BEN VICKERS
NETHERLANDS DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION (SNV)
VIET NAM
CATHERINE MACKENZIE
NETHERLANDS DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION (SNV)
VIET NAM
This paper presents a case study of a pioneering community forestry initiative in the province of Thua Thien Hue, in the North Central region of Viet Nam. The case was innovative because the model for sustainable management of this forest, developed by the Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) through UNDP’s Program for Forests (PROFOR), involved the harvesting of timber for sale and domestic use by the community in return for protecting the forest. This was the first example of timber harvesting in Viet Nam’s Community Forestry Program1.
Most forest land allocations in Viet Nam have been made to individual households. This case is therefore also unusual and bold, because the forest area, part of a highland critical protection forest, was allocated as a single 405 ha block to an entire village before there was a legal basis for doing so.
The case is important because, according to national policy, forest land allocations and subsequent community-based management are supposed to be major tools in sustainable forestry and the alleviation of poverty. This case study provides an opportunity to assess the extent to which a community forestry model is succeeding in achieving these two objectives.
This paper describes the Thuy Yen Thuong community forestry model, including the process of forest land allocation, management planning, timber harvesting and benefit distribution, and a preliminary assessment of these with regard to sustainability, participation, benefit sharing and poverty alleviation.
The allocation of Thuy Yen Thuong’s forest to the local community was facilitated and funded by UNDP’s Program for Forests (PROFOR). The main objective of the allocation was to establish a working community forest from which policy recommendations could be drawn.
In Thuy Yen Thuong, poverty was identified as the major incentive behind illegal logging operations. Commune and forestry officials hoped that community tenure over the forest area would provide motivation for local residents to protect the forest in the long term. Three principles were set for the trial:
From the beginning, the Forest Protection Unit (FPU), as the local implementing agency, was committed to including commercial timber production as a central part of the community forest management operations.
A management agreement between the community and the Government for 405 ha of forest was officially signed in December 2000. The process for reaching this agreement began with a socio-economic survey, followed by a village meeting in which the FPU informed villagers of the preliminary plan and asked their opinions. Villagers were given three choices for moving forward:
__________
1 In the last three years, a few other communities have also harvested timber from their forests.
The community opted for the third alternative (Vu and Warfvinge 2002).
The FPU then surveyed and inventoried the forest area and prepared a map and report (Vu 2000). Out of the total 1,966 ha of natural forest in the village territory, a 405 ha block at the top of the watershed was selected by the FPU as suitable for allocation, based on its standing volume. It had an average volume of 76 m3 per ha, consisting mainly of Desmos, Eugenta and Parashorea spp. These species are not high-quality timbers, but are in common use locally for house construction. The inventory did not specify size or class distributions of these species, or give their spatial distribution across the forest. To calculate the allowable cut, it is necessary to know the growth rate of these species. It was impossible to measure this in a one-off inventory as conducted. Instead, the FPU used a national formula for determining harvesting rates (see Table 1) and estimated the overall forest growth rate at 1.5 m3 per ha per yr, which was the highest option available for calculating growth rates. The method for obtaining this estimate is unclear, as the inventory does not appear to have been sufficiently detailed to guide subsequent management of the forest, and it appears that the national system for determining harvest rates needs to be re-examined.
The FPU, in consultation with commune and village level officials, then drafted the management agreement that identified the forest, defined the duration of the agreement, and set out the rights and responsibilities of the villagers. A further village meeting was held for approval of this draft agreement.
The management agreement included an outline for a “village convention,” the internal rules and regulations for forest protection, the details of which the community was expected to develop independently. The Village Management Board (VMB) prepared handwritten conventions for approval by the wider community, but it is unclear how widely this document was disseminated. They included provision to create a community fund to manage the forest revenues on behalf of the whole community.
The initial period of the management agreement was three years. However, it stipulated that if the agreement was carried out well during that time, it would be extended into a 50-year lease. The FPU was clear that the agreement needed to be long term in duration to work effectively.
Objectives
The management agreement states that, “Everyone in the village…is entitled to the benefits brought by forest protection and growth.” Essentially, cash-based forest protection contracts would no longer be issued, but the community would be rewarded for protecting the forest by granting access to controlled harvesting of timber, NTFPs and wildlife.
Organization and decision making
Under the management agreement, overall responsibility for the community forest was given to the VMB. Thuy Yen Thuong’s VMB consists of the village head and two deputies, and was appointed when the village was formed in 1999. The village is further divided into 10 sub-units, each of which elected their own representative to report to the VMB. The management agreement also required the formation of a Forest Protection Team (FPT) comprised of the heads and deputy heads from each of the 10 VMB sub-units, plus one staff member of the FPU sub-station based in the village.
Information and issues about the community forest are discussed at meetings of the VMB, which are open to all interested villagers. Village sub-unit leaders represent the views of their constituents at these meetings, but decision-making powers rest solely with the three-member VMB.
Protection
In the management agreement the FPT undertakes to organize monthly forest patrols. PROFOR funded the costs of the patrol team, at the rate of US$ 1.50 per man-day, until the project phased out in 2002. Since then the village has covered these expenses out of their group fund. Patrols are recorded in a log book, including the names of all patrol team members and reports of any illegal activities, including details on related evidence. The FPT has no other formal duties and there is no other body at village level which is exclusively concerned with forestry matters.
NTFPs and timber
Under the management agreement, extraction of timber or NTFPs from the community forest would be subject to approval from the relevant authorities on a case-by-case basis. However, as noted above, the village conventions allow households unrestricted access to the community forest area for collection of NTFPs. There are no records of these collection activities, chiefly because the villagers assume that the total amounts collected are small and of little monetary value.
Timber production
The community’s entitlement to timber was designed to reward villagers for successful forest protection. The faster the forest grows the greater the proportion of volume increment the villagers can extract (see Table 1). The entitlements are based on the initial volume of 76 m3 per ha, as measured in the community forest inventory of 2000.
Table 1: Timber extraction entitlement for Thuy Yen Thuong community forest
|
Mean annual increment (m3/ha) |
≥ 1.5 | 1–1.5 | 0.5–1 | ≤ 0.5 | No growth |
|
Village’s entitlement (% of total increment) |
50 | 30 | 20 | 10 |
State takes back forest |
Timber harvesting operations
The timing of timber harvesting operations, according to the management agreement, depends on the length of time for the forest to reach “maturity.” Again, the criteria by which maturity is to be assessed, or by whom the assessment will be made, are not defined in the agreement. The agreement assumes that maturity will not be reached in the first 10 years after forest allocation. During this initial period the agreement allows for 50 m3 to be selectively cut annually to meet the “urgent needs of the local people.”
Harvesting application and approval process
It was under this latter provision that the village applied for permission to harvest timber in 2004. PROFOR had supported the initial inventory of the forest in 2000, which was supervised by the Forest Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI) of Thua Thien Hue province with the participation of villagers. When the villagers submitted their application for felling in 2003, FIPI used the data from the original inventory to identify a suitable location for the felling operation: a 60ha block at the western edge of the community forest, about 3 hours walk from the village at an altitude of 800–1,000 m. Three officials from FIPI were paid VND 2.7 million (US$169) to revisit this location to carry out a more detailed inventory, identify and measure the stems to be felled, and calculate the expected output volume of construction grade timber. A total of 31 suitable trees were identified, with a combined volume of 92 m3. The Provincial People’s Committee (PPC) approved the harvesting operation.
Timber harvest
The VMB then invited applications for community members to join the felling team. Members were selected according to their physical fitness and experience in timber harvesting. A total of 31 men were selected and organized into 8 groups for the duration of the work. The team leader was a member of the forest protection team and was responsible, along with the VMB, to monitor the work and ensure compliance with the harvesting plan.
Trees were felled with hand saws and axes, and conversion was performed on-site. Extraction was also manual, down a steep gradient. The prevailing soil in the area is extremely friable and prone to rockslides, further complicating an already difficult harvesting and extraction process. The converted timber was stored at the forest protection station in the village pending sale and distribution.
The harvesting operation took three months to complete, during which 28 trees were harvested with a total round timber volume of 79 m3 (sawn volume of 53 m3). After a final inspection by the VMB, the felling area was closed to the logging team and all villagers. No members of the community were permitted to return to the area to collect firewood or other by-products of the operation.
Total income
The VMB set a price of VND 2.3 million (US$ 140) per m3 for the timber, generating a total income of about US$ 7,300 from its sale. Enquiries with local timber traders and carpenters confirm that this price was considerably lower than the prevailing market price for timber of this species and quality. The price for timber with official government stamp (15% district resource tax paid) was about VND 3.5 million (US$ 220) per m3 in 2004. However, the timber from Thuy Yen Thuong was exempt from duty because it was only approved for sale within the village boundaries. The price for untaxed timber is more variable and difficult to establish, but was about VND 3 million (US$ 175) at the time. The sale could, therefore, have generated revenues of US$ 9,000–10,000. The discount was supposed to enable villagers to benefit from cheaper timber but, as discussed below, had a serious negative impact on the profitability of the community scheme.
Direct beneficiaries
As there was a limited timber harvest, due to restrictions within the management plan, benefits experienced by the community were somewhat limited. However, benefits were experienced and distributed within the community among different identified groups as follows.
Forest protection team
Forest protection was included under the VMB’s expenditure for the harvesting operation. The patrols were covered by PROFOR, until the project phased out in 2002, at the rate of VND 25,000 (approximately US$ 2) per person day. Payment for the patrol teams was later funded directly from harvesting revenue deposited into the Community Forestry Fund.
Harvesting team
The village convention, drawn up by the VMB, established that most of the benefits would go to those who did the logging. The VMB set the labor cost of the felling operation at VND 1.7 million (US$ 106) per m3, or 74% of the final selling price – a sum significantly above the prevailing rate for timber harvesting. Had the total income been shared equally across the whole community, the average benefit would have been approximately US$ 20 per household.
Community Forestry Fund
The Community Forestry Fund received proceeds of the timber harvest after deduction of expenses, the full details of which are set out in Table 2 below. The table also provides an overview of other direct beneficiaries from the timber harvest.
Table 2: Harvesting costs and net income
|
Expense |
No of units |
Unit cost |
Total (US$) |
|
Felling and extraction |
52.9 m3 |
US$ 106 per m3 |
5,621 |
|
Monitoring and inspection |
NA |
NA |
155 |
|
Harvesting design |
9 person days |
< US$ 20/day |
169 |
|
Forest protection 2003-4 |
88 person days |
US$ 1.57 |
138 |
|
Felling Ceremony |
US $ 50 |
50 | |
|
TOTAL costs |
6,133 | ||
|
Total income |
7,512 | ||
|
Net income to CFF |
1,379 |
The net income from the harvesting operation, deposited in the CFF was VND 19.2 million (about US$ 1,300), or just 17.5% of the gross income. The Community Forestry Fund is administered by the VMB, and is meant to be used for the benefit of the whole community. Its use was discussed in village meetings, led by the VMB. Priority was given to the construction of a village gate, at a cost of VND9.4 million (about US$ 600). The contract for this work was given to four artisans from the community. The gate has little practical value, but enables the community to be granted the title of “cultural village,” which conveys honor and status, particularly to the VMB. About US$ 450 was spent on paying the forest protection team for their work since June 2004, and US$ 50 covered the cost of a ceremony before the timber harvest began. A balance of US$ 100 remained in August 2006.
Management of timber benefits
Before the harvesting operation, the VMB devised a system for pricing and prioritizing sale and distribution of timber that became part of the village conventions. The price was set below the existing market rate, at VND2.3 million per m3 (US$ 144, compared with the market price of US$ 175–220 per m3). A limit of 0.5 m3 per household was set for house repairs and extensions, rising to an available amount of 1 m3 if the buyer required the timber for constructing a new house. A maximum of 40% of the total output was reserved for “social policy privileged” households (households at risk of poverty or with few income-earning individuals due to sickness, disability or war casualties) and households active in forest protection activities. These households were also entitled to select the best quality timber after harvest, and were offered a reduced rate of VND 2.16 million ($ 135) per m3. However, only 12 households from each of these two categories availed themselves of this entitlement, reserving a total volume of 10.5 m3.
According to the village conventions, a further 30% of the total output could be reserved in advance by other villagers who submitted applications that include a full account of their intended use for the timber. The VMB approved requests for timber on a first-come, first-served basis, if satisfied that the buyer would use the timber as intended and not sell it on to a third party. Buyers were required to pay 30% of the price in advance. The full list of households with reserved timber under both these quotas was announced at a village meeting prior to the harvest operation. After the timber harvest was complete and all reserved timber had been distributed, the remaining timber was sold to villagers on a first-come, first-served basis, and finally to carpenters within the village boundaries with no limit on the volume purchased. This system resulted in a pattern of timber distribution and revenue as set out in Table 3.
Table 3: Timber sales and revenue within Thuy Yen Thuong village
|
Purchaser category |
Volume purchased (m3) |
% of total volume |
Unit price (US$ per m3) |
Total revenue (US$) |
|
Social policy privileged |
5.9 |
11.1 |
135 |
797 |
|
Protection team |
4.6 |
8.7 |
135 |
621 |
|
Other villagers |
17.2 |
32.5 |
144 |
2,473 |
| Carpenters |
25.2 |
47.6 |
144 |
3,623 |
| TOTAL |
52.9 |
7,512 |
Assessment of the community forestry model
The following is an overarching assessment of the Thuy Yen Thuong CF model. The areas of focus are those which link directly to community empowerment, livelihoods development and poverty alleviation.
Awareness, participation and decision making
Members of the Village Management Board and their close comrades had existing special interests in logging, so this pilot ended up reflecting and promoting these interests by working through them.
In Thuy Yen Thuong, awareness about the forest allocation and harvesting processes differs significantly among individuals. These differences were revealed through questioning of a small sample of villagers about the details of the allocation process described above, the management structure of the community forest, the planning and implementation of the harvesting operation and the distribution of timber and other benefits after the operation.
As expected, members of the VMB, the forest protection team and the felling team provided full and accurate information regarding all of these processes, and were primary sources for much of the information provided in this paper. A village-level representative of the Women’s Union was also well-informed.
Households which were not directly involved in forest protection, harvesting or local administration demonstrated very poor awareness of community forest issues. The majority were not aware that the community forest existed, including one widow from the “social policy privileged” list who had bought 0.36 m3 of timber from the harvesting operation. All men interviewed were aware that the felling had been carried out in 2004, but most could not describe the processes. A majority of women were unaware of the felling operation.
There are three causes of the lack of awareness encountered during the interviews. For the relatively well-off, apathy was the paramount cause. They had the opportunity to learn more about the community forest but did not consider it worthwhile.
Other informants felt that they had no right to be consulted on forestry matters, and some male villagers would not attend a village meeting without a specific invitation. All the women we spoke to, with the exception of the Women’s Union representative, said that forestry was exclusively men’s business.
The poorer individuals, however, were keen to learn about community forest issues and their lack of awareness was chiefly due to inadequate information dissemination. It is the responsibility of village sub-unit representatives to relay information from meetings, which is typically done by word of mouth and largely depends on an individual’s relationship with their leaders.
Apart from those households directly involved in forest protection, community members were not aware of their responsibility to participate in forest protection or of their entitlement to the benefits brought by protection. Many villagers were aware of the payment of VND 50,000 (US$ 3) per ha per year paid by the government through forest protection contracts for patrolling forest areas planted under the 5 Million Hectares Program (Program 661), but did not realize that this did not apply to the community forest area. Under the management agreement prepared by Phu Loc FPU, villagers have the right to collect NTFPs from the community forest, but these rights are not explicitly reflected in the village conventions prepared by the VMB. The process of timber distribution and the prices involved were only known to those who had purchased timber.
Few people knew about the Community Forest Fund, and few of those who did were aware that they should be consulted on its use. Everyone knew about the village gate, but no one outside the protection team and local administration was aware that it was paid for from the Community Forest Fund. The local Women’s Union representative revealed that the VMB has already decided, with full consultation of villagers, to spend income from the next harvesting operation on construction of a village meeting hall. No other interviewees corroborated this information.
This generalized lack of awareness resulted in low levels of community member participation, with only 30 people involved in the timber harvest and 11 in forest patrols, while the entire community consists of 370 households. The forest inventory and preparation of the felling plan were not participatory. Rather, FIPI did the work, and involved villagers only as laborers. There was no training or empowerment of local people in sustainable forestry. Participation in the timber harvest was wider, but most of the felling team had previously been involved in illegal logging. Size of household, and the availability of fit individuals to provide labor for the operation, also limited the ability of poor households to participate.
The VMB was assigned responsibility by the Commune People’s Committee (CPC) for all decision-making processes concerning community forestry, without requiring wider consultation within the village. Similarly, the forest protection team was composed of individuals with established positions in the local administration, such as sub-unit heads and deputy heads. The management agreement was drafted by Phu Loc FPU in consultation with the VMB and discussed at village meetings where mass organization representatives and sub-unit heads were present. Most of the decisions benefited the decision makers. By opting for a community forest, the loggers obtained access to a larger area of forest than they would have received under individual household allocations. The decision to award the majority of benefits to the people who did the work obviously favored the loggers. Setting a low purchase price enabled these people to save money on their own wood needs, and make a margin by selling excess wood they did not use.
The system of prioritization, sale and distribution of timber was set by the VMB. Apart from VMB members, only the Women’s Union representative asserted that the decision-making process for mobilization of the community forest fund had been carried out with full participation of the villagers, although she had not participated herself.
Evidently, certain community members gained two ways: through direct employment in forest felling and protection patrols, and indirectly as recipients of discounted timber. In a community of 370 households, less than 10% benefited substantially from the forest operations. And it was those people that devised the benefit-sharing scheme who were the main beneficiaries of the community forest harvesting operation. They were, for the most part, the same people who had been responsible for illegal logging in the village in the first place.
Impacts of the timber harvest on the forest
As a pioneering example of community-based timber harvesting in Viet Nam, Thuy Yen Thuong community forest demonstrates that such operations can potentially generate revenue for the community through harvesting of timber. In this instance the operation was low intensity (28 stems over 60 ha), well-implemented and seems to have had a low impact on the forest ecosystem.
The fact that this logging was legal conferred significant advantages. Members of the logging team admitted that during previous illegal operations, their main concern was felling quickly to avoid detection, so there was no planning or effort to limit damage to the forest. The physical evidence of the 2004 operation shows that it was carried out carefully. Stems of commercial value remain in the forest and two years after logging, advance regeneration appears healthy.
However, because of the incomplete inventory and lack of species growth models, it is not possible to assess the frequency at which such operations would be sustainable. No comprehensive long-term management plan exists, which could be assessed against sustainable management criteria. There were no post-harvest or other treatments to encourage regeneration and increase the value of the forest. As yet, no attention has been paid to non-timber products in the forest. Participants are interested only in harvesting the timber resource, and complain that even logging will not return the perceived costs of forest protection.
Impacts of the harvesting operation on poverty alleviation
Poverty alleviation was one of the stated objectives of the management agreement. The impact assessment provided here is preliminary in terms of total income, the equity of its distribution and its use to help the poor of the village.
Income and the discounted timber price
The total and net income to the community fund were significantly less than the potential income due to the discounted price set by the VMB. If all the timber was sold at a rate of US$ 175 per m3 (more consistent with prevailing market prices), this would have resulted in a 27% increase in gross revenue (US$ 9,275), and (assuming expenses were constant), more than double the net revenue deposited in the Community Forestry Fund. By this measure, the net benefits to the community were disappointing.
The discounted price of timber was cited by several interviewees as one of the primary benefits of community-managed harvesting. However, aside from resulting in a 60–80% reduction in net communal revenue, the discounts represented a hidden subsidy favoring wealthier members of the community at the expense of the poor.
By the official definition of poverty, the 60 households of the village which are classified as poor earn less than US$ 11 per month. At the discounted rate of US$ 130 per m3, even 0.25 m3 (the smallest amount purchased by one household) is clearly unaffordable. Data were not available on the exact circumstances of the 12 “social policy privileged” households which purchased timber, but it seems likely that they were on the list for reasons other than poverty. Most interviewees, regardless of wealth status, acknowledged this as an evident problem in the current benefit-distribution strategy.
Employment
The community forest allocation and harvesting process contributed to the village economy through generation of employment in forest protection and forest felling teams but, since these jobs went to better-off households, it did not contribute substantially to poverty alleviation. The forest protection team carried out patrols only once or twice per month, but this could still have provided a significant increase to a poor household’s income. In addition to a daily remuneration for their protection work, these individuals also received a 5% discount on timber, constituting a further distortion in benefit distribution to the detriment of poorer households.
Selection for work in the felling team was essentially dependent on past involvement in illegal logging operations. Though this resulted in employment for some households not directly involved in village administration, none of these households were among the 60 poorest. The rate of pay, determined by the VMB, was at least 4 times the norm and enabled direct capture by this select group of 74% of the revenue from the harvesting operation. To this was added wages for forest patrols and discounted timber, so overall the local elite must have captured well over 80% of the value of the timber. The jobs created did not contribute to the objective of poverty alleviation in the village, and essentially rewarded those households that were relatively well off for their involvement in past illegal activities.
Community Forestry Fund mobilization
Since poorer households did not benefit from the discounted timber or employment, the only way possible for benefits to accrue to them was through the Community Forestry Fund. The discounts enjoyed by the better-off, therefore, resulted in a 60% reduction in the benefits available to the poor, resulting in an entirely inequitable distribution of revenue.
The Community Forestry Fund was spent without wide consultation to identify the priorities of the poorer members of the community or to discuss other options for use of the money. Nearly 50% of the money was spent on a village gate which serves no practical purpose, except perhaps to confer elevated status on village leaders through the inauguration of Thuy Yen Thuong as a “cultural village.”
The Thuy Yen Thuong pilot project has been an innovative and bold step in Viet Nam’s community forestry efforts. Through this project, a group of forest users has been assisted to organize, plan and obtain a community forest, and harvest some timber from it in return for protecting it from further degradation. The pilot is well-documented, which has been extremely valuable in providing the opportunity to review the experience and learn lessons. The review reveals two main areas of concern for the Thuy Yen Thuong community forest: sustainability and internal governance.
Sustainability
Management planning
The pilot has not paid sufficient attention to either the ecological or economic sustainability of forest operations. The inventory conducted was not sufficiently extensive or detailed to establish the sustainable rate of harvesting. A management plan was not prepared, and no attention appears to have been paid to assessing and enhancing the economic value of the forest through post-harvest treatments, enrichment planting and management of NTFPs. Without adequate and sustainable economic benefits, the community will have no interest in managing its forest. It is clear however, that the information on timber species ecology and growth rates needed to manage these forests either does not exist or has not been compiled and made accessible to managers.
Recommendations: The preparation of an integrated and sustainable forest management plan, based on a comprehensive inventory and certified by the FPU or other accredited professional body, should be a pre-condition for forest allocation. This will clarify the benefits available to the community and will also eliminate the need for lengthy approval procedures. Compilation or development of the growth models necessary for management planning in natural forests should be a research priority for the forestry sector.
Internal governance
Local governance structures
The Thuy Yen Thuong forest is a “community forest” in name only as 90% of the households have not heard of, participated in or benefited from it, and its poverty alleviation objectives have not been met. The main reason for this has been the over-reliance on existing local governance structures. VMBs, with their system of sub-village units, are set up less as consultative bodies and local democratic fora, and more as channels for top-down communication. This study has shown that even as a communication channel, the VMB does not function effectively, particularly when there is an opportunity for them to capture valuable resources. Broad-based discussion and debate at village level are needed to ensure that community forestry addresses the needs of the whole community, particularly the poor.
Recommendations: Representative village-level community forest committees (CFCs), accountable to the community and to the VMB (but independent from it), shall be established. The members of such a committee, responsible for decisions regarding forest management and benefit distribution, must also be selected by a ballot of community members and subject to regular performance appraisals. Further research on the internal governance of such groups would help promote the interests of the poor and constrain elite capture.
Discounts and premiums
The VMB strategy of paying the loggers at a premium, and then selling the timber at a discount, meant that the total income generated by the timber harvest, and the amount finally reaching the Community Forestry Fund, were disappointing.
Recommendations: Timber should be sold at or near to full market price in order to generate income for poverty-focused interventions. Discounts of high-value products will always favor wealthier households at the expense of the poor. Subsidies should be discouraged, but, if used, should be applicable exclusively to poor households. Labor should be compensated at competitive local rates, and wherever possible, jobs should go preferentially, to poorer households.
Fund management
The Community Forestry Fund was not used for poverty alleviation. Had prior external appraisal been made of the planned use of the fund against poverty-focused criteria, this might not have happened.
Recommendations: Community fund managers should receive training prior to assuming responsibility for the fund, and should receive ongoing support from facilitators in the first years of operation to ensure its wise use. In order to avoid elite capture of communal resources, external monitoring by an independent, neutral body is helpful. However, the need for such assessments would be much reduced if participation of poor households in decision-making procedures was adequately facilitated.
This brief study represents the first analysis on the subject of community forest harvesting in Viet Nam. There is room, and need, for further study. The pioneering and innovative activity in Thuy Yen Thuong holds many important lessons for the future of Viet Nam’s Community Forestry Program. It is essential that these lessons be thoroughly studied and heeded for the national program to achieve its potential in terms of poverty alleviation. This is the recommendation that must be emphasized above all others.
BVo Van Zu, 2000. A Trial Agreement on Management of Natural Forests with the community in Thuy Yen Thuong village, Loc Thuy Commune, Phu Loc District, Thua Thien-Hue Province. Presentation at Field Component Workshop, December 2000, Hue. MARD-UNDP Program on Forests, Viet Nam.
Vu Hoai Minh and H. Warfvinge, 2002. Issues in Management of Natural Forests by Households and Local Communities of Three Provinces in Viet Nam: Hoa Binh, Nghe An and Thua Thien-Hue. Asia Forest Network Working Paper Series 2, Volume 5. Manila, Philippines.
