Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Georg-August University of Goettingen���� = && = ����
FOREST LAND ALLOCATION INDAK LAK PROVINCE,
VIET NAMA Case Study Of Ea Hleo And Cu Jut
Forest Enterprises
Thesis to obtain theDegree of Master of Science in Tropical Forestry (M.Sc.forest.trop.)
at theFaculty of Forest and Ecology
Geog-August University Goettingen
Submitted byTran Huu NghiDak Lak, Viet Nam
1st Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Maximillian Krott2nd Supervisor: Dr. Regina Birner
November 2001
Goettingen, Germany
i
Acknowledgements
This thesis is submitted as the final part of a postgraduate course "Forestry in Tropics and
Sub-tropics" at the Georg August University of Goettingen, Germany. This thesis is a part
of the research project "Development of an Information System to Assess Land Use
Change in Upland Watersheds" which was funded by the Tropical Ecology Support
Program (TOEB) in co-operation with the project of Sustainable Management of Resources
in the Lower Mekong Basin (SMRP) both of which are undertaken by the German Agency
for Technical Cooperation (GTZ). The research was carried out in two communes, namely
Ea Sol and Ea Po, in Dak Lak province, central highlands of Vietnam, where the Forest
Land Allocation program has been implemented.
This thesis would not have been possible without the assistance of many individuals and
institutions. Most importantly, I am deeply indebted to the villagers who were patient and
kindly answered my questions during the field research. I am grateful to my supervisor
Prof. Dr. Maximilian Krott, Institute of Forestry Policy, University of Goettingen, who
finally evaluated my final work. I would also like to acknowledge the inestimable support
from my second supervisor Dr. Regina Birner, Institute of Rural Development, University
of Goettingen, who kindly gave me much assistance throughout the whole duration of my
MSc. course.
I would like to express my gratitude to The Sustainable Management of Resources in the
Lower Mekong Basin Project, The German Technical Co-operation Agency (GTZ),
especially Dr. Hans Helmrich and Mr. Michael Glueck, for their trust given to me to join to
the research program with funding support from GTZ. My grateful thanks are extended to
Mr. Phan Muu Binh, director of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development of
Dak Lak province and Mr. Tran Ngoc Thanh, SMRP project, who made the administration
available for me to conduct the field research. I would also like to express my sincere
thanks to the representatives of the state agencies at provincial, district and commune level
involved in forest land allocation who fully co-operated in the collection of information,
especially the Ea Hleo and Cu Jut Forest Enterprises.
ii
A special word of thanks are due to all my friends and colleagues in Dak Lak province
whose names are too numerous to be mentioned separately here, for their co-operation and
supplying me with information required during my research. I would like to express my
great appreciation to Mr. Daniel Mueller, PhD. Candidate, Mr. Pham Tan Ha, and Ms.
Nguyen Ai Lien from the TOEB project, who gave me a lot of advice and information. I
would also like to acknowledge Ms. Pamela Mc Elwee from Yale University, U.S.A, and
Dr. Thomas Sikor from Humboldt University for their editing and comments on my thesis.
Special thanks are also due to my assistants Mr. Hoang Van Long, Mr. Ksor Tot, and Mr.
Ksor Wanh who assisted me in household interviews at the villages.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my parents and my brothers and sisters who forgo
their hard-earned comfort and pleasures of life in order to enable me to join this course and
who always encourage me to pursue academic goal, and especially, my lovely wife, Ngoc
Diem, for her love and support for me in my study, without whose support this thesis would
have been impossible.
Thank you all.
Goettingen, November 2001 Tran Huu Nghi
iii
Table Of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................I
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. III
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ V
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... V
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................... VI
CHAPTER I ................................................................................................................ 1
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
1.1 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................. 11.2 OBJECTIVES...................................................................................................... 31.3 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS ............................................................................ 4
CHAPTER II............................................................................................................... 5
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................. 5
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW OF PROPERTY RIGHTS AND TENURE SYSTEMS ....... 52.2 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................ 72.3 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS................................................................................ 112.4 LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR FOREST LAND
ALLOCATION IN VIETNAM....................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER III........................................................................................................... 14
3 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 14
3.1 SELECTION OF RESEARCH SITES .................................................................. 143.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.......................................................................... 163.3 LIMITATION OF THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................... 17
CHAPTER IV .......................................................................................................... 19
4 PROFILE OF THE STUDY SITES........................................................ 19
4.1 OVERVIEW OF EA SOL AND EA PO COMMUNES ........................................ 194.2 POPULATION AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION ................................................... 194.3 FOREST RESOURCES AND ITS UTILIZATIONS .............................................. 214.4 LAND USE ....................................................................................................... 21
iv
CHAPTER V ............................................................................................................ 23
5 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS.................................................................... 23
5.1 INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS............................................................................ 235.1.1 Role of Stakeholders and Their Performance in FLA process .................... 235.1.2 Roles of SMRP/GTZ project in FLA......................................................... 285.1.3 Chronology of events in Ea Hleo Forest Enterprise ................................... 295.1.4 Chronology of Events in Cu Jut Forest Enterprise ..................................... 325.1.5 Stakeholders assessment ........................................................................... 33
5.2 PRESENTATION OF HOUSEHOLD SURVEY RESULTS ................................... 355.2.1 Targeting................................................................................................... 355.2.2 Participation.............................................................................................. 365.2.3 Equity in the Forest Land Allocation program........................................... 375.2.4 Forest protection and investment............................................................... 405.2.5 Expected benefits ...................................................................................... 425.2.6 Expectation of non-recipients .................................................................... 445.2.7 Gender issue ............................................................................................. 45
CHAPTER VI .......................................................................................................... 49
6 DISCUSSION................................................................................................... 49
6.1 INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS .............................................................................. 496.2 HOUSEHOLD PERSPECTIVE ........................................................................... 51
6.2.1 Participation.............................................................................................. 516.2.2 Incentive to invest in allocated plots.......................................................... 526.2.3 Incentive to protect allocated plots ............................................................ 536.2.4 Expectation from non-recipients................................................................ 546.2.5 Gender issue ............................................................................................. 54
CHAPTER VII......................................................................................................... 56
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 56
7.1 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................ 567.2 RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................... 57
SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 60
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG..............................................................................62
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................. 64
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................... 67
v
List Of Tables
Table 1: Bundle of rights associated with positions ............................................................ 6
Table 2: Households sampling selection ........................................................................... 17
Table 3: Population in two communes.............................................................................. 20
Table 4: Existing land use of Ea Sol and Ea Po communes (Unit: Hectare) ...................... 22
List Of Figures
Figure 1: Analytical framework.......................................................................................... 8
Figure 2: Study sites in Dak Lak province ........................................................................ 15
Figure 3: Ethnic group composition of Ea Sol and Ea Po communes ................................ 20
Figure 4: Institutional landscape of FLA in Dak Lak province.......................................... 23
Figure 5: Number of recipient and non-recipient households by poverty class .................. 36
Figure 6a: Attendance of meeting by poverty class ........................................................... 37
Figure 6b: Attendance of meeting by gender .................................................................... 37
Figure 7: The size of agricultural land of recipients and non-recipients............................. 38
Figure 8a: Quality of allocated forest (evaluated by villagers) .......................................... 39
Figure 8b: Size of plots by poverty .................................................................................. 39
Figure 9a: Time allocation for forest protection................................................................ 40
Figure 9b: Formation group for forest protection ................................................................40
Figure 10: Intended investment and changes of allocated plots by poverty class ............... 41
Figure 11: Recipients expected support from relevant of organizations............................. 42
Figure 12: Expected benefit from allocated forest............................................................. 43
Figure 13: Non-recipients expect to receive forest land in the future by poverty class....... 44
Figure 14: Non-recipients expect disadvantages because without FLA ............................. 45
vi
Figure 15: Intention of recipients to inherit allocated plots in the future............................ 46
Figure 16: Registered name in the Red Books .................................................................. 47
Figure 17: Collection of NTFPs in two study sites............................................................ 48
List Of Abbreviations
AES Agriculture Extension Station
ARDO Agriculture and Rural Development Office
CFE Cu Jut Forest Enterprise
CWG Consultative Working Group
DARD Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
DOLISA Department of Labor, Invalids, and Social Affairs
DPI Department of Planning and Investment
EFE Ea Hleo Forest Enterprise
FDD Forest Development Sub-Department
FLA Forest Land Allocation
FPD Forest Protection Department
FPU Forest Protection Unit
GTZ German Technical Cooperation Agency
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature
LMD Land Management Department
LMO Land Management Office
NTFPs Non-Timber Forest Products
PC People’s Committee
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
SFEs State Forest Enterprises
SMRP The Sustainable Management of Resources in the Lower Mekong Basin
Project
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
TOEB Tropical Ecology Support Program (belonging to GTZ)
VND Viet Nam Dong (currency)
vii
1
CHAPTER I
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
" ... to facilitate allocation of land to the use that provides
the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the
transition to a sustainable and integrated management
of land resources. In doing so, environmental, social and
economic issues should be taken into consideration. Protected area,
private property rights, the rights of indigenous people and
their communities and other local communities and
the economic role of women in agriculture and rural development,
among other issues, should also be taken into account"
(Agenda 21 - Chapter 10)
In Vietnam, land is owned by the people under the integrated management of the State,
which allocates land to users for long term and stable use (Land Law 1993). Because forest
resources have been degraded rapidly over the last few decades, (annual forest loss has
been around 100 to 40,000 hectares){IUCN Vietnam (Publ.) 2000}. The Government has
become aware of the problem with the country's decreasing forest cover and has been
addressed it by embarking on forestry policy reform programs. During the 1990s, Vietnam
has been reviewing its approach to the management of its natural resources. Forest Land
Allocation (FLA) is one important component of the decentralization process in Vietnam's
forest management.
A part from the forest degradation, rural poverty is also a big problem to be addressed by
the local government. Most of the poor and hungry are ethnic minorities and live in remote
areas with daily activities related to forest resources, especially, the indigenous ethnic
groups who have been living in the central highlands for hundreds of years, but are still
very poor and lack land for cultivation. According to a survey in 1999 from the Department
2
of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs (DOLISA) of Dak Lak province, there were 58,987
households (18.1 percent of the provincial population) classified as poor and hungry in Dak
Lak province of which 40 percent were indigenous people. Besides, the population growth
rate has been very high in the last decades in Dak Lak province. There were 350,000 people
in 1975, which increased to 1.73 million people in the year 2000 {Thanh 2000}.
Uncontrolled immigrants from other provinces of the country mainly caused this fact.
Consequently, indigenous ethnic minorities have been pushed deeper and deeper into the
forest driven not only by land encroachment, but also by land transfers and land sales to the
new comers.
In January, 1994, based on the Decree No. 02/CP and the more recent Decree No 163/ND-
CP in November 1999, the government decided to decentralize forest management and
allocate forest and forest land to households, individuals and organizations for long-term
sustainable usage. So far, mostly bare lands for reforestation has been distributed to
agricultural households under this decree. There is still a considerable lack of knowledge
and experience concerning successful models of allocating forested land. One major
question is under which institutional arrangements forest land should be allocated in order
to improve the management and protection of the forests on the one hand and improve the
livelihood of rural households on the other hand. Another question is whether land should
be allocated to individual households, to groups of households or to communities. Different
models have been discussed: leasing out of forest land on a long-term contractual basis,
allocation of a bundle of rights (right to use, to mortgage, to transfer, to inherit, right to
sell.) on the basis of the Land Use Certificate, a so called “Red Book”1, or formation of
groups of households for the purpose of forest management, etc.
Against this background, the People’s Committee (PC) of Dak Lak Province has played a
pioneering role and started a pilot project of allocating existing natural forest to households
user groups and communities which goes much beyond the national policy and has not
taken place in other provinces. 7,000 ha of stock forest from five State Forest Enterprises
(SFEs) were allocated to households and user groups with Red Book certificates in 1999.
1 Land Use Certificate with red cover, in Vietnamese called “Red Book”
3
This program was continuously expanded in the year 2000. In order to get a successful
model of forest management, Dak Lak province tried to devolve forest land to several
different economic entities, such as individuals, user groups and communities.
Taking into account that there is still a considerable lack of knowledge and experience
concerning successful models of allocating forested land, this pilot project in Dak Lak
province offers a unique opportunity for policy-relevant research on forest land allocation.
The pilot project allows us to study the process of Forest Land Allocation in order to
evaluate the degree of participation of villagers, the equity and transparency aspects, and
the role of the different actors involved in the process. On the other hand, the expected
impact on the local people’s livelihood as well as forest protection and investment from
villager’s perspectives is also taken into account. This research will be relevant not only for
the regional level in Dak Lak Province, but also will contribute to the further development
of forest policies on the national level.
1.2 Objectives
The overall objective of this research is to study the process of forest land allocation and to
derive conclusions concerning the potentials and constraints of this process. Based on this
assessment, policy recommendations will be derived.
The specific objectives of the research project include:
• To assess the role and performance of the stake holders involved in the FLA process
• To examine the degree of participation of the residents in villages where forest land has
been allocated (recipients and non-recipients of forest land),
• To identify expected impacts of forest land allocation on livelihoods of local residents
• To contribute to the identification of good practices in forest land allocation and to
derive policy recommendations
4
1.3 Structure of the thesis
The thesis consists of seven chapters. The overview and objectives of the research are
described in the first chapter. In chapter two, the literature is reviewed and an analytical
framework presented. The third chapter outlines the research methodology. The study sites
profile is in the fourth chapter. The research results are in the fifth chapter. The discussion
part is in the sixth chapter. The conclusions and recommendations are in the seventh
chapter. The appendix consists of all the figures, minutes, questionnaires, and list of the
government regulations/law related to the FLA program.
5
CHAPTER II
2 Theoretical Framework
2.1 Literature Review of Property rights and tenure systems
It is useful to understand properly the concept of the property, especially in nature resource
management. As one author notes, “Property relations over land and related natural
resources must be understood as part of the larger institutional structure of society”{Daniel
W.Bromley 1998}.
In a given society, the all economic goods can be possessed under different property
regimes. In developing countries, property rights over natural resources are often to a large
extent broadly classified as State Property. In this circumstance, the state controls and
manages property through the activities of state agencies and organizations. Property held
by a community or group of users is classified as Common Property. Under common
property, all individuals have rights to access and have the duty to respect the asset.
Property held by individuals or groups, which is accepted legally by the society at large, is
classified as Private Property. Additionally, property that has no legal right of use
assigned to anyone is classified as Open Access. This means that open access resource is
free for all, and no property right accrues to anyone in this regime. (See {Daniel
W.Bromley 1998})
There are a number of definitions of property rights. Alchian has defined a property right
as a “socially enforced right to select uses of an economic good.”{Alchian 1987} Furobotn
and Pejovich characterize the concept of property rights as follows: "A central point noted
is that property rights do not refer to relations between men and things but, rather, to the
sanctioned behavioral relations among men that arise from the existence of things and
pertain to their use” {Furobotn 1972}.
6
In general, “property right is the capacity of the holder to compel the authority system to
come to his or her defense. To have a property right is to have the capacity to require the
authorities to defense your interests in an object or a circumstance” {Daniel W.Bromley
1998}
It is generally accepted that property rights consist of the right to use, right to manage, right
to the income, right of exclusion, right of transfer, right to compensation, and right to
security in regard to piece of property. {Honore 1961} and {Snare 1972}
According to a recent analysis, there are “five property rights that are most relevant for the
use of common-pool resources including access, withdrawal, management, exclusion, and
alienation” {A .Agrawal & E.Ostrom 1999}. This definition is illustrated in the Table 1.
Table 1: Bundle of rights associated with positions
Owner Propietor Authorizedclaimant
Authorizeduser
Authorizedentrant
Access X X X X XWithdrawal X X X XManagement X X XExclusion X XAlienation XSource: {A .Agrawal & E.Ostrom 1999}
Why does it matter who hold the rights to natural resources? Arguments over property
rights in developing countries are increasingly attracting attention nowadays. In addition,
“increasing recognition of local people’s role in forest management and growing
dissatisfaction with state management has led to call for devolution. Today devolution is a
core theme in forest management” {Hans Helmrich 2001}. The fact is that “many
governments lack the resources to adequately manage natural resources over large areas”,
and management of natural resources by government agencies has proven to be expensive
and ineffective {Ruth Meinzen-Dick & Anna Knox 1999}.
The concept of tenure is closely related to the concept of property rights and property
systems. It is defined as a bundle of rights, rights that are held in land and trees. In
particular, combinations or bundles of rights in resources are recognized by law and
7
custom in particular societies. The people affected will have a name for recognized
tenures: "ownership" or "usufructs" are example of Western tenures {John W.Bruce 1989}.
Some tenures consist of a fairly clearly prescribed bundle of rights, but the content of
others, "leasehold" for instance, can be determined to a large extent by contract between
the parties. A "tenure system" is the set of tenures in a given societies. There are usually
several different tenures in a tenure system, for different land uses or types of users, but
they should constitute a coherent system, complementing one another.
John W. Bruce has also stressed that tree tenure is not necessarily considered as a part of
parcel of the land on which they grow in all societies. In some tenure system, trees are
"fixtures" and like buildings are assumed to be owned by whoever owns the land. But, in
fact, trees can like minerals and water, which can be an object of property rights separable
from the land on which they are located.
2.2 Analytical framework
The major objectives of the forest allocation program in Vietnam in general and in Dak
Lak province in particular are:
1) To improve the management and protection of the forests, and
2) To improve the livelihood of the local residents.
The local government makes efforts to reach the goals of the FLA as a part of an integrated
rural development process.
Devolution in natural resource management can offer incentives for management, give
necessary authorization and control over the resource, reinforce collective action and assign
rights to the users {R. Meinzen-Dick & A. Knox 1999}.
In addition, devolution of forest management would change the state of the resources and
resource users. Dealing with the attribute of resources and resource users, it is necessary to
look at the institutional changes. “The forest users are more likely to devise their own roles
they use a forest that is starting to deteriorate but has not substantially disappeared, when
some forest products, provide early warning concerning forest condition, when forest
products are predictably available, and when forest is sufficiently small that users can
8
develop accurate knowledge of condition” {Elinor Ostrom 1999}. Self-organization would
occur when forest resources are salient to the users, and when users are aware of problems
they are facing and are affected by low discount rate.
Figure 1: Analytical framework
Based on the considerations on Forest Land Allocation developed by Birner {Birner 1999},
this thesis concentrates on the conditions under which forest land allocation will serve the
two goals of forest land allocation mentioned above. As indicated in Figure 1, the analytical
framework suggested here holds that the extent to which the goals of FLA can be reached
and reflected in the output parameters depends on the success of the FLA process in terms
of participation, co-ordination, transparency and affordability.
The following indicators can be used to judge the achievement of two goals of forest land
allocation:
1) Improved resource conditions
1a) increased investment in forest land (e.g., replanting, enrichment planting, etc.);
1b) increased protection of forests from conversion, unsustainable use and forest
fire;
2) Improved conditions of the resource users
2a) clear and generally recognized land and tree tenure
2b) increased income contribution or other benefits from forest to local residents;
Policy interaction
OUTPUTChange in resourcecondition§ Degradation level
Change in the conditionof resource user§ Local livelihood§ Equity
STATE OF RESOURCES
§ Degradation
CONDITION OFRESOURCE USERS
§ Tenure insecurity§ Population pressure
FLA. PROCESS
§ Participation§ Coordination§ Transparency§ Affordability
9
2c) reduced income differentiation between local residents. (equity)
2d) Capital asset generation.
Note that indicator 2c is an equity indicator, which does not necessarily follow from the
general formulation of the second objective mentioned above. However, as poverty
alleviation was also mentioned as a goal of forest land allocation, the choice of this
indicator appears to be reasonable.
At the current stage of the land allocation process, it is, however, not yet possible to
directly observe the above indicators. This will only be possible in a long-term perspective,
if appropriate monitoring procedures are implemented. Nevertheless, it is possible at the
current stage to judge whether or not it is likely that the above objectives can be achieved
by studying the incentives (reasons to do or not to do something), which are created by the
forest land allocation program. The following guideline questions can be used for the
analysis. The explanation following each question shows how different aspects of the FLA
process, as indicated in Figure 1, are linked to the different outcome parameters.
How were the local residents involved in the FLA process and how did they act?
The participation from the local residents in the FLA process plays a vital role, which leads
to feasibility and success of FLA. If the local people actively involved at the beginning of
the process, it would be a potential way to avoid future conflicts, which might be
encountered during the process of devolution.
How were the take holders involved in the process of FLA and what were their roles?
A good coordination and collaboration between the different stakeholders would simply the
complex procedure of FLA. A part from that, the cost of FLA could be reduced, if there is a
sound mandate assigned to the main actors in the FLA process.
When does forest land allocation create incentives for investments such as afforestation
or enrichment planting?
From an economic perspective, it can be assumed that a household has an incentive to
invest labor and/or capital in forest land, if the costs to do so are lower than the expected
10
benefits. If one adopts this assumption, the following factors influence the incentive of the
household to invest into the forest:
When does forest land allocation create incentives for better protection of forests?
If villagers protect the forest from forest fire, illegal logging and encroachment by
outsiders, this can be considered as an investment of labor. Therefore, the above
considerations on investment also apply to the question of protection. A strong sense of
“ownership” may also create an incentive for forest protection, even in case that the
discounted benefits of protection do not exceed the costs. It is suggested to consider this
incentive for forest protection also as “ownership effect” {Birner 1999}.
When does forest land allocation create additional benefits for the households?
As already noted above, that the additional benefits, which arise due to forest land
allocation, depend on the quality of the allocated forest, the benefit sharing rules, time
preferences, security and the possibility to create new markets for forest products. The
expected benefits also depend on the effectiveness by which the households are able to
protect the forest they received (see above). Another additional benefit can be seen in the
right to mortgage forest land which is entailed in the Red Book Certificate.
When does forest land allocation reduce inequality within the village?
If land is allocated to individual households and if not all households in the village receive
forest land in this process, differences among villagers in income and wealth can only be
reduced, if forest land is allocated to the poorer households. The challenge here is to devise
a mechanism that can guarantee such a distribution. One has to take into account that the
poor households may have a lower capacity (high opportunity costs of capital) and a lower
incentive (high time discount rate) to manage the forest well. This implies that there may be
a trade-off between the two goals of forest land allocation discussed above. If forest
protection has a higher priority for the agencies involved in forest land allocation, they may
not have an incentive to distribute it to the poorer households. If the allocation procedure is
entirely left to the village itself, one cannot simply assume that there are sufficient
incentives to allocate land to the poorer households. Unequal access to information and the
local power structure within the village may prevent such a result. Even if forest land is
11
allocated to all households in the village, there is still the problem to delineate plots of
equal value.
2.3 Research hypothesis
From the theoretical considerations outlined in the last section, the following research
hypotheses can be derived:
P-1: If the equity goals is pursued, the poor and hungry households have a greater chance
than better-off households to receive forest land. In addition, they have at least the
same access to information on FLA.
P-2: The recipients are willing to invest in afforestation and forest enrichment. This
means that FLA, by changing the ownership of land, creates incentives for
investment.
P-3: Households that receive forest land have an increased incentive to stop other
villagers from illegal activities on the allocated forest land.
P-4: Households that did not receive forest land may have a lower incentive to co-
operate in forest protection, especially if they consider the forest allocation process
as unfair and if they lose benefits from the forest which they used before or
expected prior to allocation.
2.4 Legislative and policy framework for Forest Land Allocation inVietnam
The success of the recently introduced policy of agricultural land allocation has induced
the Vietnamese Government to allocate forest lands to individual households. Officially
the aim of the forest land allocation policy is to help farmers to solve their food security
problems, gradually abandon unsustainable farming activities, which it is hoped will lead
to preserving, enlarging forest cover, and in general to improve living conditions of people
(see{Paolo Faggi, Tiziano Gomiero, et al. 1998}).
The revised Land Law, which was amended by the National Assembly in 1993, clearly
states that land is owned by the people and under the integrated management of the State,
but the State allocates land to the users for long term and stable use. Following the land
12
law, there are considerable numbers of decrees and regulations to elaborate the land
allocation policy. The Forest Land Allocation program has taken place since late 1994, but
has mainly been applied to bare land or shrubs. At that time, forested lands were also only
assigned to households or user groups with a protection contract. Since 1998, Dak Lak
province has initiated FLA with stock forest to individual households with a land use
certificate (Red Book) see1.1.
The Forest Land Allocation in Vietnam is the process of transition from "state property" to
"private property" or "common property" as mentioned above. Land is allocated to
individuals or group users with the land tenure certificate. The land holders can receive 20-
year renewable tenure rights on land for annual crops and 50-year rights for perennial
crops and forest land (see Land Law 1993).
Under the Land Law, there are many decrees, and regulations elaborating the process of
land allocation, especially for forest land allocation. The key decrees for forest land
allocation are the Decree No.02/CP dated on 15 January, 1994 which was replaced by the
Decree No. 163/ND-CP dated on 16 November, 1999. This Decree deals with Forest Land
Allocation, Lease to Individuals, Households and Organizations for Long-term Forestry
Purpose.
In Viet Nam FLA is a one tool of a process of devolution. “Devolution is often part of a
number of related policy reform, in which central government agencies transfer rights and
responsibilities to the lower level” such as province and district {Ruth Meinzen-Dick &
Anna Knox 1999}.
However, “the theoretical assumptions underlying devolution have been juxtaposed by lack
of empirical assessments of the process and outcomes of devolution {H. Helmrich 2001}. It
is needed to have research on the influences of the devolution on socio-economic and
ecological aspects such as: local resident livelihoods, equity, and forest state. Another
aspect should be taken into account is institutional changes and assessment tools for FLA in
Viet Nam.
13
One of the requisite conditions to ensure success of FLA is “participation approaches,
which does not seem to be always properly followed. In most of the villages farmers had
been just informed about the FLA process, but not actively contribute to the decisional
process” {Paolo Faggi, Tiziano Gomiero, et al. 1998}.
Related to the gender issue in connection to FLA, legal registration in the land use
certificate (Red Book) is also a theme to be addressed as women do not have their names
recorded in the Red Books. This is gradually being paid attention to in the rural area. In
addition, using Red Books as collateral in the bank for loans to farmers is still a crucial
problem due to inadequate legal regulations (see{Oxfam UK/I Vietnam 1998}).
Regarding to FLA in Dak Lak, it is necessary to have empirical research, which can
analyze the impact of FLA by studying the process of FLA, expected impact, and
institutional involvement. (see{Birner 1999})
14
CHAPTER III
3 Methodology
3.1 Selection of research sites
The research was conducted in two State Forest Enterprises, in Ea Hleo and Cu Jut district,
Dak Lak province, Vietnam. These two cases have been selected, because the FLA process
is particularly advanced there and because the cases capture a considerable variation in
socio-cultural and land use systems. The FLA was implemented in Ea Hleo Forest
Enterprise in 1998 and was the first place in Dak Lak province to carry out the pilot project
of FLA. Most of the households who received forest land are indigenous ethnic group of th
Gia Rai who still practice shifting cultivation. The Gia Rai ethnic group has a matriarchal
system of traditional land use in the central highlands of Vietnam. In the other case of Cu
Jut Forest Enterprise the process started a little later and therefore gained certain
experiences from the first FLA. The households involved in the FLA program here are
mainly new immigrants from the Northern provinces, who have different framing practices
as well as a different culture from indigenous farmers in the central highlands.
15
Figure 2: Study sites in Dak Lak province
<
)
)
)
))
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
<
)
0 25
Kilometers
50
Buon Ma ThuotBuon Ma ThuotBuon Ma ThuotBuon Ma ThuotBuon Ma ThuotBuon Ma ThuotBuon Ma ThuotBuon Ma ThuotBuon Ma Thuot
Ea SoupEa SoupEa SoupEa SoupEa SoupEa SoupEa SoupEa SoupEa Soup
Krong BukKrong BukKrong BukKrong BukKrong BukKrong BukKrong BukKrong BukKrong Buk
Krong PacKrong PacKrong PacKrong PacKrong PacKrong PacKrong PacKrong PacKrong Pac
Dak MilDak MilDak MilDak MilDak MilDak MilDak MilDak MilDak Mil
M'DrakM'DrakM'DrakM'DrakM'DrakM'DrakM'DrakM'DrakM'Drak
LakLakLakLakLakLakLakLakLak
Dak NongDak NongDak NongDak NongDak NongDak NongDak NongDak NongDak Nong
Krong BongKrong BongKrong BongKrong BongKrong BongKrong BongKrong BongKrong BongKrong BongKrong AnaKrong AnaKrong AnaKrong AnaKrong AnaKrong AnaKrong AnaKrong AnaKrong Ana
Cu M'GarCu M'GarCu M'GarCu M'GarCu M'GarCu M'GarCu M'GarCu M'GarCu M'Gar
Dak RlapDak RlapDak RlapDak RlapDak RlapDak RlapDak RlapDak RlapDak Rlap
Ea KarEa KarEa KarEa KarEa KarEa KarEa KarEa KarEa Kar
Krong NangKrong NangKrong NangKrong NangKrong NangKrong NangKrong NangKrong NangKrong Nang
Krong NoKrong NoKrong NoKrong NoKrong NoKrong NoKrong NoKrong NoKrong No
Cu JutCu JutCu JutCu JutCu JutCu JutCu JutCu JutCu Jut
Buon DonBuon DonBuon DonBuon DonBuon DonBuon DonBuon DonBuon DonBuon Don
Da LatDa LatDa LatDa LatDa LatDa LatDa LatDa LatDa Lat
<
<
<
<
Gulf of ThailandGulf of ThailandGulf of ThailandGulf of ThailandGulf of ThailandGulf of ThailandGulf of ThailandGulf of ThailandGulf of Thailand
000000000 125125125
125125125125125125
KilometersKilometersKilometersKilometersKilometersKilometersKilometersKilometersKilometers
250250250250250250250250250
Eastern seaEastern seaEastern seaEastern seaEastern seaEastern seaEastern seaEastern seaEastern sea
THAILAND
CHINA
LAOS
CAMBODIABUON MA THUOTBUON MA THUOTBUON MA THUOTBUON MA THUOTBUON MA THUOTBUON MA THUOTBUON MA THUOTBUON MA THUOTBUON MA THUOT
VIENTIANEVIENTIANEVIENTIANEVIENTIANEVIENTIANEVIENTIANEVIENTIANEVIENTIANEVIENTIANE
PHNOM PENHPHNOM PENHPHNOM PENHPHNOM PENHPHNOM PENHPHNOM PENHPHNOM PENHPHNOM PENHPHNOM PENH
BANGKOKBANGKOKBANGKOKBANGKOKBANGKOKBANGKOKBANGKOKBANGKOKBANGKOK
HA NOIHA NOIHA NOIHA NOIHA NOIHA NOIHA NOIHA NOIHA NOI
HO CHI MINH CITYHO CHI MINH CITYHO CHI MINH CITYHO CHI MINH CITYHO CHI MINH CITYHO CHI MINH CITYHO CHI MINH CITYHO CHI MINH CITYHO CHI MINH CITY
DA NANGDA NANGDA NANGDA NANGDA NANGDA NANGDA NANGDA NANGDA NANG
LEGEND
< . City) . Town
National boundaryProvincial boundary
LOCATION OF EA PO & EA SOL COMMUNES IN DAK LAK PROVINCE
GIA LAI
PHU YEN
KHANH HOA
LAM DONG
BINHPHUOC
CAMBODIA
∋
DAK LAK
Ea Sol Commune
Ea Po Commune
Ù
16
3.2 Research methodology
The reports, regulations, minutes and legal documents, which were produced during of
FLA process have been used as valuable secondary data sources in the research.
The major focus of research was the collection of primary data using household
interviews and meetings with the stakeholders at various levels (commune, district and
province), who are involved in the FLA process. At the village level, the discussions were
informally held with the participation of the traditional village headman, official village
headman, key informants and representatives of the mass organizations such as the
women’s union, and veteran’s association, who offered an overview of the villages' socio-
economic conditions. At the commune level, the People’s Committee and the Forestry
Board representatives were interviewed with the questionnaires guidelines (see appendix).
At the district level, the interview guideline were used to interview the following
organizations/agencies: People’s Committee, Forest Protection Units, Land Management
Offices, Agriculture and Rural Development Offices, Agricultural Extension Stations, and
State Forest Enterprises.
To construct the sampling frame, a list of all households in the two selected sites was
obtained from village headman and State Forest Enterprises. The poverty status2, recipient
status and villages were also defined in this list. This was used as sampling frame and then
random sampling steps have been done using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science)
soft ware. In order to get unbiased representative filed data, a stratified random sample of
households, comprising 75 recipient and 55 non-recipient households of FLA were
interviewed, using a pre-tested standardized questionnaire. The proportion of sampled
households which received forest land was higher in the sample than in the population
because the study focused more on the recipient group (see Table 2). Besides the
recipient/non-recipient status, village and poverty class were used as stratification criteria
for random sampling. This procedure ensures that the sample represents households of all
poverty classes in all villages of the two cases, where FLA took place. All the information
2 Base on the results of the survey from Poverty Alleviation program
17
from household interviews was encoded and entered into SPSS soft-ware for statistical
analysis.
Participatory observation of meetings, field visits and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
techniques were also used during the field research. This proved to be very useful to gain
deeper understanding and to cross check the collected information. Besides, provincial
workshops, and roundtable discussions were held to get comments from stakeholders of
FLA and were another valuable information source for this thesis.
Table 2: Households sampling selection
Ea Sol Cu Jut Total Interviewed Percent
Total HH3 297 122 419 130 31%
Recipient 119 81 200 75 38%
Non-recipient 178 41 219 55 25%
3.3 Limitation of the research methodology
Research was carried out in the initial stage of the allocation process. Consequently, only
expectations from villagers about future actions could be assessed. Furthermore, these
expectations might be biased in favor of answers that the respondents think could benefit
them in the future. This is a common problem observed in survey research, where the
researcher spends only a relatively short time with the respondent and does not have a lot
of time available for in-depth discussions.
Another aspect is related to questions about future use of allocate forest land. Especially in
the Vietnamese situation with a traditionally strong state executing control over resources,
answers about intended future forestry related activities might be influenced by fears that
answers about potentially planned ‘illegal’ activities could be used against respondents.
3 Total households in FLA area, not for whole commune.
18
The fact that FLA took place in only four forest enterprises, also limited options for
sampling. The language barrier between researcher and the villagers in Ea Sol case was
also a limitation during interviews, which might lead to information missing or not
completely understood and recorded. Additionally, the process of FLA was not in the same
stage between Ea Hleo and Cu Jut, and it is therefore, difficult to compare the two
situations at the same time. Moreover, it would be better if it is possible to measure the
degree of attainment of the FLA goal by collecting socio-economic data before and after
FLA implementation. This approach cannot be applied in the site of Dak Lak, because
such kind of information was never gathered initially. Furthermore, outcomes of forest
land allocation cannot be expected within a short time frame due to the growth rates of
trees. Long-term monitoring, e.g. by means of remote sensing techniques, is necessary to
detect changes in forest cover and quality.
19
CHAPTER IV
4 Profile Of The Study Sites
4.1 Overview of Ea Sol and Ea Po communes
The field research was conducted all villages in the two communes where FLA took place.
However, to give an overview of the condition of area, the following information is related
to the commune administrative boundary. Both are remote communes of Dak Lak province
with poor infrastructure condition and low-income levels.
Ea Sol was founded in 1975 and is located in the North-East, 30 km from Ea Hleo district
center and 120 km from the provincial capital.
Ea Po commune was founded in 1989 and is located in the North, 20 km from Cu Jut
district center and 50 km from center of Dak Lak province. To the North of Ea Po
commune is Jok Don national park, one of the biggest in Vietnam with an area of 58,000
ha.
It is useful to address the fact that, although the communes were both established after the
American war, the indigenous ethnic groups already inhabited this area for hundreds of
years. They have a lot of experience related to natural resources management. The
indigenous ethnic groups in the central highlands have their own traditional land use
systems, such as land inheritance with matriarchal systems used by the Ede, Mnong, Gia
Rai, and many other smaller groups. However, these systems have changed recently due to
various factors such as government policies, population pressure, and immigration.
4.2 Population and ethnic composition
Although Ea Sol commune was founded in 1975, the ethnic minorities are mainly
indigenous people. On the contrary in Ea Po commune, most of people are new immigrants
from other provinces. The population and ethnic composition are described in Table 3.
20
Table 3: Population in two communes
Items Ea Sol commune Ea Po communeTotal people 7,168 14,115No. of households 1,370 2,949Working labor 2,513 -Population density 16.5 27.0Number of ethnic groups 13 8Number of villages 11 23Number villages with FLA 4 3 Source: P.Cs of Ea Sol and Ea Po communes, 1999
The ethnic group composition of communes is illustrated in the Figure 3.
Ea Po commune
Tay14%
Kinh32%
EDe2%
Thai21%
Nung16%
Dao7%
Others8%
Tay Kinh EDe Thai Nung Dao Others
Source: PCs of Ea Sol and Ea Po communes, 1999.
Ea Sol commune
Gia Rai36%
E De27%
Thai4%
Others2%
Kinh31%
Gia Rai Kinh E De Thai Others
21
Figure 3: Ethnic group composition of Ea Sol and Ea Po communes
People from diverse cultural background characterize this multi-ethnic environment. After
nearly two decades living in the same area, the cultures have influenced each other. For
instance, the rituals of funerals or weddings are not as original as they once were, especially
for native minority people. Their rituals included harvest-time, buffalo sacrifices and
threshing ceremonies and these have changed considerably in comparison with the past.
4.3 Forest resources and its utilizations
Moist deciduous forest is the main type of forest in the two communes, with dominant
species including: Dipterocarpus tuberculatus, Shorea obtusa, and Shorea siamensis. In
addition, there are also semi-evergreen forest along the streams with species such as
Laguestroemia caliculata and Xylia dolarbriformic... Some of the precious species such as
Dalbergia cochinchinensis, and Pterocarpus pedatus are endangered due to over
exploitation by illegal logging by local residents as well as outsiders.
Forest resources are very important for local villagers, especially in isolated villages where
people depend heavily on natural forest resources. They need timber for housing, furniture,
firewood for daily food cooking and heating, vegetables and hunting during food
shortages, and medical herbs. A part from that, the natural forest offers native ethnic
groups a place for their worship and religious practices. However, deforestation is a crucial
problem in these places due to illegal logging and uncontrolled immigrant from other
provinces. According to the PC commune of Ea Po, immigrants caused a lot of problems
related to the environment as well for social problems in the region, such as land
encroachment, illegal logging, illegal land transferring, etc. The population increased very
rapidly in the last decade in Ea Po commune. There were 297 households with 2,500
people in 1989, but it reached 2,949 with 14,115 people households in 1999 (ten times
increase).
22
Based on the inventory data obtained from Ea Hleo and Cu Jut forest enterprises, most of
the forest area that has been allocated to households already is poor and degraded forest.
Additionally, the soil in the allocated areas is not very fertile (sandy soil in Ea Sol
commune and rocky soil in Cu Jut commune).
4.4 Land use
Land use planning was not carried out for long-term or short-term usage in Ea Sol and Ea
Po communes. Land classification is based on the legal prescription of land use that does
not always reflect actual land use in fact. Land use classification is used mainly for land
source statistics and land management, and can be different from actual land use on the
ground.
Table 4: Existing land use of Ea Sol and Ea Po communes (Unit: Hectare)
Source: Land Use Planning Center of Dak Lak province, 1999
Land encroachment and land use conflicts have increased nowadays in both communes.
High population pressure, both natural and from immigration and the expansion of State
Farms, are the main reasons of land use conflict between local villagers, the new comers
and the State farms. In many villages, most of the upland fields used previously for shifting
cultivation, have nowadays been converted to rubber and coffee plantations, which belong
No. Land type Ea Sol commune Ea Po communeTotal 23,406 52,150
I Agricultural land 4,033 5,942.591 Annual crop 932 5,407.9A Rice 28 275.5B Subsidiary crop 904 5,132.42 Perennial crop 2,676 476.59A Coffee 1,284 -B Rubber 1,393 -3 Nursery 23 -4 Home garden 402 56.35 Fishery pond - 1.8II Forestry land 14,520 42,812.05III Special used land 915 431.84IV Residential land 76 120V Unused land 3862 2,843.52
23
to the state farms without or with only little compensation to the indigenous villagers. Local
farmers are pushed deeper and deeper to the agricultural frontier and into the natural forest
area for their own cultivation as a result.
Farmers in Ea Po commune mainly cultivate green bean, soya bean, ground nut and cotton
on upland fields. On the contrary, people in Ea Sol commune mainly cultivate upland rice
and industrial cash crops such as coffee, pepper and are employed on the rubber and coffee
field of the State farms to earn cash income.
CHAPTER V
5 Results And Analysis
5.1 Institutional analysis
5.1.1 Role of Stakeholders and Their Performance in FLA process
As mentioned in the introduction, Dak Lak province is a pioneer in the movement to
allocate natural forested land to individual households and user groups with Red Book
Certificates. This task is very new with the State Forest Enterprises as well as with the local
authorities. As a result, the FLA in Dak Lak is a learning process and it needs to be
monitored and evaluated to draw the lessons learnt for other regions in the country. The
Figure 4 gives an overview of the institutional landscape of the FLA process.
LMDFPD DARDDPI
SFEFPU LMO ARDOAES
PC
PC
PC Direct management
Province
Distrcit
Commune
GTZ
24
Source: Modified from {Sikor. 2000}
Figure 4: Institutional landscape of FLA in Dak Lak province
At the provincial level, the People's committee (PC) directs the Land Management
Department (LMD), the Department of Investment and Planning (DPI) and the Department
of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) including the Forest Development Sub-
Department (FDD) inside the DARD. The assignments and actual roles of each department
in FLA in Dak Lak province were described as follows:
§ The People Committee of the province is very important in regulating and
coordinating the activities among different departments at the provincial level. In the
FLA program, the People’s Committee has the role to initiate the pilot projects and
promulgate the policy decisions. However, technical advises from departments are
extremely important for the People’s Committee to give a decision.
§ The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) was designated as
the major implementing agency for FLA because DARD manages activities related to
forestry, agricultural and water resources in Dak Lak province. Inside DARD the
Forest Development Sub-Department (FDD) is in charge of the forestry sector of the
whole province. The Forest Development Sub-Department provides technical guidance
and approves technical plans and field implementation tasks of FLA for whole
province. Thus, the Forest Development Sub-Department is the most important actor in
FLA of Dak Lak province. Forest Development Sub-Department has moderated the
provincial workshops of FLA and provided technical assistance to State Forest
Enterprises implementing FLA. With support from Sustainable Management of
Resources in the Lower Mekong Basin Project and the Consultative Working Group
25
(CWG), the Forest Development Department has helped State Forest Enterprises to
develop the benefit sharing policy and submitted it to other Departments at the
provincial level for comments.
§ The Land Management Department (LMD) is in charge of all procedures to issue
Land Use Certificate (Red Book), land allocation, land use planning, and other
administrative work in land management such as transferring land use rights, changing
land use purposes, land sales, etc. So far, the Land Management Department has only
dealt with agricultural land, and thus they have no experience in FLA. Land
Management Department has inactively participated in the FLA workshops at the
provincial as well as district level to discuss about the FLA policy. Although land
allocation is one of main task of Land Management Department, they did not perform
an active role in the FLA process. The Land Management Department does not involve
itself in the implementation of the FLA but it is very important in assigning the tasks
and budget distribution down to Land Management Office (LMO) at district level, who
partly implement the program.
§ The Department of Planning and Investment is in charge of assisting the provincial
People’s Committee to distribute the annual budget and work plan to the implementing
agencies. Thus the role of Department of Planning and Investment is very important not
only for the FLA program but also for financial issues. In the FLA program, the
Department of Planning and Investment has performed an active function in the process
of developing the policy as well as promoting the State Forest Enterprises to conduct
the FLA program.
§ The Forest Protection Department (FPD) at the provincial level was inactively
involved in the FLA process. The Forest Protection Department only participated at the
workshops and the meetings. But later on Forest Protection Department will also play a
role in the enforcement of the forest protection law. Nevertheless, the role of Forest
Protection Units at the district level will be very important after forest land allocating to
the households/user groups or community.
26
At district level, mainly the People’s Committee regulates the State Forest Enterprises and
Land Management Office (LMO), which conduct the FLA process following the decision
of provincial People’s Committee. Even though, the Forest Protection Unit (FPU) and the
Agriculture and Rural Development Office (ARDO) will be in charge of all the activities
after forest allocation to the individual households/user groups or community (based on the
Decision No.245/QD-TTg.1998). They have not played an active role in the initial
allocation. In reality, most of the tasks are undertaken by State Forest Enterprises with little
active support from the Land Management Office, Forest Protection Unit and Agriculture
and Rural Development Office, and even People’s Committee as in the Cu Jut case. Most
of the state agencies at the district level think that the State Forest Enterprise is responsible
for the FLA program because the budget was distributed to the State Forest Enterprise.
However, Legally, land allocation and Red Book issuing must be done by the Land
Management Office. The performance of the district stakeholders is described as follows:
§ The district People’s Committee coordinates the activities between State Forest
Enterprises and other professional office such as Land Management Office, Forest
Protection Unit and Agriculture and Rural Development Office. The district People’s
Committee also approves the FLA plan and signs in Red Books at the end of the
process. Thus, the role of People’s Committee at the district is indispensable for the
FLA implementation. Different from the Ea Hleo district, the People’s Committee of
Cu Jut district has demonstrated a low level of coordination and interest in the FLA
process. This has led to a slow and complicated process, which may endanger the
success of the FLA in the area.
§ The State Forest Enterprises are in charge of implementing FLA following the work
and budget plan from the People’s Committee and Department of Planning and
Investment of the province. The State Forest Enterprises did the survey of land use,
village meetings, forest inventory, demarcation of forest plots in the field, mapping, and
the development of the FLA plans. The Land Management Offices and the People’s
Committee then issue the Red Books. If there was good cooperation at the beginning,
27
the task of handing over the FLA information (documents, profile...) from State Forest
Enterprises to Land Management Office and People Committee is very easy and fast for
the process of issuing Red Books. Otherwise, this task takes a long time due to lack of
information and accuracy for issuing Red Books. The State Forest Enterprises have
very high capacity to implement the FLA, because they have much professional
experiences and capacity. Usually, there are fifteen to twenty full time staff in a State
Forest Enterprise, and most of them are forestry engineers and forestry technicians.
§ The Land Management Office is in charge of land administration in the district, and is
directly under authority of the district PC and technically managed by provincial LMD.
The Land Management Offices normally have around five staff members, most of them
with limited professional knowledge due to inadequate training. Very few staff
members have university degrees at district offices. The Land Management Offices
currently concentrate on agricultural land allocation, for which they receive significant
support from provincial Land Management Department. Related to FLA, Land
Management Offices have no experience, but the responsibility to issue Red Books at
the end. Land Management Offices therefore, were invited to all FLA events at all
levels, such as village meetings, workshops or benefit sharing policy discussions. The
role of Land Management Offices is also important in the FLA.
§ The other state agencies are Agriculture and Rural Development Office (ARDO), Forest
Protection Unit (FPU) and the Agriculture Extension Station (AES). These
organizations did not closely cooperate with State Forest Enterprise in the FLA process,
although they will be in charge of forest management activities after forest allocated to
the households. The Agriculture and Rural Development Office is under direct
authority of the district People’s Committee and technically managed by the provincial
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Department. On average, there are
nine staff in the Office most of them have agricultural and hydrological background, but
only few are foresters. So far, the main task of Agriculture and Rural Development
Office is the management of agricultural, irrigation and poverty alleviation activities in
the district. The Agriculture and Rural Development Office does not have any
28
experience in FLA, because so far, the state forest enterprises undertook all the forestry
activities at the district with supervision of Forest Protection Unites.
§ The Forest Protection Unit is more independent because it is managed by the Forest
Protection Department of the province, which is not a part of DARD. The mandate of
the Forest Protection Unit is to deal with violations of the Forest Protection Law. Forest
Protection Units in Dak Lak province have never dealt with FLA or forestry extension
services as it did in the North provinces of Viet Nam. This gives the FLA model in Dak
Lak a different institutional landscape from other provinces in the North of Vietnam. It
would be useful, if Forest Protection Units would get involved in the FLA process from
the beginning to make it easier for them to monitor and control the activities of forest
recipients later on.
§ The Agriculture Extension Stations at the district are quite new. Most of the stations
have been established in recent years. There have on average three staff members and
mainly do services such as information provision to local farmers and organization of
field seminars, training courses and field demonstration models. So far, the Agriculture
Extension Stations have only done few extension services in agriculture due to their
limitation in human resources as well as budget limitations. In the long run, Agriculture
Extension Stations are also a potential agency to assist local farmers to develop their
forest plots.
At the commune level, the People’s Committee is a sole stakeholder, which cooperates
with the State Forest Enterprise in implementing the FLA program. However, several staff
members are in charge of FLA related activities such as the land management officer,
women union’s members, military officer and security officers. The Forest Protection
Board and Land Management Officer are important for FLA implementation. They are
important not only in the FLA process, but also later on after forest allocation in the
enforcement of forest protection laws as well as in conducting forestry extension services.
In the FLA process, the staff from communal People Committee participated with their
assignment without additional payment. This has been a constraint encountered during the
29
implementation process. The State Forest Enterprises would hardly organize a village
meeting without assistance from commune People Committee staff and village headman.
5.1.2 Roles of SMRP/GTZ project in FLA
The Sustainable Management of Resources in the Lower Mekong Basin Project (SMRP)
has the objective to support the Mekong River Commission, its member states and relevant
partner organizations in “developing, promoting and implementing strategies in
participatory natural resource management”. In Dak Lak province, SMRP has focused on
pilot projects of developing innovative participatory approaches to land use planning,
forestland allocation, and forest management through state agencies with support from
Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). SMRP has created a forum and roundtable
discussions among departments at provincial and district level, which performed weak
coordination in the early stages of the FLA process. SMRP has also financed the
“Consultative Working Group” (CWG) of forest land allocation of Dak Lak province
which has members from various organizations such as Tay Nguyen University, Land
Management Department, Forest Protection Department, etc. The main task of the CWG is
to give technical and scientific advise to Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
to implement FLA and to monitor, evaluate and document the FLA process. SMRP has
contributed significantly to the promotion of participatory approaches and facilitated local
authorities and agencies to pay attention to gender issues in the implementation process. In
addition, SMRP organized and supported several training courses for local staff in terms of
participatory approaches.
5.1.3 Chronology of events in Ea Hleo Forest Enterprise
As mentioned in the introduction, the pilot project of FLA in Dak Lak province was
initiated by Ea Hleo Forest Enterprise. In the early stage of the project, it was aimed to
allocate forest land to households with long term contracts on the basis of decree
02/CP/1994. At that time, there were several meetings and workshops held at commune,
district and provincial level, which lead to changes in FLA to the use of land use right
certificate (Red Book) instead of long-term contracts. The chronology of events is briefly
described below:
30
Early 1998, Ea Hleo Forest Enterprise prepared (EFE) a project to allocate forest land to
rural households with protection contracts (so-called green book) which can not be
mortgaged, transferred, inherited, etc, as Ea Hleo Forest Enterprise is a state forest
enterprise administered by Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) at
the provincial level. The Ea Helo Forest Enterprise had to submit the project to DARD for
approval, and at the same time to the Department of Planning and Investment and
provincial People’s committee for budget.
January 21, 1998, the People's Committee of Dak Lak province approved the FLA project
of Ea Hleo Forest Enterprise and made an official decision to assign the responsibility to
allocate 1000 ha forest to households in Ea Sol commune. Following this decision, the
Department of Planning and Investment prepared a budget plan for the implementation of
the FLA project.
June 13, 1998 a first district level workshop was organized by Ea Hleo Forest Enterprise
and Ea Hleo district PC. The participants of the workshop were different stakeholders from
commune, district and provincial level. The objective of the event was to inform the
decision makers at different levels about the project and draft a benefit sharing rule before
informing local farmers. The policy of benefit sharing between the state and the forest
recipients was a major issue to be discussed in the workshop.
July 24, 1998, the second workshop was organized by Ea Hleo Forest Enterprise and Ea
Sol commune People’s Committee in order to get information about the expectation of the
local people concerning the FLA program. After four days, on 30 July, a meeting was held
at the village level to discuss the FLA program and determine which part of the forest
should be allocated to the villagers in four hamlets of Ea Sol commune.
August 1998, the Department of Planning and Investment made a decision to require EFE
to allocate an additional one thousand hectares of forest, because Dak Mol Forest
Enterprise could not conduct FLA due to lack of capacity. This means that Ea Hleo Forest
Enterprise had a plan to allocate 2000 ha of forest for the period of 1998-1999. In early of
August 1998, a questionnaire was delivered to individual households in order to collect
information about the opinions and expectations of the households concerning forest land
allocation. On August 22, a workshop was held at district level (Ea Hleo Forest Enterprise
office) to bring the opinions of villagers up to decision-makers at district level. This
31
workshop also kept the PC involved and reached at a consensus on forest land allocation at
district level before submitting the plan to provincial level. On August 29, a workshop was
held at Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (provincial level) after colleting
comments from lower levels. The first draft of forest land allocation plan was discussed and
ratified by Department of Agriculture and Rural Development before submitting the plan to
the provincial People’s Committee and related Departments at provincial level.
After the FLA proposal was ratified and approved by the district People’s Committee and
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Ea Hleo Forest Enterprise conducted a
detailed land use survey and forest inventory and then demarcated forest plots to be
allocated in the field. The field work took place from August until December 1998.
March 1999: The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development wrote an official
letter of comments on the second draft of the FLA plan and raised the question whether
forest should be allocated to households with Red Book or assigned with long-term
protection contract. This letter was sent to related Department such as Land Management
Department (LMD), Department of Planning and Investment, Forest Protection Department
at the province.
April 1999: A workshop was held at Department of Agriculture and Rural Development on
April 10, with the participation from different stakeholders at provincial level. The main
issue to be discussed was, if forest should be allocated with Red Book or assigned with
long-term contracts. The policy of benefit sharing was also discussed in the workshop with
stakeholders. On 18 April, another workshop was held to revise some contents of the plan
of FLA with presence of Department of Justice, Department of Planning and Investment,
Land Management Department, Department of Science Technology and Environment and
the Communist Party.
May 1999: A workshop was held at the Deptment of Agriculture and Rural Development
to revise some contents of the FLA plan and then get agreement among the Department of
Agriculture and Rural Development, Department of Planning and Investment and Land
Management Department before submitting proposed plan to provincial People Committee.
July 1999: The Dak Lak provincial PC requested to ensure if the FLA plan still satisfied
local people’s expectation after the adjustment. Another workshop was held in Ea Sol
commune to confirm that the FLA plan satisfies these expectations.
32
August 1999: An official proposal jointly made by Department of Agriculture and Rural
Development, Department of Planning and Investment and Land Management Department
was submitted to Dak Lak province People's Committee for approval on August 14.
September 1999, Dak Lak People's Committee approved the proposed plan of FLA on
September 7, 1999 (Decision No. 2232/QD-UB). The decision regulated that forest land
should be allocated to households with Red Book Certificates. Along with Red Books the
FLA recipients receive a contract, which indicates the benefit sharing between the state and
recipients.
5.1.4 Chronology of Events in Cu Jut Forest Enterprise
Cu Jut Forest Enterprise has implemented the FLA program one year after Ea Hleo Forest
Enterprise. The chronology of events, therefore, was slightly different compared to Ea
Hleo. The process was not much better in Cu Jut due to many problems encountered during
the implementation. Uncontrolled immigrants and poor cooperation are two main reasons
that had led to the slowdown of the process in Cu Jut Forest Enterprise.
March 1999: The Department of Planning and Investment made a decision to assign Cu
Jut Forest Enterprise to allocate 1000 ha of forest to local households with budget plan for
implementation.
May 1999, Cu Jut Forest Enterprise conducted a land use survey and forest inventory to
prepare a map of existing forest as well as a land use planning map for the forest plot No.
478 in Ea Po commune. In July 1999, the maps of forest state and land use planning were
available.
August 1999: The first village meeting was organized by Cu Jut Forest Enterprise. The
objective of the meeting was to inform the villagers who live around the forest about the
FLA program. Until the end of 1999, there were three meetings held by Cu Jut Forest
Enterprise with local people but the first one was not successful due to the absent of
communal People’s committee. In the first meeting, 56 households applied to receive
forest, but at the third meeting there were up to 102 households applying for forest.
January 2000: The Cu Jut Forest Enterprise submitted an official letter to Department of
Agriculture and Rural Development and asked for approval of FLA plan.
33
February 2000: A meeting was organized by Cu Jut Forest Enterprise to inform recipients
and representatives of commune People’s Committee about the detailed FLA plan and
established forest protection groups. With the facilitation of Cu Jut Forest Enterprise, nine
groups were established.
August 2000: Dak Lak People’s Committee made a decision to retrieve the forest area
from Cu Jut Forest Enterprise to assign to Cu Jut district People’s Committee. Based on the
Land Law, the People’s Committee is a competent authority to allocate forest land with
Red Books. A long with this decision, the People’s Committee of the province also made a
decision to approve the FLA plan of Cu Jut Forest Enterprise.
November 2000: The People's Committee of Cu Jut district organized a mission including
Cu Jut Forest Enterprise, Land Management Office and Forest Protection Unit to verify in
the field how much forest land change since Cu Jut Forest Enterprise conducted the FLA
program. The reason for this was that because at the time when Cu Jut Forest Enterprise
started the program until the Dak Lak People’s Committee has the decision to approve the
FLA plan and to retrieve forest land to Cu Jut People Committee there were a lot of
changes due to illegal logging and encroachment.
In comparison with the process in Ea Hleo Forest Enterprise, the situation in Cu Jut was
complicated due to high immigration rates and lack of collaboration between Cu Jut Forest
Enterprise and the local authorities during implementation of the FLA program.
5.1.5 Stakeholders assessment
Although, the institutional landscape of FLA is very divers in the early stages, it can be
divided into four main groups
1. Local government with the communal People’s Committee
2. Government agencies,
3. User groups, and
4. The private sector and non-government organizations.
It is useful to have a closer look at the vertical and horizontal relationships among these
institutions and between these institutions and FLA in terms of decision-making, service
provision, resource flows, and accountability.
34
For the local governments FLA is a process of decentralization as well as devolution of
forest management. They, therefore have more power in decision-making compared to in
the past. However, they also have more responsibility for forest protection and enforcement
of penalties against violations of forest management laws. Local government has tried to
devolve forest management to lower levels and to individual households or user groups.
This is a process that can improve the cooperation in forest protection activities and lead to
joint forest management. On the other hand, in the early stages of FLA, local people need
support from local governments such as basic services like financial assistance, extension,
and improvement of infrastructures. The Provincial People’s Committee has played an
active role in the FLA process and regulated the departments at the provincial level to
fulfill their mandates. Due to a lack of experienced and trained human resources, local
governments at district and commune levels performed ineffectively at the beginning of the
FLA process.
Government agencies have changed their role due to the FLA process. Different interests
prevailed in different government agencies. Therefore, they have followed different ways in
the FLA process. The State Forest Enterprises were assigned to implement the FLA and
received the budget for it, so they do FLA as annual assignment. Besides, many state forest
enterprises in Dak Lak are eager to allocate forest land to local people/community, because
this area is mainly poor or degraded forest, of which they can only make limited profit. . In
area with fertile basaltic soils, which are suitable to plant cash crop like coffee and pepper,
the state forest enterprises try to keep their land and are resistant to allocate it, in order to
do business with cash crop plantations. Other state agencies such as the Land Management
Office, the Forest Protection Unite, the Agriculture Extension Station, and the Agriculture
and Rural Development Office were not actively involved in the FLA process, because they
did not get any benefit from FLA. They participated in FLA process due to their mandates
assigned by the local governments.
User Groups of FLA in Dak Lak province include individual households, interest groups
and communities. The incentive of local people to get involved in FLA is to have an
official right to use the forest and forest land as well as the related benefits stated in chapter
I (1.1), and to pas it on to their children. For urgent needs, the recipients could convert
some part of forest to agricultural land, if they lack land for cultivation. In addition, they
35
may get support from local government through the state agencies such as technical
services, training programs, and credit schemes. It is expected that FLA would create more
investment in forest development by these user groups. However, with long- term benefits
from forest production, the user groups face a lot of difficulties in terms of capital and labor
force if FLA is carried out with individual household recipients. Another danger of FLA is
potential forest degradation, conversion or clear-cutting for other purposes due to
difficulties in protection by the forest owners, bad economic development policies, and
poor monitoring systems from local governments. In addition, people may move to forest
areas that belong to other owners or state forest enterprises to log timber or harvest NTFPs.
This could create more difficulties for state forest enterprises and local government.
In the private sector In Dak Lak province there is only one foreign project involved in
FLA process, which supported state agencies and local governments to apply participatory
approaches in FLA. It is too early to describe any private company or organization, who are
involved in the FLA in Dak Lak province. So far, almost all forest management activities
are undertaken by state agencies. Nevertheless, FLA would give a chance for the private
sector to be involved in service provision in the near future.
5.2 Presentation of household survey results
5.2.1 Targeting
As discussed in Chapter 2, a major objective of the FLA program in Dak Lak province is to
contribute to poverty alleviation. Another objective is to ensure sound and sustainable
forest management to bring deforestation to a halt, which is seen as a crucial problem in the
region. This implies that forest land should predominantly be allocated to households that
are ranked as "poor" and "hungry"4 in the official poverty classification system. The
following figure displays the total number of recipients and non-recipients of forest land in
each poverty class in all villages, where forest land was allocated by Ea Hleo and Cu Jut
4 Households are classified as hungry, if their income is less than 13 kg of rice (equivalent 45,000 VND) percapita per month., Poor households with less than 15 kg of rice (equivalent 55,000VND)/capita/month areclassified as poor.
36
Forest Enterprises. It can be observed that most of recipients of forest land are in the classes
"poor" and "hungry". This corresponds to the objective of allocating forest land mainly to
the poor and hungry households. However, Figure 5 also shows that the percentage of
recipients in the "hungry" class (33%) is lower than in the "poor" class (46%). This may be
due to the fact that many households in the hungry class do not meet other criteria for the
forest land allocation, such as sufficient labor resources, lack of agricultural land, native
ethnic minority group, or located close to a forest.
Figure 5: Number of recipient and non-recipient households by poverty class
The FLA can contribute to poverty alleviation because each recipient household of forest
land is allowed to convert up to two hectares of forest into agriculture or agro-forestry, if
they are definitely lacking agricultural land. However, for forest development in the long
run, it is necessary to pay attention to the investment capacity of the poor. Most of the poor
cannot invest in forest development without support from the government or outsiders.
5.2.2 Participation
Participation of the villagers in FLA is considered to be a major prerequisite to its success.
Villagers should actively participate in meetings and express their own opinions. This will
also facilitate discussion among them and help them to derive recommendations. Figure 6a
812 21
32111
132
34
69
0
50
100
150
200
250
Better-off Medium Poor Hungry
Non-recipient
Recipient
37
shows that there were no major differences between medium, poor and hungry households
concerning the attendance of meetings held in the course of the FLA process. However, the
better-off households participated in more meetings. They may have better access to
information and are in a better position to set aside time for meetings. Figure 6b shows that
in 78% of the households, only male family members attended the meeting, even though
FLA certainly is highly relevant for women as well. The interviewed villagers explained
that women are usually busy with housework, and with the children and therefore have no
time to participate. Moreover, in ethnic minority areas in the central highlands, the men in
the family undertake most of the affairs dealing with outsiders.
Figure 6a: Attendance of meeting by poverty class Figure 6b: Attendance of meeting by gender
5.2.3 Equity in the Forest Land Allocation program
One of the biggest challenges of the FLA is the selection of recipients and the distribution
of the forest plots. In order to meet the goals of the FLA and avoid conflicts among the
villagers, SFEs and communal PCs, criteria were developed to define who will receive
forest land. The criteria applied are to pay first priority to: 1) to hungry and poor
households; 2) households with lack of agricultural land; 3) households that have enough
labor capacity; and 4) indigenous ethnic groups living close to a forest. The criteria have
been discussed in the village meetings. However, the final decision of recipient selection
poverty class
hungrypoormediumbetter of f
aver
age
no. m
eetin
gs a
ttend
ed
4,5
4,0
3,5
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
,5
0,0
2,3
2,72,5
4,0
both 2 %
only female 11%
only male 87 %
38
was made by SFE together with communal PC and village headman. Figure 7 below show
how these criteria are met.
Recipient
non-recipientrecipient
Mea
n si
ze o
f Agr
. lan
d (h
a)
1.4
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
0.0
cash crop size
upland size
paddy size
Figure 7: The size of agricultural land of recipients and non-recipients
Figure 7 shows that the recipients have more agricultural land than the non-recipient. It
should have been the other way round. This means that criterion (2) was not met in the
selection of recipients. Non-recipients have roughly the same amount of paddy land, but
slightly less land under cash crops and significantly less upland fields. Although the poor
and hungry have more agricultural land than the other groups, they lack capital for
production inputs and knowledge due to less access to the information from outsiders. In
addition, the poor and hungry cannot hire labor for their agriculture production. They have
more land on which they produce less, because they cultivate it less intensively.
Criteria (3) was also not well met, because the data reveals that there is not a big difference
between average working labor of recipients and non-recipients, (recipient 2.55 per
household and non-recipient 2.51 per household).
39
As 39% of the recipients in Ea Sol belong to an indigenous ethnic group (Gia Rai), criteria
(4) were met. Cu Jut this criteria were not considered, because almost all residents there are
immigrants, who came within the last two decades.
The size and the quality of the allocated forest land is important, because it influences the
potential income to be derived and the time when it will be available. Moreover, the
question how plots of different size and quality are distributed among households is
important with regard to the equity objectives of FLA and the goal to avoid conflicts.
Figure 8a shows that mostly poor or degraded forest has been allocated. As displayed in
Figure 8b, the size of allocated plots decreased with increasing poverty status. This could
be a consequence from the available labor force in each household. This must be carefully
interpreted, because of insufficient data on this variable. Many recipients could not answer
exactly how many hectares of forest they received. In addition, in the case of Cu Jut the
demarcation of the plots in the field was not finished at the time when interviews were
conducted. Therefore, the size of the allocated plots was not known. Nevertheless, it is
useful to study whether a trend of equity has been implied.
40
poverty class
hungrypoormediumbetter off
Mea
n pl
ot s
ize
(ha)
1212
18
20
Figure 8a: Quality of allocated forest(evaluated by villagers)
Figure 8b: Size of plots by poverty class
The evaluation of forest by recipients5 is not different from the inventory data conducted by
forest enterprise. Most of the allocated forest area is close to where the people live, it has
been damaged by illegal logging, fires, and shifting cultivation. Forest quality is a
challenge of the FLA to be attracted by local people.
5.2.4 Forest protection and investment
A major goal of forest land allocation is to create incentives for the villagers to better
protect and manage forest resources and to promote investment for forest rehabilitation.
5 The local people have their own methods to evaluate forest, based on the number of trees can be harvested,soil fertile, species composition, etc. This can be adapted to the official classification of SEFs.
other
degraded
poor
medium
rich
41
Figure 9a shows that households plan to spend time and effort in forest protection. The
poorest households even showed the highest interest in protection. This also means that the
poor may depend more on the forest resources than the better off, because they combine
protection forest and other activities such as NTFPs collection or going to their upland
fields.
Figure 9b shows that most of the recipients are members of a forest protection group. This
indicates that they try to find efficient ways for forest protection, because group formation
allows to save labor and cost by rotating the protection activities. Moreover, group
formation enhances the security of such activities, which might be a crucial problem in
cases in which outsiders come to damage forest. The formation of groups for forest
protection could also be used for the provision of group-based extension and support
services later on. The majority of the recipients intend to invest in the allocated forest land.
They may, however, require financial and technical support.
Figure 9a: Time allocation for forestprotection
Figure 9b: Group formation for forestprotection
Figure 10 shows that all households intend to invest in afforestation. The households in the
poor and hungry group also intend to convert some parts of the allocation forest into
agricultural land. This may reflect their need of land for agricultural production. Moreover,
FLA could contribute to poverty alleviation by giving the poor and hungry households a
poverty class
hungrypoormediumbetter off
mea
n tim
es p
er m
onth
goi
ng fo
r pr
otec
tion
10
8
6
4
2
0
9
6
2
3
poverty class
hungrypoormediumbetter off
perc
enta
ge o
f hou
seho
lds
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
member of group
no
yes
42
chance to have more land for cultivation and generate more income. Nevertheless, the need
of agricultural land of the poor is also a danger for the existing allocated forest, because the
recipients would convert forest gradually for into agricultural land.
Participatory land use planning before the allocation of forest could be one way to avoid
unplanned future conversion of forest to agricultural land. The criteria to convert forest to
agricultural land must be carefully developed to avoid detrimental environmental
consequences.
Figure 10: Intended investment and changes of allocated plots by poverty class
Figure 10 also shows that the recipients do not expect much from the natural forest, but
they hope to get more income from afforestation on the allocated plots. To support
recipients the SFEs have developed forest development plans for each allocated plot.
However, this plan was developed without the participation of recipients, who will be the
ones to carry it out. Besides, recipients hardly ever follow these official plans, which were
developed according to technical specification, and which lack funds to pay for the required
forest development investment.
Although recipients plan to invest in forest production, they still face a lot of difficulties in
financial and technical aspects. It is necessary to pay attention to the situation that many
recipients do not know where to get support. Figure 11 illustrates where recipients expect to
get assistance.
poverty class
hungrypoormediumbetter off
perc
ent o
f hou
seho
lds
in e
ach
clas
s
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
kind of change
other
no change
convert to
agriculture
enrichment
afforestation
43
poverty class
hungrypoormediumbetter off
Per
cent
age
100
80
60
40
20
0
From whom you expect
do not know
relative, friends
other organisation
from the SFE
from the bank
2562950
148
50
50
14
50
17
4443
Figure 11: Recipients expected support from relevant of organizations
About fifty percent of the better off, poor and hungry classes expect to get support from the
SFEs. This would reflect the role and relationship between SFE and villagers. Many
recipients have the intention to get a loan from the bank. This is especially the case for
recipients in the poor and medium class. Nobody in the better off class expected to get
support from the bank. They might not be as capital-constrained as poorer households or
already have sufficient access to formal and informal capital resource or can arrange such
loans themselves and might not need support from outsiders.
5.2.5 Expected benefits
Figure 12 shows that timber is the most important benefit, which recipients expect to
receive from the allocated forest. Moreover, the survey also clearly showed that non-timber
forest products (NTFPs) play a considerable role for the rural households. However, these
benefits have already been available prior to forest land allocation, after allocation this
benefit will merely be officially condoned.
44
poverty class
hungrypoormediumbetter off
Per
cent
age
100
80
60
40
20
0
estimated income
others
From afforestation
Land for agriculture
timber from N.forest
625
6
24
13
38
20
65
85
38
80
Figure 12: Expected benefit from allocated forest
Timber from the natural forest is the most important expected benefit, but it can only be
harvested after a considerable period of time. The question is how the poor and hungry
households can increase their living standards in the mean time. It would be useful to
combine forest land allocation with other rural development activities, which provide more
immediate benefits such as: agricultural extension, financial assistance, and infrastructure
development. A part from that, sustainable NTFPs management should be introduced to
help villagers make effective use of natural forest for the long term. Besides, conversion
forest into agricultural land is also an expectation from recipient. This contradicts the
intention to change their plots in Figure 10 with better off and medium class. People might
have been afraid to give answers, which contradicts the official regulation stated in the Red
Book. Therefore, answers from the survey are probably biased and intended future
conversion is underestimated by survey results.
5.2.6 Expectation of non-recipients
Almost all non-recipients in the interviewed sample do expect to receive forest land in the
future. Figure 13 indicates that only very few households in the poorest group did not have
45
this expectation, because they themselves did not meet the criteria to be recipients of the
FLA primarily due to lack of labor. This shows that FLA is a very popular and well-
received program. The survey shows that the villagers are worried about their children's
future due to lack of timber for housing and land for cultivation. Many people state this as
one of the major reasons why they want to receive forest land. Moreover, this also reflects
the existing pressure on the forest land, which leads to rapid deforestation and forest
degradation in the region.
poverty class
hungrypoormediumbetter off
Per
cent
age
100
80
60
40
20
0
Expect receive for.
no
yes
9
91
100100100
Figure 13: Non-recipients expect to receive forest land in the future by poverty class
However, the high expectation of non-recipients in those villages where forest land has
been allocated needs to be considered to avoid future conflicts. If forest allocation to all
households in a village is not an objective in the FLA process, special efforts appear to be
necessary to make clear that households that do not meet certain criteria, will not receive
forest land. It may also be worthwhile to consider the objective of increasing the proportion
of recipients in villages where the FLA took place by allocating more forest, because there
are still big forested area available, which are not yet allocated to the people in the region.
46
poverty class
hungrypoormediumbetter off
Per
cent
age
100
80
60
40
20
0
Expect disadvantage
no
yes
5721
43
79
100100
Figure 14: Non-recipients expect disadvantages because without FLA
Figure 14 shows that most of non-recipients are aware of disadvantage if they will not
receive forest land in the future. The figure also shows the trend that people in better off
and medium class may know better about the advantage of receiving forest land. But only
43 % of the hungry aware that they have disadvantages due to not receiving forest land. It
would mean that the poor and hungry people may lack of information about the FLA and
potential uses of the land use certificates (Red Books). This is also a logical interpretation
of the fact that 100 % of interviewed household in the hungry class, and 92% of household
in the poor class said that they can use the forest without Red Books. This indicates that
poorer classes view the forest lands as a common property resource to be exploited by those
who need it.
5.2.7 Gender issue
In Ea H’Leo FLA has been undertaken in indigenous minority areas where a matriarchal
cultural system exists. Therefore, it is of particular importance to pay attention to gender
issues. However, the participation of the women in the FLA process does not mirror their
importance in every day forest management. As mentioned above, men undertake most of
the affairs dealing with outsiders. Related to the FLA program, women’s participation in
47
the meetings was much less than men. Figure 15 compares the differentiation between the
two study sites.
Research sites
Ea Po (Cu Jut)Ea Sol (Ea Hleo)
Per
cent
age
100
80
60
40
20
0
who inherit plot
who stay with parent
only sons
only daughters
all children equally
1116
66
81
21
Figure 15: Intention of recipients to inherit allocated plots in the future
Figure 15 shows that the Gia Rai ethnic group in Ea Sol commune prefers land
management systems following the traditional way of matriarchy. FLA therefore gives
them a chance to conserve their own customary law in land management. On the contrary,
people in Cu Jut with its majority of Kinh and Thai ethnic groups employ a different
system in land management. They do not intend to bequeath allocated plots to daughters,
because daughters will get married and move to the husband’s family. However, there are
also a number of families, who have the idea that land should be equally divided up to all
children.
Nevertheless, most villagers in both study sites want to register only the husband in the
Redbook (see Figure 16). The husband is the ‘family owner’ and the key person, who deals
48
with most social affaires and with outsiders. Some villagers explained that husbands have
better knowledge in law issues and social affaires than wives do.
research site
Ea Po (Cu Jut)Ea Sol (Ea Hleo)
Per
cent
age
100
80
60
40
20
0
Name in red book
other
both
wife
husband
65
9094
Figure 16: Registered name in the Red Books
However, gender plays a larger role in how forests are used in the study sites. Harvesting of
forest products for food and income generation are important activities for villagers in two
study sites. Figure 17 gives evidence that the collection of NTFPs is mostly done by
women.
49
Research site
Ea Po(Cu Jut)Ea Sol (Ea Hleo)
Per
cent
age
100
80
60
40
20
0
who harvest NTFPs
mainly wife with
other help sometimes
both equally
wife
husband
35
5
15
43
81
17
Figure 17: Collection of NTFPs in two study sites
It is crucial to pay attention to women in aspects related to forest management as women
spend considerably more time in the forest than men and are the primary ‘forest managers’.
Because they are very familiar with the forest, training courses or extension services after
FLA could facilitate the use of their skills in forest protection and management. In
households of ethnic minorities, women have a substantial knowledge on forest products,
because they usually go to harvest NTFPs in the natural forest. For example, many kinds of
medical herbs are only known by women, especially in the indigenous ethnic group of Gia
Rai, E de and M’nong people.
50
CHAPTER VI
6 Discussion
6.1 Institutional aspects
RolesThe findings from this study show that the pilot project of FLA in Dak Lak province has
achieved initial remarkable initial successes, because of the high need for policy relevant
models for FLA. However, there are number of shortcomings that need to be addressed for
improvement in further implementation of FLA. For example, the institutional
arrangements in the earlier stages were not well organized, mainly due to the low level of
collaboration between state agencies. The stakeholders involved in the FLA process all had
different interests, and even no interest at all, except just as a duty assigned by local
government. It is too early to judge the success of FLA and the degree to which it achieved
its objectives. Nevertheless, FLA has initiated a promising trend to the change role of
government agencies, from direct management of resources to the provision of a regulatory
framework and support services. The role of state forest enterprises, agriculture extension
body, and other relevant organizations would change accordingly. For the State Forest
Enterprises, FLA would change their role from direct management of forest into service
providing agencies. As the research has shown State Forest Enterprises were very differ in
their capacity. There are some State Forest Enterprises have sufficient capacity to do their
own business, but many of them have shown a weak adaptable capacity to the new
situation. The extension body will have more chance to do business by providing services
to individual households, community in term of forest production and other off farm
enterprises. In this circumstance, state agencies will also change their behavior sue to
ownership of forest changed. To do so, State Forest Enterprises and extension body need to
be trained more in term of technical skills as well as the approaches. The participatory and
bottom up approaches should be taken into account during implementation process.
Moreover, a sound and adequate legal framework and mechanism to help state agencies
doing business need to be issued by government in order to adapt to the new circumstance.
51
Participation was taken into account in the implementation process, but it was not followed
properly due to lacking of experience in implementation process. Most of state agencies
have got used to top down approaches, so far, because they have to follow regulation issued
by higher levels instead of demands from local people. Many relevant organizations and
even local people have just been informed about FLA, but they did not know much about
the process and especially were not included in the decision making process. This
shortcoming may cause conflicts between the state agencies, local government, and among
the people who should benefit from the FLA program. Thus, many state forest enterprises
were afraid to conduct FLA program, because they wanted to try to avoid the risk of
creating conflicts. Moreover, they do not want to loose benefits caused by handing over
property rights to other holders.
Incentives
It is expected that FLA can contribute to halt deforestation as well as to alleviate poverty.
In addition, in the administrative reform process, local governments want to reduce the cost
of resource management. Besides, government agencies would make some business by
providing services to user groups and undertake certain rural development programs on
behalf of the government. FLA in Dak Lak could also be a chance for some state forest
enterprises to “kick the ball” of responsibility of forest protection to local people, because
most of the forest area to be allocated is poor and degraded forest, which can not be
harvested in the coming five or ten years. The pilot project has definitely determined that
FLA will get more involvement from local people in forest protection, at least in the
allocated areas due to the official regulations in the Red Books. Moreover, under pressure
from the demands of environmental protection from national and international levels, the
local government tries to overcome deforestation by conducting FLA. In addition, local
government of Dak Lak would also like to prove their capacity in process of forest
management reform.
Capacity
It is necessary to look at financial, skill/experience and coordination among stakeholders.
Related to the financial issue, complete FLA would be a huge budget to be requested from
local government. But it is feasible to continue allocating forest land because recently the
central government spends annually about six billion VND for forest protection. This
52
budget will be spent until government has proper solution for forest protection. When will
government stop spend this amount for forest protection in Dak Lak is still an open
question. However, if government uses six billion VND for FLA, these can allocate
approximately 120.000 ha in two or three years6. It means that, after two or three years
government will not have to spend such amount anymore because forest land will be
protected by local people.
Because there was a lack of experience of FLA implementation, the main actors in the pilot
area undertook the FLA with learning by doing approaches. This in general can lead to a
sound model for devolution of forest management in the transition process of the country’s
economic development because local actors would have initiatives during the
experimentation. Besides, it would be a valuable example for other provinces to draw
lessons learnt from implication of policy. However, learning-by-doing takes a long time
and is risky for the actors involved, especially for the beneficiaries of the project because of
a fear of a failure of policy.
The FLA in Dak Lak can be undertaken by state forest enterprises, because they have the
capability in terms of forest inventory, forest development design. Also, they are familiar
with the forests that they have managed since the foundation of the forest enterprise. A
problem, which needs to be addressed is coordination, collaboration among government
agencies, e.g. among the departments at provincial level, between SFEs and other
government agencies at district level. In addition, participatory approaches and gender issue
should be taken into account during implementation process as well as decision making at
all levels.
6.2 Household perspective
6.2.1 Participation
The results from the household survey show that participation from villagers of different
poverty classes was met due to the official criteria that mandated priority to the hungry and
poor households. The number of recipients classified as poor and hungry is much larger
6 See {Thanh.T.N, Tuan.N.V, et al. 2000}
53
than the better off and medium classes (see Figure 5). The first hypothesis that “the poor
and hungry households have greater chance than better-off to receive forest land” is well
met, illustrated by Figure 5. However, the size of the allocated plots differs between better-
off and other classes. The statistical test shows the different means is not significant. It
would be influenced by many other factors such as the sample size, transparency procedure,
and available labor force. In addition, many of interviewed households could not answer
how many hectares did they receive. Also, all recipients in Ea Po commune did not know
the size of plots due to process of demarcation plots has not been finished in the field. This
must be carefully interpreted and should have deeper study to examine the factors
influenced.
The time villagers participated in the meetings varies between the better off and the others.
The better-off people may have more chance to receive information to participate in the
meetings or they may have more time because of better arrangement of labor in the family.
However, the time of attendance in meetings would not reflect completely how much
information participants would get from those meetings. It is difficult to determine that the
better off got more information than other classes because they participated more time. The
survey results were not sufficient to determine that better off have more chance to receive
information of FLA than other classes, but it, however, show the tendency that they
participated more time than other. It would be useful for the practitioners of the FLA to pay
attention to the participation of household from different poverty classes.
6.2.2 Incentive to invest in allocated plots
FLA has created the incentives to invest in afforestation and enrichment. Figure 10 reveals
that most of the recipients intend to plant trees on the allocated plots or enrich the plots
with the profitable species, which would generate income in the near future. This is a
significant change in the local people’s attitudes. FLA gives the recipient a chance to think
about long term investments in forest development, which they have never done before due
insecure of land use and land tenure. This means that FLA has influenced the ownership of
land. Officially, recipients can bequeath forest plots to their children, and so this makes
them more confident to do the long-term investments on the plots. Besides this, there are
also some recipients, who intend to convert some part of the forests into agricultural land,
54
which would help them to address their urgent needs of agricultural production. This is
very congruent with the second hypothesis that “recipients are willing to invest in
afforestation/enrichment allocated forest”, and gives a good signal for the FLA
prospective. However, it is still difficult for the recipients to invest in forest development
due to lack of capital as well as experience. Thus, the local government should provide
financial and technical support in the beginning after FLA took place. In addition, other
rural development programs such as infrastructure improvement, credit scheme and health
care, etc should go along with FLA in order to help local resident to address their urgent
needs.
6.2.3 Incentive to protect allocated plots
Related to forest protection, the Figure 9a, and the Figure 9b shows the tendency that all
recipients are willing to spend time and effort for forest protection activities. They have
also formed groups for forest protection, which can be seen as a potential method for future
development of community forestry or joint management of forests. Apart from that,
recipients have plans to develop their own forest protection rules, which are mainly based
on customary laws toward forest management. 47 percent of recipients who answered that
they would punish people, who damage or cut their forest with a cash fine or turn him over
to the people’s committee or Forest Protection Unit. Other recipients reported that they
would inform the village headman about the incident and ask him and people’s committee
to deal with the problem. This proves that recipients perceived that their allocated plot
belongs to them and they would take the decision to punish whoever invades their property.
These are well matched with the third hypothesis that “the recipients have an increased
incentive to stop other villagers from illegal activities on allocated plots”. To do so, local
people need to be advised in terms of legal framework, and the law of forest development
and protection. Besides, the customary law of indigenous people in forest management
should be taken into account to facilitate local people to reserve their own way of natural
resources management, which seem to be gradually disappeared in mountainous area of
Vietnam recently.
55
6.2.4 Expectation from non-recipients
As FLA was not applied for all villagers, who live in the same village, it is therefore
necessary to study the attitude and the feedback of non-recipients in forest protection after
FLA. Figure 14 manifests that non-recipients perceived that they would have
disadvantages, if they do not receive forest land. However, people in the poor (21%) and
hungry class (57%) were not aware of disadvantages, because they thought that they can
use the forest without owning a Red Books. The challenge for the FLA is to satisfy local
people’s expectations and needs, or otherwise it could create conflicts among the villagers.
Figure 13 illustrates the high expectations from non-recipients to receive forest in the
future. If this expectation cannot be met, it would endanger the FLA process. Furthermore,
one hundred percent of non-recipient households in the better-off and medium class and
ninety percent of poor and hungry class answered that they don’t actively protect forest
without Red Books. This proves that non-recipients have lower incentives to cooperate in
forest protection on land, which they used to use but now allocated to others. These results
confirm the fourth hypothesis that “non-recipients have lower incentive to cooperate in
forest protection”. Forest land allocated to limited numbers of individual households might
counteract equity aspects in the community, because not all households have been allocated
forest. This is useful information for Dak Lak province to evaluate whether forest should be
allocated to individual households or community or user groups. These are not only
influenced to equity aspect, but also influence to the forest management activities later on
because it is quite difficult to conduct forest management practice on household basic with
small area, especially with natural forest.
6.2.5 Gender issue
The results of this study also show an interesting aspect of FLA is gender related. The
participation of women in the FLA process was much less than men. There was also
considerable variation between the two study sites due to the traditional ways of the ethnic
groups involved in natural resource uses. While women are the main actors, who deal with
the collection of NTFPs and many other forest-related activities, they are not named in the
56
Red Book nor usually in attendance in the meetings. The interviewed villagers explained
that women are very with their children and housework, but this author feels this is not a
real reason for this phenomenon.
The descriptive statistic shows that sixty four percent of interviewed villagers answered
that women can participate in forest protection activities and thirty five percent of
interviewed villagers answered that women can not participate in forest protection because
women can not solve the problem. The observation from field research proved that
deforestation is a crucial problem in the area, especially illegal logging from outsiders.
Thus, it is hard for women to deal with forest protection problems, in case they have to
arrest people who invade their forest plots. To get women participation in forest
management activities would be a potential solution. But, it may not work out with forest
protection activities, in particularly in the case Dak Lak province.
57
CHAPTER VII
7 Conclusions and recommendations
7.1 Conclusions
The pilot project of FLA in Dak Lak province has achieved remarkable initial results
thanks to many efforts to address the needs of local people. It has been determined that Dak
Lak has played a vital role in pioneering experimentation in this field in addressing the
needs of local people, which is highly appreciated by the central government. The findings
from the study demonstrate that the forest land allocation process in Dak Lak province is
extremely important as a pilot project, from which valuable experiences and lessons can be
drawn. Studying these experiences could support the future forest land allocation process
not only in the region, but also in the whole country. The lessons to be learnt from Dak Lak
will help policy makers and organizations involved in the implementation of further
development and adjust the policies and implementation process. This could more
effectively reach the goals of poverty alleviation and economic development in
mountainous areas of Viet Nam. Further more, FLA would contribute to regional watershed
rehabilitation and downstream flowing effected by improving sustainable forest function.
However, there are shortcomings of the implementation process that need to be addressed.
The participation of villagers in different poverty classes, women and relevant stakeholders
was not completely followed properly, especially in the decision making process. The
coordination, collaboration among state agencies, and between state agencies with local
people was not good at the earlier stage of the implement process.
Based on the findings, specific conclusions can be derived:
• Coordination among the state agencies at all levels is very important to smooth the
process of FLA in Dak Lak province.
• FLA has paid priority to the targeted group of poor and hungry households.
58
• The recipient selection only partly meet the criteria, which were developed by SFEs
and communal People’s Committee. In particular, criteria No.(2) was not
sufficiently considered.
• Most of the allocated forest is poor and degraded due to over-harvesting and illegal
logging. Thus, the allocated forest needs a long time to recover until meeting the
government criteria for timber use.
• The formation of groups for forest protection and the intention to invest in
afforestation and forest enrichment of recipients proves that FLA creates incentives
for investment and protection in forest development.
• Women’s participation in the meetings is considerably lower and they are less
frequently named in the Red Books than man despite the fact that their daily
activities are much more closely related to forest resources.
• The recipients of FLA expected support from SFEs and the bank for forest
development in the near future. However, many recipient do not know where and
how to get support for forest activities.
• Non-recipients have high expectation and willingness to receive forest land in the
future.
• Non-recipients have lower incentive to cooperate in forest protection with recipients
because they think that is responsibility of the recipients. This is also a limitation of
FLA, which not apply for whole community.
7.2 Recommendations
§ Related to institutional aspects, a set of adequate technical procedures (guidelines)
of FLA for the whole province should be developed that include specific tasks and
responsibilities of each state agency. Besides this, the requirements for the
participation of villagers, monitoring, and information dissemination should also be
included in the guidelines. This can help to avoid the overlapping responsibilities
between stakeholders who are involved in the FLA process.
59
§ An intervention from provincial PC and district PC is necessary in order to improve
the coordination among the state agencies in the FLA implementation process
§ FLA and Land Use Planning technique training courses should be carried out for
technical staff at all levels, especially for practitioners in the field. In particular,
participatory approaches and improved participation of women) should be taken
into account during the FLA process.
§ In view of the poverty alleviation goal of the FLA, further implementation activities
should consider the question whether it is possible to increase the proportion of
recipients in the category of hungry households. This would require a revision of
the criteria of recipient selection in FLA process.
§ Taking into account that broad participation is an important prerequisite to a
successful FLA process, further research and implementation activities should focus
on 1) The reason for the relatively low participation and 2) How to increase the
participation of the hungry, poor households and of female household members.
§ The formation of groups for forest protection can also be used for the provision of
group-based extension and support services. The majority of recipients intend to
invest in the allocated forest land. That may, however, require financial and
technical support. The need of poor and hungry households for agricultural land
should be taken into consideration in the FLA process. Participatory land use
planning should be carried out before FLA takes place.
§ The criteria to convert forest to agricultural land must be carefully developed to
avoid environmental problems, because many recipients intend to convert forest
into agricultural land without official planning. A good monitoring and evaluation
system for the forest land that has been allocated to the people is needed.
§ As timber, the most important expected benefit, will be available only after a
considerable period of time, it may be useful to combine forest land allocation with
other rural development activities, which provide more immediate benefits such as:
agricultural extension, financial assistance, and infrastructure development. Apart
from that, sustainable NTFPs management should be introduced to help villagers to
make use of the natural forest in the long term.
60
§ High expectations of non-recipients in those villages where forest land has been
allocated need to be considered in order to avoid conflicts in the future. If forest
allocation to all households in a village is not an objective in the FLA process,
special efforts appear to be necessary in order to communicate more clearly that
households that do not meet certain criteria will not receive forest land. It may also
be worthwhile to consider the objective of increasing the proportion of recipients in
villages where forest land is allocated.
§ Further research and implementation activities should pay special attention to the
social and cultural aspects of forest land tenure.
61
Summary
In Vietnam land is uniquely owned by government, but government allocates to the users
for long-term and sustainable use (Land law 1993). Poverty and insecurity of land use have
lead to rapid deforestation in the country during last two decades. Vietnamese government
has tried to reform the forestry sector in order to halt deforestation and contribute to
poverty alleviation by decentralization and devolution of forest management in the country.
So far most of barren land, which was classified as forestry land (forestry development
purpose) was allocated to individual households, user groups or organizations. However,
with forested land (with trees exist) it is still at the beginning stage. Dak Lak province is
playing pioneering role in allocating forested land to individual households with long-term
land use certificate so called “Red Book”, which can be collateral at the bank, transfer, sell,
use, and inherit.
This study tries (1) to assess the process of the role and performance of stakeholders
involved in the project (2) to examine the degree of participation of local people,
stakeholders in the Forest Land Allocation process. (3) to identify the expected impact of
FLA on livelihood of local resident, and (4) derive recommendations to policy relevant of
Forest Land Allocation program.
The major focus of the research was collection of primary data from household interviews
and meeting with stakeholders at province down ward to village level. Stratified random
sampling was used to select 130 households including recipient and non-recipient to be
interviewed with standardized questionnaires. The stratification was applied for recipient
status, location of villages, and poverty status. However, the available secondary data of
Forest Land Allocation was also used for supplementary information. In addition, direct
participation in meetings, workshops and participatory rural appraisal was used for
crosscheck the collected information.
The results of the research are summarized as follows:
§ The stakeholders involved inactively in the earlier stage of the implementation of the
FLA process due to lacking of coordination, collaboration among state agencies and
state agencies with local people. However, the intervention of the People’s Committee
62
at province and district is very important to improve the coordination and collaboration
among state agencies.
§ The participation of villagers in the FLA process differed between poverty classes. The
better off participated in the meetings more than the poor and hungry households. But,
FLA paid priority to the poor and hungry households to receive forest. The criteria of
recipient selection were not well met. Besides, most of the allocated forest is poor and
degraded due to over-harvesting and illegal logging. Thus, the allocated forest needs a
long time to recover until meeting the government criteria for timber use. Women’s
participation in the meetings is considerably lower and they are less frequently stated in
the Red Books than man despite the fact that their daily activities are much closer
related to forest resources.
§ Recipients have incentive to invest in afforestation, enrichment of forest and have
willingness to spend their time and effort to protect allocated plots. The formation
group for forest protection, intention to plan profitable species proves that FLA has
influenced to the ownership of land. However, they need support from government and
state agencies in term of financial and technical assistance.
§ Non-recipients have high expectation and willingness to receive forest land in the
future. Besides, Non-recipients have lower incentive to cooperate in forest protection
with recipients because they think that is responsibility of the recipients.
As a whole, Forest Land Allocation program is a promising solution, which contributes to
halt deforestation as well as to alleviate poverty of local resident. However, there are still
shortcomings should be improved in further implementation process. This study derived
several policy relevant recommendations in order to support decision makers draw lesson
learnt for doing better in the future.
63
Zusammenfassung
Land ist in Vietnam Eigentum der Regierung, wird jedoch zur langfristigen und nachhaltigen
Nutzung vergeben (Land Law 1993). Armut und unsichere Besitzverhältnisse führten zu einer
schnellen Degradierung der Waldresourcen in den letzten beiden Dekaden. Um diesen Trend
aufzuhalten und gleichzeitig die Armut zu mindern, versuchte die Vietnamesische Regierung
den Waldsektor durch Dezentralisierung von Forstmanagement zu reformieren. Bis zum
heutigen Zeitpunkt wurde der grösste Teil Brachland, das zum Zweck der Forstentwicklung als
Wald klassifiziert ist, an einzelne Haushalte, Nutzergruppen und Organisationen vergeben. Die
Forstlandvergabe von tatsächlich bewaldetem Land ist jedoch noch immer in der
Anfangsphase. Die Provinz Dak Lak spielt eine Vorreiterrolle bei der Vergabe von bewaldeten
Flächen an einzelne Haushalte mit langfristigen Nutzungsverträgen, die „Rotbücher“ genannt
werden. Diese Landnutzungszertifikate können als Hypothek bei einer Bank eingesetzt werden
und erlauben den Transfer und Verkauf sowie die Nutzung und Vererbung des Forstlandes.
Diese Studie versucht (1) die Rolle und Leistung der im Prozess beteiligten Gruppen zu
bewerten, (2) den Grad der Partizipation der lokalen Bevölkerung im Zuge der
Forstlandvergabe zu untersuchen, (3) die erwarteten Auswirkungen der Forstlandvergabe auf
die Lebensumstände der lokalen Bevölkerung zu identifizieren, und (4) daraus
Politikempfehlungen abzuleiten, die für die zukünftige Durchführung der Forstlandvergabe von
Nutzen sein könnten.
Das Hauptaugenmerk der Forschung lag in einer Primärdatenerhebung auf Haushaltsebene und
Diskussionen mit Beteiligten von Provinz- bis Dorfebene. Für die Haushaltsumfrage wurde
eine stratifizierte Zufallsauswahl von 130 Haushalten gezogen, die sowohl Empfänger von
Waldland als auch Haushalte einschloss, die in der derzeitigen Phase nicht berücksichtigt
wurden. Die Statifizierung wurde nach dem Emfängerstatus, der Lage der Dörfer und der
Armutsklassifizierung durchgeführt. Die ausgewählten Haushalte wurden mit einem
standardizsierten Fragebogen interviewt. Verschidenste Sekundärdaten wurden als zusätzliche
Informationsquellen benutzt. Teilnahme an Treffen, Arbeitsgruppen und ‚Participatory Rural
Appraisal’- Techniken ergänzten die gesammlten Infromationen und erlaubten eine
Verifizierung der gesammlten Primärdaten.
Die Ergebnisse können folgendermassen zusammengefasst werden:
64
• Die beteiligten Gruppen waren in der Anfangsphase nur unzureichend an der
Implementierung der Forstlandvergabe beteiligt aufgrund mangelnder Koordination und
Zusammenarbeit unter staatlichen Stellen sowie zwischen staatlichen Stellen und der
lokalen Bevölkerung. Ein Eingreifen der Volkskommittees der Provinz und der Distrikte
wäre in diesem Punkt sehr wichtig, um die Koordination und Zusammenarbeit zwischen
stalltichen Stellen zu verbessern.
• Die Partizipation der Dorfbevölkerung im Prozess der Forstlandvergabe zeigte
Unterschiede zwischen verschiedenen Armutsklassen. Wohlhabendere Haushalte nahmen
an mehr Treffen teil als ärmere Haushalte. Letztere sind jedoch die Hauptzielgruppen des
Programms. Das Kriterium der Auswahl der Empfänger wurde somit nur mit
Einschränkungen erreicht. Ausserdem ist der grösste Teil des vergebenen Waldlandes
bereits degradiert aufgrund Übernutzung und illegalem Holzeinschlag, weshalb diese
Flächen lange Zeit benötigen werden, um die Kriterien der Regierung zur Holznutzung zu
erfüllen. Die Beteiligung der Frauen in den Treffen ist beträchtlich niedriger und sie sind
weniger häufig als Männer in den Landnutzungszertifikaten aufgeführt, obwohl die
täglichen Aktivitäten der Frauen sehr viel enger mit den Forstressoursen verbunden sind.
• Empfänger haben einen Anreiz in Wiederaufforstung zu invertieren und sind bereit Zeit
und Anstrengungen aufzuwenden, um ihre zertifizierten Forstflachen zu schützen. Die
Bildung von Waldschutzgruppen und das Vorhaben vieler rentable Sorten zu pflanzen
bestätigen den Einfluss der Forstlandvergabe auf die Eigentumsverhältnisse. Dies bedarf
jedoch finanzieller und technischer Unterstützung von staatlicher Seite.
• Haushalte, die keinen Wald erhalten haben, erwarten und sind bereit in der Zukunft
berücksichtigt zu werden Weiterhin haben diese Haushalte zur Zeit einen niedrigeren
Anreiz in Forstschutzmassnahemen mit Empfängern zu kooperieren, weil sie dies als deren
Verantwortung ansehen.
Zusammengefasst ist das Programm zur Forstlandvergabe eine vielversprechende Lösung den
Rückgang des Waldbestandes aufzuhalten und die Armut der ländlichen Bevölkerung zu
lindern. Verschiedene Problembereiche bedürfen jedoch in der zukünftigen Implementierung
vermehrter Aufmerksamkeit. Diese Studie entwickelte verschiedene Politikempfehlungen, um
Entscheidungsträger in der zukünftigen Durchführung des Programmes zu unterstützen und aus
bisherigen Erfahrungen zu lernen.
65
Bibliography
A . Agrawal and E. Ostrom. Collective Action, Property Rights, and Devolution of ForestAnd Protected Area Management. Collective Action and Property Rights. 1999.CAPRI.Ref Type: Conference ProceedingRef ID: 135
Bill Cooke and Uma Kothari. (Editor) 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? London,New York. Zed Books Ltd.Ref Type: BookRef ID: 138
Alchian, Armen A. 1987. The New Palgrave - A Dictionary of Economic. Ed. Eatwell,John et al. London: The Macmillan Press Lmd..Ref ID: 122
Cees Leeuwis. 2000. Reconceptualizing Participation For Sustainable Rural Development:Towards a Negotiation Approach. Development and Change, Vol.31 (200), 931-959. Oxford OX4 1JF, UKRef Type: Magazine ArticleRef ID: 137
Daniel W. Bromley. Property Regimes in Economic Development: Lessons and PolicyImplications. Ed. Ernst Lutz. Agriculture and the Environment , 83-91. 1998.Washington, D.C, World Bank. Perspectives on Sustainable Rural Development.Ref Type: Magazine ArticleRef ID: 127
E. Bernard and D. Potter. 1996. Environmental NGOs And Different Political Contexts InSouth-East Asia: Malaysia, Indonesia And Vietnam. Ed. Parnwell, Michael.London: JournalRef ID: 16
Elinor Ostrom. Self-Governance and Forest Resources. Nr.20. 1999. CIFOR. LocalInstitutions for Forest Management.Ref Type: Conference ProceedingRef ID: 133
Espen Sjaastad and Daniel W. Bromley. The Prejucdices of Property Rights: Onindividualism, Sepcificity, and Security in Property Regimes. Development PolicyReview 18 (4), 365-89. 2000.Ref Type: Magazine ArticleRef ID: 125
Franz Schmithuesen. 1996. "Tenure and joint resources management systems on publicforest lands: Issue and trends." der Professur Forstpolitik und Forstoekonomie
66
Nr.1735-55.Ref ID: 126
Furobotn, Eirik G. Pejovich Svetozar. 1972. "Property Right and Economic Theory: ASurvey of Recent Literature, in Journal of Economic Literature." Journal ofEconomic 101137-62.Ref ID: 123
G. Feder and A. Nishio. 1999. "The Benefit of Land Registration and Titling: Economicand Social Perspective." Land Use Policy 1525-43.Ref ID: 134
Hans Helmrich. Devolusion of Forest Management: Development of Assessment Methodsfor Forest Land Allocation in Dak Lak, Vietnam. 2001. Phnompenh, GTZ.Ref Type: Research proposalRef ID: 129
IUCN Vietnam (Publ.). Forest Rehabilitation Policy and Practice in Viet NamProceedings of National Workshop, Hoa Binh - Viet Nam, 4th -5th Nov. 1999.2000. IUCN Vietnam.Ref Type: Conference ProceedingRef ID: 111
John W. Bruce. 1989. Community Forestry: Rapid Appraisal of Tree and Land Tenure.Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation (FAO).Ref ID: 115
M. Elaine and O. Dubois. Sustainable livelihoods in upland Vietnam: land allocation andbeyond. 1998. IIED. Forestry and Land Use Series No. 14.Ref Type: ReportRef ID: 64
Nghi, Tran Huu. Information on Natural Resources and Socio-economic Conditions in EaSol Commune, Ea H'Leo District, Daklak Province. 1999. Buon Ma Thuot,SMRP/GTZ.Ref Type: ReportRef ID: 113
Oxfam UK/I Vietnam. Gender Issue in Land Allocation to Household: A case study inLung Vai, Lao Cai, Vietnam. 1998. Ha Noi.Ref Type: Conference ProceedingRef ID: 131
P. Faggi, T. Gomiero, A. Gribaldo, P. Palmeri, M. Paoletti, D. Pettenella, and B.Vinceti. 1998. Forest Land Privatisation In Vietnam: a sustainable transitionprocess ? Ed. Davide Pettenella. University of Padova.Ref ID: 109
67
Parnwell, Michael J. P. 1996. Introduction: Politics, Sustainable Development AndEnvironmental Change In South-East Asia. Ed. Parnwell, Michael. London:Routledge.Ref ID: 31
Regina Birner. 1999. Forest Land Allocation to Households: Experiences from the PilotProject in Dak Lak Province. Analysis of the First Experiences from Ea Sol andDak Phoi Communes. Consultant Report .Ref Type: ReportRef ID: 112
Regina Birner. 1996. Decision-Making in Agricultural Production: Household, Co-operatives and Commercial Enterprises. Goettingen: NATURA/NECTAR Project.Ref ID: 119
Regina Birner, Michael Kirk, and Eirik Romstad. 2000. Theoretical Concepts ForResource Economics (Training module). NATURA/NECTAR Project.Ref ID: 120
Ruth Meinzen-Dick and Anna Knox. Collective Action, Property Rights, and Devolutionof Natural Resource Management: A Conceptual Framework. Journal ofEnvironment and Development . 1999. Washington DC, World Bank.Ref Type: In PressRef ID: 128
Ruth Meinzen-Dick and Margaretha Bakker. Water Rights And Multiple Water Uses:Framework And Application To Kirindi Oya Irrigation System, Sri Lanka. 2000.Washington, D.C., International Food Policy Research Institute. EPTD DiscussionPaper No. 59.Ref Type: JournalRef ID: 77
Sikor, Thomas and Trong Binh Nguyen. Forest Land Allocation in Dak Lak: An InitialAssessment. 2000. SMRP/GTZ.Ref Type: ReportRef ID: 110
Snare, Frank. 1972. "The Concept of OWnership", Vol.9." American PhilosophicalQuaterly 9200-6.Ref ID: 121
Thanh.T.N, Tuan.N.V, and Long .H.V. Phan tich chi phi va nhu cau nhan luc de thuchien giao dat giao rung (bao cao so 2). Ed. Tran Ngoc Thanh. 02. 2000. Buon MaThuot, SMRP/GTZ.Ref Type: ReportRef ID: 136
68
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Forest plots allocated to individual households in Dak Lak province
69
Appendix 2: Questionnaires of recipient household interview
RECIPIENTS of Forest Land: Household Questionnaire No. _____
Explain purpose of the interview first!
Date of survey:___/___/2000 Hamlet: ____________________ Commune: ___________________
Name of interviewee: ________________________________________________________________
Name of interviewer: _______________________Assistant: _________________________________
Other persons present at the interview: ___________________________________________________
A. Forest Land AllocationA1) Red Book Certificate
1. Do you have a Red Book for agricultural land? yes no (only ask, if you don’t know)
2. Do you have a Red Book for home garden? yes no
3. Did you already receive the Red Book for forest land? yes no (only ask, if you don’t know)If yes, please show us your Red Book.4. What are the advantages of the Red Book Certificate as compared to a contract, Green Book, etc.?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A2) Allocated Plot
5. Do you know exactly, where your forest plot is located? yes no
6. Can you distinguish the boundary of your plot and the neighbours ? yes no
7. What is approximately the size of your plot? ________ ha don’t know8. What types (quality) of forest have been allocated in your village?
Many trees can be logged (rich) Some trees can be logged (medium)
Only small trees (poor) scattered trees and bare land (degraded)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. What are the species which you find useful (for sale, housing, furniture, ...) in your plot ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Is there a big variation in comparison with the other plots in your village ? Yes No11. As compared to the quality of the other allocated forest plots, how would you assess the value of your
own plot?
average of allocated plots above average below average
12. How many years do you think it will take until the trees will be big enough to be harvested?
aprox. 5 years aprox. 10 years aprox. 15 years more than 20 years
13. Will you have to apply for permission to be allowed to harvest timber? yes noIf yes, what will be the application procedure?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Will the State Forest Enterprise receive a share of the timber at the time of harvesting? yes noIf yes, what are the regulations?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Do you know how these regulations were made?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. What kind of NTFPs can you get from the forest ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Do you have to apply for it ? yes no18. What income do you estimate you may receive from allocated plot in the future ?
70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19. What will you do with timer when trees can be harvested in the future ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Can you harvest yourself ? yes noIf no - How will you harvest ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. If sell- to whom will you sell ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A3) Forest Protection22. What are the main reasons to protect the forest ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Are you member of a group of households which protect their allocated plots together? no yesIf yes:24. How many households are in your group? _______25. How many of them are close relatives? _________26. How has this group been formed?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. How many group members go usually together to the allocated forest for protection? _________28. How often do they go to the forest (e.g., times per week): ______ times per _________
29. Does the time necessary for protection vary throughout the year? no yesIf yes, please specify why and indicate range----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. Do you or your family member loose other income opportunities (e.g., hiring out labour) because of the
forest protection activities? no yesIf yes, please specifyType of income lost: __________________________________31. How many days per months are lost? __________How many months per year is this relevant: _____32. Do you do other things during going for forest protection ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the household is member in a forest protection group:33. Would you prefer that the forest land is allocated to the entire group, instead of allocating it to individual
households? no yesPlease explain the reasons why no or yes:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. Do you know whether this hamlet has God/sprit or watershed forest ? no yes
35. If yes, would you prefer that the forest is allocated to the entire village? no yesPlease explain the reasons why no or yes:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. How would you share benefit for whole village ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. Have you found anyone damage your forests ? no yes38. If you find someone deforestation, what would you do ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. Who will solve this problem ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A4 Investment in the Forest Plot
40. Would you like to change your allocated plot? no yesIf yes,41. What kind of changes ? (afforestation, enrichment, convert to agriculture,...)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. How could you get the necessary financial resources for changing ?
71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------43. Who do you think you can get supports from ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A5) Process of forest land allocation44. How many meetings on forest land allocation have you attended? ____45. How many households in your village have been allocated forest land? __________46. Why have you and the other households been selected for the allocation of forest land?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. How exactly was the decision made that you will receive the plot which you have received?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. Have there been conflicts over the questions who will receive which plot? no yesI yes, who resolves conflicts ? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------49. Have there been conflicts in the village because not all households have received forest land?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. What reactions do you expect from villagers who did not receive forest land? Do you expect that they maycause damage to your forest?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. According to your opinion, what should be done to avoid conflicts arising because other villagers did notreceive forest land?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A6 Gender Issues51. Who in your family has participated in the meeting related to forest land allocation?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. Did she/he inform other family members about the information that he/she got from the meeting ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. If yes - What did they tell you ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. If no - Why ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55. Do all members in your family know where your forest plot is located? yes no56. Who has main responsibility of forest plots ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. Why that person ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
58. Can women participate in the forest protection activities? yes noIf no, why not?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. Who will inherit your forest plot? Will it be divided in the course of inheritance?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60. Who should be named in the Red Book? wife husbandWhy ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
61. Who go to harvest NTFP/fire wood in the forest ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A7 Recommendations62. What are your recommendations concerning the process of forest land allocation?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B Household Information Sheet Fill in or tick B1. Household Composition:63. Total number of household members? __________ Main labor
72
No. No.Interviewed person 1 sons who finished schoolWife (or husband) daughters who finished schoolChildren below schooling age married children (still stay in family)Children in school spouses of married childrenOther members (specify)
B2. Quality of house (observe and assess)
64. average of village above average of village below average of villageB3. Vehicles :65. Do you own a vehicle?
none bicycle motorbike 2-wheel tractor other vehicle: _________________B4. Crop Land:66. How much agricultural land do you cultivate? (all household members together)
Type of land No. of plots Size (total of all plots) RemarksPaddy land (irrigated)Upland fieldsCoffeePepperOther land (specify)
67. How many storage baskets of rice did you harvest and store last year? _____the year before? ______68. If less than before, do you know why ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
69. Do you lack of food ? : no yes , if yes, how many month ? . . . . . . .70. What do you do to earn living during shortage of food ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
71. How would your situation change if there would be no forest available for you (or you are not allow toenter to the forest) ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B5. Livestock:72. How many animals do you have? (count only adult animals)
Cattle: _______ Buffalo: _________ Chicken: no yesPigs: ________ Other animals (specify type and number): ________________________________B6. Government Services73. Did your household benefit from a government program (e.g., poverty alleviation program) during the last
years? no yesIf yes, specify program and benefit: _____________________________________________________
73. Does your household have access to credit? no yesIf yes, specify program and conditions: __________________________________________________B7. Classification74. How was your household ranked during the last survey?
Better-off medium poor hungry; other classification: _______________________
73
Appendix 3: Questionnaires of non-recipient household interview
Non-Recipients of Forest Land: Household Questionnaire No. _____
Explain purpose of the interview first!
Date of survey:___/___/2000 Hamlet: ____________________ Commune: ___________________
Name of interviewee: ________________________________________________________________
Name of interviewer: _______________________Assistant: _________________________________
Other persons present at the interview: ___________________________________________________
A. Forest Land AllocationA1) Process of forest land allocation1. How many meetings on forest land allocation have you attended? ____
2. Have you applied for forest land? yes noWhy or why not?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. How many households in your village have been allocated forest land? __________ don’t knowIf the farmer has applied:
4. Do you know why you have not been selected for the allocation of forest land? yes noIf yes, please explain the reasons.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Do you know why the others have been selected for the allocation of forest land? yes noIf yes, please explain the reasons.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Have there been conflicts in the village because not all households have received forest land?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Do you expect disadvantages that the allocation of forest land to a part of the households in the village
will have disadvantages for the households which did not receive forest land? yes no8. If yes, what type of disadvantages:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Do you expect to receive forest land in the future? yes no10. If yes, where should this land be located?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Do you use forest land already for which you do not have a tenure certificate ? -------------------------------------------12. Are you worried you do not have official rights to this land ? ----------------------------------------------------------------A2) Red Book Certificate
13. Do you have a Red Book for agricultural land? yes no (only ask, if your don’t know)
Do you have a Red Book for home garden? yes no13. In your opinion, what would are the advantages of forest land allocation with the Red Book Certificate as
compared to contract, Green Book, etc.?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Can you go to the forest and harvest NTFPs without "red book certificate" ? yes no15. What would you think if the recipients do not allow you to enter their forest plot ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A3) Allocated Plots
16. Do you know exactly, where the forest plots which have been allocated are located? yes no
16. What types (quality) of forests have been allocated in your village? Is there a big variation?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74
17. How many years do you think it will take until the trees will be big enough to be harvested?
aprox. 5 years aprox. 10 years aprox. 15 years more than 20 years
don’t know A4) Forest Protection
18. Do you think that the recipients can protect the allocated forest ? yes noPlease explain why----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. If you would be allocated forest land in the future, would you join a group for forest protection?
yes noPlease explain the reasons for yes or no.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Would you prefer that the forest land is allocated to a entire group of households, instead of allocating it
to individual households? yes noPlease explain the reasons why yes or no:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Would you prefer that the forest is allocated to the entire village? yes noPlease explain the reasons why yes or no:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. If yes, how would you share benefit from the forest in the future ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Do you do any forest protection activities even for land that you do not have a certificate for ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A5) Investment in the Forest Plot24. If you would receive a forest plot in the future, which is not well stocked, would you like to plant
additional trees? no yesIf yes, which species and why?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. How much would this investment cost (per ha)? ____________________________25. How could you get the necessary financial resources for this investment?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Who do you think you can get financial supports from ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A6) Gender Issues27. Who in your family has participated in the meeting related to forest land allocation?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. Did she/he inform other family members about the information that he/she got from the meeting ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. If yes - What did they tell you ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If no - Why ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. Do all members in your family know where your forest plot is located? yes no31. Who has main responsibility of forest plots ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why that person ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. Can women participate in the forest protection activities? yes noIf no, why not?33. Who will inherit your forest plot? Will it be divided in the course of inheritance?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. Who should be named in the Red Book? wife husband
75
Why ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. Who go to harvest NTFP/fire wood in the forest ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A7 Recommendations36. What are your recommendations concerning the process of forest land allocation?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Household Information Sheet Fill in or tick
B1. Household Composition:37. Total number of household members? __________ Main labor
No. No.Interviewed person 1 sons who finished schoolWife (or husband) daughters who finished schoolChildren below schooling age married childrenChildren in school spouses of married childrenOther members (specify)
B2. Quality of house (observe and assess)
38. average of village above average of village below average of villageB3. Vehicles :39. Do you own a vehicle?
none bicycle motorbike 2-wheel tractor other vehicle: _________________B4. Crop Land:40. How much agricultural land do you cultivate? (all household members together)
Type of land No. of plots Size (total of all plots) RemarksPaddy land (irrigated)Upland fieldsCoffeePepperOther land (specify)
41. How many storage baskets of rice did you harvest and store last year? _____the year before? ______42. If less than before, do you know why ?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. Do you lack of food ? : no yes , if yes, how many month ? . . . . . . .44. What do you do to earn living during shortage of food ? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------45. How would your situation change if there would be no forest available for you (or you are not allow toenter to the forest) ?B5. Livestock:46. How many animals do you have? (count only adult animals)
Cattle: _______ Buffalo: _________ Chicken: no yesPigs: ________ Other animals (specify type and number): ________________________________
76
B6. Government Services47. Did your household benefit from a government program (e.g., poverty alleviation program) during the last
years? no yesIf yes, specify program and benefit: _____________________________________________________
48. Does your household have access to credit? no yesIf yes, specify program and conditions: __________________________________________________
B7. Classification49. How was your household ranked during the last survey?
Better-off medium poor hungry; other classification: _______________________
77
Appendix 4: Questionnaires of institutional interviews
Guideline for institutional questionnaires of LFA
Questionnaire No: _______
8 Explain purpose of the interview first!
Date of survey:___/___/2000 Organization: ____________________ _______
Commune: ___________________ District ___________________
Name of interviewee: ___________________________________________position:____________________
Name of interviewer: _______________________Assistant: _________________
Other persons present at the interview: ___________________________________________________
A. Institutional information:
1. How many staff are there in your office/organization ? _______
- University graduation: __________ of which female: ___________
- Technician: ______________ of which female: ______________
- Worker: ______________ of which female: ______________
2. What are main tasks/functions of your office ?
......................................................................................................................................................
B. Forest land allocation process:
3. Have you/your staff attended FLA meetings/workshop ? no yes
If yes, how many ? Workshop: __________ Village meeting: __________
If No, Why ? .................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................
4. What are the contents of meetings/workshop ?
......................................................................................................................................................
5. How many staff in your office know about the FLA program ?
............... exactly few half all
6. How much the staff in your office know about the FLA program ?
very well well little don’t know
7. Do you know how long does it take to allocate forest land to the households/group ? no yes.
How long ? : ____________
8. Is it slow or fast , Why ?
......................................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................
78
9. (If slow) Could you please tell us the main causes of delay of the FLA process ?
......................................................................................................................................................
10. According to your opinion what should be done to get the process of FLA faster ?
......................................................................................................................................................
11. Does your office get involve in the distributing forest plots to HHs/groups ? no yes
12. Do you think the villagers satisfy with method applied ? no yes
13. Does your office involve in the Red book issued process ? no yes
C. Potential cooperation:
14. According to your opinion what should be done to help recipients after forest land allocation ?
......................................................................................................................................................
15. What are your office’s roles at that time ?
......................................................................................................................................................
16. According to your opinion which organizations will be the main actor to assist villagers to develop forest
?
......................................................................................................................................................
17. What are your recommendation related to coordination in FLA process ?
......................................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................
