Rural Development Project Dak Lak · SHARING 6 3.1 Focus of this workshop 6 3.2 Options for benefit sharing under long-term use rights (red book certificates) 7 3.2.1 Own consumption

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

December 2005

Rural Development Project Dak Lak

(RDDL) Vietnam

Provincial Workshop on Benefit Sharing

Philipp Roth

July/October 2005

Your contact person with GFA Consulting Group is

Gudrun Krause

Address

GFA Consulting Group GmbH

Eulenkrugstraße 82 22359 Hamburg

Germany Telephone 0049-40-60306-161

Telefax 0049-40 60306-169 Email [email protected]

Rural Development Project Dak Lak (RDDL) Vietnam

Provincial Workshop on Benefit Sharing

Philipp Roth

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROVINCIAL WORKSHOP ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PRACTICAL BENEFIT SHARING CONCEPT 2

1 INTRODUCTION 3

2 LIMITATIONS AND PRINCIPLES OF BENEFIT SHARING POLICY 3

3 PRESENTATION OF OPTIONS FOR BENEFIT SHARING 6

3.1 Focus of this workshop 6 3.2 Options for benefit sharing under long-term use

rights (red book certificates) 7 3.2.1 Own consumption 7 3.2.2 Commercial harvesting 8 3.3 Options for benefit sharing for contracted forests

(green book certificates) 12 4 RESULTS OF THE WORKSHOP, INCLUDING ACTION

PLANS FOR ELABORATION AND PILOTING OF A REVISED BENEFIT SHARING CONCEPT 14

4.1 Benefit sharing for own consumption in natural forests allocated with long-term use rights 15

4.2 Benefit sharing for commercial purpose harvesting in natural forests allocated with long-term use rights 16

4.3 Benefit sharing for commercial purpose harvesting in contracted natural forests 17

4.4 Action Plans for the finalisation and piloting of a revised concept for benefit sharing 19

2

P R O V I N C I A L W O R K S H O P O N T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F A P R A C T I C A L B E N E F I T S H A R I N G C O N C E P T

1 I N T R O D U C T I O N

Based on current developments at the national level, in particular concerning the ambitions to revise Decision 178 on benefit sharing, the Peoples’ Committee of Dak Lak province has assigned DARD to initiate a process to accomplish a revision of associated provincial policies. Against the background of the planned forest land allocation in 20061, a revision of the provincial benefit sharing policy, comprising the elaboration of a draft concept for practical benefit sharing and the testing in selected pilot sites, has gained priority. The Provincial Working Group on Community Forestry has organised three meetings in 2005 where several experts presented the findings of their research and made suggestions about the revision of the provincial benefit sharing policy. However, despite a progressive attitude and willingness to make amendments, none of the suggestions that have been made has been evaluated as feasible by the officials from various provincial departments (e.g. FD, DARD, FPD). Therefore, the project has been kindly asked to provide assistance for the organization of a provincial workshop on benefit sharing, the most important task being to elaborate and present various options for benefit sharing, enabling province officials to make informed decisions about the selection of options for pilot testing in order to arrive at a draft concept on benefit sharing for piloting in Dak Lak. The task was accomplished by the consultant in close collaboration with Assoc. Prof. Dr. Bao Huy and draws partially on presentations that have been prepared for a ToT on CFM facilitated on behalf of ETSP in 2005. In the following, a brief overview over the limitations of the current benefit sharing policy and principles for the elaboration of practical benefit sharing are presented. Several options for benefit sharing, - as prepared for the workshop - are discussed before the results of the workshop, namely the selection of options for piloting, as well as associated action plans, are presented.

2 L I M I T A T I O N S A N D P R I N C I P L E S O F B E N E F I T S H A R I N G P O L I C Y

Prior to the presentation of options for benefit sharing, limitations of the current benefit sharing policy and resulting principles for a practical benefit sharing concept in CFM have been presented and discussed. The results are summarized in Table 1 on the next page. Based on this presentation, the idea and concept of sustainable forest models as an effective tool for forest management planning and as a comprehensible basis for the determination of benefits from forest management has been introduced. Regarding the technical aspects of

1 Some 6000 ha and 1200 ha of forest land are to be allocated to local communities with

Red Book Certificates in Ea Sup and Ea H’Leo Districts respectively in 2006.

4

elaboration and usage of sustainable forest models in CFM, the interested reader is kindly asked to refer to available project reports2. Table 1: Limitations of current policy and resulting principles for

practical benefit sharing in CFM

Main contents Limitations for CFM Principles for benefit sharing in CFM

Households and groups of households can be owner/ contractor of forest land

Not acknowledging the community / village as legal forest owner / contractor

Should include the village and forest user group in the policy of right to benefit in Vietnam

Standard for harvesting: - forest type

- difficult to determine

- forest type according

to local indicators - rotation - 20 – 35 years without

harvesting - short rotation at lower

intensity

- volume as indicator

- difficult to measure volume

- stem numbers as easy understandable tool

- according to forest function classification

- confusion between staff and forest owner about management objective (protection forests)

- combine two forest functions (production and protection)

Percentages of right to benefit are based on: - forest type at time of

allocation

- difficult to determine / complicated to apply

- prolonged time periods for forest protection before sufficient benefits can be made (e.g. 2% per year for medium forests)

- lack of short-term benefits

- difficult to calculate benefits based on volume

- benefit does not resemble the quality of forest management

- Sustainable forest models for various forest types and management goals should be used as basis for the calculation of benefit

Since the idea to use sustainable forest models as an aid for the determination of benefits has not been subject of previous reports, this topic was presented and discussed in detail. The confrontation of the actual stem number diameter distribution (i.e. forest structure) with the distribution

2 Roth, P. 2004: Elaboration of Sustainable Forest Models for the Promotion of CBFM in

Dak Lak Province – Case Study Report. Rural Development Project Dak Lak (RDDL).

Roth, P. 2004: Participatory Forest Resource Assessment and Management Planning – Case Study Report. Rural Development Project Dak Lak (RDDL)

5

postulated by the sustainable model enables forest users to determine the number of trees that can be harvested (or have to be protected) in the various diameter-classes. Forest inventories at regular intervals form the basis for obtaining data on the actual forest structure. As stipulated in the new forestry law, the planning period is 5 years, meaning that forest inventories will be carried out every 5 years and forest management planning is conducted based on the data collected. In this context, the most important element concerning benefit sharing is that only the increment of the forest is harvested, as cutting of trees is only allowed in diameter-classes if their actual number is higher than the number postulated by the sustainable forest model. This does not hold true for the initial period of forest management planning (as no increment can be determined via single survey), but the initial cutting of trees (if permitted by the comparison of the sustainable forest model) can be seen as an advance to local forest users and is important regarding the often neglected need for immediate benefits. Figure 1: Sustainable Forest Model as a tool for the determination of

forest increment, basis for benefit sharing

Ste

m n

umbe

r (N

/ha)

Diameter-classes (cm)

0 - 9,9 10-19,9

20-29,930-39,9

> 40

Ste

m n

umbe

r (N

/ha)


0 - 9,9 10-19,9

20-29,930-39,9

> 40

Ste

m n

umbe

r (N

/ha)


0 - 9,9 10-19,9

20-29,930-39,9

> 40

Ste

m n

umbe

r (N

/ha)


0 - 9,9 10-19,9

20-29,930-39,9

> 40

A B

C D

After the first planning period (i.e. the first 5 years) forest users are allowed to harvest the increment of the respective forest stand, which has accumulated in the course of the last planning period.

Increment

6

This is exemplarily illustrated in Figure 1. Diagram A displays the comparison of actual stem numbers (grey bars) with those postulated by the sustainable forest model (red bars). The comparison yields the number of trees that can be harvested (yellow bars displayed in Diagram B). Since this is the first time forest management planning has been conducted, this cutting is considered as an advance, as it does not yet represent increment. If we now presume that the trees are harvested within the actual planning period (i.e. over the next 5 years), we arrive at the situation displayed in Diagram C, where the actual stem number diameter distribution equals that of the sustainable forest model. Thus, given the fact that the forest grows within the planning period (increment), the forest inventory conducted at the beginning of the consecutive planning period results in the determination of the increment, as displayed in Diagram D (i.e. the number of trees which is higher than the number postulated by the sustainable forest model in each diameter-class). This example served to effectively demonstrate the possible applications of sustainable forest models, which was necessary prior to the presentation of the various options for benefit sharing.

3 P R E S E N T A T I O N O F O P T I O N S F O R B E N E F I T S H A R I N G

3 . 1 F o c u s o f t h i s w o r k s h o p

Decision 178 is very comprehensive, covering almost all possible combinations of:

• allocation types (individual households and groups of households),

• allocation forms (contracting via issuance of so-called green book certificates; handing over of long- term forest use right via issuance of so-called red book certificates),

• forest classifications (special use, protection, and production),

• forest types (natural forests and planted forests). However, in order to achieve a stepwise revision of this policy and to arrive at a practical concept of benefit sharing for piloting, the workshop had to focus on aspects that are of priority for the planned forest land allocation in 2006. This was an important lesson from previous meetings where the agenda was too ambitious which hampered the progress due to the lack of a clear focus. Therefore, prior to the introduction of options for benefit sharing, it was clarified that the focus of this workshop will be on natural forests classified as production forests, either allocated or contracted to the village community or groups of households. Moreover, timber was another important priority of this workshop, not neglecting the importance of NTFPs, which should be added once the mechanism for timber has been clarified (refer to Table 2).

7

Table 2: Focus for the elaboration of options for benefit sharing Natural Forest

(Production) Planted Forest

Individual household Individual household Contracted (green book certificate) Village / group of

households Village / group of households

Individual household Individual household Long-term use rights (red book certificate) Village / group of

households Village / group of households

Focal issues are displayed bold.

3 . 2 O p t i o n s f o r b e n e f i t s h a r i n g u n d e r l o n g - t e r m u s e r i g h t s ( r e d b o o k c e r t i f i c a t e s )

Various options for benefit sharing concerning long–term use rights over natural forests granted to local village communities or groups of households have been elaborated for own consumption and harvesting for commercial purposes and are presented in the following.

3 . 2 . 1 O w n c o n s u m p t i o n The issues that need to be clarified regarding the cutting of timber for own consumption are whether households will have to pay for their consumption, the height of actual payments, which households might be exempted from compensating (to ensure that every house-hold can afford to participate in CFM) and for which purposes the money will be finally invested (e.g. financing of VFMB, forest patrolling, forest estab-lishment-, enrichment-, and develop-ment activities, infrastructure development as prioritized via VDP). The

Figure 2: Flowchart displaying benefit sharing option for own consumption

8

only option elaborated for own consumption is based on the sustainable forest model and CFM methodology, introduced, tested and adopted in Dak Lak province by RDDL project. This option is illustrated in Figure 2.

3 . 2 . 2 C o m m e r c i a l h a r v e s t i n g Regarding the harvesting of timber for commercial purposes, i.e. selling on local and regional markets for generation of income, four options have been elaborated and presented. Two options are based on the use of sustainable forest models, one option in accordance with the conventional benefit sharing mechanism according to Decision 178 and one option according to the increment of forest stands, as stipulated in the recently issued Decision 1268. The first option for benefit sharing based on the sustainable forest model is displayed in Figure 3. From the total revenues obtained from the selling of timber, 15 % have to be deducted and paid as natural resource tax to the Government. This amount should be used to finance the CFMB, whose members are presently responsible for several issues apart from forestry, but should be able to entirely focus on CFM. Figure 3: Flowchart displaying the 1st benefit sharing option for

commercial harvesting

Sustainable Forest Model as basis for determination of

harvesting quantitiy

1st Option for Benefit-Sharing in CFM for commercial purposesbased on Sustainable Forest Model

Total revenues from the sale of timber

To be clarified amongst forest user group / village community how the revenues are distributed:

- Village Forest Management Board- Households participating in forest protection - Households participating in cutting and transporting of timber - Village Development Fund (including forest development activities and activities as prioritized in VDP, etc.)

Natural Resource Tax Village / Community

Number of trees harvested

85%15%

Commune Forest Management Board

9

The remaining 85% are the benefit of the village community, who has to determine how these revenues are distributed. The second option for benefit sharing is displayed in Figure 4. It distinguishes itself in the fact that besides the 15% natural resource tax, which is designated for the state budget of District and/or Province, 10% are used for the direct financing of the CFMB. The remaining 75% of the total revenues represent the benefit of the village community, similar to the first option. Figure 4: Flowchart displaying the 2nd benefit sharing option for




2nd Option for Benefit-Sharing in CFM for commercial purposesbased on Sustainable Forest Model


To be clarified amongst forest user group / village community how the revenues are distributed:

- Village Forest Management Board- Households participating in forest protection - Households participating in cutting and transporting of timber - Village Development Fund (including forest development activities and activities as prioritized in VDP, etc.)

Natural Resource Tax Village / Community

Commune Forest Management Board


75%15%

10%

The third option for benefit sharing is displayed in Figure 5 and is based on Decision 178. The time for harvesting depends on the volume of its standing stock (the so-called harvesting standard in m3/ha). The actual sharing of benefits made from the sale of timber will be calculated based on the forest status at time of allocation and after the natural resource tax (15%) has been deducted.

10

For medium forest the benefit of the forest owner will be 2% per year, meaning that if harvesting is carried out in the first year after allocation, the forest owner gets 2%, while the remaining 98% will go to the CFMB3. If the harvesting is carried out in the second year, benefits are divided into 4% and 96% for forest owner and governmental budget, respectively (and so on for the following years). In the example displayed in Figure 5, the allocated medium forest will reach the harvesting standard 5 years after allocation. Therefore, the total revenues from the sale of timber (harvested in the 5th year) will be divided as displayed, with only 10% going to the budget of the forest users and the remaining 90% to the CFMB (after 15% of natural resource tax have been deducted). Figure 5: Flowchart displaying the 3rd benefit sharing option for


85%

Timber harvesting based on standard of the forest

(according to the volume of the standing stock)

3rd Option for Benefit-Sharing in CFM for commercial purposes –based on Decision 178


Natural Resource Tax

Village / CommunityCommune Forest Management Board

15%

Medium Forests (IIIA2)

Poor Forests (IIA, IIIA1)

~ 5 years afterallocation


10%

80%20%

90%

For poor forests, which account for the majority of forest land allocated to local communities, the forest owners will benefit 80% of the revenues at time of harvesting (after deduction of natural resource tax), while the remaining 20% will go into the state budget (CFMB). The critical issue to be considered is that forest owners need to protect their forests for up to 20 years until the standard for harvesting is reached. The fourth option for benefit sharing is displayed in Figure 6 and is based on the mechanism of using forest increment for the determination of benefit sharing. This option is based on the recently issued Decision 1268. While the mechanism for sharing benefits is generally the same as applied under Decision 178 (i.e. standard of harvesting), the forest owner is entitled to

3 Decision 178 does not explicitly mention the CFMB as beneficiary and the respective

share of the benefit is earmarked as Government budget. However, since the CFMB should play a key-role in CFM, most of this budget should be used for financing of the latter.

11

benefit the forest increment that has accumulated after the forest has been allocated. As exemplarily illustrated in Figure 6, a medium forest is allocated to a local community in year 0, with a total volume of 120 m3/ha. Given the average annual increment of 2 m3/ha, the forest needs 5 years until reaching the harvesting standard of 130 m3/ha. Based on the harvesting schemes applied in conventional forestry, around 40 m3/ha will be harvested. The increment since allocation, 10 m3/ha, will be the benefit of the forest owner, while the remaining 30 m3/ha will be the revenue of the government. Natural resource tax (15%) has to be deducted from both. After harvesting, the forest has an average volume of 90 m3/ha and needs on average 20 years (given the anticipated annual increment) to once more reach the harvesting standard. This time, the entire volume harvested (40m3/ha) will be the benefit of local forest users, as this is the increment that accumulated over the past 20 years. The forest owner will then have to pay 15% natural resource tax for the timber harvested. Figure 6: Flowchart displaying the 4th benefit sharing option for


NRMTax

Forest Status(m3/ha)

Volume harvested (m3/ha)

Benefit Sharing

120m3/ha130m3/ha

90m3/ha

Timeline (Year)

130m3/ha

Medium Forests (IIIA2) Poor Forests (IIA, IIIA1)

40 m3/ha 40 m3/ha

90m3/ha

10 m3/ha forest owner

30 m3/ha Government 40 m3/ha forest owner

0 m3/ha Government

Natural Resource Tax 15% Natural Resource Tax 15%

5 250

4th Option for Benefit-Sharing in CFM for commercial purposes –based on increment of the forest

Period without benefits

Anticipated volume increment = 2 m3/ha/year

While the intention to allow forest owners to benefit the increment after forest allocation is a very equitable approach, the major shortcoming of this option is the poor data base for forest increment in Vietnam. Increment varies in dependence of forest type, site-condition, forest status and climatic conditions. The use of an average increment represents an option, but will likely obliterate the real benefit of forest owners. Similar as under benefit sharing according to Decision 178, the most crucial issue is the prolonged period without benefits until the forests reach the harvesting standard.

12

3 . 3 O p t i o n s f o r b e n e f i t s h a r i n g f o r c o n t r a c t e d f o r e s t s ( g r e e n b o o k c e r t i f i c a t e s )

Three options have been elaborated for benefit sharing in natural forests that have been contracted to local communities or groups of households by state forest enterprises (SFE). The first option is based on the use of sustainable forest models for the determination of benefits and is similar to options one and two for forests allocated with red book certificates (long-term use rights). Figure 7 presents the main elements of this option. It will be important to determine whether local communities / groups of households that have been contracted for forest development and protection are entitled to harvest timber for own consumption. If the latter will be granted, the question arises about the actual quantities to be harvested, with the FMP methodology introduced by the project providing a suitable tool for approximating the annual household and village demand for timber. Similar as described in options 1 and 2 of the previous chapter, natural resource tax has to be paid for trees harvested for commercial purposes, as own consumption will be exempted from tax payment. Figure 7: Flowchart displaying the 1st benefit sharing option for

contracted natural forests

13

The difference is that instead of the CFMB the SFE will have the responsibility and task to guide and monitor the contractor to sustainably manage the contracted forests. The actual share of the revenues made from the sale of timber (after tax deduction) between SFE and contractor has therefore to be determined. The use of respective revenues by the contractors has to be determined by the latter. An important element of this option is that harvesting will be based on sustainable forest models, allowing earlier and frequent harvests to be carried out, unlike the use of harvesting standards where prolonged time periods are needed until the forests can be harvested. The second option for benefit sharing under contracted natural forests is based on Decision 178. Besides the similarities to the mechanism described for option 3 of the previous chapter, the following differences are to be considered as important: at times when the forests reach the standard for harvesting will cutting of trees for own consumption be allowed? Given the prolonged time-period between contracting and harvesting/revenues to be made from the forests, the question arises of how contractors can be advanced by the SFE for their invested labour. Figure 8: Flowchart displaying the 2nd benefit sharing option for


85%

Timber harvesting based on standard of the forest

(according to the volume of the standing stock)

2nd Option for Benefit-Sharing in CFM for contracted natural forests –based on Decision 178



Contractor (village/ household group)State Forest Enterprise

15%

Medium Forests (IIIA2)

Poor Forests (IIA, IIIA1)



10%80%20%

90%

Cutting of timber for own consumption

How to advance ?

?

The third option for benefit sharing under contracted natural forests is based on the mechanism of using forest increment for the determination of benefit sharing according and to Decision 1268. Besides similarities regarding the general mechanism and challenges of option 4 in the previous chapter, a critical issue of this option is that the benefits of the second harvest will entirely go to the contracted party (i.e. village or household group), leaving the SFE with no benefits to be made. Similar to the benefit sharing mechanism mentioned under the previous option,

14

another crucial issue will be to determine how contracted parties will be advanced for their labour invested, as prolonged periods without harvesting and therefore benefits will occur. Figure 9: Flowchart displaying the 3rd benefit sharing option for


4 R E S U L T S O F T H E W O R K S H O P , I N C L U D I N G A C T I O N P L A N S F O R T H E E L A B O R A T I O N A N D P I L O T I N G O F A R E V I S E D B E N E F I T S H A R I N G C O N C E P T

Based on the options presented in the previous options, participants of the workshop were split into three groups:

• Group I for the discussion and modification of the option for own consumption for allocated natural forests for piloting,

• Group II for discussing about the benefit sharing options presented for commercial harvesting in allocated natural forests, in order to select the most suitable option and to agree on modifications necessary for piloting, and

• Group III for discussing about benefit sharing options presented for natural forests contracted to villages/groups of households, in order to select the most suitable option and to agree on modifications necessary for piloting.

Results of the group work have been presented and discussed in plenary to assure an acceptance by all participants.

15

4 . 1 B e n e f i t s h a r i n g f o r o w n c o n s u m p t i o n i n n a t u r a l f o r e s t s a l l o c a t e d w i t h l o n g - t e r m u s e r i g h t s

An overview of the result of this group work is presented in Figure 10. Figure 10: Flowchart displaying the benefit sharing option selected

and modified for own consumption



Option selected for benefit-sharing in CFM for own consumption


the distribution of timber amongst the households

Village meeting to determine

the amount that is to be placed in the village fund

Only in case that trees are available for harvesting

Depending on community regulations, to be determined by

each village

Optional

Households pay compensation for the

use of timber

The remaining timber allowed to be harvested can be sold

commercially

An agreement on the proposal to use sustainable forest models for the determination of trees for harvesting for own consumption and as a basis for related benefit sharing was reached. It was also agreed that sustainable forest models should also be elaborated for poor forests (i.e. with a lower basal area) to cover the whole bandwidth of forest conditions at time of allocation and to allow for gradual forest development with local communities being able to satisfy their own consumption needs. As discussed in the group, in case that the allocated forests are of a too degraded status and satisfaction of own consumption needs would therefore not be possible according to the sustainable forest model, the Government supports 10 m3 per household, mainly for the construction or renewal of houses, through programme 134. Moreover, the need for an investment policy for the development of poor forests was stressed. Besides selection and amendment of an option for benefit sharing, group I also discussed the administrative procedures for the harvesting of timber for own consumption, of relevance once the benefit sharing concept will be piloted. Results of this discussions are presented Table 3.

16

Table 3: Administrative procedures for timber harvesting

Step / Activity Implementation Supervision Approval

5-year and annual forest management planning

VFMB Commune, District supports

DPC (5-year)

CPC (annual)

Technical training on silviculture

FPU, CFMB

Tree selection and marking

Selected households CFMB, VFMB

Appraisal and Permission

FPU, DPC

Cutting of trees Selected households

Legal approval FPU

Benefit sharing Based on village forest protection regulations

4 . 2 B e n e f i t s h a r i n g f o r c o m m e r c i a l p u r p o s e h a r v e s t i n g i n n a t u r a l f o r e s t s a l l o c a t e d w i t h l o n g - t e r m u s e r i g h t s

An overview of the result obtained for benefit sharing of timber harvested in natural forests for commercial purposes is displayed in Figure 11. The group evaluated the current benefit sharing policy as stipulated in Decision 178 as unpractical. It was argued that despite its issuance some years ago it has not yet been implemented for CFM due to complicated and partially unclear mechanisms. The lack to provide short-term benefits was furthermore pointed out as a reason for the likely failure of Decision 178 if put into praxis. Therefore, options 1 and 3 of Chapter 3.2.2 were evaluated as unsuitable as a basis for a revised benefit sharing concept and option 2 has been selected instead (refer to Figure 11). Regarding the sustainable forest models, a similar discussion as in group 1 was held about the need to elaborate them in accordance to the different forest conditions (i.e. poor/degraded, medium, rich) and that the forest condition should be clearly determined prior to forest land allocation. Information on the prevalent forest condition, forest type and soil type should be detailed in each LUP/FLA report. It was suggested that a certain share of the 15 % natural resource tax that goes directly into the government budget should be used for the establishment of a budget needed for support of forest development activities. The latter is of importance especially regarding the poor status of the forest land at time of allocation. It was furthermore discussed that after

17

the deduction of taxes, a certain share has to be paid to finance CF-related activities of the commune (CPC,CFMB). The exact percentage is subject to further field studies. Figure 11: Flowchart displaying the benefit sharing option selected

and modified for commercial harvesting

4 . 3 B e n e f i t s h a r i n g f o r c o m m e r c i a l p u r p o s e h a r v e s t i n g i n c o n t r a c t e d n a t u r a l f o r e s t s

The group discussed that in case natural forests are contracted to local communities (or groups of households), an approach combining both, the application of sustainable forest models, as well as selected elements of Decision 178 should be piloted. An overview of the result of the group work is displayed in Figure 12. It was agreed that sustainable forest models should be used as basis for determining the number of trees for harvesting on a 5-year rotation, avoiding long periods without harvesting commonly encountered when implementing conventional forestry as stipulated in

18

Decision 178. Especially regarding poor and degraded forests, the need for additional sustainable forest models was mentioned and several options were discussed about how the contracted party could be advanced for the labor invested (refer to Figure 21 for details). Regarding the sharing of benefits from timber harvested in medium forests it was agreed that households should be allowed to cut a maximum of 10 m3 for house building, selected by the community according to the actual demand. Revenues made from the sale of remaining timber are to be distributed between SFE and contracted party, with the actual share being subject to further investigations. Figure 12: Flowchart displaying the benefit sharing option selected

and modified for contracted natural forests



Option selected for benefit-sharing in CFM for contracted natural forests –based on Sustainable Forest Model and Decision 178



15%Remaining 85%

State Forest Enterprise_____%

Medium forests:Trees harvested

Cutting of trees for own consumption of village

Poor/degraded forests

Households selected by the community are allowed to cut

10 m3

Contractor (Community /

Household group)_____%

Options for SFE to advance farmer for

forest protection and development

Need for sustainable forest model for poor

forests (fencing, firewood,…)

SFE supports farmers to obtain

credits

Provision of seedlings (fruit

trees, forest trees,..)

National Programmes

135, 661

Extension programmes

Official approval of sustainable forest models needed

19

4 . 4 A c t i o n P l a n s f o r t h e f i n a l i s a t i o n a n d p i l o t i n g o f a r e v i s e d c o n c e p t f o r b e n e f i t s h a r i n g

Concluding the provincial workshop on benefit sharing, action plans for the establishment and piloting of a draft concept for benefit sharing have been elaborated in plenary. The initial task, namely the finalization of a proposal for a practical benefit sharing concept based on the options selected, has been scheduled for November 2005. Regarding the piloting of this concept, three pilot sites have been identified on a preliminary basis:

• 1 village in Ea H’Leo District for piloting of benefit sharing for own consumption (natural forests allocated with red book certificates),

• 1 village in Ea H’leo District (different from the first village) for piloting of benefit sharing for commercial harvesting (natural forests allocated with red book certificates),

• Villages to be selected by respective SFEs in Ea Sup and Krong Bong Districts for piloting of benefit sharing for commercial harvesting (natural forests contracted with green book certificates).

Regarding the pilot sites selected in Ea H’Leo District, provincial officials suggested to make use of the project pilot sites, where forest management planning has already been accomplished or will be finalized as a result of the second training module on CFM. The project made a commitment to support the pilot implementation of established CFM plans and associated benefit sharing inside the project areas. Outside the project areas, namely the areas selected for piloting collaborative forest management (contracted natural forests) the project furthermore agreed to provide support in terms of training. Based on the timeframes indicated in the action plans, the province committed itself to formulate province-wide regulations on benefit sharing until June 2006. The final action plans are presented in Annex 11.

Documents

Rural Development Project Dak Lak · SHARING 6 3.1 Focus of this workshop 6 3.2 Options for benefit sharing under long-term use rights (red book certificates) 7 3.2.1 Own consumption