaders, the main reason of the low effectiveness is the fact that the 661 Project management board is not under district management, but under the Huong Hoa SFE. As a result the 661 Project is carried out in the working area of that SFE. The discussions at district level indicate that to increase the effectiveness of 661 Project, the 661 Project management must first be transferred to functional bodies of the district; at the same time planning of 661 Project sites has to be adjusted in such a way as to facilitate local people implementing the 661 Project, thus creating jobs and increasing incomes. The area covered with plantation could be allocated to households for management. In Dak Nong province, the survey results show that none of the interviewed households knew anything about 661 Project, even not the commune leader, and that policies relevant to benefit sharing mechanism in forest plantation are based on the outdated 178 decision: The majority of people just participated in forest plantation and protection and were hired with fee from SFEs. This shows that policies were not disseminated to people, SFEs still shape their own policies and implement their own plans, and local people lost the opportunities to select appropriate solutions for their own and have better benefits. At the same time SFEs keep complaining about investment for protection forests. Benefits for households participating in the 661 Project are limited to payments for tending and protecting plantations. The number of interviewed household participating in this is not large with a maximum of 25%. Households cannot ask for loans or cooperate with SFEs commercial forestry and benefit sharing. At the same time seasonal contracting through the 661 Project does not create sustainable livelihoods for households. The reasons are low cost norms of the 661 Project (4 million of VND/4 years), lack of investment for intensive cultivation (fertilizer), lack of forest fire prevention, and low expenditures for laborers. c. Group discussion results The group discussions identified the low investment rate for protection forests in the 661 Project as a major shortcoming (4 million VND over 4 years), and the resulting lack of investment for intensive cultivation, and low payment for labor. The 661 Project does not pay attention to the poor, but only to the good income households. With its present features and approaches, the 661 Project is not equipped to contribute to poverty reduction for forestdepending communities in the highlands. Solutions to improve the impact of the 661 Project on the poor include: 1) Focus 661 Project activities on the poor; 2) Increase investment norms to allow for high-yielding plantations; 3) Involve local communities in forest planning, management and protection through participatory approaches; 4) Increase cost norms for protection; 5) Provide funds for protection forest development. 61 5.4.2.7. Wood and NTFP harvesting and processing have little impact on poverty reduction a. Questionnaire results At community level, forest products processing is simple, with simple technologies for foodstuff and medical plants. Activities of wood and NTFP processing have created several job opportunities and good selling chances for local people, but have not much influence living conditions of the poor. 27.5% of people interviewed stated that there is are initial wood processing facilities in their location. 21.87 % believe that wood and NTFP processing bring benefit to local people through creation of jobs. 45.6% of interviewees wanted to be trained in wood and NTFP processing techniques, and 40.1% would like to have support on techniques for wood and NTFP processing b. Case study and semi-structured interview results At present there are only few wood and NTFP processing units mainly at household level. The benefits from these activities are very small because of: • Units are small and does not involve many local laborers • Only few products are processed which have no stable market • Processed products are simple and of low quality • Procedures for exploitation are complicated and time consuming, therefore people harvest illegally and sell at low prices to timber sawing workshops • Raw material source is not enough for more modern and larger-scale processing. Consultation research results in Ta Long and Huc Nghi communes of Dak Rong district in Quang Tri province show that there are only very few wood processing activities. The whole Huc Nghi commune has only one timber-sawing workshop located closely to the commune people’s committee building which specializes in chair and table production. This workshop was established with support from state budget, and the two persons working in this unit were sent to professional training but their skills remain very limited. The workshop operates when contracts come in. In each village there are some households producing back rattan baskets to be sold to neighboring villagers at around 100.000 VND apiece. To increase incomes for poor households it would be necessary to establish groups of handicraft products production and enlarge markets. The state should support construction of some rice processing mills for local people. In the Dak Nong province sample, wood processing is a separate “business territory” of SFEs and private companies and local people nearly stay out of these activities. Enterprises built sawing mills and furniture and rattan workshops located quite close to forests. However, these workshops have problems with raw materials and involve only few local people. The majority of workers comes from other areas because of the assumption that local people do not have sufficient skills, and that it is not easy to provide training to them. Apart from the fact that good income households could locally buy timber for house 62 construction, and that some firewood, sawing dust and tree barks (36% of respondents) are locally available, forest products processing has very little impact on rural household economic development, or in other words the poor in highland areas do not benefit from this activity. In future, when communities are hoped to have legal access to forest products, the issue at hand is to create processing units that involve local people, create jobs, and produce as much added value as possible at community level. At present enterprises do not link well with local people: Processing workshops use professional workers from outside, or wood processing is just very basic involving only few local people, and most NTFPs are sold as raw materials without an processing. At the same time communities lack funds, technologies, techniques and training, and have only limited market access, which needs to be addressed in future. c. Group discussion results The problem issues summarized by the group discussions include the facts that NTFP processing is often done by enterprises without involving local people, that processing workshops use only skilled workers from outside, and that NTFPs are at community level sold mainly as raw materials without processing. Communities lack capital, techniques, and have only limited or no legal access to raw material sources for processing. Local people are not trained in processing techniques. Solutions identified comprise: 1) Create operational policies to support the strengthening of local NTFP and wood processing units (range of products, equipment); 2) Promote investment opportunities into highland wood and NTFP local processing factories for outside investors; 3) Facilitate formation of local wood and NTFP processing cooperatives; 4) Create raw material areas under community management; 5) Facilitate training and provision of equipment for wood and NTFP processing techniques to local people; 6) Strengthen role of communities in monitoring and steering timber and NTFP extraction and processing. 5.4.2.8. Little benefits for poor people from forestry extension, training and research a. Questionnaire results Benefits received by people came mainly from technical training, which was mentioned by 55% of respondents, while extension and research were mentioned by only 5%. The need is high: 68% of respondents need training support, 47.5% prefer technical demonstration models, 46% would like to establish interest groups, and 36% want to have support in techniques and market information. b. Case study and semi-structured interview results Up to now, in the study area there are nearly no or only very few forestry extension research activities. Currently there are activities on funding, seedlings, technical training for maleleuca, acacia, rattan planting through PAM 5322 project, and an acacia planting project for paper raw materials. In practice local people participating in these activities received technical training. The majority of poor people stated, however, that they did not receive any benefits from extension and research programs, and that implemented projects and programs did not pay much attention to involving people. Local people just take part in carrying out activities like forest planting and tending but are not involved in planning, monitoring and 63 evaluation activities. Local people, especially the poor, receive very few benefits from extension and research because of: • Low level of local people’s knowledge leading to the fact that people do not apply techniques correctly • Extension force is weak, capacities of extensionists are limited and do not meet requirements of local people • Village and commune extension workers do in general not exist (only few communes have commune extension staff) • Forestry and agricultural extension cadres do not speak local languages, which causes difficulties in communicating and instructing techniques to local people • None of the sample communes had nurseries. Forestry extension after land allocation almost is not carried out in Dak Nong province. The province just focuses on agricultural extension including technical training and demonstration models. Agricultural extension staff did not analyze fully local people’s problems to be addressed by extension cadres, the cadres themselves are not clear about how to best support communities in income and livelihood improvement from forestry and believe that forest trees have a too long time rotation and are therefore not appropriate for the poor. Forest planting is thus done mainly by SFEs. The reasons causing the above situation is that forestry extension is difficult to be undertaken by untrained agricultural extension staff and local communities, that poor households seemingly do not meet the requirements to be selected as sites for model construction, and that extension staff is afraid that poor people will fail. Therefore mostly good income households are selected for model construction, which are in turn not applicable to the poor. c. Group discussion results The group discussions reiterated that forestry extension is a difficult field for extension staff and local people. The poor often do not meet the conditions to establish forestry extension models. Extension staff fears that models established at poor households will fail. Thus good income households are selected for models, which are difficult to be replicated to the poor. Solutions identified by group discussions include: 1)Formulation of specific policies and approaches for the poor; 2) Establishment of mechanism of involving the poor in forestry extension; 3) Involvement of the poor in research activities; 4) Policy making for quality and quantity improvement of community and village extension staff; 5) Formation of village extension units; 6) Provision of support services to the poor such as credit groups; 7) Development of demonstration models specifically addressing the poor; 8) Demand-based techniques and technology development including "Participatory Technology Development"; 9) Establish link with information services on markets and technologies; 10) Use characteristics of middle-income households who just overcame poverty as benchmarks for 64 extension to poor households. 5.4.2.9. Forestry policies are unclear to local people a. Questionnaire results The survey results show that many respondents did not know or were unclear about conditions for forest and land allocation (60%), duration of land allocation (72%), credit markets (75%), forest products allowed / not allowed for exploitation (75%), and available agricultural and forestry technical support (89%). b. Case study and semi-structured interview results Forestry relevant policies disseminated in the sample localities include: Forest and land allocation (02/CP decree), rights and duties of forest owners when they receive forests and land (178 decree), law on forest protection and development, decree 360 on exploitation and processing of forest products. People got to know about these policies and decrees through dissemination by village heads, commune forestry officers, mass media and extensionists, but do not understand or remain unclear about their contents. Local people do not understand clearly policies and regulations for the following reasons: • Some items in promulgated policies are not specific, clear, thus it is difficult to use and apply in reality (specifically 178 degree/CP) • Policies still overlap each other and are not stable • Dissemination and propaganda of these policies are still limited (due to low capacity of local staff and lack of communication means like speakers, news boards, leaflets) • Policies sometimes bring nuisance to local people like policy on timber exploitation for house construction among new independent households (better not to know) • Relevant authorities do not disseminate information clearly to people • Understanding ability of local people is still limited. c. Group discussion results The group discussions argued that forestry policies were not propagandized clearly and in time to local levels like commune and village. Local authorities do not disseminate well information on important forestry policies (for example decrees 01, 163, 661, 178) and do not show much interest in feedback on the policy implementation process through participatory discussions. In addition communication means are in shortage. Solutions identified in relation to improving the understanding about forestry policies include: • Modify and supplement formulation of policy items in such a way as to make them understandable for local people (without of course changing the meaning) • Involve local people in assessing policy implementation • Focus on policies for the poor 65 • Decentralize policy implementation process • Strengthen capacities for policy implementation • Promote dissemination of forestry policies to local people. 5.4.2.10. Administrative procedure to legally access forest products is complicated a. Questionnaire results The duration for completion of administrative procedures for forest exploitation lasts in average for 2 weeks and runs through 5 administrative levels from households to district agricultural division. b. Case study and semi-structured interview results In all localities regulations were in place on exploitation and circulation of forest products, based on State regulations. However, allmost all respondents stated that the administrative procedures on exploitation and circulation of products from forests are too complicated and unclear, and require too many steps for approval by too many involved institutions. The long time needed to get approved leads to a decline of product value and thus has negative impacts on local people’s income. For exploitation of plantation forests it takes 2 weeks to get approval documents, for natural forests this period can easily extend to one month or more. For exploiting timber for house construction, for example, local people have to get signature of village head and the approval by the commune, and submit this document to the district. At district level, functional bodies examine the documents and even undertake costly measurements in the field. After this the functional bodies submit the documents to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development at province level for review and endorsement. Only after these many steps can the forest ranger stations issue permits. The procedures are so complicated that almost no forest owner can follow them himself. Thus mainly the traders take care of these documents. The administrative system is assessed to still have the following shortcomings: • Contents of required documents overlap each other • Guidance documents on exploitation and transportation do not reach local people. Thus these people are unclear on procedures for required documents. • Officers do not provide the best conditions to people, sometimes still make the process more complicated • The level of obeying regulations among people is not high • Decentralization in document approval is not clear • Control mechanism is not good because of too many procedures and steps. c. Group discussion results The group discussions concluded that there are too many procedures for harvesting and marketing/circulation. Devolvement in grating permission remains unclear, and the monitoring system and mechanisms are weak. People are not involved at all in the 66 formulation of procedures. Solutions identified in relation to administrative procedures include: 1) Improve administrative procedures in forestry resources use and protection, especially for exploitation of wood via "one door" policy; 2) Simplify more procedures for wood exploitation and circulation; 3) Clarify and enact decentralization in forestry resources management; 4) Create opportunities for local people to participate in regulation establishment in forestry at local levels; 5) Improve skills and attitude for different level administrations; 6) Carry out participatory monitoring and evaluation in forestry resources management; 7) Promote legal document dissemination to communes and villages. 5.4.2.11. Local people have few opportunities to participate in planning, monitoring and evaluation of forestry activities a. Case study and semi-structured interview results In Bac Kan province, in activities relevant to forestry and programs, projects implemented like: PAM 5322, acacia plantation for paper raw material, local people just participate in implementation, plantation tending and protection. They do not have opportunities to participate in planning, decision-making, monitoring and evaluation. The lack of active involvement of local people in forestry programs is the main reason for the low effectiveness of the programs. Reasons for the limited participation of local people are: • Projects are not open to participatory approaches, local people receive information passively and top-down • Awareness of people is still limited, therefore they to not pro-actively seek involvement and also do not know about benefits • People are not invited to participate in planning stage, decision-making, monitoring and evaluation • Monitoring capacity of local people is weak • Local people are not yet accustomed to and concerned with planning, monitoring and evaluation. Key officers of communes, districts, and provinces involved in the consultation stated that this problem originates with the socio-economic plans submitted by commune level to higher levels having been drafted without contribution from local people (only some projects require people’s participation, not the drafting of the socio-economic development plans despite decree 28/1998 on grass root democratization). People therefore just take part directly in implementation and rarely participate in planning at commune, district or even higher level. In some villages with foreign-assisted projects, villagers participated in village planning, after that these plans were submitted to higher level authorities who use these plans as input data for their plans. Several basic reasons for little participation of local people in planning, monitoring and evaluating forestry activities were identified: (1) Information on planning requirement does 67 not reach local people; (2) low level of people’s knowledge and no appropriate approach to involve local people in planning, monitoring and evaluating forestry activities; and (3) policies and administrative procedures of forestry projects do not require the involvement of local people in forestry activities. b. Group discussion results Participants of the group discussions stated that land use cannot be controlled because too many bodies and organizations are involved with conflicting interests. Thus local people lack clarity and consistence to be involved in discussing and solving land issues at the beginning of project/program formulation. Apart from that the capacities of local people in operational planning, monitoring and evaluation are still weak, and many local people are not accustomed to such activities. The group discussions identified the following solutions to enhance people’s participation in forestry activities: • Open and complete information provision on planning in forestry activities, implementation of local democracy mechanism (decree 29/1998) • Forestry extension promotion with full participation of local people in all implementation steps • Reinforce responsibility of village management board in village planning • Coordinate activities from SFE to ensure participatory planning • Train communities and commune administrations in planning, monitoring and evaluation methods • Enhance information dissemination on responsibilities and benefits in forestry projects and programs. 5.4.2.12. Other key issues Apart from the key issues discussed above, some other important issues were identified during the course of interviews and group discussions. These are: Lack of agricultural cultivation area and being unable to reach wood and NTFP market. As for markets for wood and NTFP products, this was an issue addressed by many people. At present the supply of timber and NTFPs faces difficulties in the market, and prices are not stable for the following reasons: • There is no consumption market and processing base at local level, therefore prices are controlled by private traders • Products harvested from forests decline and are not stable. • Quality of product does not meet standards • Lack of information on market. • As for land area available for agricultural production, people increasingly face 68 shortage due to increase in industrial crops area under corporate management and areas lost to hydropower. The resulting difficulties for local people to ensure food security causes increased infringement into forest areas. 5.4.2.13. Summary and prioritization of key issues among forest dependent people on basis of group discussion During the 76 group discussions conducted in the course of the survey to debate key issues of forest dependent people in highland areas, each group selected the 5 issues of highest concern. The resulting ranking of prioritized key issues is presented in table 5. Table 6: Summary of key issues in 4 provinces Provinces in the research No Key issues Total Average Bac Thanh Quang Dak Quantity Kan Hoa Tri Nong (%) 1 Forestry policies are unclear to people 13 5 9 16 43 56,57 2 Poor people receive little benefit from forestry extension and research 15 9 10 8 42 55,26 2 Income from NTFP is decreasing 13 9 7 13 42 55,26 3 Complicated administrative procedures for accessing and circulation of legal products from forests 14 15 0 8 37 48,68 3 Forestry land allocation does not help poor people overcome poverty 10 16 0 11 37 48,68 4 Conflicts between forest protection, biodiversity conservation and people’s living improvement 11 10 5 0 26 34,21 4 Wood and NTFP processing has little impact on poverty reduction 4 4 2 16 26 34,21 5 People have limited legal rights to use legal products from forests 7 8 2 8 25 32,89 6 Local people have few opportunities to participate in planning, monitoring and evaluation of forestry activities 14 6 1 3 24 31,57 7 Inequality in forest land and forest contracting among SF organizations and households and communities 1 10 0 6 17 21,51 8 Project 661 has little direct impact on income of poor people 0 8 1 3 12 15,78 10 13,15 3 3,94 Other issues 12 Shortage of cultivation land area 13 There is no stable market for wood and NTFP products consumption 10 3 Source: Group discussion of field consultation 69 Based on this prioritization the following 5 most pressing key issues of forest dependent people in high land areas have been identified: 1) Forestry policies are unclear to people, 2) Poor people receive little benefit from forestry extension and research, and income from NTFP is declining, 3) Complicated administrative system in accessing and circulation of forest products, and allocation does not help poor people overcome poverty, 4) Conflict between forest protection and biodiversity conservation, and people’s living improvement and wood and NTFP processing has little direct impact on poor people, 5) People have limited legal rights to use legal products from forests. From here it is possible to find out key issues of forest dependent people: The people have no clarity about forest policies, are in shortage of knowledge and technologies, direct incomes from forests decline, and market access is limited even if land for production purposes has been allocated. The difference in prioritization of key issues between ethnic minority communities is presented in the following table. Table 7: Prioritization of key issues by ethnic minority communities Tay people (Bac Kan province) 1. Poor people receive little benefit from forestry extension and research 2. Complicated administrative system in accessing and circulation of legal products from forests 3. Local people have few opportunities to participate in planning, monitoring and evaluation of forestry activities 4. Forestry policies are unclear to people 5. Income from NTFP is declining Thai people (Thanh Hoa province) 1. Forestry land allocation does not help poor people overcome poverty 2. Complicated administrative system in accessing and circulation of legal products from forests 3. Conflict between forest protection and conservation and people’s living improvement 4. Poor people receive little benefit from forestry extension and research 5. Income from NTFP is declining Van Kieu people (Quan Tri province) 1. Forestry policies are unclear to people 2. Forestry land and forests were not allocated to people 3. Poor people receive little benefit from forestry extension and research 4. Income from NTFP is declining 5. Shortage cultivation land area M'nong people (DakNong province) 1. Wood and NTFP processing has little direct impact on poverty reduction 2. Income from NTFP is declining 3. Forestry land allocation does not help poor people overcome poverty 4. Poor people receive little benefit from forestry extension and research 5. People have limited legal rights to use products from forests Source: Group discussion of field consultation The two key issues of high concern to all communities are that incomes from NTFP are 70 declining, and that poor people receive little benefits from forestry extension and research. Prioritization of key issues by district staff is presented in the following table: Table 8: Prioritization of key issues by district staff Bach Thong district Bac Kan province 1. Poor people receive little benefit from forestry extension and research 2. Forestry policies are unclear to people 3. Income from NTFP is declining 4. Forestry land allocation does not help poor people overcome poverty 5. Wood and NTFP processing has little impact on poverty reduction Thuong Xuan district Thanh Hoa province 1. Forestry land allocation does not help poor people overcome poverty 2. Inequality in forest land and forest contracting between SFE, households and communities 3. Project 661 has little impact on income of poor households 4. Local people have few opportunities to participate in planning, monitoring and evaluation of forestry activities DakRong Quan district Tri province 1. People use land ineffectively 2. Conflict between forest protection and conservation and people’s living improvement 3. Income from NTFP is declining 4. People lack of land for agricultural cultivation 5. Project 661 has little impact on income of poor households Dak Rlap district DakNong province 1. Forestry policies are unclear to people 2. Forestry land allocation does not help the poor overcome poverty 3. People have limited legal rights to use products from forests 4. Project 661 has little impact on income of poor households 5. Local people have few opportunities to participate in planning, monitoring and evaluation of forestry activities Source: Group discussion of field consultation The two key issues of high concern to district staff are that forestry land allocation does not help the poor overcome poverty, and that the 661 Project has little impact on income generation for poor households. Prioritization of key issues by district staff is presented in the following table: 71 Table 9: Prioritization of key issues by provincial staff Bac Kan province 1. Poor people receive little benefit from forestry extension and research 2. Forestry policies are unclear to people 3. Income from NTFP is declining 4. Forestry land allocation does not help the poors overcome poverty 5. Wood and NTFP processing has little impact on poverty reduction Thanh Hoa province 1. Inequality in forest land and forest contracting among SF organizations and households and communities 2. Forestry policies are unclear to people 3. Complicated administrative system in accessing and circulation of legal products from forests 4. Local people have few opportunities to participate in planning, monitoring and evaluation of forestry activities 5. Income from NTFP is declining Quan Tri province 1. Forestry policies are unclear to people 2. People use land ineffectively 3. Local people have few opportunities to participate in planning, monitoring and evaluation of forestry activities 4. Income from NTFP is declining 5. Complicated administrative system in accessing and circulation of legal products from forests DakNong province 1. Wood and NTFP processing has little direct impact on poverty reduction 2. Forestry land allocation does not help poor people overcome poverty poverty 3. People have limited legal rights to use products from forests 4. Local people have few opportunities to participate in planning, monitoring and evaluation of forestry activities 5. Project 661 has little direct impact on income of poor people Source: Group discussion of field consultation The decline of incomes from NTFP and the lack of opportunities for local people to participate in planning, monitoring and evaluation of forestry activities are two key issues mentioned by many respondents at province level. 5.4.3. Objectives of forest-based poverty reduction and rural livelihoods improvement a. Semi-structured interview results Income diversification • The objective to increase incomes from forest by diversifying sources of income has direct impacts on livelihood improvement of local people. This objective is realistic because presently people do not utilize effectively the potentials of forests and land. The productivity of agro-forestry and forest plantations is still very limited. Incomes from timber extraction in natural forests are low due to the lack of viable, legalized organizational and technical frameworks for timber extraction by local communities, and the resulting illegal logging practiced from outside and inside communities which bring only little economic benefits for the communities. At the same time potential income opportunities from environmental 72 services like soil and water protection, biodiversity and ecological tourism, and clean development mechanisms and forest certification are by and large not yet realized, but very likely to gain in importance. • The objective to increase income through diversifying sources of income from forests can be achieved by legalizing timber utilization and processing in the framework of community forest management (as called for in the new forest protection and development law of November 2004), establishing small-scale high-yielding forest plantations also in remote highland communities, intensifying agro-forestry cultivation, and initiating and further developing payments for environmental services in a regional, national, and even international context. Job creation • The objective of income diversification from forest utilization is enhanced by the objective to create job opportunities from forestry development activities, as both have direct impact on poverty reduction and livelihoods improvement of highland communities. The results of discussions indicate that this objective is necessary and feasible because more and more investment projects for forest plantations increasingly implemented by the private sector will create new jobs, as will the legalization of timber extraction, and wood and NTFP processing. • This objective is implemented through strengthening the involvement of local people, especially the poor, in forest development activities, through joint stock mechanism, and enhancing of local wood and NTFP processing. Improvement of livelihood based forestry development It has been mentioned before that the contributions from forestry development alone in terms of increased incomes from forestry, strengthening sustainable approaches to natural resource utilization, and human resource and capacity development will not result in sustained livelihood improvement for highland communities unless supported by means available with other sectors. This objective is also likely to be achieved if Government policies pertaining to decentralization and public administrative reform together with specific development approaches and projects related to poverty reduction and growth, gender equality, and particularly to highland communities can effectively be brought on the ground through appropriate collaboration and cooperation mechanism between the different actors involved in rural development activities. The improvement of extension and training is of particular importance in this context. 73 Comment [EK15]: I have totally rephrased this chapter and changed the meaning: The previous wording had overlaps with the other objectives and was not clear. Please check whether my understanding is right, or whether I misinterpreted the original version! Table 10: Ideas on poverty reduction and livelihood improvement objectives from group discussions Practicability/ Necessity Objectives Agreement rate Reasons Feasibility/ Implementability Agreement rate How to achieve Reasons Which income source Done by whom Income 100% increase through diversifying income sources from forests High land poor people closely link to forests, income from forests is diverse but is not developed sustainably, remained forests are mainly poor, therefore, it is necessary to focus on wood products production and NTFP production, to combine production and protection in community forests, to create diverse income from environmental service to supplement to income from forests 100% There is a quite great forest resource, local labor is plentiful, there are conditions for development of many kinds of forest products, land allocation appropriate to community forest management, forest multiuse, people have good indigenous knowledge and ready to participate with encouragement From wood, firewood, NTFPs, export medical plants, from environmental fees for the high land poor people. Income of poor and living close to forest households occupies 40-50% of total income Communities, agricultural and forestry extension, commune people’s committees, villages, environmental and forestry State management bodies Creation of job opportunities from forest and forestry development 100% Necessary to develop forestry professions in rural areas like nursery, craftsmen jobs from NTFPs, forest plantation, create local processing bases to utilize forest subproducts like branches from thinning, develop processing technologies to attract local labor force and increase people’s knowledge 100% People and communities care about, local young labor force, low income, resources from forests From nurseries, craftsmen professions, forest plantation, each community can have a wood products processing base Communities, commune people’s committees, villages, profession training schools, service cooperatives, investment bodies Integration of forestry into rural society development 100% One needs to develop effects of forest resources to poverty reduction, to invest to rural industry, provide professional training to increase household management skills and production capacity, create a stable financial base for the poor to develop livelihoods 100% Favorite factors of nature, local labor force, and indigenous knowledge, united communities, infrastructure development in villages from 135, 133 programs 5 livelihood factors achieved in which concentration is on nature, people and finance Communities, different level authorities, forestry extension 74 5.4.4. Solutions for forest based poverty reduction and livelihoods improvement a. Test through questionnaire analysis Solution on NTFP development: 100% Percentage of HH In the solution on income increase from NTFP, the support to NTFP growing was selected with the highest percentage (78%). Apart from this, 53% of households proposed necessity of support to input services (technology, seeds, techniques) and market for products, diversifying NTFP for production was also mentioned (38%) Solutions for income increases from NTFP 78% 80% 53% 60% 38% 40% 20% 20% 0% n ' 1: 'oài 2: Tă l 'rây 3: H g t 'r 4h H c: t d 5: Khác 1 2 3 4 5 ' lư c ' LSNG ư trg, phát tri v vào, n ' u ' 1- Increase of volume exploited from forest 'ư Increase number of species legally exploited from forsets p ' khai thác h LSNG ra cho LSNG 2' t n 'g r 3-rSupport to pháp t development of NTFP 4- Support to input and output for NTFP 5- Others Solution on increase of income from forests: Solutions mu income increases r ngwood Mong for n tăng thu t from 80% 60% %S h Percentage of For poor forest areas and to improve income, the proposed solution is to focus on forest enrichment measures by planting indigenous, fast-growing, multi-use species (68%). Apart from this, application of appropriate silviculture techniques in wood, firewood exploitation from rehabilitation forest areas from daily living and production 18% 40% 20% 68% 50% 40% 30% 23% 15% 0% 1: Tăng 2; Tăng 3: Tăng 4: Tăng 5: Áp 5 6: Khác 1 2 3 4 6 1- lIncrease ofs loài exploitation volume di n t ích d ng ti n ư ng 2- Increase of exploitable khoán khai cây khai species tr ng bi n 3- Increase of protection fee thác thác b ov xen pháp 4- Enrichment solution and others làm giàu 5- Fast-growing multi-use r ng species r ng 6- Others 75 Solution on inequality settlement in forest protection contracting: In practice, the protection fee is 50,000VND/ha/a year is paid fully. However, organizing, planning for contracting areas do not involve people’s participation, therefore, for being better and more transparent, it is necessary to attract more participation of local people, communities 50% 50% 48% 40% 30% 23% 20% 18% 8% 10% 0% 1: 2: 3: 6: 6 Khác 1 Tăng 2 Cho 3 H t r 44: Quy 5: H t r 5 ti n c ông phép khai k hu ch b p 1- Increase of protection tfee,t , 2-hoPermiti tohát tri n wood planned b ov thác lâm vn chăn th ngành exploitation, 3- Technique and fund support of NTFP r ng s n ngoài phát tri n ngh development, g t heo lâm s n planning, 5- Support to 4- Grazing field profession development, 6- Other quy ho c h ngoài g C ách gi i quy t in forest Conflict settlementb t bìnhandng trong land contracting khoán b o v r ng 30% 20% 10% 28% 23% 13% 10% 5% 0% 1: Tuyên 2: H p và 3: Khóan4 4: Kho n 5: Khác 1 2 3 5 truy n ph c t c d meeting and 1- Propagandakhóan policies, t t2- Openi n on và land tích có bi n c hính công and contracting, 3- Badkhai good x u contracting to the poor, sách 4- Non-cultivatable area cho ngư i kh Others contracting, 5- năng nghèo Solution on being with ineffective forest contracting: gây tr ng of Gi i pháp solutions khi ineffective forest contracting Replacing thay th for khóan r ng không có h i u qu 30% Percentage %S h Majority of opinions believe that one needs to develop NTFP for income from poor forests, support to techniques. Many other opinions thought that there should be replanning of forest management subjects and forest allocation to communities 55% 60% % PercentageS h of Majority of opinions believe that there should be focus on NTFP development (55% of households), protection fee was mentioned many times (50%), increase of this fee and effectiveness of forest protection. Protection fee is determined on the basis of forest growth or value of environmental service of forests. Some people proposed to increase protection fee to 200,000 VND/ha/a year and protection is carried out in only necessary areas Gi i pháp h v a for protection a b o v r increase Simultaneous solutions có thu nh p v and income ng %S h Percentage of Solution on simultaneous forest protection and income achievement: 20% 10% 18% 23% 20% 10% 15% 0% 2: H t r 3:3 Cung 1: H tr 4: 4 ư c 5: Khác 1 2 5 p1- Support k tprofession development, tr ng hát tri n to hu t c p d c h v phép 2- Technique ngành u v and cây c support, 3- Support to input ào, output, 4- Permit to ngh u ra n s n 5special use and NTFP speciessplantation, và Others ph m LSNG 76 Solution on how 661 can help the poor: %S h Percentage of The first issue shows that information on policies, solutions of participation and benefit sharing in 661 was not disseminated to local people, even commune staff. Therefore, the first thing is to provide fully and clearly information on policies to households to select (30%). Priority of forestry extension is given to the poor was proposed Solution hút ngư i nghèo tham Gi i pháp thuon how 661 can help the poor gia 661 30% 30% 15% 20% 18% 8% 10% 8% 8% 0% 1: Tuyên 2: Tăng 3: Ưu tiên 4: Tăng 5: ư c 6: Khác 1 n, 2ư ng h 3tr k 4 t u phép tr ng 6 truy c su 5 cung Propaganda andhuenough tư t r ng xen cây 1- c p công tác t t c ho information provision, 2khuy n r ng ng n support to the y Forestry extension to ngư poor, 3- Technique ngày the i t hông tin lâm cho vào poor, 4- Increase of nghèo investment in forest di n plantation, 5ngư i tích nh n Permit to mixed plantation on forest areas, ng r ng 6- Others nghèo tr Solution on benefit reception from forest products processing for the poor: SGi i pháp the poor participation in lâm s n olutions for h tham gia ch bi n processing Percentage of HH %S h This discussion was very exciting and interested by many households and different level authorities from villages, communes, districts and provinces (as prioritized). High demand here is development of community level wood products processing. Resources come from allocated forests, planted areas. Communities manage themselves processing work. This solution bear the active meaning in creation of rural livelihood and labor involvement into forestry activities and rural industrialization 40% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 80% 63% 50% 35% 23% 1: 1 ào t o 2: H tr 3: M r ng 4 H tr 4: 5: Khác 2 3 5 s1-ch raining ontripreliminary processing, 2- Support to ơ T , phát n th trư ng t iêu th processing, s3- ch , nguyênof u s material market, 4ch bi n ơ Enlargement li raw n ph m Support to ch bi n consumption, 5- Others products 77 Method of forestry extension for the poor: Majority thought that one needs to form poverty reduction boards for villages (30% households), credit brigades and equally poor brigades were also interested highly by many people T ch cBgiúp supportito the poor t hơn etter ngư nghèo t 4.4: Ban xóa ói Village poverty t , nghèo reduction t hôn board 30% 5. Others 5: Khác 7% 11: Formation of . Thành l p nhóm equally ng poor ng groups peoplengư i n 19%ghèo 19% 3: T tín d ng 3. Credit to ngư i nghèo the poor 28% 28% 2: H System 2. th ng d c h vsupport of h tr ngư i nghèo to the 16% poor 16% b. Test using semi-structured interview results Increase of incomes from forests and trees COMMUNITY BASED MANAGEMENT OF MULTI-USE NATURAL FORESTS Effective and sustainable utilization and further development of natural forests cannot be based on individual households: On the one hand is it impossible to put allocated natural forests into effective use if compartmentalized into too small units (scale of economics). On the other hand is forest allocation to individual households costly to demarcate and difficult to control. Furthermore do natural forests in the vicinity of settlements serve a wide range of functions (timber, NTFP, water, recreation, cultural functions) not properly reflected in the classification of three forest types (production, protection, special use) at present still officially applied in Vietnam. For the management and utilization of natural forests by local communities it is therefore necessary to establish multi-purpose silvicultural forest management and utilization approaches suited to serve the economic, ecologic, and social needs of local communities in a sustainable way as basis for comprehensive, cross-sectoral community and rural development. This includes also the commercial utilization of timber resources. To increase income from this solution, it is necessary to carry out the following activities: Support to land use and land allocation planning at village level Establish benefit-sharing mechanism supportive to poverty reduction (clear regulations on the sharing of revenues between individual persons/households, village communities, and communes. Revenues from forest utilization should remain fully with the communities without any deductions by the state) Support communities to establish appropriate (i.e. simple and relevant) regulations and mechanism for community forest management Form organizations and legal framework for community forest management. 78 HIGHLAND FOREST PLANTATIONS Supply and demand forecasts indicate that forest plantations will play an important role in forest development in Vietnam and can become an important sustainable source of incomes also of highland communities. The basic challenges faced in this solution are remoteness and not easily accessible terrain of many communities, poor infrastructure, patchworks of small plots of different land uses, and indetermination of leading or key crops which could help to make land use more effective and "kick-start" local economic development. To fully realize the potentials of forest plantations for income generation in highland communities it is necessary to implement the following activities: • Link the establishment of forest industries with the identification of raw material areas (this requires a better coordination between the Ministries of Industries and MARD, the review and eventual adjustment of land use plans at different administrative levels, and the finalization of land allocation) • Provide for State support to infrastructure development in raw material areas, particularly in remote highland communes (this requires a better coordination of relevant projects such as the 661 Project and the 134 Project • Conduct research on high-yielding species appropriate to different areas and zones, and on seed production • Establish organizational links between commercial large-scale plantations and smallholder plantations in the raw material zones (e.g. "Nucleus Estate Plantations/NESP" as implemented in Malaysia and Indonesia, in which companies own and manage the processing facility and an adjacent large-scale plantation "core" area, and smallholders own and jointly manage individual plots in the surrounding "plasma" area). PAYMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Forests in highlands provide services to the whole society through water collection and retention (important for irrigation, hydro-electricity, and down-stream settlements and industries), positive effects on the climate (carbon fixation, cloud formation, biodiversity conservation, and as favored recreation areas. In view of the worldwide population growth and the industrialization process it is foreseeable that the environmental services provided by forests will be increasingly demanded and compensated in a regional and even international context. To ensure adequate payments to highland communities for environmental services provided by their forests the following activities should be carried out: • Determine and monetarize the value of environmental these services • Facilitate the emergence of supportive payment systems, be it indirectly (through public financial systems by which incomes from relevant sectors are redistributed in such a way as to contribute to the costs of public investments payments in highland areas) or 79 directly (e.g. payments by water-dependent down-stream industries into budgets of highland communes, or revenues of local persons, organizations, and companies from eco-tourism). • Acquaint highland communities with the environmental functions of their forests through provision of relevant information • Facilitate organizational development relevant to the marketing of environmental services and the local redistribution of direct incomes from environmental services. Job creation WOOD AND NTFP PROCESSING DEVELOPMENT AT LOCALITIES • Wood processing as well as large scale NTFP growing and processing activities contribute to income increase and job generation for local communities and people. This is a feasible solution because processing base is developed locally in raw material areas and does not require high techniques, but technologies that local people can deal with. • To implement this solution there should be many activities like enacting a favorable regulatory framework, human resource development, wood processing network planning, and support in business development planning as a means to access credit markets JOINT FORESTRY MANAGEMENT • As a result of Government policies to open the forestry sector to the society at large, more and more individuals, organizations and economic sectors participate in forest protection and development. This process often entails conflicts over forest resources due to the varying functions, responsibilities, interested, and benefits of stakeholders. Joint forestry management will strengthen the direct involvement of communities in decision-making and ensure proper harmonization and conflict solution. • Joint forestry management developed through a number of activities: o Develop policies and establish legal and organizational framework for forestry co-management in Viet Nam o Establishment of mechanism for environmental service payment o Establishment of forestry co-management organizations involving among State forestry units, enterprises, communities and local people o Joint land use planning and land allocation o Development of new forms of forest protection involving for State forestry organizations, communities and local people, o Support operational planning of co-management entities. • As all solutions described in chapter 4.4.2 also joint forestry management development solution received high support from local people. However, district and provincial staff members were reluctant, because they assumed that the differences in 80 Comment [EK16]: What does that mean exactly' management knowledge and awareness between local people, communities and forest management organizations will not be supportive to joint management approaches. Integration of forestry into rural society development PARTICIPATORY EXTENSION • The main task of forestry extension is to provide information on technologies, input and output markets, applicable regulations, existing support programs, and other relevant issues to farmers, and to help shaping appropriate training curricula. Forestry extension can be carried out in 2 forms: Externally predetermined extension programs, and participatory extension. Participatory forestry extension involves participatory approaches to research, technology development, forestry extension for the poor, and village and commune level forestry extension for highland areas. STRENGTHENING OF SECTOR INTEGRATION AND DECENTRALIZATION • Due to the strong role of the State, the forestry sector has in the past remained outside the mainstream of economic and society development in Vietnam and thus has tended to topdown approaches focusing on sectoral issues only. Government policies and the necessities of the transition to a market economy require that forest be better integrated into rural and national development, and that decision-making is decentralized to a level as close as possible to forest resources and forest users. • To achieve this solution it is important to better coordinate between MARD and MONRE in the issue of (forest) land use planning and (forest) land allocation, to devolve planning and decision-making to district and commune levels, and to strengthen the role of the private sector. In key provinces it is proposed that local governments form consultative groups for the forestry sector which should involve representatives of relevant departments, local communities, forest enterprises, processing companies, and other parties interested in and contributing to the forestry sector, such as research and training institutes, NGOs, and ODA projects. 81 Table 11: Solutions for poverty reduction considered in group discussions Solutions for poverty reduction 1. Community based multi-use forest management Practicability Agree rate Reasons 100% Forest is poor, thus need to diversify products Multi-use forest is necessary for community forest management model 2. Highland forest plantation economy development 100% Increase of long last income sources 3. Payment to environmental services 100% Natural forests are to be protected, thus there should be solutions different from forest products income because supply of these resources are limited for remote, poor forests 4. Wood and NTFP processing Increase of production management capacity, industrialization bases on forestry 100% Need of diversifying products from forests, Feasibility Agree rate Reasons How to implement 100% Local labor availability and rich forest resources, local experiences, traditions in community forest management, piloting the planning for community forest management Land and forest allocation to communities 100% Raw materials from forests, local labor, forest allocation to communities and links to processing Land and forest allocation to communities, profession training, favorite interest rate loans for processing development, service for market 100% People commit to take part due to increase of income from forests Who participate in Communities Contract, policies, mechanism on environment Able to develop plantations, enrichment of forests 100% Good indigenous knowledge, Research links to forestry extension on products from forests, management participatory planning Forestry extension SFEs Communities, commune people’s committees, villages, investment bodies Communities, people who receive land, Services, focus on remote, high environmental areas various level bodies Criteria for monitoring and evaluation Poor people have income increase from many products from forests, the income of people is long last and stable, forests develop stably Observation and field evaluation, household economy evaluation One village has a processing base Communities manage and monitor, evaluate socio-economic, environmental effects of community processing development Poor households have increase in income Income of household/ha of forest from environmental service Forests do not decline in quality Number of households escaping poverty through environmental services Land and forest allocation to communities Communities, agricultural and Method of monitoring and evaluation Poor households have income from Observation on contract implementation with stakeholder participation Household economy survey Field evaluation Evaluation of household 82 development at localities 5. Joint forestry management 6. Participatory extension development NTFP have a great potential of development and contribution to household income 91% SFE should base on communities to develop and protect forests, inappropriateness of current model in forest protection, contracting, people will participate in forestry activities, there is a need of benefit sharing and forest management power division between SFE and local people existence of natural forest, and many useful NTFPs 91% Planning plantation, exploitation and processing forestry extension, commune people’s committees SFE have a high demand Collaboration between SFE, Communities commune people’s committees, SFE villages in plan making, and Many local people plan implementation Commune have taken part in people’s forestry activities of committees SFE Communities are interested when there is a clear benefit sharing mechanism and equality 100% Need to develop forestry 100% There is ability of these forest products to people living close to forests development through forestry Need to have forestry extension extension for NTFP, services, market development to the poors Village forestry extension Poor people network, 01 forestry engineer Basal in communes with large area of agricultural and forest forestry Forestry extension mechanism extension for the poors Commune and district people’s Improvement of approach in forestry extension committees NTFPs economy Forest management decisions are with the participation of communities Periodical evaluation of activities with the participation of communities Benefit of forest resources management is shared equally and transparent among stakeholders including households Number of households that overcome poverty Evaluation of household economy Participatory monitoring Participatory monitoring Evaluation of Rate of income from household forests and forestry economy increases to 40% among poor households Techniques and technologies are to be from the need of the poors 83 5.4.5. Implementation of forest based poverty reduction solutions 5.4.5.1. Stakeholders in implementation of forest based poverty reduction The stakeholders include: • Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) including: Department of Forestry (DOF), Department of Cooperatives, Department of Forest Protection, National Extension Center, Department of Planning, Lecal Department • Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) • Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) • Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs (MOLISA) • Ministry of Finance • Finance and bank system • Committee for Ethnic Minorities and Mountainous Areas (CEMMA) • Local authorities • Mass organizations • NGOs • International organizations. Considering the directness of impacts and influences on forest based poverty reduction, the main stakeholders are DOF, Department of Forest Protection, National Extension Center (MARD), MOLISA, CEMMA, and some international organizations operating in the forestry sector. 5.4.5.2. Collaboration of poverty reduction solution implementation between stakeholders Table 12: Solutions and related stakeholders Solutions 1 Community based multi-use forest management Highland forest plantation economy development Department of Forestry Stakeholders Department of Forestry Stakeholders 3 P ayment to environmental services Department of sciences and technology Stakeholders 4 Wood and NTFP processing development at localities Department of Forestry Stakeholders 5 Joint forestry management Department of Agricultural and Forest Products Processing and Rural Stakeholders 2 Implementing agencies Collaborating agencies No 87 Occupations 6 P articipatory extension development National Extension Center Stakeholders 5.4.6. Monitoring, evaluation of poverty reduction and rural livelihoods objectives and solutions 5.4.6.1. Proposed indicators Impact level (objectives) • Income values and rate of income from forests for households and communities • Number of working days and number of jobs created by forestry activities • Impacts of forests and forestry development on rural livelihoods Activity level (solutions) • Community based multi-use forest management o Percentage of high land communities having land use planning o Percentage of high land communities having been allocated with land and forests o Percentage of high land communities having production alternatives, benefit sharing mechanism in communities o Total fund supported annually to community based multi-purpose forest management • Highland forest plantation economy development o Number of localities with plan of raw material area with processing o Economic structure of income from forests for households o Investment unit for forest plantations • Payments for environmental services o Total investment from payment to environmental protection services fund o Payment to communities from payment to environmental protection services fund • Wood and NTFP processing development at localities o Number of villages having wood and NTFP processing base o Economic structure of income from wood and NTFP processing for households 88 • Join forestry management o Area of land or forests managed by co-management form o Number of communities with forestry co-management form • Participatory extension o Annual investment to forestry extension o Number of people participating and benefiting from forestry extension o Rate of the poor households participating in forestry extension 5.4.6.2. Organization and methodology • Monitoring agencies: Different level people’s committees and councils • Evaluation agencies: Different level people’s committees and council, and mass organizations • Monitoring and evaluation approach: Combination of expert and participatory approach involving local people and managers at different levels 5.5. Proposal on contents to be included in National Forestry Strategy for period 2006 - 2020 5.5.1. Sustainable forestry development program Key issues • Forestry land allocation does not help poor people overcome poverty • People have limited legal rights to use products from forests • Income from NTFP is declining • Forestry administrative procedures are complicated in accessing and marketing forest products. Objective • Increase of income for local people through diversifying income sources from land and forests Solutions 89 • Increase income through highland forest plantation economy development and communitybased management of multi-purpose forests through: o Improve benefit sharing, consumption and circulation policies for forestry products o Improve forestry administration procedures relating to forestry products exploitation and circulation o Planning for raw material area in linkage with processing for each area o Establish NTFP development program o Planning for land use and allocate land and forests to communities with participation of villages o Establish regulations and internal forest benefit sharing mechanism for communities o Support strengthening capacity on forest management for communities o Support fund to communities to plan land use, allocate land and forests for multipurpose use Action plan 2006-2010 2006 Implementing body MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P High 2006 MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P High 20062008 MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P 4. Establish NTFP development program High 20062008 MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P 5. Planning for land use and allocate land and forests to communities with participation of villages 6. Establish regulations and internal forest benefit sharing mechanism for communities 7. Support strengthening capacity on forest management High 20062008 MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P Middle 20062010 MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P 20062010 MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P Activities Priority Time 1. Improve benefit sharing, consumption and circulation policies for forestry products 2. Improve forestry administration procedures relating to forestry products exploitation and circulation 3. Planning for raw material area in linkage with processing for each area High Middle Support Sponsor 90 for communities 8. Support fund to communities to plan land use, allocate land and forests for multi-purpose use Middle 20062010 MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P 5.5.2. Forest protection, biodiversity conservation and environmental services program Key issues • • Conflict between forest protection, biodiversity conservation and people’s living improvement Inequality in forest land and forest contracting among SF organizations, and households and communities Objective • Division of benefit from forests between State run forestry organizations, communities and households Solutions Establishment of policies and regulations for forest co-management in Vietnam 1) Establishment of environmental services payment mechanism for high land people and communities 2) Development of forest co-management between State run forestry organizations, communities and people 3) Land use planning and establishment of forest protection alternatives between State run forestry organizations, communities and people 4) Fund support to policy making and planning for forest co-management form Action plan 2006-2010 Implementing body MARD Support Sponsor Stakeholders FSSP&P 20062008 MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P 20062010 MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P 2006- MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P Activities Priority 1. Establishment of policies and regulations for forest comanagement in Vietnam 2. Establishment of environmental services payment mechanism for high land people and communities 3. Development of forest comanagement organizations between State run forestry organizations, communities and people 4. Land use planning and High 20062008 High Middle Middle Time 91 Activities Priority establishment of forest protection alternatives between State run forestry organizations, communities and people 5. Fund support to policy making and planning for forest comanagement form Time Implementing body Support Sponsor MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P 2010 High 20062008 5.5.3. Wood and NTFP processing and trading program Key issues • Wood and NTFP harvesting and processing have lillte impact on poverty reduction Objective • Increase income and job opportunities from wood and NTFP processing and trading activities for high land people and communities Solutions 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Policy making for high land wood and NTFP processing and business management Support to professional villages, household and community level wood and NTFP bases Research on small scale wood and NTFP processing technology Community-level high land wood and NTFP processing network planning Fund support to planning and development of high land wood and NTFP processing professional villages and factories. Action plan for 2006 -2010 Activities 1. Policy making for high land wood and NTFP processing and business management 2. Support to form professional villages, community level wood and NTFP processing factories 3. Research on small scale wood and NTFP High 2006-2008 Implemen -ting body MARD Middle 2006-2010 MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P Middle 2006-2010 MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P Priority Time Support Sponsor Stakeholders FSSP&P 92 processing technology 4. Community level high land wood and NTFP processing network planning 5. Fund support to planning and development of high land wood and NTFP processing professional villages and factories High 2006-2010 MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P High 2006-2008 MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P 5.5.4. Research, training and extension program in forestry Key issues to high land poor people • Poor people receives little benefit from forestry extension and research Objective • Enhance forestry knowledge and techniques for high land local people Solutions 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Implementation of participatory research form in forestry Institutionalization of participatory technology development Participatory forestry extension development for the poor Commune, village level forestry extension for high land areas Strengthening investment to high land forestry extension Action plan 2006-2010 Implemen -ting body MARD Support Sponsor Stakeholders FSSP&P 20062008 MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P High 20062008 MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P Middle 20062008 MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P High 2006- MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P Activities Priority Time 1. Implementation of participatory research form in forestry 2. Institutionalization of participatory technology development 3. Participatory forestry extension development for the poor 4. Commune, village level forestry extension for high land areas 5. Strengthening investment High 20062008 Middle 93 to high land forestry extension 2008 5.5.5. Strengthening policy, regulation framework, planning and evaluation of forestry activities Key issues • Forestry policies are unclear to local people • People have few opportunities to participate in planning, monitoring and evaluation of forestry activities Objective • Increase people’s participation in planning, monitoring and evaluation of forestry activities in communities Solution 1) 2) 3) Strengthening propaganda on forestry policies Renovating forestry policy making process toward people participation approach Renovating planning, monitoring and evaluation of forestry activities towards participatory approach Action plan 2006-2010 Activities Priority Time 1. Strengthening propaganda on forestry policies 2. Renovating forestry policy making process toward people participation approach 3. Renovating planning, monitoring and evaluation of forestry activities towards participatory approach High 20062008 20062008 High Middle 20062010 ImplemenSupport ting body MARD Stakeholders Sponsor FSSP&P MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P 5.5.6. 661 Project Key issues • Project 661 has little direct impacts on poor households 94 Objective Strengthening participation and job opportunities from 661 Project for the poor • Solutions 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Create policies prioritizing poor households and poor communities in the 661 Project Application of indicator of poor household participation rate in project Formation of all poor people groups working in project Adjustment of forest protection fee norm, forest protection for generation and forest plantation norms, clear regulation for benefit receiving mechanism from protection forest Monitoring and evaluation of job creation indicator in project Action plan for 2006 -2010 Activities 1. Making policies prior to the poors and poor communities in 661 Project 2. Application of indicator of poor household participation rate in project 3. Application of indicator of poor household participation rate in project 4. Adjustment of forest protection fee norm, forest protection for generation and forest plantation norms, clear regulation for benefit receiving mechanism from protection forest 5. Monitoring and evaluation of job creation indicator in project Priority Time ImplemenSupport ting body MARD Stakeholders Sponsor High 20062008 FSSP&P Middle 2006 MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P Middle 20062010 MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P High 20062008 MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P High 20062010 MARD Stakeholders FSSP&P 6. Conclusions and recommendations 6.1. Conclusions • According to the old poverty classification criteria, the rate of poor households in the research area still amounts to 50%, of middle-income households 30%, and good income households 20%. The average monthly per capita income is about 140,000 VND. If based on the 95 new poverty line of 200,000 VND per person and month, the rate of poor households is still higher, and stability level of poverty overcome households low. • The analysis of cost-income flow and rate of household groups shows that good income households spent 71.97% of their income, middle-income just escaped from poverty 82.9%, and poor households 94.9% • There is a basic difference in the composition of incomes between the different research areas. In Bac Can province, incomes from forestry of poverty overcome households reach 32.8% of total incomes, of good income households 16.8%, and of poor households 4.4%. In the Central Highlands province of Dak Nong, incomes from forestry reach for good income households 40%, and for poor households 17% of the total household income. • Based on case studies, sample data from questionnaires, semi-structured interviews and group discussions, the significance of 11 pre-formulated key issues of concern for forest dependent people in highland areas was tested, and 2 new issues identified. • From the consolidated results of 76 group discussions, 5 out of 11 key issues were identified having highest relevance: 1) Forestry policies are unclear to people, 2) Poor people receive little benefit from forestry extension and research, and income from NTFP is declining, 3) Land and forest allocation does not help forest dependent people overcome poverty, complicated administrative system in approaching and circulation of forest products, 4) Conflict between forest protection and conservation and people’s living improvement and wood and NTFP processing has little impact on the poor, and 5) People have limited legal rights to use products from forests. • In prioritizing key issues of forest dependent people in highland areas, differences between ethnic minority communities were found as well as between forestry management staff at province level, district level, and household groups. • Three objectives of forest-based poverty reduction and livelihood improvement were tested and found to be relevant and feasible to be achieved: 1) Income increase through diversifying income sources from forests, 2) creation of job opportunities from forest and forestry development, and 3) livelihood improvement through better integration of forestry development into rural development. • Four short-term and two long-term strategic solutions for forestry-based poverty reduction and livelihood improvement were identified: 1) Community base multi-use forest management, 2) Participatory forestry extension development, 3) Establishment of payment mechanism to environmental services of forests, 4) Forest joint- management development. Long term solutions included: 1) Wood and NTFP processing development in high land communities, 2) Plantation forest economy development in high land areas. The test results show that these solutions are relevant and feasible. 96 • For monitoring and evaluation, the research team has proposed 19 indicators to assess impact and monitor activities. • Key issues, objectives and solutions for poverty reduction and rural livelihood improvement tested through the field consultation research have been proposed to be included in 6 programs in the National Forestry Strategy in the period of 2006-2020. 6.2. Recommendations To follow up on the research on: “Forestry, poverty reduction and rural livelihoods improvement in Vietnam”, the research team proposes mor reserch is needed: 1) To study impacts of policies and development projects of forestry development to poverty reduction and high land livelihoods; 2) To study solutions on collaboration organization among poverty reduction and rural livelihoods improvement activities between ministries, sectors and development programs; 3) To establish strategic solutions for forest based poverty reduction and rural livelihoods improvement for each specific ecological area. 97 7. Annexes Annex 1: List of references Annex 2: List of participants of field consultation research Annex 3: Checklist of semi-structured interview Annex 4: Checklist of case study Annex 5: Group discussion framework Annex 6: Results of houshold interview Annex 7: List of interviewed people (household, case study, semi-structured) 98 Annex 1: List of references Part I: Decisions 1. Decision 80/2003/TTLT/BNN-BTC dated 3/9/2003. 2. Decision no 08/2001/QD-TTg dated 11/01/2001 of the PM on promulgation of regulations to manage special use forest, protection forests and production forests as natural forests. 3. Decision No 178/2001/QD-TTg of the PM on the benefits and obligations of households and individuals allocated, leased and contracted forests and forestry land. 4. Decision No. 04/2004/QD-BNN-PTLN on regulations to extract timber and forest products. 5. Decision No. 187/TTg dated 16/9/1999 of the PM on SFEs reforming. 6. Decision No. 85/2000/QD-TTg of the PM on land shortage problem solving for households in Central High Land area. 7. Decision of MARD on the announcement of national area of forests and forestry land in 2002. 8. Decision of the PM on Guidelines to implement the Decision 178/2001/QD-Ttg dated 12/11/2001 of the PM on Benefit and obligation of households and individuals allocated, leased or contracted forests or forestry land. 9. Decision of the PM on Guidelines to implement the Decision 178/2001/QD-TTG dated 12/11/2001 of the PM on Benefit and obligation of households and individuals allocated, leased or contracted forests or forestry land. 10. Decree 13-CP 2/3/1993 of the government on Regulations of extension activities. 11. Decree 163/1999/ND-CP dated 16/1/1999: Allocate and lease forestry land to organisations, households and individuals for long term forestry uses. 12. Inter-ministerial Circular No 02/LB-TT of 02/8/1993 on Guidelines on implementation of Decree 13/CP 13. Land Laws- 1991, 2003 14. Resolution 163/1999/N§-CP dated 16/11/1999 of the government on allocation, leasing of forestry land to households and individuals for forestry long term uses. 15. Resolution 26/NQ in 3/2003 of Party Central Committee IX on continuation of changing land related policies and laws. 16. Resolution 28/NQ dated 16/6/2003 of Politburo on continuation of SFEs reforming. 17. Resolution 43/1999/ND-CP dated 29/6/1999 of the government on development investment credit of the state. Part II: Vietnamese References 99 18. Bui Minh Vu et al. 2001. Report on introduction and analysis of policies related to NTFPs in Vietnam, pp. 35-37. 19. Cecilia Luttrell at al. 2004. Opportunities for sustainable livelihoods and natural resources management in very difficult commune in coastal areas. MPI/ PAC. Hanoi. 20. Center for Rural Development (CRD). 2004. Development of Model on Community based Protection Forest Management, Agriculture Development and Market Access for Income increase and Sustainable Livelihoods for Dao Minority Group in Khuoi Vua village, Quang Trach commune, Cho Don district, Bac Can province. Union for Technology Application and Development of Ha Tay province. Ha Tay. pp. 11. 21. DFID.1999. Sustainable livelihoods and poverty reduction. 22. DFID/PME. 2003. Training-Workshop on Vietnam sustainable livelihoods. Part IV: Use of sustainable livelihoods approach and analytical framework. PAC. Hanoi. 23. Do Thi Ha. 2003. Establishment of Tam Dao National Park - livelihoods and roles of women - Case study in Tan Lap village, Dao Tru commune, Lap Thach district, Vinh Phuc province. Workshop Processding. Resersch Center for Gender and Sustainable Development. Hanoi. 24. JICA&MARD. 2004. Research on development planning for craft industries towards industrialization process in rural areas of Vietnam. ALMEC Company. 25. John B Raintree, Le Thi Phi & Nguyen Van Duong. 2002. Research on markets for conservation and development (Typical research in Vietnam). Research Center for special forest products. Hanoi. 26. MARD. 1998. Forestry and Agriculture Product Processing and Rural Careers Department. Rural Careers in Vietnam. Agriculture Publisher. Hanoi. 27. MARD. 2001. Report of 2 year implementation of Five Million Hectare reforestation project 1999-2000 and first 6 months of 2001. No 396/Forestry Development. Hanoi. 28. MARD. 2001. Report on 5 million hectare reforestation project 1998-2010. Hanoi. 29. MARD. 2002. Report of implementation of Five Million Hectare reforestation project. Hanoi. 30. MARD/ICD. 2001. Five Million Hectare Reforestation Program Partnership: Synthesis Report, Hanoi, Vietnam. 31. MPI/PAC. 2004. Socio-economic development of poor communes with the view from communities and future vision. General report (2002 to 2004 and proceedings of the national conference). 32. NFS. 2005. Program for sustainable Forest Management. Discussion Draft. Hanoi. 33. Ngo Dinh Tho et al. 2004. Orientation of forestry policies in Vietnam. Hanoi. 34. Nguyen Ba Ngai, 2002. Research on dependency of local communities in buffere zone of Ba Vi national park. Research report of National Forestry University and Social Forestry support Program 2002. Ha Tay. 35. Nguyen Ba Ngai, 2004. Obligations and benefit of communities in forest management. Research report. Community Forestry National Working Group 2004. 100 36. Nguyen Hai Nam. 2001. Community forest management of ethnic minority groups in the Northern Mountainous and Central High Land areas - Agriculture and Rural Development Journal. No 6. Hanoi. pp.413. 37. Nguyen Sinh Cuc. 2003. Agriculture and Rural areas of Vietnam in reforming period (1986 - 2002). Statistics Publisher. Hanoi. 38. Nguyen Ton Quyen. 2004. Draft of Program for forest products processing and trading 2006 - 2020. VIFORES. Hanoi. 39. Nguyen Xuan Nguyen. 1998. Credit policies for tree plantation on allocated forestry land in Vietnam, pp.18. 40. NTFP Project. 2003. Project yearly working plan 2005. Hanoi. 41. PAC. 2004. Economic development of poor communes with the view from communities and future vision, Ministry of Planning and Investment, Partnership program to support poor commune. General report & Proceedings of national conference. Hanoi. 42. Pham Xuan Phuong et al. 2003. Survey on implementation of policies on forest benefit sharing in Son La and Dien Bien. pp. 23. 43. Pham Xuan Phuong, Ngo Dinh Tho, Do Anh Minh. 2004. Survey, assessment on the implementation of benefit sharing policies for households, individuals and communities allocated, contracted forests and forestry land in Gia Lai, Dak Lak, Son La and Dien Bien provinces. Consultancy report. Community Forestry National Working Group. Hanoi. 44. Poverty Task Force. 2003. Participatory Poverty Assessment in Nghe An province. Laboral-Social Publisher. JICA. Institut Hanoi. 45. Siep Littooy et al. 1995. Natural Resouces Management of HMong communities in Tua chua district, Lai Chau province. p.42. 46. To Xuan Phuc. 2003. Relations between wealth, administrative power and benefit from forest land- A case study in a Dao village. Workshop Processding. Resersch Center for Gender and Sustainable Development. Hanoi. 47. Trieu Van Hung. 2003. Current situation and issues for development of mangrove forests ecologies in Vietnam. Hanoi. 48. Vo Nguyen Huan. 2002. Research on the basic for policy recommendations and solutions for economic stabilization and development in special use and watershed protection forest areas. 49. Vo Nguyen Huan. 2003. Primarily research results on markets for forest products, Forestry Information, Technology and Science Newsletter. Forestry Science Institute. Hanoi. Part II: English References 50. ADB. 2001. Report Poverty Alliviation in Cridit, Foestry and Sedentarization Programs. 101 51. Beckam, M. 2001. Extension, Poverty and Vulnerability in Vietnam. Country Study for the Neuchatel Initiative. ODI Working Paper 152. Overseas Development Institute, London. 52. Edwin Shanks & Carrie Turk. 2002. Refining Policy with the Poor. Volume I: Approach, Methodology and Influence. World Bank, ActionAid, Catholic Relief Services, Oxfarm GB, Plan in Vietnam, SCUK for the Poverty Task Force. Hanoi. 53. Edwin Shanks. 2002. Agriculture and forestry extension and sustainable livelihoods in the uplands. Issues paper prepered for the Swiss Agency For Development and Cooperation. Helvetas Vietnam. Hanoi. 54. Helvetas Vietnam. 2002. Working paper on Helvetas/ Vietnam experience & possible contribution to SDC development goal: Sustainable livelihoods & poverty reduction in the uplands. Hanoi. 55. Jill Blockhus, Olivier Dubous, DK Son, PTN Linh, PS Hieu. 2001. Country profile for the forum on “The role of forestry in poverty alleviation. Forestry department. FAO. 56. MARD. 1998. Proceedings of National Seminar on Agriculture and Forestry Extension in Vietnam. Hanoi, 18-20. September 1998. MARD, MRDP, SIDA, SDC, Helvetas. Agriculture Publishing House. Hanoi. 57. MARD. 2001. Five Million Hectare Reforestation Program Partnership: Synthesis Report. 58. Morrison, Eleine and Oliver Dubois. 1998. Sustainable liverlihoods in uppland Vietnam. Land Allocation and Beyond. 59. Nguyen Quang Tan. 2004. What benefits and for Whom' Effects of Devolution of Forest Management in Dak Lak – Vietnam. Dissertation. Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin. Germany. 60. PC Kerridge. 2002. Towards sustainable upland livelihoods in Vietnam & Laos. Issue paper prepared for SDC. 61. Scheuermaier U., Katz E.1999. Initiating PTD in the Village. Documentation of a Training workshop for SFSP Working Partner Institutions. Thai Nguyen and Vau (Van Lang Commune). 62. William D. Sunderlin, Huynh Thu Ba. 2005. Poverty Alleviation and Forests in Vietnam. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Subur Prinnting. Indonesia. 102 Annex 2: List of participants of field consultation research No Names Working positions 1 Dinh Duc Thuan Vietnam Forestry University 2 Dang Tung Hoa Vietnam Forestry University 3 Vo Hung Vietnam Forestry University 4 Nguyen Van Ha Vietnam Forestry University 5 Le Trong Hung Vietnam Forestry University 5 Tran Thu Ha Vietnam Forestry University 6 Pham Quang Vinh Vietnam Forestry University 7 Tran Ngoc Hai Vietnam Forestry University 8 Kieu Tri Duc Vietnam Forestry University 9 Nguyen Thi Phuong Vietnam Forestry University 10 Bui Thi Cuc Vietnam Forestry University 11 Tran Hai Long Vietnam Forestry University 12 Nguyen Viet Hung 13 Bao Huy Tay Nguyen University 14 Nguyen Trong Chi Tay Nguyen University 15 Nguyen Thi Thanh Huong 16 Nguyen Quoc Phuong GiaLai forestry technical school 17 Truong Quang Huong Economic department of Dăk L p district 18 Nguyen Quan Truong Forest protection Department of province DakNong 19 Nguyen Dung Quang Tan SFE 20 Trinh Hai Van Vietnam Forestry University 21 Nguyen ThiThanh Huyen Vietnam Forestry University 22 Duong Hoang Cong Vietnam Forestry University 23 Duong Van Huy Vietnam Forestry University 24 Hoang Bui Hoa Vietnam Forestry University 25 Nguyen Anh Duc Vietnam Forestry University 26 Nguyen Phuong Hong Vietnam Forestry University 27 Vu Cong Minh Vietnam Forestry University 28 Nguyen Thi Hanh Vietnam Forestry University 29 Le Thi Lan Vietnam Forestry University 30 Ngo Van Cau Vietnam Forestry University 31 Trinh Dinh Uyen Vietnam Forestry University 32 Hoang Van Truong Vietnam Vietnam Forestry University Tay Nguyen University Forest ranger of Bac Kan province 103 Annex 3: Checklists for Semi-Structured Interviews 1. Objective: To get qualitative information to verify the key issues, objectives and strategic solutions at a chosen locality. 2. Interviewees: Semi-structured interview will be done with a number of staff at the commune and district level of selected provinces. At commune: 03 key informants will be interviewed: (1) deputy chair of people’s committee who is being in charge of forestry issues (or head of communal forestry board); (2) extension staff; and (3) head of farmer association. At district: 03 key informants will be interviewed: (1) representative of Agriculture and Rural Development department; (2) representative of Agro-forestry Extension station; and (3) representative of Forest Protection station. In some cases, the key informants can be selected from some other organizations such as representative of people’s committee, land administration department, state-run forest enterprise, and special-use/protection forest management board. 3. Implementation Method For each key informant some of the key issues, targets and strategic solutions will be selected in order to meet time requirement and appropriate background of respondents. For semi-structured interviews at the communal level, the contents will focus on testing key issues and targets meanwhile semi-structured interviews at the district level will focus more on targets and strategic solutions. Nr Key issues, targets, strategic Checklists for semi-structured interviews solutions A. AT COMMUNE A.1. Deputy chair of people’s committee (or head of communal forestry board) Key issues: a. Order/steps/stages of forestry land allocation process at the locality b. Pros and cons of forestry land allocation process at the locality Nr.1. Allocation of forestry land does not help forest dependent people overcome c. Reasons of inefficient usage of allocated poverty forestry land at the locality (if applicable) d. Roles of forestry land allocation in poverty alleviation at the locality Nr.3. Conflicting between forest a. Positive and negative impacts of forest preservation and improving living-standard preservation to improving livingof local people standard of local people b. Reasons of the conflicts at the locality (if applicable) 104 Nr.6. Project number 661 has limited direct impact to the income of poor households Nr.7. Timber and non-timber product processing has limited impact on poverty reduction Nr.9. Forestry policies are not clear to local people Nr.10.The administration formalities/procedures are complicated for local people to access and circulate legal products from forests c. Solutions to solve these conflicts at the locality a. Implementation of Project 661 at the locality b. Stakeholders get direct benefit from Project 661 c. Solutions to implement effectively of the Project 661 and have direct influences to income of the poor a. Timber and non-timber product processing activities at the locality b. Benefit from timber and non-timber product processing to the poor c. Solutions to improve benefit from timber and non-timber product processing for the poor a. Order/stages of forestry policy diffusion to local people at the locality b. Number/name/main content of forestry policies which local people know/understand c. Solutions to improve forestry policy diffusion process/activities in order to make it clear to local people (if applicable) a. Administration formalities/procedures of forest product harvesting/circulating; providing “red book”; and borrowing loan from banks at the locality b. Difficulties of the local people in meeting with administration formalities/procedures c. Propose institutional/formality changes to help local people implementing rights and responsibilities Others Targets: Nr.1. To increase income through diversifying income sources from forests for forest dependent people Nr.2. To create job opportunities from forest and forestry development for forest a. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons b. Income sources can provide more income for HH at locality c. The most sustainable income sources at locality a. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons 105 dependent people Nr.3. To improve rural mountainous area livelihoods b. Job opportunities that can create from forests and forestry development at the locality c. The most sustainable job opportunities from forest and forestry development at the locality a. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons b. Types of components of rural mountainous area livelihoods need to be improved in the near future at the locality and reasons Others A.2. Agro- forestry Extension staff Key issues: Nr.4. There are exist the unfairness between state-own forest enterprises (special-use/protection forest management board) and HH in the contract agreement of forestry land Nr.5. The income from NTFPs has been decreasing Nr.8. Poor people get limited benefits from forestry extension and research activities Nr.11. Local people have less opportunities to participate in forestry activities planning, decision making, monitoring and evaluation a. Mechanisms/Stages/Orders of forestry land contract agreement process at the locality b. Reasons of the unfairness at the locality (if applicable) c. Solutions to solve these unfairness at the locality a. Proportion of income from NTFPs in total income of HH (increasing or decreasing) at the locality b. Reasons of decreasing income from NTFPs (if applicable) c. Solutions to solve these problems a. Forestry extension activities implemented at the locality b. HH types get benefit from forestry extension and research activities c. Solutions to reform forestry extension organization/activities in order to help more the poor a. Participation of local people in forestry activities planning, decision making, monitoring and evaluation at the locality b. Reasons why local people have less opportunities to participate in forestry activities planning, decision making, monitoring and evaluation (if applicable) c. Solutions to increase participation of local people Others Targets: 106 Nr.1. To increase income through diversifying income sources from forests for forest dependent people Nr.2. To create job opportunities from forest and forestry development for forest dependent people Nr.3. To improve rural mountainous area livelihoods a. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons b. Income sources can provide more income for HH at locality c. The most sustainable income sources at locality a. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons b. Job opportunities that can create from forests and forestry development at the locality c. The most sustainable job opportunities from forest and forestry development at the locality a. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons b. Types of components of rural mountainous area livelihoods need to be improved in the near future at the locality and reasons c. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons Others A.3. Head of farmer association. Key issues: Nr.2. Local people have limited legal usage right of forest products Nr.5. The income from NTFPs has been decreasing Nr.7. Timber and non-timber product processing has limited impact on poverty reduction Nr.8. Poor people get limited benefits from forestry extension and research a. Forest products which HH de facto get at the locality b. Forest products which HH de jure get c. Propose of benefit rights of HH to protect forest meanwhile increasing income at the locality a. Proportion of income from NTFPs in total income of HH (increasing or decreasing) at the locality b. Reasons of decreasing income from NTFPs (if applicable) c. Solutions to solve these problems a. Timber and non-timber product processing activities at the locality b. Benefit from timber and non-timber product processing to the poor c. Solutions to improve benefit from timber and non-timber product processing for the poor a. Forestry extension activities implemented at the locality 107 activities Nr.9. Forestry policies are not clear to local people Nr.10. The administration formalities/procedures are complicated for local people to access and circulate legal products from forests Nr.11. Local people have less opportunities to participate in forestry activities planning, decision making, monitoring and evaluation b. HH types get benefit from forestry extension and research activities c. Solutions to reform forestry extension organization/activities in order to help more the poor a. Order/stages of forestry policy diffusion to local people at the locality b. Number/name/main content of forestry policies which local people know/understand c. Solutions to improve forestry policy diffusion process/activities in order to make it clear to local people (if applicable) a. Administration formalities/procedures of forest product harvesting/circulating; providing “red book”; and borrowing loan from banks at the locality b. Difficulties of the local people in meeting with administration formalities/procedures c. Propose institutional/formality changes to help local people implementing rights and responsibilities a. Participation of local people in forestry activities planning, decision making, monitoring and evaluation at the locality b. Reasons why local people have less opportunities to participate in forestry activities planning, decision making, monitoring and evaluation (if applicable) c. Solutions to increase participation of local people Others Targets: Nr.1. To increase income through diversifying income sources from forests for forest dependent people Nr.2. To create job opportunities from forest and forestry development for forest dependent people a. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons b. Income sources can provide more income for HH at locality c. The most sustainable income sources at locality a. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons b. Job opportunities that can create from forests and forestry development at the locality 108 Nr.3. To improve rural mountainous area livelihoods c. The most sustainable job opportunities from forest and forestry development at the locality a. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons b. Types of components of rural mountainous area livelihoods need to be improved in the near future at the locality and reasons c. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons Others B. AT DISTRICT: B.1. Representative of Agriculture and Rural Development department Key issues: a. Forest products which HH de facto get at the locality Nr.2. Local people have limited legal usage b. Forest products which HH de jure get right of forest products c. Propose of benefit rights of HH to protect forest meanwhile increasing income at the locality a. Mechanisms/Stages/Orders of forestry land contract agreement process at the Nr.4. There are exist the unfairness locality between state-own forest enterprises (special-use/protection forest management b. Reasons of the unfairness at the locality board) and HH in the contract agreement (if applicable) of forestry land c. Solutions to solve these unfairness at the locality a. Administration formalities/procedures of forest product harvesting/circulating; providing “red book”; and borrowing loan from banks at the locality Nr.10. The administration formalities/procedures are complicated for b. Difficulties of the local people in local people to access and circulate legal meeting with administration products from forests formalities/procedures c. Propose institutional/formality changes to help local people implementing rights and responsibilities Others Targets: a. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons Nr.1. To increase income through b. Income sources can provide more diversifying income sources from forests income for HH at locality for forest dependent people c. The most sustainable income sources at locality 109 Nr.2. To create job opportunities from forest and forestry development for forest dependent people Nr.3. To improve rural mountainous area livelihoods a. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons b. Job opportunities that can create from forests and forestry development at the locality c. The most sustainable job opportunities from forest and forestry development at the locality a. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons b. Types of components of rural mountainous area livelihoods need to be improved in the near future at the locality and reasons c. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons Others Strategic solutions: Nr.1. Implementing community-based forest management of multi-purpose forests Nr.2. Implementing join forest management between state-own forest enterprises/special-use/protection forest management board and HH, community Nr.3.Developing participatory forestry extension activities Nr.4. Increasing income from environmental services a. Feasible of the solution at the locality and reason b. Advantages and disadvantages of community-based forest management of multi-purpose forests to local people c. Benefits of community-based forest management of multi-purpose forests to the poor at the locality a. Feasible of the solution at the locality and reason b. Benefits of join forest management to community c. Benefits of join forest management to the poor a. Feasible of the solution at the locality and reason b. Benefits of participatory forestry extension activities to the poor c. The most important/suitable forestry extension activities to the poor a. Feasible of the solution at the locality and reason b. Mechanism of contribution from other stakeholders (industry, electronic, ecotourism,…) to create fund for forest plantation and protection activities c. Sensible of payment for forest protection activities and reasons 110 Nr.5. Shifting from natural and extensive forest economics to intensive combined processing forest economics Nr.6. Developing of NTFP commodity economy a. Feasible of the solution at the locality and reason b. Benefits of intensive combined processing forest economics to community and poor HH c. The priority activities in this solution a. Ability and conditions of developing NTFPs to be marketed goods at locality b. Ability of harvesting and processing at large scale at locality and reasons c. Benefit of this solution to the poor at locality and reasons Others B.2. Representative of Agro-forestry Extension station Key issues: a. Proportion of income from NTFPs in total income of HH (increasing or decreasing) at the locality Nr.5. The income from NTFPs has been decreasing b. Reasons of decreasing income from NTFPs (if applicable) c. Solutions to solve these problems a. Forestry extension activities implemented at the locality Nr.8. Poor people get limited benefits b. HH types get benefit from forestry from forestry extension and research extension and research activities activities c. Solutions to reform forestry extension organization/activities in order to help more the poor a. Participation of local people in forestry activities planning, decision making, monitoring and evaluation at the locality Nr.11. Local people have less opportunities b. Reasons why local people have less to participate in forestry activities opportunities to participate in forestry planning, decision making, monitoring and activities planning, decision making, evaluation monitoring and evaluation (if applicable) c. Solutions to increase participation of local people Others Targets: a. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons Nr.1. To increase income through b. Income sources can provide more diversifying income sources from forests income for HH at locality for forest dependent people c. The most sustainable income sources at locality 111 Nr.2. To create job opportunities from forest and forestry development for forest dependent people Nr.3. To improve rural mountainous area livelihoods a. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons b. Job opportunities that can create from forests and forestry development at the locality c. The most sustainable job opportunities from forest and forestry development at the locality a. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons b. Types of components of rural mountainous area livelihoods need to be improved in the near future at the locality and reasons c. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons Others Strategic solutions: Nr.1. Implementing community-based forest management of multi-purpose forests Nr.2. Implementing join forest management between state-own forest enterprises/special-use/protection forest management board and HH, community Nr.3.Developing participatory forestry extension activities Nr.4. Increasing income from environmental services a. Feasible of the solution at the locality and reason b. Advantages and disadvantages of community-based forest management of multi-purpose forests to local people c. Benefits of community-based forest management of multi-purpose forests to the poor at the locality a. Feasible of the solution at the locality and reason b. Benefits of join forest management to community c. Benefits of join forest management to the poor a. Feasible of the solution at the locality and reason b. Benefits of participatory forestry extension activities to the poor c. The most important/suitable forestry extension activities to the poor a. Feasible of the solution at the locality and reason b. Mechanism of contribution from other stakeholders (industry, electronic, ecotourism,…) to create fund for forest plantation and protection activities c. Sensible of payment for forest protection activities and reasons 112 Nr.5. Shifting from natural and extensive forest economics to intensive combined processing forest economics Nr.6. Developing of NTFP commodity economy a. Feasible of the solution at the locality and reason b. Benefits of intensive combined processing forest economics to community and poor HH c. The priority activities in this solution a. Ability and conditions of developing NTFPs to be marketed goods at locality b. Ability of harvesting and processing at large scale at locality and reasons c. Benefit of this solution to the poor at locality and reasons Others B.3. Representative of forest protection department Key issues: a. Order/steps/stages of forestry land allocation process at the locality Nr.1. Allocation of forestry land does not b. Pros and cons of forestry land allocation help forest dependent people overcome process at the locality poverty c. Reasons of inefficient usage of allocated forestry land at the locality (if applicable) a. Positive and negative impacts of forest preservation to improving livingstandard of local people Nr.3. Conflicting between forest preservation and improving living-standard b. Reasons of the conflicts at the locality of local people (if applicable) c. Solutions to solve these conflicts at the locality a. Implementation of Project 661 at the locality b. Stakeholders get direct benefit from Nr.6. Project number 661 has limited direct Project 661 impact to the income of poor households c. Solutions to implement effectively of the Project 661 and have direct influences to income of the poor a. Administration formalities/procedures of forest product harvesting/circulating; providing “red book”; and borrowing loan from banks at the locality Nr.10. The administration formalities/procedures are complicated for b. Difficulties of the local people in local people to access and circulate legal meeting with administration products from forests formalities/procedures c. Propose institutional/formality changes to help local people implementing rights and responsibilities 113 Others Targets: Nr.1. To increase income through diversifying income sources from forests for forest dependent people Nr.2. To create job opportunities from forest and forestry development for forest dependent people Nr.3. To improve rural mountainous area livelihoods a. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons b. Income sources can provide more income for HH at locality c. The most sustainable income sources at locality a. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons b. Job opportunities that can create from forests and forestry development at the locality c. The most sustainable job opportunities from forest and forestry development at the locality a. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons b. Types of components of rural mountainous area livelihoods need to be improved in the near future at the locality and reasons c. Feasible of the target at the locality and reasons Others Strategic solutions: Nr.1. Implementing community-based forest management of multi-purpose forests Nr.2. Implementing join forest management between state-own forest enterprises/special-use/protection forest management board and HH, community Nr.3. Developing participatory forestry extension activities a. Feasible of the solution at the locality and reason b. Advantages and disadvantages of community-based forest management of multi-purpose forests to local people c. Benefits of community-based forest management of multi-purpose forests to the poor at the locality a. Feasible of the solution at the locality and reason b. Benefits of join forest management to community c. Benefits of join forest management to the poor a. Feasible of the solution at the locality and reason b. Benefits of participatory forestry extension activities to the poor c. The most important/suitable forestry extension activities to the poor 114 Nr.4. Increasing income from environmental services Nr.5. Shifting from natural and extensive forest economics to intensive combined processing forest economics Nr.6. Developing of NTFP commodity economy a. Feasible of the solution at the locality and reason b. Mechanism of contribution from other stakeholders (industry, electronic, ecotourism,…) to create fund for forest plantation and protection activities c. Sensible of payment for forest protection activities and reasons a. Feasible of the solution at the locality and reason b. Benefits of intensive combined processing forest economics to community and poor HH c. The priority activities in this solution a. Ability and conditions of developing NTFPs to be marketed goods at locality b. Ability of harvesting and processing at large scale at locality and reasons c. Benefit of this solution to the poor at locality and reasons Others 115 Annex 4: Checklist of case study Household Name: Household Type: Village: Commune: District: Province: A. General Information of the Household 1. Population/Labor/Profession/Health: Table 1: Basic information No Name Age Sex Education Profession Health Note 1 2 3 4 Age 55: ..........................persons Ethnic group: Religion : 2. Household Property: - House: - Means of travel: - Communication means: - Cattle: - Other: 3. Land: 116 Table 2: Land use Land Type Area (m2) The land type with Other provided red book - use granted year forms Note Residential land Garden Annual production land One crop wet rice cultivation Two crop wet rice cultivation Crops cultivation Milpa Forestry land -Production forest -Natural forest -Plantations -Special use forest -Natural forest -Plantations -Protection forest -Natural forest -Plantations Fish pond Other 4. Indigenous knowledge of forest production and development: -Plantation, Cultivation, Protection, Harvest, Preservation, Processing 117 B Yearly income and expense analysis Table 3: Production income – expenses of the household in one year Place of cultivation/ production/ harvest Harvesting volume Products Volume total Use Sale Total income (VND) Production expenses (Seed, fertilizer, livestock breeding, tax, labor payment, preventive medicine, pesticide...) Expense types Materials Total expenses (VND) Money Annual production land Garden Production forest Special use forest Protection forest Poultry and cattle Others (by- trade, salary, subsidization...) Total 118 Table 4: Living expense of a household in one year Expense Types Production / Purchase Harvest own Price (VND) Total cost Note Food Foodstuffs Fuel Production instruments Electricity Education Clothes Health services Wedding Funeral Others Total Table 5: Structure of incomes - expenses of the household in one year Incomes Annua l produ ction land Forestry land Poultry and cattle Expenses By – trade and other Annu al produ ction land Total Forestry land Poultry and cattle By – trade and other Balance Livin g expen ses Total VND VND % % Table 6: Structure of income types from forest and forestry development No. Incomes 1 Income sources Plantation 2 Forest tending 3 Forest protection fee 4 Forest Pruning 5 Forest harvest 6 Proportion/rate Money (VND) NTFPs harvest Total C. Strategy for household livelihood 119 Table 7: Livelihood analysis framework No. Capital Components Current Status Strategy/ Priority Results Solution Available 1 Natural Land Capital Rate of use Water sources Forests Climate Crops plants Livestock 2 Human Ca. Population Labour Man / women rate Education Health 3 Social/ Community Ca. Production experience Labor division Community rules Rich/poor rate Democracy Equality Social civilization Power structure Community Organization Religion Conflict 4 Financial Ca. Financial source Cash source 120 Credit Market access ability Credit access ability Saving Subsidy 5 Infrastructure Infrastructure House Ca. Household Property Production instrument 121 Annex 5: Group discussion framework Group: Poor/ Forest dependent people Objective: - To assess and recognize key issues on forestry, poverty reduction and livelihoods of forest dependent people. - To recommend solutions and priority Village: Group 1: Group of poor young people inaccessible to forestry land and people who have just escaped from poverty, representative of farmer association by ethnic minority Number of group: 7 people (4 poor, 3 overcome poverty) Time: 0,5 day Method/ Tools: ranking, using cards 1. Discussion framework of key issues, causes, recommendation, priority Key issues Reasons Recommendation s Solutions Priority 1 5 6. Others 122 2. Discussion Framework of solutions, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) Solutions for Poverty Reduction Participants How to implement What support needed Criteria Methods to mesure the criteria Remarks Checklist • • • • • • • List all issues - 5 priority issues Identity reasons, recommendations, solutions, and priority Reasons for overcome poverty Reasons for poverty Conflicts between rich and poor households List all solutions Discuss about participation, implementation, support, criteria (M&E) Village: Group 2: Group of poor forest dependent people Group 3: Group of poor women headed households With representative of women organization by ethnic minority Number of group: 7 people Time: 0,5 day Method/ Tools: ranking, using cards 123 1. Discussion framework of key issues, reasons, recommendation, priority Key issues Reasons Recommendations Priority Remarks 1 5 6. Others 2. Discussion Framework of solutions, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) Poverty reduction solution Participants How to impleme nt What support needed Criteria Methods to mesure the criteria Remarks Checklist • List all issues - 5 priority issues • Identity reasons, recommendations, solutions, priority • Reasons for overcome poverty • Reasons for poverty • List solutions • Discuss about participation, implementation, support, criteria (M&E) • Differences between men headed and women headed households • Gender issues: participation (men/ women in different community activities) 124 Village: Group 4: Representatives of village (village leader, old person, party, farmers association, women association, forest protection group, household group ) Number of group: 7 people Time: 0,5 day Method/ Tools: ranking, using card Part I. Case Study COMMUNITY CASE STUDY A. Information on community (village) Socio-economic and natural conditions of the village Total natural area: Total number of households: Rich households Middle households Poor households Population Total number of laborers Per capita GDP Medical station School Infrastructure (electricity, water supply, road) Forest resources evaluation 2002 2003 2004 Total area of forests - Production forest - Protection forest - Special use forest - Community forest Mechanism of forest resources management Participants How is the participation - Production forest - Protection forest - Special use forest - Community forest Organization of forest resources management in village (Households, community… ) Venn diagram 125 B. Timber and NTFP needs of the village Need of timber of community: Need for house construction Need for repairing facilities (houses…) Need for coffins Other needs (number of newly constructed houses x quantity of timber/a house) Need of fuelwood:= Average fuelwood/a household/a day x 365 x number of households Need of NTFP: Bamboo Rattan Food plants Medical plants Others C. Supply capacity Timber supply capacity From production forest: From protection forests: From special-use forest: From community forest: Fuelwood supply capacity:= total area of forests x volume/ a ha NTFP supply capacity: Bamboo Rattan Food plants Medical plants Others (total area of forests x volume/ a ha) D. Strategy for balancing need and supply Solutions for meeting timber demand Solutions for meeting fuelwood demand Solutions for meeting NTFP demand 126 Part II. Discussion framework 1. Discussion framework of key issues, reasons, recommendations, priority Key issues Reasons Recommendations Priority Remark Methods to mesure the criteria Remarks 1 5 6. Others 2. Discussion Framework of solutions, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) Poverty reduction solution Participants How to implement What support needed Criteria Checklist • • • • • • • List all issues, 5 priority issues Identity causes, recommendations, solutions, priority Reason for overcome poverty Reason for poverty Equality between rich and poor household, between men and women List solutions Discuss about participation, implementation, support, criteria, M&E 127 Commune: Commune leader, Party secretary, Farmers association, Women association, Forest staff, Forest protection group, Household group Number of group: 7 people Time: 0,5 day Method/ Tools: ranking, using cards 1. Discussion framework of key issues, reasons, recommendation, priority Key issues Reasons Recommendations Priority Remark 1 5 6. Others 2. Discussion Framework of solutions, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) Poverty reduction solution Participants How to What support implement needed Criteria Methods to mesure the criteria Remarks Checklist • List all issues - 5 priority issues • Identity causes, recommendations, solutions, priority • Reason for overcome poverty • Reason for poverty • Equality between rich and poor household, between men and women • List solutions • Discuss about participation, implementation, support, criteria, M&E 128 District: Department of Agriculture and rural Development, Department of Extension, Forest Protection, Others Province: Department of Forestry Development, Department of Forest Protection, Department of Extension, Department of Agriculture and rural Development, Department of Natural resources and Environment, Committee for Settlement, Women organization, Farmer organization, Project management, Others Number of each group: 7 people (position, gender) Time: 0,5 day Method/ Tools: ranking, using card/ objective trees Part I: Report results and findings found in the locality Part II: Discussion Framework 1. Discussion framework of key issues, reasons, recommendation, priority Key issues Reasons Recommendation Priority Remark 1 5 6. Others 2. Discussion Framework of objective Objective Reality Feasibility How can be achived 1. To increase income through diversifying income sources from forests for forest dependent people 2. To create job opportunities from forest and forestry development for forest dependent people 3. To improve rural livelihoods in forest dependent areas 129 - Nature resources - Human resources - Social resources - Phycial resources - Finance resources 4. Others 3. Discussion Framework of solutions, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) Poverty reduction solution Reality Feasibility How to implement Who involve Criteria for M&E Methods to mesure the criteria 1. Increasing income from environmental services 2. Implementing community-based forest management of multi-purpose forests 3. Co-management between state-own forest enterprises/special-use/protection forest management board and HH, community 4. Developing participatory forestry extension for the poor 5. Shifting from natural and extensive forest economics to intensive combined processing forest economics 6. Developing of NTFP commodity economy 7.Others 130 Annex 6: Results of houshold interview Length of interview: Time initiated: ……………………….. Time terminated:……………………... 1. Province……………….………District……............................................................... Commune……………….…….Village……....................Ethnicity............................. 2. Name of interviewee………………….Sex: Male …… ….Female 3. Total number of family members………………persons 4. Details on family members (including interviewee) by age, sex, relationship, married status, education, occupation. No Names of all Age individuals in household Years 1 Sex Male Female …2 Relation ship to househol d head Married status Educatio n level Not Married.1 Married…2 Divorce…3 Widow….4 Never married…5 (Specify what grade each has complete d) Occupation Main Secondary Yourself 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Has your household received allocated forestry land' [1] Yes [2] No [ ]50% [ ]50% + If yes, move to Question 6, if no move to Question 9. 6. How many hectares of forestry land have been allocated to your household 1,56.....hectares. 7. Which stages of the forestry land allocation process did your household involve in' [1] Village meetings [ ] 61.8% 131 [2] Defining the boundary of forestry land on field [ ] 51.8% [3] Defining the status of forestry land on field [ ] 34.% [4] Defining the boundary of forestry land on map [ ] 38.5% [5] Others…………………………………………… ………8.25%… 8. What constraints did your family face during the process of receiving allocated forestry land' [1] Lack of information about the allocated forest land [ ] 36.5% [2] Lack of information about rights and obligations on allocated forestry land [ ] 50% [3] The boundary of the allocated forestry land area on field is not clearly defined [ ] 9.% [4] The status of allocated forestry land on field is not clearly defined [ ] 11.5% [5] Lack of labor [ ] 20.2% [6] Not aware of benefit (interest) from receiving allocated forestry land [ ] 13.7% [7] Others………………………………………………………13.2%… 9. According to your opinion, is there any solution to help poor households to receive allocated forestry land areas the same as the rich households' [1] Enhancing awareness of the benefits got from receiving allocated forestry land [ ] 18.12% [2] Allocation of favorable forestry land should be paid priority attention to poor households [ ] 20.62% [3] Others ………………………………………………………1.125% 10. According to your opinion, what are the reasons of inefficient usage of allocated forestry land' [1] Lack of production capital [ ] 35.62% [2] Lack of labor [ ] 37.5% [3] Lack of knowledge to use forestry land [ ] 43.75% [4] Lack of materials for production [ ] 31.87% [5] Lack of market information [ ] 25.62% [6] Allocated forestry land areas are unfertile, 132 steep and far from family’s home [ ] 30% [7] Others………………………………………………………15%………… 11. Which benefits does your household have from forest' [1] Timber products [ ] 28.75% [2] Firewood [ ] 73.75% [3] Medicine plants [ ] 28.125% [4] Food source [ ] 51.87% [5] Materials for handicraft production [ ] 34.37% [6] Materials for household’ construction demand [ ] 44.37% [7] Forest protection payment [ ] 16.87% [8] Others………………………………………………………8.73%…… 12. Which forest products does your household have right to get legally from forest' [1] Timber products [ ] 39% [2] Firewood [ ] 67.5% [3] Medicine plants [ ] 40.62% [4] Food source [ ] 53.75% [5] Materials for handicraft production [ ] 42.5% [6] Materials for household’ construction demand [ ] 21.87% [8] Others…………………………………………………… 20%……… 13. According to your opinion, which benefits does your household expect to gain from forest' [1] Increasing the volume of forest products allowing to be exploited [ ] 52.5% [2] Increasing the number of plants and tree species permitted to be exploited [ ] 30% [3] Increasing forest protection payment [ ] 41.25% [4] Increasing land areas within the forest for annual crop production [ ] 48.25% [5] Actively applying technical methods for forest enrichment [ ] 45.75% 133 [6] Others…………………………………………………………22.5%… 14. According to your opinion, which impact does the forest protection and conservation cause to the households' Negative: [1] Reducing land areas for agricultural production [ ] 43.87% [2] Reducing the volume of forest products to be exploited [ ] 52.62% [3] Reducing land areas for grazing [ ] 25.62% [4] Reducing income source [ ] 49.37% [5] Others…………………………………………………………5%……… Positive: [1] Having stable water source for production and living [ ] 76.12% [2] Reducing flood during rainy seasons [ ] 75% [3] Having more payment from forest protection contracts [ ] 28.125% [4] Receiving technical assistance and capital funds for production on the allocated and contracted forestry land [ ] 37.5% [5] Improving local infra-structure [ ] 18.25% [6] Others………………………………………………………16.37% 15. According to your opinion, what solutions are for both increasing household’s income and for protecting and conserving forest' [1] Increase forest protection payment [ ] 43.12% [2] Allow to exploit non-timber products according to planning[ ] 42% [3] Provide technical assistance and capital funds for growing non-timber products and planting species for non-timber products[ ] 58.12% [4] Plan land areas for grazing [ ] 31.37% [5] Assist in creating new jobs [ ] 48.25% [6] Others………………………………………………………30.12% 16. Has your household received contracted forestry land from the state-run enterprises and/or forest management board' [1] Yes [2] No [ ]10.62% [ ]35% + If yes, move to Question 17, if no move to Question 18 134 17. How many hectare of forestry land did your household sign contract agreement with the state-run enterprises and/or forest management board for forest plantation and/or protection'................1,8.......hectares. 18. According to your opinion, what proportion of poor households in total of the poor have signed contract agreement with the state-run enterprises and/or forest management board for forest plantation and protection'.............20.........................percent 19. According to your opinion, is there any unfairness under the contract agreement for forest plantation and protection between the state-run enterprises and/or forest management board and households' [1] Yes [ ]24.37% [2] No [ ]13.87% [8] Don’t know/not sure [ ]16.37% 20. According to your opinion, what are main reasons leading to that unfairness' [1] The enterprises and/or forest management boards are not willing to sign contracts with the poor [ ]2.5% [2] The enterprises/and forest management boards only want to sign unfavorable forestry land areas for poor households [ ]2.5% [3] There is an unfair division of benefits between the enterprises and households [ ]5% [4] Poor households are in lack of information about forest policies and regulations [ ]17.5% [5] Others………………………………………………………… 21. According to your opinion, what are the ways to deal with that unfairness' [1] Carry out propaganda and dissemination of forest policies for the poor [ ]5.75% [2] Organize meetings and sign contract agreements publicly [ ]9.37% [3] Both fertile and unfertile forestry land areas should be contracted to poor households [ ]3.12% [4] Forestry land areas enable to plant annual crops should also be contracted to poor households [ ]3.75% [5] Others…………………………………………………… [ ]7.51% 22. According to your opinion, how can we continue maintaining the current forestry land areas if that unfairness still exists' [1] Assist in creating new jobs [ ]15.75% [2] Provide technical methods for poor households [ ]6.25% 135 [3] Provide poor households with input and output services [ ]3.75% [4] Allow to grow specialty and non-timber plants on contracted forestry land [ ]35.5% [5] Others…………………………………………………… [ ]3.75% 23. Which non-timber forest products does your household get from forest' [1] Medicine plants [ ]38.75% [2] Food source [ ]61.87% [3] Materials for handicraft production [ ]48.12% [4] Materials for household’ construction demand [ ]40.0% [5] Others…………………………………………………… 2.25% 24. According to your opinion, in recent years has the income earned from non-forest products increased or reduced' [1] Increased [ ]12.% [2] Reduced [ ]42.5% [8] Don’t know/not sure [ ]5.5% 25. According to your opinion, what proportion of the income from non-timber forest products in total income of your household'..................19.27......................percent 26. According to your opinion, how to increase the income from non-timber forest products for your household' [1] Increase the volume of non-timber forest products extracted from forest [ ]35.0% [2] Increase the number of non-timber species to be exploited legally [ ]32% [3] Assisting in planting and growing non-timber forest products [ ]73.25% [4] Support services for production inputs and outputs [ ]47.62% [5] Others………………………………………………………20.12% 27. According to your opinion, what proportion of households in your village have known about Project 661'..................15….percent. 28. Which activities of Project 661 has your family involved in' [1] Seedling production [ ] 2.5% [2] Forest plantation [ ]8.87% [3] Forest tending [ ]16.87% [4] Forest protection [ ]15.% [5] Others………………………………………………………………… 29. Which direct benefits has your household gained from Project 661' [1] Payment [ ]17.7% 136 [2] Jobs [ ]8.75% [3] Capital funds for forest plantation [ ]5% [4] Borrowing loans from banks for animal husbandry and annual crop production [ ]2.55% [5] Others………………………………………………………4.55% 30. According to your opinion, how can we attract poor households to participate and to enjoy more benefit from Project 661' [1] Carry out propaganda and dissemination of full information about Project 661 [ ]28.75% [2] Increase forest extension activities for poor households [ ]16.87% [3] Pay priority attention to poor households in technical assistance [ ]20.12% [4] Increase an amount of money invested per hectare of forest plantation [ ]11.37% [5] Allow households to plant annual crops on land areas contracted for forest plantation [ ]12.51% [5] Others………………………………………………………2% 31. What activities of forest-based products processing have been conducted at your locality' [1] Carpenter’s shop [ ]2.5% [2] Handicraft production [ ]7.5% [3] Treatment of medicine plants [ ]12.5% [4] Primary processing of food [ ]27.5% [5] Others…………………………………………………………… 7.5% 32. What benefits has your household obtained from timber and non-timber products processing' [1] Job opportunities [ ]21.87% [2] Selling non-timber forest products [ ]18.12% [3] Being easier in buying finished timber and non-timber forest products [ ]5% [4] Creating new jobs [ ]10.62% [5] Others………………………………………………………20.12% 33. According to your opinion, how can we increase opportunity for poor households to participate and have income from timber and non-timber processing activities at your locality' [1] Train the poor on techniques for non-timber products treatment 137 and processing [ ]45.62% [2] Assist in development of techniques for non-timber products treatment and processing [ ]40.12% [3] Develop material markets [ ]26.87% [4] Assist in product selling [ ]40% [5] Others………………………………………………………11.37% 34. What benefits does your household obtained from forestry extension and research activities' [1] Short training course on technical methods [ ]55% [2] Establishment of forest demonstration models [ ]6.87% [3] Visits to forest demonstration models [ ]6.87% [4] Advice on technical methods and market information [ ]6.87% [5] Others………………………………………………………19.4% 35. What does your household expect to get from forestry extension organizations/activities' [1] Short-training course and technical transfer [ ]68.12% [2] Establishment of forest demonstration models [ ]47.5% [3] Visits to forest demonstration models [ ]46.25% [4] Advice on technical methods and market information [ ]36.25% [5] Assisting in establishing interest groups [ ]39.25% [6] Assisting in establishing clubs [ ]14.37% [7] Others………………………………………………………15% 36. According to your opinion, how can we help poor households to get more benefits from forestry/agriculture extension activities' [1] Increase the number of forestry/agriculture extension staff at the grassroots level [ ]61.25% [2] Promote working capabilities for forestry/agriculture extension staff at the grassroots level [ ]28.75% [3] Provide services for technical assistance and market information at the village level [ ]50% [4] Others………………………………………………………10% 37. Please indicate at what level do you know/understand about the following regulations' 138 No 1 2 3 4 5 Regulations Requirements for receiving forestry land The duration for allocating forestry land Requirements for borrowing loan from banks for forestry production What kinds of forest products allowing to be exploited legally from forest When households can receive technical assistance from the state Clearly understand 25 Level Not sure Don’t know 18.3 42.5 27.49 19.16 53.3 27.49 38.3 36.6 40 41.6 20 11.6 20 69.1 38. Who disseminates these policies' [1] Commune forestry staff [ ]38% [2] Commune forest protection staff [ ]31.3% [3] Agro-forestry extension staff [ ]41.6% [4] Village head [ ]21.6% [5] Mass information means [ ]56.25% [6] Others………………………………………………………………15.8% 39. According to your opinion, how these regulations can be clearly disseminated to poor households' [1] By commune forestry staff [ ]50% [2] By commune forest protection staff [ ]43.75% [3] By agro-forestry extension staff [ ]33.12% [4] By village head [ ]81.25% [5] By mass information means [ ]33.75% [6] Leaflets [ ]36.87% [7] Others………………………………………………………………20% 40. Which procedure does the family have to follow if they want to harvest timber from plantation forest' 139 [1] Application for timber harvesting written by household [ ]30% [2] The application verified by head of village [ ]25% [3] The application verified by commune president [ ]25% [4] The application verified by forest protection staff at the commune level [ ]35% [5] Permission issued by Forest Protection Department [ ]12.5% [6] Others………………………………………………………12.5% + How long does it take to complete all required procedures'............2 weeks........... 41. Which procedure does the family have to follow if they want to harvest timber from natural forests' [1] Application for timber harvesting [ ]55.62% [2] The application verified by head of village [ ]56% [3] The application verified by commune president [ ]55% [4] The application verified by forest protection staff at the commune level [ ]32.5% [5] Permission issued by Forest Protection Department [ ]25% [6] Others………………………………………………………………28.5% + How long does it take to complete all required procedures' ½ to one month 42. Which procedure does the family have to follow if they want to harvest non-timber forest products from forestry land' [1] Application for timber harvesting written by household [ ]12.5% [2] The application verified by head of village [ ]7.5% [3] The application verified by commune president [ ]6.87% [4] The application verified by forest protection staff at the commune level [ ]5.6% [5] Permission issued by Forest Protection Department [ ]5% [6] Others………………………………………………………37.5% + How long does it take to complete all required procedures'........................................days 43. According to your opinions which organizations/activities should be established/carried out at your locality in order to help poor households better' [1] Establishing coequal poor household groups [ ]41% [2] Establishing a system of services to help poor households [ ]47.75% 140 [3] Establishing credit association for poor households [ ]53.87% [4] Establish poverty reduction and hunger eradication groups at the commune and village levels [ ]38.5% [5]Others…………………….……………………………………………2.37% 141 Annex 7: List of interviewed people (household, case study, semi-structure) Table 1: List of household interviews No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Name Hoang Thi Luot Tran Van Hong Hoang Van Thuyet Tran Van Giap Trieu Thi Xuan Loc Van Tang Tran Van Binh Hoang Thi Dung Loc Thi Xuan Tran Van Than Dang Quoc Hung San A Cau Tr n Anh Phương Trieu Phuc Bao Luong Ngoc Ty La Thi Tu Truong Van An Nguyen Van Luan Dang Van Xuan Dang Thi Vuong Luan Thi Inh Phung Thi Bay Luan Thi Doa Nong Van Hoi Ly Van Chieu Nong Van Ngu Nong Van Tuyen Nong Van Hoa Nong Van Thuong Leng Thi Cap Hà Th Huy n Nong Van Duyen Ha Thi Cam Chu Thi Coi Luan Thi Nhi Nguyenb Van Doc Nong Thi Thu Chu Van Truong Hua Thi Hi La Thi Tham Vi Thi Thoa Lương Van Khuyen Ha Van Sao Gender Male Female x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Nations Address Tay Tay Tay Tay Hoa Tay Tay Tay Tay Tay Nung Nung Tay Hoa Tay Tay Nung Tay Tay Nung Tay Tay Tay Tay Tay Tay Tay Tay Tay Tay Tay Tay Tay Tày Tày Tày Tày Tày Tày Tày Thai Thai Thai Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa 142 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 Ha Van Quoc Ha Van Bien Luong Van Bien Lang Van Uy Vi Van Ty Lang Van Tinh Luong Van Keo Luong Hong Thon Luong Xuan Huyen Luong Nong Dan Luong Xuan Thuyen Le Van Nam Ha Van Cuong Vi Van Luyen Lang Van Huong Lang Van Khuong Lang Van Yen Vi Thi Xuyen Lang Thi Huyen Vi Thi Duyen Lo Van Dung Luong Van Sao Luong Van Tinh Luong Van Dung Luong Van Din Bui Thi Binh Vi Xuan Hoang Vi Thanh Tuyen Lo Thi Ha Ha Van Than Vi Hong Quang Lang Thanh Nhi Luong Ngoc Le Vi Thanh Soan Lang Van Cam Lương Van Tam Lương Van Keo Ho Van Chiu Ho Van De Ho Van Thu Ho Van Th m Ho Van Cham (Pa Tam) H Th Ho t (Pi Meo) Ho Van Tho Ho A Lo Ho Loi Ho La Ham Ho Van Long Ho Van To Ho Van Mai x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri 143 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 Ho Van Tho Phi Thanh Ho Van Xung Ho Van Thuong Ho Van Bi ( Pa Lap) Ho Van So ( Pa To) Ho Van Oi Ho Van Rom Ho Van Pua Ho Van Mai Ho Pi Hau Ho Van Uong Ho Van Phuong Ho Van Chi Ho Thi Muong Ho Van Quach Ho Van Lot Ho Van Luong Vo Lun Pa Lien Ho Thi Lien Pa Thai Vo Dua Ho Van Yen Pa Cuong Ho Xuan Loi Ho Van Lai ieu Groi Dieu Let Dieu BLom Dieu KRe ieu Lanh ieu MBReo ieu Nhot Thi Ninh ieu Sroi Thi Bleu ieu Loc ieu Mo ieu Droi ieu Mang ieu Du ieu Ngay ieu Bre ieu Pat ChRom Thi Bray ieu Dung ieu Trung Thi Ngoan x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Quang Tri Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong 144 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 Thi Onh ieu Kluu ieu Bion ieu Dray ieu Thuan ieu Va ieu Nhep ieu Moih ieu Mut ieu Ndung ieu Chre ieu Tien ieu MBRal ieu Nhut ieu Ngai ieu Thanh ieu Ngam x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong MNong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Dak Nong Table 2: List of household case studies No Name Gender M Type of households Address x F Ethnic group Tay Poor Bac Kan 1 Nguyen Thi Su 2 Truong Phuc Thinh x Tay Poverty overcome Bac Kan 3 Ly Van Thuan x Tay Good income Bac Kan 4 Pham Thi Ngot x Tay Good income Bac Kan 5 Nguyen Thi Hue x Tay Poor Bac Kan 6 Nguyen Thi Phuong x Tay Poverty overcome Bac Kan 7 Hua Van Mau x Tay Good income Bac Kan 8 Nong Van Dien x Tay Poor Bac Kan 9 Nong Van Hoi x Tay Poverty overcome Bac Kan 10 Nong Van Duyen x Tay Poor Bac Kan 11 Hua Van Tac x Tay Poverty overcome Bac Kan 12 Hua Van Quang Tay Good income Bac Kan 13 Luong Van Khuyen Thai Poor Thanh Hoa 14 Vi Van Duc x Thai Poverty overcome Thanh Hoa 15 Lang Van Tan x Thai Good income Thanh Hoa 16 Lang Hong Quanh x Thai Poor Thanh Hoa 17 Vi Thanh Dien x Thai Poverty overcome Thanh Hoa 18 Ngan Thi Tinh x Thai Good income Thanh Hoa 19 Luong Van Inh x Thai Poor Thanh Hoa 20 Luong Thanh Quy x Thai Poverty overcome Thanh Hoa 145 21 Luong Quang Chuan x Thai Good income Thanh Hoa 22 Lo Van Nam x Thai Poor Thanh Hoa 23 Luong Quang Duyen x Thai Poverty overcome Thanh Hoa 24 Luong Hong Than x Thai Khá Thanh Hoa 25 Ho Van De Van Kieu Poverty overcome Quang Tri 26 Ho Van Dun x Van Kieu Good income Quang Tri 27 Ho Loi x Van Kieu Poor Quang Tri 28 Pa Deng x Van Kieu Good income Quang Tri 29 Pa Hoa x Van Kieu Poverty overcome Quang Tri 30 Ho Xuan Pua x Van Kieu Poverty overcome Quang Tri 31 Ho Van Thua x Van Kieu Good income Quang Tri 32 Ho Van Voi x Van Kieu Poverty overcome Quang Tri 33 Ho Van Cu Lo x Van Kieu Poor Quang Tri 34 Ho Van Gong x Van Kieu Good income Quang Tri 35 Ho Xuan Loi x Van Kieu Poor Quang Tri 36 Ho Van Uong x Van Kieu Poor Quang Tri 37 Dieu Lanh x MNong Good income Dak Nong 38 Dieu Sroi x MNong Poverty overcome Dak Nong 39 Dieu Groi x MNong Poor Dak Nong 40 ieu Jen x MNong Good income Dak Nong 41 ieu Ndong x MNong Poverty overcome Dak Nong 42 ieu Njoi x MNong Poor Dak Nong 43 ieu Dray x MNong Good income Dak Nong MNong Poverty overcome Dak Nong 44 Thi No x 45 ieu Bion x MNong Poor Dak Nong 46 ieu Srao x MNong Good income Dak Nong 47 ieu Banh x MNong Poverty overcome Dak Nong 48 ieu Nhro MNong Poor Dak Nong x 146 Table 3: List of semi-structure interviews No Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Tran Van Dung Truong Van Viet Ha Thi Niem Nguyen Van Tung Hua Van On Hoang Thi Tram Luong Van Lanh Ha Thi Phan Luong Dinh Bao Lang Son Hoai Vi Van Luc Lang Duc Tho Vi Thi Luyen Luong Thanh Quy Luong Thi Thuyen Lam Van Tuan Ong Chon Tran Tien Chau Ho Thi Lien Pham Van Hung Ho Thi Mai Ho Dinh Viet Ho Thanh Cang Ho Pan Tran Hiep Ho Van Dam Ho Thi Loi Nguyen Van Tho Dieu Dinh ieu PhyOn Tran Viet Cu Dieu Dot Pham Thi Ban Pham Tuan Anh Nguyen Ngoc Quyen Gender M F x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Nations Tay Tay Tay Tay Tay Tay Tay Tay Tay Thái Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Thai Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Van Kieu Kinh M,Nong M,Nong Kinh M,Nong Kinh Kinh Kinh Position Vice chief of commune forestry board Head of farmer ass. Head of women ass. Chief of commune forestry board Extesion officer Head of farmer ass. Extesion officer Head of agriculture department Farmer Head of farmer ass. Extesion officer Vice chair of commune Head of farmer ass. Chief of commune forestry board Extesion officer Vice head of protection station Head of agriculture department Head of protection station Head of farmer ass. Head of agriculture department Head of farmer ass. Extesion officer Vice chair on forestry Head of forest protection station Commune chair Commune Daktin chair Commune party secretary Head of farmer ass. Qu ng Tr c commune chair Head of farmer ass. Commune extension staff Qu ng Tân SFE director Vice chief of district economic department Address Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Bac Kan Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Thanh Hoa Qu ng Tri Qu ng Tri Qu ng Tri Qu ng Tri Qu ng Tri Qu ng Tri Qu ng Tri Qu ng Tri DakNong DakNong DakNong DakNong DakNong DakNong DakNong DakNong 147 148