buffer zone management in vietnam · in vietnam, buffer zones are routinely added when the...

IUCN - THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION- VIETNAM PROGRAMME

BUFFER ZONE MANAGEMENT IN VIETNAM

D.A. Gilmour and Nguyen Van San

March 1999

A Study conducted by IUCN Vietnam with funding support from SDC

CONTENTS

Preface iii

Acronyms and abbreviations iv

1 Executive summary 1

1.1 Policy settings and policy evolution 1

1.2 Result of the study 1

1.3 Guidelines for buffer zone management 2

2 Introduction 6

3 Study methodology 7

4 Background to buffer zone management 9

4.1 Conservation - development linkages--an international perspective (Adapted from Gilmour 1998)

9

4.2 Protected area management in Vietnam 13

4.2.1 Evolution of policy affecting forest conservation and protected areas 13

4.2.2 Institutional setting for protected area and buffer zone management 16

4.2.3 Current approaches to delineation of buffer zones 18

4.2.4 International support for protected area and buffer zone management 19

4.2.5 Results of 1997 buffer zone workshops 19

5. Results of the Study 21

of 30

PREFACE

In Vietnam, buffer zones are routinely added when the boundaries of protected areas are delineated on maps or in management plan proposals. However, there is generally little clarity regarding the explicit objectives that should apply to land use in buffer zones, and how their management can add benefit to the protected areas. In addition, there is often uncertainty and confusion among the various actors regarding the institutional arrangements that need to apply so that buffer zones can fulfil their role. More particularly, buffer zone planning tends to be top down, with little consultation with rural communities living in the zones, with the result that buffer zone activities have the potential to alienate local

5.1 Definition of buffer zones 21

5.2 Socio-economic situation in the buffer zones 23

5.3 Conservation status of the National Parks 23

5.4 Conservation status of the buffer zones 23

5.5 Development activities in the buffer zones 24

5.6 Institutional arrangements for management of the buffer zones 25

5.7 Perceptions of different stakeholders about National Parks and buffer zones 25

6 Draft guidelines for buffer zone management 26

6.1 Definition of buffer zones 26

6.2 Delineation of buffer zones 26

6.3 Focus of development activities in buffer zones 27

6.4 Participation of local communities in buffer zone planning and management 27

6.5 Institutional arrangements for buffer zone planning and management 28

6.6 Other issues of relevance to buffer zone management 28

6.6.1 Migration 28

6.6.2 Law enforcement 28

6.6.3 Sustainable harvesting of natural resources 28

6.7 Working definition of buffer zones 29

7 Conclusions 30

8 References 31

9 Appendices 34

Appendix 1 List of protected areas in Vietnam 34

Appendix 2 Information framework used to guide data gathering 38

Appendix 3 Ba Vi case study 40

Appendix 4 Bach Ma case study 54

Appendix 5 Cat Tien case study 66

Appendix 6 List of key government Laws, Decrees and Decisions related to protected areas in Vietnam

84

of 30

communities.

While there has been a great deal of discussion about buffer zones and their management, there are few, if any, working models of effective buffer zone planning and management in Vietnam. During the past two years there have been two workshops that have begun to explore key buffer zone issues such as: definition of buffer zones; the nature of development activities in buffer zones, and the relationship between buffer zones and the protected areas that they surround. This project, which is supported financially by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, was planned to build on these previous initiatives and take the dialogue further with a systematic analysis of several field sites. The set of draft guidelines at the end of this report is one of the major outcomes of the project, and it is hoped that they will be the basis for developing regulations for buffer zone management.

During the study many people contributed freely of their time and experience, and this is gratefully acknowledge. While in the field the study team was helped and supported fly National Park staffs at Ba Vi, Bach Ma and Cat Tien. The team was impressed with the dedication of these staff and their willingness to discuss problems and issues openly and constructively. It is hoped that the results of the study will be a positive step in contributing to Vietnam's protected areas being afforded the protection that is critical for them to survive into the futures

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Nguyen Ba Thu Hans Friederich

Director, Forest Protection DepartmentMinistry of Agriculture and Rural Development Hanoi

Country RepresentativeIUCNHanoi

AREA Association for Research and Environmental Aid

asl. Above sea level

BZ Buffer Zone

CTNP Cat Tien National Park

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

CRES Centre for Natural Resources and Environmental Studies

DLA Department of Land Administration

DOSTE Department of Science, Technology and Environment

E Endangered/Taxa in danger of extinction

EC European Committee

FIPI Forest Inventory and Planning Institute

FFI Flora and Fauna International

FPBs Forest Protection Branches

FPD Forest Protection Department

of 30

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Policy settings and policy evolution

Policy for the management of protected areas in Vietnam needs to be seen in the context of policy for overall socioeconomic development. This has evolved considerably in recent decades. Following reunification in 1975, policy focused on expanding the agricultural land base within a centrally planned economy. State Forest Enterprises were mandated to maximise the exploitation of forests to mobilise capital for development. Substantial areas of forest were converted to agricultural land, and much of the remaining forest became severely degraded.

A network of protected areas was established across the country between the 1960s and the 1980s to ensure permanent protection of Vietnam's biodiversity. However, by the mid-1980s it became recognised that forest degradation was occurring on an alarming scale both in the protected areas and across the landscape as a whole. The focus of policy began to shift towards embracing a conservation ethic along with the primary emphasis on economic development. This was accompanied by the radical renovation of the economy associated

FSIV Forest Science Institute of Vietnam

GDF General Department of Forestry

GOV Government of Vietnam Ha/ha Hectare

IUCN The World Conservation Union

MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

MOSTE Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment

MOF Ministry of Forestry

MPI Ministry of Planning and Investment

NFAP National Forestry Action Plan

PAs Protected Areas

PAFDs Provincial Agricultural and Forestry Departments

R Rare/Taxa with small world populations and is at risk

SFEs State Forest Enterprises

SNV Netherlands Development Organisation

SPC State Planning Commission

T Threatened/Species which are Endangered, Rare

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

V Vulnerable/taxa believed likely to move into the "Endangered" category

VBA Vietnam Bank of Agriculture

WB World Bank

WFP World Food Programme

WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

of 30

with the move from a centrally planned to a market economy.

In response to the degradation occurring in protected areas, buffer zones were proposed as a mechanism to shield the protected areas from exploitation by surrounding populations. At the present time, butter zones are regularly added to protected areas in planning documents and maps. However, there is still considerable confusion about many aspects of buffer zone management. For example:

� What are the management objectives for buffer zones? � Who has authority to take management initiatives? � How can buffer zone management contribute to the conservation of both the protected

areas and the buffer zones? � What are the best ways of involving buffer zone communities in buffer zone initiatives?

There are no clear policies to address these questions.

1.2 Results of the study

Case studies were carried out in the three National Parks of Ba Vi, Bach Ma and Cat Tien to explore the reality of conditions in the buffer zones, and in particular, the interactions between buffer zone communities and the natural resources in both the buffer zones and the parks.

The findings revealed that there was no certainty about how buffer zones should be delineated. In some cases commune boundaries were used, while in others physical boundaries such as roads were used. This provided some confusion and uncertainty about whether people living inside and outside the boundaries of the buffer zones should be treated differently. Even more problematic was the situation in Cat Tien where the boundary of the park itself is not clearly defined and has been shifted several times. People do not know whether they live inside or outside the park.

The role of State Forest Enterprises in buffer zone management is ambiguous. In general, they have a dual role of both carrying out forest management and supporting socioeconomic development of those people living in the areas under their control (many of whom are present or former workers of the Enterprises).

In Bach Ma and Cat Tien the establishment of new economic zones after 1975 resulted in an influx of government sponsored and spontaneous migrants. In all cases there are dense populations living in the butter zones and the people rely heavily on the collection of timber and non-timber forest products for their livelihood support. Most people are impoverished, and have few alternatives to using the forests in this way. This has resulted in severe degradation of forests in both the buffer zones and the parks, in spite of the best efforts at law enforcement by park authorities.

Most district and commune officials recognise the importance of buffer zones managed to reduce the pressure on the resources in the parks. However, the primary objective of these officials is to improve the socioeconomic condition of the people in their areas of jurisdiction. Many see it as inevitable that the forests will continue to be degraded, at least in the short term, in order to provide economic support for impoverished communities living adjacent to the parks. However, there are no special programmes that focus exclusively on improving the socioeconomic condition of buffer zone inhabitants in order to take pressure off the parks. It is generally recognised that some individuals and groups rely on the forests much

of 30

more than others. However, to date, there have been no attempts to design interventions to target those groups in the community that make the heaviest use of forest products for subsistence and market purposes.

1.3 Guidelines for buffer zone management

The following guidelines have been drafted to incorporated the key points coming from discussions that took place during the Buffer Zone Workshop held in Hanoi in March 1999.

Rationale for establishing buffer zones

All protected areas should have a buffer zone. A management plan for the buffer zone should be attached to the management plan for the protected area.

The main functions of buffer zones are:

� To contribute to the conservation of the protected areas that they surround; � To enhance the conservation values within the buffer zones themselves; and � To provide benefits from the protected areas to the surrounding communities.

These functions will be achieved by:

� Improving the socioeconomic condition of the buffer zone residents to reduce their usage of natural resources in the protected areas;

� Encouraging the participation of local communities in the buffer zones in planning and management of conservation activities;

� Assisting local communities to plan for and manage natural resources in the buffer zones in a sustainable manner, including agro-forestry and other relevant approaches;

� Local authorities, protected area management authority and other economic units in the buffer zones cooperating in planning and management in a manner that supports (and does not go against) the conservation objectives set for the protected areas (and the buffer zones);

� Coordinating all the investments in the buffer zones to achieve the conservation objectives; and

� Encouraging special projects in the buffer zones that support the conservation objectives.

Delineation of buffer zones

In general, buffer zones should be delineated by the boundary of the communes immediately outside the protected areas. However, some flexibility may be needed to take account of situations in very large communes where people living distant from the protected area have little or no impact on the protected area resources. Economic units such as State Forest Enterprises that abut the boundary of protected areas should also be included within the buffer zones, as their activities impact on conservation in both the buffer zones and the protected areas. In such cases, the boundary of the buffer zone could be parallel to the protected area boundary.

Focus of development activities in buffer zones

Key considerations in planning for and implementing development activities in the buffer zones are:

of 30

� Activities should be designed to improve the socioeconomic condition of buffer -zone inhabitants to reduce their dependence on natural resources from the protected area;

� Activities should be determined in consultation with the communities and should be designed to meet their needs (they could cover a range of possibilities, including improved home gardens and farming systems, development of handicrafts, and introduction of ecotourism);

� Major focus of activities should be targeted on those individuals and groups that used to or still make the greatest use of natural resources from the protected areas;

� Approaches should be flexible, as people's needs will change over time, and their ability to participate will increase as their confidence increases;

� Any activities such as ecotourism should be planned in such a way as to maximise the benefit that accrues to local authorities and communities (including disbursement of fees and taxes and direct employment);

� Activities should be accompanied by education and training programmes to sensitise local communities (and local officials) to the importance of conservation in contributing to the balanced development of the country. The national park management board would be the major agency to take the lead in these activities; and

� Priority should be given to local people when recruiting staff for protected area management.

Participation of local communities in buffer zone planning and management

The involvement of local people is critical to obtaining long term change in the way in which natural resources are managed in the buffer zones and the protected areas. They are the ultimate "decision makers", and need to be involved in planning and implementation processes. Among the points that need to be considered in developing appropriate procedures for this are:

� Different family and ethnic traditions that relate to resource management; � Definition of responsibility and authority of different groups (including local authorities,

protected area management boards, SFE officials and local people) to carry out certain activities; and

� The need for flexible and adaptable approaches that can change over time as conditions change, and as the confidence of the stakeholders increases.

Many of the procedures will be location-specific, and will need to be negotiated by the various stakeholders. Hence, it will be difficult to define the precise outcomes in all situations.

Institutional arrangements for buffer zone planning and management

A key issue relates to improving mechanisms for integrating conservation objectives into planning for buffer zone development. District development plans could be one way of doing this. These plans could then be translated into commune plans. Such an approach builds on existing institutional -. mechanisms and provides a way of bringing together the key stakeholders from the district and communes, national park management board, SFEs, special projects and other relevant units.

The major authority for implementing activities in the buffer zones should remain the local authorities. However, one of their key roles could be to work with other agencies to ensure that development is carried out in a way that conservation objectives are defined and integrated into development plans.

Focusing on development planning at district and commune level could also provide

of 30

opportunities for clarifying the roles (particularly the authority and responsibility) of the various agencies operating in the buffer zones to minimise overlap.

Other issues of relevance to buffer zone management

Migration

Continuing migration (government sponsored and voluntary) into the economic zones surrounding protected areas will negate the effects of initiatives designed to integrate conservation and development activities in the buffer zones.

Law enforcement

Efforts to enforce the law aimed at preventing encroachment into protected areas should be continued, but should be seen by buffer zone inhabitants as being linked to the implementation of development activities.

Sustainable harvesting of natural resources

Current law enforcement has not effectively curtailed on-going degradation of biodiversity in protected areas and buffer zones. Consideration could be given to testing initiatives to negotiate arrangements for sustainable harvesting of certain non-timber forest products from protected areas and buffer zones. Currently, it is against the law to use resources from protected areas.

Working definition of buffer zones

The guidelines outlined above lead to a working definition for buffer zone:

Buffer zones are clearly demarcated areas, with or without forest cover, lying outside the boundaries of protected areas that are managed to enhance the conservation of the protected areas, and of the buffer zone itself, while providing benefits for the people living around the area. This will be achieved through the adoption of special development activities that contribute to improving the socioeconomic well being of buffer zone inhabitants.

Buffer zones fall under the management of the local authorities and other economic units located in the buffer zones.

2. Introduction

Vietnam established its first National Park, Cuc Phuong, in 1962. Since then a total of 11 National Parks, 52 Nature Reserves, 16 Wildlife Protection Sites and'22 Historic/Culture/Environment Sites have been established, covering a total area of almost 2.3 million ha (see Appendix I for details). Many of these reserves were established over village lands where people were living. In some cases people were moved from within the reserve boundary to the periphery. After 1975, new economic zones were established throughout the country, and many of these are on the margins of protected areas. Many new settlers were brought to these zones, thus increasing substantially the existing populations. In virtually all cases, dense populations of people are living on the margins of the reserves.

Most local people see protected areas something imposed by the government and which

of 30

brings them little if any benefit. Many, either by tradition or through economic necessity, use various wood and non-wood resources from the reserves for both subsistence and market benefits, with the result that most reserves are continuing to degrade, sometimes very rapidly. The government has found that legal protection is insufficient to guarantee actual protection, and even fairly strong enforcement has relatively little effect. Consequently, there has been growing interest in Vietnam in using buffer zones on the periphery of protected areas to take the pressure off their sources inside the reserves.

Several donor-supported buffer zone projects have been gaining valuable experience during the past few years, and several more large projects are in an advanced planning stage. In 1997 two buffer zone workshops were held, one in Ho Chi Minh City and one in Hue, to begin the process of discussing the relevance of buffer zones in the policy, institutional and practical context of Vietnam's attempts to manage protected areas. This present study builds on this earlier work and takes the process a step further by analysing the experiences to date and providing a forum for-discus8ion of future directions.

3. Study methodology

This study was conducted from September 1998 to March 1999. During this period the following activities were carried out:

� Literature and document study. Relevant documents were obtained from the ministries, in particular the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), and the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MOSTE). Various NGOs in Hanoi also contributed material;

� Discussions were held with Vietnamese scientists and officials, consultants and key staff of international development organisations about buffer zone management issues. Detailed field studies were carried out at Bach Ma National Park in November 1998, at Ba Vi National Park in December 1998, and at Cat Tien National Park in January 1999. These three parks were chosen as representing a cross section of conditions found throughout the country. They cover the geographical spectrum from north to south and the size range of small, medium and large. Between them they also exhibit most of the problems relevant to a consideration of buffer zone management;

� A Buffer Zone Consultation was held in Hanoi in November 1998 with a small group of participants to obtain feedback from the results of the first field study, and tentative conclusions from the literature review; and

� A national workshop was held in Hanoi in March 1999 to discuss the results of the study, make recommendations for guidelines for buffer zone management, and decide on further steps.

The main sources of information were literature reviews and semi-structured interviews. A literature review was carried out to gain an understanding of the general administrative and policy frameworks. Various libraries in Hanoi yielded most of the information for this including those at FAO, NGO Resource Centre, UNDP, World Bank, GTZ, SNV, IUCN, WWF, FIPI, Forest Science Institute of Vietnam, Vietnam Mekong River Committee, Library for Social Sciences, Library for Science and Technology, and the National Library. However, much material has also been collected from the grey literature held in various project offices. Interviews were conducted with government officials and project staff in Hanoi and in the Provinces and with local villagers in the sites selected for detailed case studies.

of 30

Questionnaires were prepared based on the information framework shown in Appendix 2. This was used at each level - national, provincial, district and commune. Among the agencies contacted were DARD, forest protection sub-department, DOSTE, management boards of the national parks, district agencies (agriculture, forest protection and fisheries). At the commune level a conscious effort was made to have discussions with farmers covering the spectrum of economic circumstances (very poor, poor, average and relatively well off). Representatives of local mass organisations (women's union, farmers' association, youth union and production union) were also contacted.

Personal observation while walking through villages, observing the land use patterns, farming practices and general landscape was valuable in cross-checking the information gathered from the more formal interviews.

The information gathered from individual interviews during the detailed case studies was validated by cross checking with information from other interviews and comparison with information in the literature.

4. Background to buffer zone management

4.1. Conservation - development linkages - an international perspective(Adapted from Gilmour 1998)

From the mid-1980s the international community began responding to the problems that were becoming evident when protected are as were established in areas with high rural populations, particularly in developing countries where people were heavily dependent on resource use for survival. The message from a number of international meetings at the time stressed the importance of ensuring that protected areas responded to the needs of local people. A consequence of this was the endorsement of the idea of linking conservation with development. This led to the emergence of anew generation of conservation-oriented projects that were designed to implement this idea.

In terms of conservation actions, the logic implicit within conservation-development projects has been to link the conservation of a particular resource with the perceived development needs of the population which is (at least partly) dependent on that resource for livelihood support. In its simplest form, the argument supporting this linking generally has three strands:

� If the development needs of the local community can be met from alternate sources, this will lessen their impact on the resource to be conserved (alternative livelihood approach);

� Economically impoverished communities cannot be expected to be interested in conservation if their basic subsistence needs have not been met. Consequently, efforts should be made to improve their socioeconomic well-being so that they will be in a position to take more interest in resource conservation (economic development approach); and

� Local communities are more likely to agree to conservation initiatives if they can be actively involved in the planning and management of resource use and if they can share in the benefits. In this way resources can be conserved while at least some of the basic needs of the dependent population are met from sustainable utilisation of the resources (participatory planning approach).

of 30

All three strands of this argument have yet to be fully explored and tested, although many projects, often falling within the broad category of integrated conservation-development projects (ICDPs), have been implemented based on the presumption that the linkages are valid. Implicit in the third strand of this argument is the idea that knowledge is available about levels of resource use that will be sustainable. While this is rarely true in absolute terms there is probably sufficient expert knowledge available (local and other) to make a best bet decision on what is not sustainable, and this is a good starting point.

One of the practical outcomes of the general thinking on conservation and development has been the evolution of the buffer zone concept. In situations where a major resource (such as a protected area) is the subject of conservation interest/ the notion of using buffer zones to assist in achieving conservation objectives has gained currency during the past decade. Major buffer zone initiatives are currently under way in important conservation areas in many countries. Buffer zones are usually thought of as being the land immediately adjacent to (and often surrounding) areas of high conservation value such as National Parks and Wildlife Reserves or other special purpose reserves. It is generally perceived that the designation and special management of the buffer zones will enhance (or maintain) the conservation status of the core areas. Sayer (1991a) provided a working definition of a buffer zone as:

"A zone, peripheral to a national park or equivalent reserve, where restrictions are placed upon resource use or special development measures are undertaken to enhance the conservation value of the area." (p.2).

Even this definition, good as it is, contains ambiguities. It is not clear which area is the focus for enhancement of conservation value - the buffer zone or the reserve?

Implicit within the logic of creating buffer zones in many developing countries is the idea that the core areas cannot be managed to achieve the conservation goals set for them without the addition of specially managed buffer zones. In other words, there is a need to provide a "buffer" between the resource to be conserved and the potentially negative effects of human activities such as intensive agriculture.

A secondary objective associated with buffer zones, is that they can add to the conservation value of the region as a whole by ensuring that certain elements of biodiversity are conserved within the zones, but at a lower level of quality than within the core area. Buffer zones have been proposed in a wide variety of situations in both developed and developing countries. There are few examples of their effective implementation, although the UNESCO Man and Biosphere concept has produced good results in some cases. However, initiatives such as buffer zone projects, which involve attitudinal change among target populations and officials, need considerable time before success can be judged.

Special development projects are very important components of conservation-development initiatives as they generally provide the "action" part of attempts to implement changes in attitudes and practices. The "action" is often carried out through special projects which focus on development activities. However, in practice, these activities are often carried out with a fairly narrow perspective, frequently in isolation from important legal, usufructuary and institutional elements which may themselves provide major constraints to development. Such development projects are often fraught with uncertainties and ambiguities, because of the lack of clarity surrounding the linkages between conservation and development. A further point is that because community development often represents the practical and most visible aspect of on-the-ground management activities, it consumes most resources (both human and financial). Consequently, unless it is carefully managed, it can easily dominate activities and assume a life of its own, thus deflecting attention from the primary objective of linking conservation with development. It is easy for project executants to lose sight of the basic

of 30

reason for embarking on community development activities in the first place. Consequently, these activities need to be defined in a way that clearly links them to the management of the resources that are the subject of the conservation goal. Examples of projects where community development (often translated as agricultural extension) has dominated conservation-development projects, and resulted in a loss of focus, are given by Stocking and Perkin (1992) for projects in East Africa. Questions that need to be addressed in relation to this component include:

� What do "development" and "conservation" mean in the prevailing context?

� What is the nature of the linkages between development and conservation?

� What is the identity of the key target group?

� What is the nature of the interaction between people in the target group and the protected resource?

� What sort of development projects are the most appropriate?

� To what extent is it possible that certain development activities may militate against the conservation values of the area?

� Should development activities target resource management and use of the core conservation area, or the buffer zone, or both?

� What sort of conservation activities (such as enforced protection of key areas) are desirable or necessary?

� What is the interplay between the various actors, in particular between those who are attempting to facilitate change and the local people?

� What conflicts are likely and how can these be identified and handled?

Project planners and executants need to ask themselves the sort of questions outlined above (and probably many others) and work through the answers for the particular project context within which they operate. In this way they will be forced to make the linkages which will lead to a better understanding of the various processes involved. Of course, the mere fact of working through such a set of questions will not provide definitive answers. All it does is expose those involved to the process of constantly questioning the state of knowledge of the various linkages and updating and modifying knowledge and understanding in the light of new experience.

Wells et al. (1992) in their review of integrated conservation-development projects concluded that the results have been mostly disappointing and that there are few working models, in spite of the wide spread promotion and acceptance of the concept. However, this does not necessarily mean that the concept is without merit. Rather, it suggests that insufficient thought and effort may have gone into analysing the underlying linkages between conservation and development and designing interventions that are based on a more realistic understanding of the issues involved. The point made later about such projects needing long time horizons, because of the need for attitudinal change among all participants, is also important.

The notion of conservation through development is appealing in its simplicity. The consequence is that attempts to implement projects with this notion as the basis for

of 30

facilitating change in resource use, have often been carried out in a similarly simplistic manner. As the listing of just some of the issues has shown, the translation of the notion into concrete action in the field is exceedingly complex, and embraces economic, political, social and institutional elements apart from the more apparent biophysical elements relating to biodiversity conservation itself. It is little wonder that the results have been less than satisfactory.

Most efforts to implement integrated conservation-development strategies have been done within the context of development projects. Because of the biophysical objectives of such projects, the tendency has been to have the implementation carried out by biophysical scientists who generally, by the very nature of the technical paradigm from which they come, pay little attention to the social, institutional and political aspects of development. Yet experience has shown, that it is these aspects that are the most important to address in order to create change in societies, and to effectively implement conservation strategies (Gilmour and Fisher, 1991).

From a consideration of 58 guidelines for different aspects of buffer zone management, Sayer (1991b) discuss four basic principles and these, while being general in nature, are worth repeating. They are:

� Assistance must be provided in response to locally expressed ideas. There must be a continuing dialogue with local communities. Funds and materials must be available to support local initiatives;

� Help must be provided at a modest level over a long period. Large scale projects with a two or three year duration will not change the attitudes and behaviour of poor rural people;

� Ten years is probably the minimum commitment needed for a buffer zone project.

� Attempts to impose new crops, agricultural systems or ways of exploiting forest products on local people will almost certainly ail. Instead, projects should put in place a process for responding to needs identified in consultation with the communities;

� Enforcement of laws restricting access to, and use of, forests in the core protected area must be effective, and must be seen by local people to be linked to the buffer zone activities.

Understanding the context of the conservation-development "problem" (i.e. the knowledge developed as a result of working through questions similar to those in the previous section) is nothing more than a starting point, albeit an essential one. It gives a conceptual understanding of the nature of the processes' and problems that are likely to be relevant. Interventions need to be planned and implemented in order to achieve certain conservation goals and objectives. This means intervening in various social processes. The key actors here, of course, are people - villagers, politicians, government officials, etc. As interventions are likely to have a severe impact on at least some people in the area it is essential that they participate fully in the planning and execution of activities. Many projects have failed because those involved did not give adequate attention to this aspect.

4.2. Protected area management in Vietnam

4.2.1. Evolution of policy affecting forest conservation and protected areas

of 30

Policy for the forest sector, including forest protection, needs to be understood in the context of agricultural development and the nation's overall socioeconomic goals.

1954 to 1965

In the early days of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, President Ho Chi Minh said, "Rung la vang, neu minh biet bao ve, xay dung thi rung rat quy" (Forest is like gold, if we know how to protect and manage it, forests are very precious) (FSIV 1985). His words were taken as a motto for the forestry sector, because they reflected its basic objectives of production, while ensuring for the future, through "rational exploitation". "Rational exploitation" was specified in the Resolution of the Fifth Plenum of the Central Committee (July 1961) on the development of agriculture in the First Five Year Plan (1961-1965). It was specified that production had to be developed in a diversified, "all-sided manner".

The function of forest was to "serve as a basis for the development of agriculture". This relationship was expressed in the motto of combining agricultural production with forestry. The activities in the forestry sector should, among other things, "Suitably" guide the cultivation of burnt-out clearings (swidden agriculture) in order to stop "deforestation". Swidden agriculture could be replaced by other modes of production, namely by state and co-operative forestry production. The administrative Organisation responsible for the realisation of these aims and objectives was General Department for Forestry (founded in 1961 and upgraded to the Ministry of Forestry in 1976) which fell under the authority of the Government Council (MOF 1991).

1965 to 1976

The administrative framework in the period 1965-1976 was characterised by a centrally planned system in the DRV and an intensified war effort in southern regions. The agricultural policy emphasised the establishment of production cooperatives in the uplands. Attempts were made to intensify agricultural production, and both food and "industrial" crop production was to be increased with an emphasis on irrigated rice production. Forestry policy had two objectives, namely the development of forestry production and improvement of the socioeconomic conditions of people in designated forest areas. Forest policy was oriented towards serving agricultural and industrial production while increasing the production of timber and non-timber forest products. Construction material could be collected freely in the forest. Furthermore, forest exploitation was an important source of income for agricultural cooperatives and it provided the state trade services with forest products (Nguyen Khac Vien, 1975).

1976 to 1986

The administrative framework after the end of the second Indochina War was based on the concept of "Collective mastery". The relative autonomy of Autonomous Zones was revoked. Agricultural policy stressed the development of large-scale production units as well as the development of surplus production of cash crops. Attempts were made to stimulate production in both the collective and state sectors. New approaches were tried, such as the allocation of land for agricultural use and the promotion of agro-forestry.

In 1976, the Ministry of Forestry was established and directed forestry production in this period. The goal of forest policy was to increase production and support national defence. The greatest part of forestry production was under state control. Substantial over-exploitation occurred because production quotas were set based on state needs rather than the productive capacity of the forests (MOF 1991). Forestry Enterprise management was characterised by top-down planning of exploitation and monoculture plantations. Labourers

of 30

worked eight hours a day and any form of individual farming was officially restricted. This type of management did not provide the workers with any incentive to work effectively, and forest land was severely degraded (MOF 1987, 1991; Pardo 1989). The goal of achieving surplus production of cash crops was predominant during the first decade of the Socialist Republic and this also applied in the forestry sector. By the mid-1980s it had become evident that the natural environment had degraded to such an extent that it was officially observed that "growing of industrial crops in monoculture and rotational extensive cropping system did not protect the forest vegetation". Forest management from then on emphasised protective activities more than previously. The role of forestry production was not restricted to the construction of a socialist economy. Since most designated forestry land was in the mountain region where most ethnic minorities live, forestry policy began to consider the principles then applied to minorities. Solidarity between the ethnic groups was addressed in the forestry policy guideline No. 29/1984.

1986 to 1990

The economic crisis of 1979-1980 and the serious inflation in 1986 led to a radical policy reform. Since 1989, the Government has initiated a process to move from central planning to a market driven economy — the policy commonly known as "doi moi". The main components of this policy are: a transition to a market economy; a reduction in the role of the Government, particularly in production and trade-decentralisation of planning and decision making to provinces and districts; and a stable macro-economic environment. The process of structural transformation has been extended to agriculture. The government has decollectivised agriculture and allocated most agricultural lands to farmers with leases of 20-50 years. The cooperative system was reformed to provide a service function. These steps resulted in a rapid growth of agricultural production. In particular, rice production rose rapidly and Vietnam is now a major rice exporting country.

Major changes occurred in national forest policy in the late 1980s. The policy became focused more on "rehabilitating" and developing forest resources based on both socioeconomic needs and environmental protection (Nguyen Quang Ha, 1991). Another political change was the shift from "traditional forestry" to "people's forestry". This was taken to mean a formal change towards people's participation and the stimulation of the development of household economies within a top-down system (Fingleton, 1990).

1991 to the present

The government's concern in this period has focused on addressing natural resource and environmental degradation. The National Environmental Action Plan (August 1995), forms the basis for Vietnam's current activities in environmental matters. One of the four priority programs identified in the Plan is conservation of the upland forests, and their management for biodiversity conservation and watershed protection. In addition, four other documents describe in greater detail the government's strategy on forest protection and biodiversity conservation: National Conservation Strategy (1985); Tropical Forestry Action Plan (1991); National Plan for Environment and Sustainable Development (1991); and Vietnam Biodiversity Action Plan (1995).

In line with the overall reform programme, the government has also been taking steps to restructure and transform the forestry sector. The National Forestry Action Plan has been the basis for this, and the process has been undertaken in close collaboration with the international donor community. The first step was to undertake a Forest Sector Review which was completed in 1991. The review process was important in that it brought together Vietnamese and International experts, provided a series of reports about the state of forestry in Vietnam and put in place the guiding principles for forestry development. These were based on: decentralisation and people's participation; restructuring of institutions dealing

of 30

with forestry to make them supportive of local activities; environmental protection; and increasing production and the incomes of people living in forest areas.

The NFAP was complemented by the passing of a series of laws and decrees (passed by the National Assembly or the Government); directives (issued by the Prime Minister), and regulations, guidelines or circulars (issued by the concerned Ministries). In addition, provinces sometimes issue specific guidelines to implement directives, regulations and guidelines from the central government). The major decrees and directives relevant to the forest sector are listed in Appendix 6.

The government has also signed several international conventions on the environment and biodiversity conservation. The major ones are:

� UN Environmental Modification Convention (1977), signed 26 August 1980.

� Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972), signed 19 October 1987.

� Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar) (1971), signed 19 October 1987.

� Convention on International trade in Endangered species of wild Fauna and Flora (1973), signed 20 January 1994.

� Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), signed 16 November 1994.

The shift in policy with its increasing focus on forest conservation has resulted in the declaration of a range of protected areas. However, few if any policies deal with the difficult issue of the interaction between people living around the protected area and the protected area resources.

4.2.2. Institutional setting for protected area and buffer zone management

The General Department of Forestry (GDF) was formed in 1961 from departments within the Ministry of Agriculture and placed directly under the control of the central government. From that time, regulations on forestry protection and production were part of agricultural policy (MOF, 1991).

By 1968, The GDF had become more of an advisory body, while local authorities were given more authority over forest management. At the same time, many wood industries were transferred to the GDF. A parallel Organisation of "People's Forest Protection Units" was established at provincial and district levels. Activities at the local level were normally placed under the authority of the People's Committee.

By the second half of the 1970s, decentralisation had progressed to the stage where the district level had the major responsibility for most forestry matters. This led to a fragmentation in the management of larger forest blocks that spread over several districts. Qualified manpower was often not available at the local level, so management standards declined in many places. The GDF was upgraded following the reunification of Vietnam in 1976 and became the Ministry of Forestry (MOF).

Until recently, the main agencies responsible for forest protection and development were the Ministry of Forestry (MOF) and the State Planning Commission (SPC). However, issues related to strategy, policies and finance are dealt with at the highest levels of government,

of 30

particularly Parliament and Cabinet of Ministers. Outside central government, the People's Committees at provincial, district and commune level are key actors. Although they do not make policies, they are key groups in the implementation of government programmes and policies. Their interests and concerns are thus critical in affecting what is actually implemented in the field.

Recently, efforts have being made to decentralise decision making and to improve and rationalise the workings of the central government. In 1995, MOF was merged with the Ministries of Agriculture and Water Resources and a new Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) was formed. SPC was merged with the State Committee for Cooperation and Investment to form a new Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI). The merging of three different ministries into MARD is a major change. It will be accompanied by a large cutback in staff, which will reduce costs. More important, it is planned that the new ministry will focus on planning, policy making, information dissemination and research activities more in line with a market-oriented economy. Finally, it will encourage more integrated thinking about rural development, which takes account of people's needs, and their interaction with forests, crops, livestock and water resources.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) has overall responsibility for the natural resource sector. Within MARD, the Forest Protection Department (FPD) is. responsible for all protection activities, including those which take place in protected areas. More specifically, FPD is charged with monitoring enforcement of law, policies and regulations concerning forest protection and management and transport of forest products. It also promotes public awareness, undertakes management audits, and administers some 8,000 field staff throughout the country. This structure is replicated through Forest Protection Branches (FPB) at provincial and district levels. Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Departments (PAFDs) and District Agriculture and Forestry Services provide service functions as opposed to the control functions of FPB. PAFDs are now being restructured as Provincial Agriculture and Rural Development Services (PARDs) combining agriculture, forestry, inland fisheries, and water resource activities.

Protected area management at the field level is the responsibility of a Management Board headed by a director who reports to the FPB in the case of nature reserves and jointly to FPB and FPD for national parks (since the national government provides some funding). At present, Management Boards have been established in all National Parks and 32 Nature Reserves. Besides management and organisational functions, these Boards also carry out scientific research activities within special-use forests. Forest Protection Units and Forest Protection and Management Stations have been established in some major National Parks and Nature Reserves to carry out policing duties.

A multitude of government agencies is responsible for development activities in the buffer zones including PARDs, provincial Transport and Communications Department, and Department of Land Administration (DLA). Many protected areas are adjacent to State Forest Enterprises (SFEs) which are responsible for management of all production forest land and which also provide social service and community development functions. In this respect, SFEs overlap in function with local governments. The activities of all these entities are supposed to be coordinated by Provincial People's Committees. The effectiveness of such coordination varies between provinces.

A number of implementing Decrees to strengthen forest production and protection, including protected area management, have been issued. Among other things, these specify the management principles of each forest category; the separation of forest protection from production, the role of forest enterprises, and allocation of forest land to local users. A noteworthy regulation is decree 327, issued in 1992, which sets out guidelines for a 10-year program aimed to protect forests and rehabilitate denuded or barren lands. This program

of 30

was launched in 1993 with the equivalent of 68 million USD budgeted in the first year and between 50-60 million USD in subsequent years. Despite significant investments, the 327 Program has been criticised for being too broad in scope thus reducing the likelihood of it having a major impact. In an attempt to remedy this, Decree 556 was issued in 1995 to replace 327 and target assistance more effectively and narrowly to activities directly related to protected areas, protection forests, and buffer zones. However, in 1997, only eight national parks (Ba Vi, Bach Ma, Ben En, Cat Ba, Cuc Phuong, Tam Dao and Yok Don) under MARD's authority received additional investment under the 327/556 programme with a total of 1.4 million US dollars (Nguyen Ngoc Lung, 1997). The allocation of funds for activities in buffer zones is still small compared with the funds available for work within the protected areas. There is also substantial variation between parks. While a range of socioeconomic programs has been introduced throughout the country since 1992, most have largely bypassed the more remote districts and are not focused specifically on buffer zone communities.

4.2.3. Current approaches to delineation of buffer zones

There has been, and still is, some confusion about what area of land should constitute a buffer zone. Prior to 1990, buffer zones were understood to be areas inside the boundary of protected areas and surrounding the strictly protected core zone (see for example, Decision 79-CT, of 31 March 1986 on the establishment of Cat Ba National Park, and Decision 194-CT of 9 August 1986 on the establishment of 73 Nature Reserves). However, according to Decree No 1586, of 13 July 1993, a buffer zone is defined as a zone "... peripheral to a protected area, surrounding all or part of a protected area. Buffer zones do not belong to the protected area and are not under the management of the protected area authorities." It is now generally accepted that buffer zones are those areas immediately outside the boundary of the protected area. This decree is intended to apply to "large" protected areas, although there is no definition of which protected areas are large and which are small.

At the present time buffer zones are generally delineated through a two-stage process which is carried out to identify and approve the establishment of protected areas, or to develop a specific protected area project. In the first stage, a feasibility study is carried out. The Forest Protection Department has the mandate for management of the protected area, while FIPI has a mandate to address technical issues associated with protected area management such as planning, inventory and research. Generally, the boundary of the buffer zone is determined by FIPI during the feasibility study with input from the Forest Protection Department, and often with support from international NGOs. After the feasibility study is drafted, there is a roundtable discussion with local authorities. In the second stage a management plan is prepared which considers socioeconomic conditions, staffing needs, management board structure, etc. Buffer zone delineation is incorporated into the management plan. FIPI generally has a major input into the development of management plans, including the delineation of buffer zones, sometimes in cooperation with international NGOs.

4.2.4. International support for protected area and buffer zone management

External support for buffer zone initiatives has been very important in injecting new ideas into the debate on protected area and buffer zone management, as well as in providing resources for training and the development of new and innovative approaches (see for example Polet 1998). However, special projects implemented in buffer zones have tended to operate in isolation, with limited coordination and communication between them, and sometimes between projects and the responsible arms of government.

Several large projects are in an advanced planning stage (in Vu Quang Nature Reserve, Bach Ma, Cat Tien and Chu Mom Ray) with support from various international agencies

of 30

including WWF, SNV and the World Bank. These represent a new generation of projects which will go beyond the more traditional approach of simply documenting the biodiversity and developing a classical management plan. They have an opportunity of building on the learning that has occurred in the smaller scale projects and focusing on the dynamic interactions that occur between buffer zone communities and the protected area resources.

Most of these new projects are being designed as integrated conservation - development projects focusing on sustainable development of the buffer zones. In some cases preliminary activities have already been carried out including:

� Community needs assessment, analysis of farming systems, gender considerations, identification of alternative economic activities compatible with the protected areas;

� Establishment of an institutional base for the project (construction, staffing, equipping); and

� Building the capacity of project staff through 3training, including participatory field activities.

4.2.5. Results of 1997 buffer zone workshops

Two buffer zone related workshops were held in 1997 - one in Hue (under the auspices of Bach Ma National Park, WWF and SNV) and one in Ho Chi Minh City (sponsored by the Vietnamese Forestry Science and Technology Association). The Hue workshop was intended to focus on Bach Ma National Park, but interest in general buffer zone issues was so great that discussion was very wide ranging (Bach Ma NP, WWF, SNV 1997). The Ho Chi Minh City workshop focused on the participation of local communities in the management of protected areas (Vietnam Forestry Science and Technology Association 1997) and included discussion of buffer zone issues.

Discussion in both workshops included coverage of the following topics:

� Definition of buffer zones;

� Function of buffer zones;

� Policy and legal framework, particularly related to the type of development activities appropriate for buffer zones; and

� Management structure for buffer zones.

The workshops were very valuable as they provided platforms for the discussion of a range of issues implicit in the buffer zone concept, and allowed many of the problems to be expressed explicitly. There was not unanimous agreement on the way forward, but many of the contentious and conflicting points of view were opened for debate.

Participants at the Ho Chi Minh City workshop made several recommendations about protected area management, three of which are directly relevant to development issues for people living in protected areas and buffer zones. These were:

� Policies should be developed to enable community representatives to participate in discussions on both protected area management, and development in the buffer zones;

of 30

� People living inside protected areas should not be moved out, but need support in improving their living condition. In the event that they choose voluntarily to move to the buffer zone, they should be assisted to do so. Population growth in the buffer zone should be minimised and migration strictly limited;

� Forestry development in the buffer zones should aim at providing forest products for the buffer zone communities to reduce pressure on protected area resources; The participants at the Hue workshop did not make specific recommendations, possibly reflecting the wide-ranging opinions that were expressed. However, there did seem to be consensus round several issues. These can be summarised as.

� Buffer zones should include all the area of individual communes immediately outside the protected area.

� Buffer zones should contribute to the protection of the protected core area.

� The population living in the buffer zone should receive assistance in improving their living conditions.

� While present policies are not irrelevant to buffer zone development, they are not sufficient.

These two workshops provided the first opportunities for interested groups and individual to exchange experiences on buffer zone issues. While consensus was not reached on all points, they mark a significant step forward in agreeing on the main elements of a buffer zone policy for Vietnam.

5. Results of the study

This section draws heavily on the results of the detailed case studies (in Ba Vi, Bach Ma and Cat Tien — see Appendices 3, 4 and 5 for details) but is also informed by the literature survey and the interviews.

5.1. Definition of buffer zones

As mentioned in Section 4.2.3, it is now widely recognised that buffer zones are areas of land immediately outside the boundary of protected areas. In all three of the case studies National Park staff and District and Commune officials acknowledged the existence of a buffer zone. A map was available at Bach Ma National Park showing the buffer zone boundary. In some cases the boundary was coincident with the boundary of the communes adjacent to the Park, while in other cases the boundary bisected the commune and followed roads. This was claimed by commune officials to have created some difficulties in providing equity in the allocation of development activities from different sources.

At Cat Tien, the boundary of the National Park has been redefined on paper, but there was confusion among some residents about whether they lived inside or outside the Park. This uncertainty prevented the allocation of red books and prevented farmers obtaining bank loans for agricultural development. The boundary of the Park at Ba Vi is defined as the 100m contour interval. This makes a clear definition on the ground rather difficult, and consequently complicates management.

State Forest Enterprises occupy land on the boundary of most Parks, and there is often

of 30

uncertainty as to which part of their land is considered to be in the buffer zone. At Bach Ma, some of the State Forest Enterprises are considered to be wholly within the buffer zone, while the buffer zone boundary bisects others.

Issue 1: There is no uniformly accepted view of how to define the boundaries of buffer zones.

Issue 2: There is uncertainty about whether, or how, to include land other than commune land (e.g. SFEs) within buffer zones.

Issue 3: In some cases, lack of certainty about the location of the protected area boundary creates confusion among villagers and officials.

5.2. Socio-economic situation in the buffer zones

The buffer zones of all the National Parks studied were densely populated (Ba Vi with 42,000 people in seven communes, Bach Ma with 62,000 people in nine communes and Cat Tien with 162,000 people in 42 communes). In all cases some of the buffer zone inhabitants had been moved from inside the Park after it had been declared, although there are still people living inside the Park boundaries.

New economic zones were established around the Parks after 1975, and government sponsored and voluntary migration resulted in a substantial influx of people from other regions, generally densely populated parts of the north. The migrants tended to displace local ethnic minorities who retreated further into the forest, resulting in their increasing marginalisation. An indication of the density of the buffer zone populations is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Comparison of buffer zone population density in the three case studies.

Uncertainty about the precise location of the Park boundary at Cat Tien has made it difficult for land use agreements (red book) to be finalised.

Most buffer zone inhabitants are impoverished, near-subsistence farmers, living on small areas of paddy land with insufficient food for a full year. Other land tends to be of poor quality with limited potential for cash crops. Consequently, many people, particularly those in the poorer groups, need to use forest products from both the buffer zone and the Park to eke out their existence. It was estimated that in one commune on the boundary of Bach Ma about 65% of the people derive most of their cash income from selling forest products. They are forced by economic circumstances to break the law. The poorest people with the least land make greatest use of the forest, either for their own subsistence purposes or by acting as collectors for middlemen. With more effective law enforcement, they need to be more

National park Buffer zone Population density(persons/ha)

Area (ha) Population (persons)

Ba vi 8,600 42,873 5.0

Bach Ma 22,300 62,000 2.8

Cat Tien 67,200 160,00 2.4

of 30

devious to avoid detection.

Issue 4: Many buffer zone inhabitants are not indigenous to the area and have no long term relationship with the forests.

Issue 5: Many buffer zone inhabitants, particularly poorer ones, harvest substantial quantities of wood and non-wood products for subsistence and market use from the forests in both the buffer zones and the Parks.

Issue 6: Law enforcement has not significantly curtailed harvesting from the forest inside the Park or from the buffer zones.

5.3. Conservation status of the National Parks

Most of the areas now covered by the parks (particularly at Bach Ma and Cat Tien) were adversely affected by activities during the war, in particular by chemical defoliants. This resulted in the loss of large areas of forest and caused a subsequent increase in the frequency of fires. Army units at Cat Tien maintained bases for several years from 1975, and cleared several thousand hectares of forest to plant rice and sugar cane. They also carried out logging operations.

Prior to establishment of the Parks, they were subject to extensive and repeated logging by State Forest Enterprises. The quality and area of forest in all the Parks were reported to have declined significantly during the past few decades, and to be still declining. At Bach Ma it was estimated that the area of forest had declined by about 35% since 1975. Animals are still hunted in all Parks and are now quite rare. The presence of guards and active community extension in parts of Bach Ma is thought to have resulted in a reduction in the rate of loss, but loss is continuing in spite of the best efforts of Park staff. At Ba Vi, only about 1,710 ha of forest at the highest elevation is in reasonably good condition, out of the total Park area of 7,400 ha (MARD/Ba Vi 1998). Important populations of large animals at Cat Tien are threatened with extinction, as populations have declined to critical levels. It seems that local communities treat the forests in the Parks as "open access resources".

Issue 7: Biodiversity is declining rapidly in all Parks due to heavy human use. The establishment of a management presence on-the-ground with guard posts and regular patrols, appears to have lessened, but not stopped, the rate of loss.

5.4. Conservation status of the buffer zones

The buffer zones at Bach Ma and Cat Tien also suffered the deprivations of war with extensive defoliant spraying and napalm bombing. Much of the forest present before the war was lost. Fires increased in the resulting grassland and largely prevented natural regeneration. Substantial migration into the new economic zones after 1975 resulted in large areas of the remaining forest land being cleared for agriculture. The remnant forests in the buffer zones were heavily depleted for subsistence and market goods, and the biodiversity value of the forests in the buffer zones has declined dramatically.

The focus of the State Forest Enterprises operating in the buffer zones was originally on timber extraction. Once most of the commercial timber was exploited their focus shifted to a mix of afforestation activities (mainly with exotic eucalyptus and acacias) and providing

of 30

farming opportunities for their workforce. This combination of events has contributed to the rapid decline in the biodiversity value of the buffer zones. However, there are some examples of significant increases in forest cover, although mostly with exotic species, resulting from tree planting efforts of the State forest Enterprises (e.g. at Bach Ma).

As with the Parks themselves, the natural resources in the buffer zones tend to be treated as open access, with no detectable examples of common property controls.

Issue 8: The biodiversity values of the buffer zones have declined dramatically in recent decades due to conversion of forest to agricultural land and to heavy (unsustainable) exploitation of forest products. It is doubtful if the buffer zones make any significant contribution to the conservation value of the National Parks.

5.5. Development activities in the buffer zones

Development activities are taking place in all the buffer zones studied. Most of these are normal government programmes aimed at improving the overall socioeconomic condition of the communities. By and large, they are not targeted to the buffer zone communities per se. In cases where the National Park Board administers programmes such as 327 within the buffer zone (such as at Bach Ma), the commune officials reassign their budget for the 327 programme to communities outside the buffer zone to ensure equity across the commune. Some government programmes have focused on development in the buffer zones (e.g. at Ba Vi) but these tend to have been aimed at resettling people from inside the park to the buffer zone.

Several international NGOs and local agencies have been involved in implementing buffer zone projects in conjunction with the Forest Protection Department and agencies at the provincial and local levels. Most of these projects have been small scale, operating in one commune or even at a sub-commune level. Nonetheless, the experiences have been valuable in providing insights into the dynamic interactions between local communities and the natural resources, and in exploring interventions that can be effective in providing alternative livelihoods for those using forest products.

Several large projects are currently in an advanced planning stage (in Vu Quang, Bach Ma, Cat Tien and Chu Mom Ray) and these should be able to build on the smaller-scale experiences.

Issue 9: Few activities in the buffer zones are designed to link conservation objectives with socio-economic development.

Issue 10: There has been little attempt to identify those buffer zone inhabitants who are the major forest users and target activities on them.

Issue 11: Planning for most projects has been heavily top down, and there have been few (if any) attempts to enter into a constructive dialogue with major forest users to develop programme activities in a collaborative fashion.

5.6. Institutional arrangements for management of the buffer zones

Many agencies have a mandate or partial mandate for forest management in the buffer

of 30

zones. These include the National Park Management Boards, DARDs, SFEs, FPD, DFD, Department of Land Administration and the Committee for ethnic minorities and mountainous areas (at central level); district and commune officials, and People's Committees. As a result, there are overlapping lines of authority and responsibility that create confusion and uncertainty among all concerned, not least among the local communities.

Issue 12: The overlapping and sometimes conflicting lines of authority and responsibility for activities in buffer zones leads to confusion, uncertainty and frustration among the various actors.

5.7. Perceptions of different stakeholders about National Parks and buffer zones

During the field work a conscious effort was made to discuss issues with, and gain perceptions from, a wide range of interest groups.

� National Park officials are concerned that they have little or no authority for activities in the buffer zones. They would like to see more coordination with commune, district and SFE officials to ensure a better overall approach to buffer zone management. Shortage of resources, including manpower, prevents more effective patrolling of the Park boundaries.

� District and commune officials see their major task as providing improved food security for the people in the buffer zone, and see this as the best way of taking pressure off the Parks. There was some suspicion of external projects. They were seen as being mainly involved in collecting information, carrying out training and advancing the project itself, rather than investing in activities that can make a difference in people's lives.

� Villagers often feel disenfranchised by the establishment of the Park, and refer to it in terms of the "forbidden forest". They are forced by economic circumstances to break the law to collect forest products. They frequently have to resort to tactics such as going to the forest at night after the guards have gone home to avoid detection. The Park is seen as an external, government imposed system represented by guard stations and guards.

Issue 13: Different actors have different perceptions of the purpose and value of the Park, and a variable understanding of the role of buffer zones.

6. Draft guidelines for buffer zone management

The following guidelines have been drafted to incorporate the key points coming from discussions that took place during the Buffer Zone Workshop held in Hanoi in March 1999.

6.1. Rationale for establishing buffer zones

All protected areas should have a buffer zone. A management plan for the buffer zone should be attached to the management plan for the protected area

The main functions of buffer zones are:

of 30

� To contribute to the conservation of the protected areas that they surround;

� To enhance the conservation values within the buffer zones themselves- and I

� To provide benefits from the protected areas to the surrounding communities.

These functions will be achieved by:

� Improving the socioeconomic condition of the buffer zone residents to reduce their usage of natural resources in the protected areas;

� Encouraging the participation of local communities in the buffer zones in planning and management of conservation activities;

� Assisting local communities to plan for and manage natural resources in the buffer zones in a sustainable manner;

� Local authorities and other economic units in the buffer zones cooperating in planning and management in a manner that supports (and does not go against) the conservation objectives set for the protected areas (and the buffer zones);

� Coordinating all the investments in the buffer zones to achieve the conservation objectives; and

� Encouraging special projects in the buffer zones that support the conservation objectives.

6.2. Delineation of buffer zones

In general, buffer zones should be delineated by the boundary of the communes immediately outside the protected areas. However, there may need to be some flexibility to take account of situations in very large communes where people living distant from the protected area have little or no impact on the protected area resources. Economic units such as State Forest Enterprises that abut the boundary of protected areas should also be included within the buffer zones, as their activities impact on conservation in both the buffer zones and the protected areas. In such cases, the boundary of the buffer zone could be parallel to the protected area boundary.

6.3. Focus of development activities in buffer zones

Key considerations in planning for and implementing development activities in the buffer zones are:

� Activities should be designed to improve the socioeconomic condition of buffer zone inhabitants to reduce their dependence on natural resources from the protected area. Activities should be determined in consultation with the communities and should be designed to meet their needs (they could cover a range of possibilities, including improved home gardens and farming systems, development of handicrafts, introduction of ecotourism);

� Major focus of activities should be targeted on those individuals and groups that make

of 30

the greatest use of natural resources from the protected areas;

� Approaches should be flexible, as people's needs will change over time, and their ability to participate will increase as their confidence increases;

� Any activities such as ecotourism should be planned in such a way as to maximise the benefit that accrues to local authorities and communities (including disbursement of fees and taxes and direct employment); and

� Activities should be accompanied by education and training programmes to sensitise local communities (and local officials) to the importance of conservation in contributing to the balanced development of the country. The national park management board would be the major agency to take the lead in these activities.

6.4. Participation of local communities in buffer zone planning and management

The involvement of local people is critical to obtaining long term change in the way in which natural resources are managed in the buffer zones and the protected areas. They are the ultimate "decision makers", and need to be involved in planning and implementation processes. Among the points that need to be considered in developing appropriate procedures for this are:

� Different family and ethnic traditions that relate to resource management;

� Definition of responsibility and authority of different groups (including local authorities, protected area management boards, SFE officials and local people) to carry out certain activities; and

� The need for flexible and adaptable approaches that can change over time as conditions change, and as the confidence of the stakeholders increases.

Many of the procedures will be location-specific, and will need to be negotiated by the various stakeholders. Hence, it will be difficult to define the precise outcomes in all situations.

6.5. Institutional arrangements for buffer zone planning and management

A key issue relates to improving mechanisms for integrating conservation objectives into planning for buffer zone development. District development plans could be one way of doing this. These plans could then be translated into commune plans. Such an approach builds on existing institutional mechanisms and provides a way of bringing together the key stakeholders from the district and communes, national park management board, SFEs, special projects and other relevant units.

The major authority for implementing activities in the buffer zones should remain the local authorities. However, one of their key roles could be to work with other agencies to ensure that development is carried out in a way that conservation objectives are defined and integrated into development plans. Focusing on development planning at district and commune level could also provide opportunities for clarifying the roles (particularly the authority and responsibility) of the various agencies operating in the buffer zones to

of 30

minimise overlap.

6.6. Other issues of relevance to buffer zone management

6.6.1. Migration

Continuing migration (government sponsored and voluntary) into the economic zones surrounding protected areas will negate the effects of initiatives designed to integrate conservation and development activities in the buffer zones.

6.6.2. Law enforcement

Efforts to enforce the law aimed at preventing encroachment into protected areas should be continued, but should be seen by buffer zone inhabitants as being linked to the implementation of development activities.

6.6.3. Sustainable harvesting of natural resources

Current law enforcement has not effectively curtailed on-going degradation of biodiversity in protected areas and buffer zones. Consideration could be given to testing initiatives to negotiate arrangements for sustainable harvesting of certain non-timber forest products from protected areas and buffer zones. Currently, it is against law to use resources from protected areas

6.7. Working definition of buffer zones

The guidelines outlined above lead to a working definition for buffer zone:

Buffer zones are clearly demarcated areas, with or without forest cover, lying outside the boundaries of protected areas that are managed to enhance the conservation o the protected areas, and of the buffer zone itself, while providing benefits for the people living around the area. This will be achieved through the adoption of special development activities that contribute to improving the socioeconomic well being of buffer zone inhabitants.

Buffer zones fall under the management of the local authorities and other economic units located in the buffer zones.

7. Conclusions

Buffer zone issues in Vietnam have come to the fore during recent years, as problems of encroachment into protected areas have become more evident. Forests in most parts of the country are degrading rapidly. In some parks, such as Ba Vi, the original biodiversity has been all but lost. It is clear that the situation is critical and changes must be made in policy and practice, or other parks will follow this pattern. Earlier workshops on buffer zone issues in 1997 opened the door to a serious debate on the topic and made useful recommendations. This current study has taken the process forward by carrying out detailed case studies of the situation in three National Parks. The studies explored the interaction

of 30

between the various actors and assessed their impact on the resources of both the parks and the buffer zones. Understanding these interactions is essential to designing any interventions.

There now needs to be a consensus on the way to move ahead so that the joint goals of sustainable human development and biodiversity conservation can be achieved. The task is not an easy one, particularly where rural poverty is so widespread. It requires an integrated approach across many sectors and involving many actors. It has been shown elsewhere that a blanket blueprint approach is unlikely to work. Progress is more likely where the participants in the process collaborate, attempt to learn from the experience, and update intervention strategies based on that learning (in an action research or adaptive management style). This is a real challenge, as working in this way requires approaches that are not characteristic of the normal working style of most governments.

The guidelines suggested in this study are based on considered discussion among many people with extensive experience in planning for and managing protected areas. They should provide useful guidance to those involved in the policy arena as well as to those involved in planning and implementing intervention strategies.

8. References

1. AREA/CRES (1993). Ba Vi National Park Management Plan. Association for Research and Environmental Aid Ltd. 1993. 137p.

2. Bach Ma NP, WWF, SNV (1997). The buffer zone workshop, Bach Ma - Hai Van. August 1997.

3. Ba Vi National Park/Forest Protection of the Park (1998). Bao cao tinh hinh va ket qua thi hanh "Luat bao ve va phat trien rung" tu 1992-1997 o Vuon Quoc Gia Ba Vi. Ba Vi, ngay 12/5/1998.

4. Dawson, S., Do Tuoc, Le Vu Khoi and Trinh Viet Cuong (1993). Elephant surveys in Vietnam. Project VN 0005. WWF, Hanoi.

5. Fingleton, J.S. (1990). Report on Forestry Policy and Legislation, Forestry Sector Review (FAO/VIE/88/037), Tropical Forest Action Plan, Ministry of Forestry, Hanoi.

6. FIPI (1995). Cat Tien National Park Conservation Project. Project proposal. Revised version.

7. FSIV (1985). Forestry Review. Monthly Bulletin. Forest Science and Technology Information. (Forestry Science Institute of Vietnam).

8. Gilmour, DA. (1998). Forest management in a changing world. In J. Blaser, J. Carter, D. Gilmour (eds.) Biodiversity and sustainable use of Kyrgyzstan's walnut forests. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

9. Gilmour, DA. and Fisher, R.J (1991). Villagers, Forests and Foresters: The Philosophy, Process and Practice of Community Forestry in Nepal. Sahayogi Press, Kathmandu, Nepal, 212pp.

10. Haryono, M., Sugardjito, J., Pham Mong Giao, Vu Van Dung and Nguyen Xuan Dang

of 30

(1993). Report of a Javan rhino survey in Vietnam. WWF VN005 Project Report, April 1993.

11. MacKinnon, J. (1986). Review of the protected areas system in the Indo-Malayan realm. UNEP, IUCN.

12. MARD (1996a). Summary report on forestry development plan in period 1996-2000 and to 2010.

13. MARD (1996b). Ba Vi National Park - Its physical and socioeconomic conditions (section 1 by Prof. Nguyen Van Truong and Dr. Nguyen Duc Khang). Hanoi 1996.

14. MARD (1997). Du An Dau Tu Vuon Quoc Gia Cat Tien, Ha Noi, 6/1997.

15. MARD/Ba Vi National Park (1998). Du Thao Luan Chung Kinh Te Ky Thuat Vuon Quoc Gia Ba Vi. Ha Noi, thang 11 nam 1998.

16. MOF (1987). Agroforestry models in Vietnam (mot so mo hinh nong lam ket hop o Viet Nam), Science and Technology Department of the Ministry of Forestry. Agricultural Publishing House, Hanoi.

17. MOF (1991). Vietnam Forestry Sector Review: Tropical Forestry Action Programme. Ministry of Forestry, Hanoi.

18. Nguyen Duc Khang and Phung Tien Huy (1995). Restoration of forest ecological system in Ba Vi National Park. Proceeding the National Conference on National Park and Protected Areas of Vietnam. Agricultural Publishing House, Hanoi 1995. P 221-228.

19. Nguyen Khac Vien (eds.) (1995). Ethnographical data. (III), Vietnam Studies, Vol. 11. No. 41

20. Nguyen Quang Ha (1991). Land survey and land use planning for forestry. Forest inventory and planning institute, Ministry of Forestry, Hanoi, 2.

21. Nguyen Ngoc Lung (1997). Has the government shown adequate concern regarding socioeconomic development for the local population in the buffer zone? In The buffs zone workshop, Bach Mai-Hai Van (Thua Thien Hue Province), 18-20 August 1997, Hue, Vietnam. Organised by Bach Ma National Park/WWF/SNV, 1997. 31-35.

22. Pardo, R.D. (1989). Forest policy formulation for Vietnam. VIE/82/002. Field document No. 14.

23. Polet, G. (1999). Partnership in protected area management: The case of Cat Tien National Park-Southern Vietnam. (Draft manuscript) WWF, Hanoi, Vietnam.

24. Sayer, J. (1991a). Rainforest Buffer Zones: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 94pp.

25. Sayer, J. (1991b). Buffer zones in rainforests: fact or fantasy? Parks 2(2):20-24.

26. Santiapillai, C., Pham Mong Giao and Vu Van Dung (1991). Conservation and management of Javan Rhino (Rhinoceros sondaicus) in Vietnam. WWF-4567 Project Report, April 1991.

of 30

27. Schaller, G.B., Nguyen Xuan Dang, Le Dinh Thuy and Vo Thanh Son (1990). Javan rhinoceros in Vietnam. Oryx 24(2): 77-80.

28. Scott, DA. (1998). A directory of Asian Wetlands. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 1181.

29. Stocking, MA. and Perkin, S. (1992). Conservation-with-development: an application of the concept in the Usambara Mountains. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, N.S. 17:337-349.

30. Thai Van Trung (1985). The development of a protected area system in Vietnam. In. Thorsell, J.W. (ed.). Conserving Asia's Natural Heritage. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 251 pp.

31. Vietnam Forestry Science and Technology Association (1997). Proceedings of national workshop on the participation of local communities in management of protected areas in Vietnam. December 1997.

32. Vo Quy (1988). Vietnam's initial results in rational utilisation of natural resources. In "Management and restoration of human impact ecosystems". Regional workshop on eco-development process for degraded land resources in Southeast Asia. Bogor, 23-25 Aug 1988. MAB/UNESCO.

33. Wells, M. and Brandon, K. with Hannah, L. (1992). People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management with Local Communities. World Bank/WWF/USAID, Washington DC, 99pp.

34. WWF/EC (1995). Bach Ma National Park Management Plan.

35. WWF/EC (1997). The socioeconomic situation of buffer zone communes of Bach Ma National Park.

of 30

APPENDIX 1 LIST OF PROTECTED AREAS IN VIETNAM

Name Locality Type/category Area Founded

I. National Park

1. Ba Be Bac Kan Forest on limestone, Lake, Gibbon 7,610 1977

2. Ba Vi Ha Tay Sub-tropical forest 7,377 1977

3. Bach Ma Thua Thien Hue Sub-tropical forest 22,030 1986

4. Ben En Thanh Hoa Tropical forest on lowland 16,634 1986

5. Cat Ba Hai Phong Tropical forest on limestone 15,200 1986

6. Cat Tien Dong Nai Numerous types of forest, 73,876 1998

Lam Dong Javan rhinoceros

Binh Phuoc

7. Con Dao Ba Ria - Vung Tau Forest on/ sea island with ocean animals

15,403 1984

8 Cuc Phuong Ninh Binh Forest on limestone 22,200 1962

Hoa Binh

Thanh Hoa

9 Tam Dao Vinh Phuc Sub-tropical forest 36,883 1997

Thai Nguyen

Thanh Hoa

10. Yok Don Dak Lak Dry dipterocarpus forest, elephant 58,200 1991

11 Tram Chim Dong Thap Mangrove, red headed cranes 7,688 1998

II Nature Reserve

1. Ba Mun Quang Ninh Forest on sea island 1,978 1977

2. Ba Na-Nui Chua Da Nang City Subtropical forest, pheasant 43,327 1986

3. Ban Dao Son Tra Da Nang Forest on sea island 4,370 1977

4. Bac Me Ha Giang Natural reserve 27,800 1994

5. Bien Bac-Nui Ong Binh Thuan Evergreen tropical forest 35,377 1986

6. Binh Chau - Phuoc Buu

Ba Ria-Vung Tau Dry dipterocarpus forest along coastal

11,293 1986

7. Bidoup Nui Ba Lam Dong Dry Sub-tropical 73,972 1986

8. Bu Gia Map Binh Phuoc Evergreen tropical forest 35,377 1986

9. Chu Hoa Dak Lak Moist dipterocarpus forest, elephant 17,360 1997

10. Chu Yang Sinh Dak Lak Sub-tropical forest, five-leave pine 54,227 1986

11. Chu Mon Ray Kon Tum Elephant, tiger, kouprey 48,658 1982

12. Cu Lao Cham Quang Nam Forest on sea island, monkey 1,544 1986

13. Day Hoang Lien Lao Cai Sub-tropical forests on mountains 29,845 1994

14. Du Gia Ha Giang Forests on limestone and on lowland

24,293 1994

Page 1 of 4

15. Easol Dak Lak Dipterocarpus forest with big animals

22,000 1996

16. Hang Kia-Pa Co Hoa Hinh Forests on limestone, Pokiania 7,091 1986

17. Hang Phuong Hoang

Thai Nguyen Forests on limestone, numerous caves

6,000 1991

18. Ho Ke Go Ha Tinh Evergreen tropical forest, Hatinh pheasant

24,807 1995

19. Huu Lien Lang Son Forests on limestone 10,640 1986

20. Khe Ro Bac Giang Primary forest 5,675 1995

21. Kim Hy Bac Kan Forests on limestone 18,555 1997

22. Kon Ka Kinh Cia Lai Sub-tropical forest, five-leave pine 28,000 1986

23. Kong Cha Rang Gia Lai Sub-tropical forest 16,000 1986

24. Ky Thuong Quang Ninh Erythropheleum forest, big animals 17,640 1994

25. Mo Re-Bac Son Lang Son Forest on limestone 4,000 1995

26. Nam Ka Dak Lak Lowland evergreen tropical forest 24,555 1986

27. Nam Nung Dak Lak Sub-tropical, three-leave pine 10,849 1986

28. Ngoc Linh Kon Tum Sub-tropical forest, five-leave pine 51,053 1986

29. Nui Giang Man(*) Quang Binh Primary forest along the coastal, saola

60,000 1996

30. Nui Pia Oac Cao Bang Sub-tropical forest 10,000 1986

31. Phong Nha - Ke Bang

Quang Binh Forests on limestone 41,132 1986

32. Phong Quang Ha Giang Forests on limestone, monkeys 18,397 1986

33. Phu Canh Hoa Binh Sub-tropical forest 14,461 1995

34. Phu Quoc Kien Giang Forest on sea island 14,400 1986

35. Pu Hoat (*) Nghe An Primary forest, big mammals 67,934 1996

36. Pu Luong(*) Thanh Hoa Sub-tropical on low limestone, monkeys

15,000 1995

37. Pu Hu (*) Thanh Hoa Sub-tropical forest, Chukrasia, pine 35,089 1995

38. Pu Huong Nghe An Primary forest, Pokiania, elephant 50,075 1986

39. Pu Mat Nghe An Primary forest along Laos' border 93,400 1993

40. Song Thanh D-Pring*

Quang Nam Tropical and sub-tropical forest, mammals

93,000 1996

41. Sop Cop Son La Low tropical forest, big mammals 5,000 1986

42. Krong Trai Phu Yen Dry tropical forest, kouprey, Wild cow

22,290 1986

43. Ta Dung Dak Lak Low evergreen tropical forest 8,521 1995

44. Ta Kou Binh Thuan Diperocarpus family-donimated Forest

29,134 1988

45. Ta Sua Son La Nature reserve 15,000 1995

46. Tay Con Linh Ha Giang Nature reserve 18,790 1995

Page 2 of 4

47. Thuong Tien Hoa Binh Forest on limestone 7,308 1986

48. Vu Quang Ha Tinh Primary forest along border, saola, 52,360 1986

49. Vuc Mau Nghe An Nature reserve 24,842 1986

50. Xuan Nha Son La Forests on limestone, monkeys 38,069 1986

51. Xuan Son Phu Tho Forests on limestone and earth mount.

5,487 1986

52. Yen Tu Quang Ninh Forests on limestone, 3,040 1986

III. Endemic species sites

1. Cac San Chim Ca Mau Bird colony 500 1986

2. Nam Cau Ca Mau Mangrove forest 4,461 1986

3. Dinh Quan Dong Nai Elephant protection 14,000 1995

4. Ea Ral Dak Lak Glyptostrobus pensilis spp. 50 1994

5. Lung Ngoc Hoang(*) Can Tho Mangrove ecosystem 6,000 1996

6. Muong Nhe Lai Chau 'Sub-tropical forest, Chukrasia, mammals

310,216 1986

7. Phong Dien (*) Thua Thien Hue Evergreen tropical forest, pheasants 33,900 1996

8. Rung kho Phan Rang

Ninh Thuan Dry forest with typical vegetation 16,775 1986

9. Tat Ke-Ban Bung Tuyen Quang Forests on limestone, snub-nose monkey

41,930 1994

10. Thai Thuy (*) Thai Binh Mangrove forest, waterfowl 13,100 1994

11. Tien Hai Thai Binh Mangrove forest, Waterbirds 12,500 1986

12. Tam Quy Thanh Hoa Evergreen tropical forest, Erythropholeum

350 1986

13.Trap Ksoi Dak Lak Glyptostrobus pensilis spp. 100 1986

14. U Minh Thuong Kien Giang Mangrove forest 8,509 1986

15. Vo Doi U Minh Ca Mau Mangrove forest 3,394 1992

16. Xuan Thuy Nam Dinh Mangrove forest, Ramsar 7,680 1994

IV. Historic/Culture/Environment sites

1. Bac Hai Van Thua Thien Hue Beauty of nature 14,547 1994

2. Bai Chay Quang Ninh Pine forest around holiday resort 562 1986

3. Con Son-Kiep Bac Hai Duong Places of historical interest on Nguyen Trai

1,477 1986

4. Dao Ho Song Da Hoa Binh Forests on island 3,000 1986

5. Den Hung Phu Tho Places of historical interest 285 1977

6. Deo Ca-Hon Nua Phu Yen Beauty of nature and forest along 8,876 1986

7. Do Son Hai Phong Pine forest around holiday restore 285 1977

8. Ho Lak Dak Lak Natural freshwater lake on high plateau

12,744 1986

9. Hoa Lu Ninh Binh Limestone and Dinh-Le Ancient City 5,624 1996

Page 3 of 4

Note: (*): Proposed sites

10. Hon Chong Kien Giang Beauty of nature on limestone 3,495 1986

11. Huong Son Ha Tay Forests on limestone and Huong Pagoda

4,355 1986

12. Kim Binh Tuyen Quang Places of historical interest 1,937 1994

13. Muong Phang Lai Chau Evergreen dense forest and Dien Bien Phu

962 1986

14. Nam Hai Van Da Nang City Beauty of Nature 10,850 1992

15. Thac Ba Yen Bai Landscape, primates 5,000 1986

16. Nui Ba Ra Binh Phuoc Places of historical interest 940 1986

17. Nui Chung Nghe An Kim Lien places of historical interest 600 1989

18. Pac Po Cao Bang Places of historical interest 2,784 1977

19. Rung Thong Da Lat Lam Dong Plateau pine forest around holiday restore

32,051 1972

20. Sam Son Thanh Hoa Cultural environmental forest 543 1991

21. Tan Trao Tuyen Quang Evergreen dense forest & historical place

6,633 1977

22.Yen The Bac Giang Evergreen dense forest & historical place

883 1993

Page 4 of 4

APPENDIX 2 INFORMATION FRAMEWORK USED TO GUIDE DATA GATHERING

1. Basic information about the protected area

� Name of protected area

� Type/category of protected area Location

� Area (append map-if possible, use a standardised map for all sites)

� When was the PA declared (give relevant decrees, etc)

� Brief description of the PA (including major values that led to its declaration and an indication of the forest types)

2. Management

� Name of agency with major management responsibility

� Identify other agencies which have any management responsibility

� Analyse the institutional arrangements, with particular emphasis on overlapping and/or uncertain areas of authority and responsibility

� Give details of management plans, or other statements of management goals and objectives

� Describe the rules and regulations that apply

� Describe the extent to which these rules and regulations are known and enforced � Management arrangements (staffing levels, authority, etc)

� Describe any special projects operating in the PA or on its margins that have a goal of enhancing the PA (give details — name, history, objectives, results, key informants, etc)

� Describe effectiveness of management (of the main agency and any special projects)

� Describe major threats to the integrity of the PA and the major management problems

� Describe the current status of the PA in terms of its biodiversity and the changes that have taken place over the past 10, 20, and 30 years (based on discussions with key informants from both the management agency and the local community (and from special projects if they are present)

� What is the level of awareness of other major interest groups of management goals, objectives, rules and regulations.

3. Area on the margin of the PA (the buffer zone)

� Is any sort of buffer zone (formal or informal) recognised by the PA management agency or other projects? If yes, describe it, including the management arrangements, and include a sketch map.

Page 1 of 2

� If yes, what is the extent of knowledge of adjacent communities about the buffer zone?

� How is the buffer zone expressed and promoted?

� What is the tenure (ownership) of the land on the margin of the PA? (Use a sketch map if possible and include village locations).

� What is the land use of the land on the margin of the PA? (Use a sketch map if possible).

� What is the economic situation of the communities living on the margin of the PA?

� Are people living inside the legal boundaries of the PA? (If yes, describe the situation).

� Are people living inside or outside the PA using any resources from inside the PA? (If yes, describe the situation, giving as much detail as possible about the type and extent of usage).

� What is the importance of the land on the margin of the PA in terms of maintaining the integrity and values of the PA?

� What are the relationships between the people living on the margin of the PA and the PA management agency (give perspectives from the management agency and the local community).

Page 2 of 2

APPENDIX 3: BA VI CASE STUDY

1. The National Park

1.1. Biophysical details

Location

Ba Vi National Park is located about 50 km north-west of Hanoi, and covers an area of 7,377 ha. Ba Vi is famous its landscapes of "Tan mountain next to Da river" and the mythological legend of a fierce battle between Son Tinh (the mountain genius) and Thuy Tinh (the water genius). With its 18,000 ha and relatively high elevation, Ba Vi is quite outstanding. It is bisected by a large river and located at the western edge of the Red River Delta. However, the primary forest has shrunk to about 2,000 ha. In comparison with other protected areas, the resources at Ba Vi are modest, but still diverse and interesting.

The landscape at Ba Vi is very diverse. The park rises steeply out of a plain that rarely exceeds 30 metres above sea level. Generally, slopes on the western side of the Park, at

an average of 250, are steeper that those on the east. Above 400 metres, the western

slopes may reach a gradient of 350 and some areas of cliff are present. There are three peaks major peaks on Ba Vi Mountain. The highest ones are Dinh Vua at 1296 m asl; Tan Vien at 1,227 m and Ngoc Hoa at 1,131m asl.

Climate

The prevailing climate is monsoon humid tropical. Two seasons are experienced, a warmer one which extends from April to October and a cooler period for the rest of the year. Within

the Park, temperatures fall approximately 0.50C for each 100 metres increase in altitude so that above 900 metres it is cool all year round. Average annual rainfall for the area is 1660 mm, 90% of which is received during the warm season. The driest months are December, January and February. Average humidity at the foot of the slopes is 85%. This figure increases with altitude until between 600 and 900 metres it rises to 95%. Wind direction is closely correlated with the seasons: during the warmer months, south-easterlies predominate, while north-easterlies characterise the cooler part of the year. Hot, dry westerly winds occur in May, June and July.

1.2. History

Prior to 1977, responsibility for land management on and around Ba Vi mountain rested with a number of organisations. These included Ba Vi State Forest Enterprise, Hanoi SFE, Ba Vi

Forest Reserve Board, Ba Vi Forestry Education and Vocational Centre, the Yen Son, Hop Nhat and Tan Linh Co-operatives and the Canh Ki Na Enterprise. An area of 250 hectares, known as K9, was used by Ho Chi Minh as a headquarters and retreat (AREA/CRES, 1993). In June 1977, Ba Vi Forest Reserve was established. The Reserve had an area of 2,144 ha situated above the 400 m level on Ba Vi mountain. Reserve management was originally undertaken by Ba Vi Forest Enterprises. After July 1986, management responsibility was transferred to the Ba Vi Forest Reserve Management Board under the Forest Department of Ha Noi City.

Under Council of Ministers Decision number 17/CT dated 16th January 1991, the Ba Vi National Forbidden Forest was established covering the area now known as Ba Vi National

Page 1 of 13

Park under Decision No. 407-CT dated 18th December 1991. Management responsibility was transferred from the Forestry Department of Hanoi City to the Ministry of Forestry (now MARD).

Management of Ba Vi National Park is now the responsibility of a Management Board . At present, the Board manages four units/divisions: forest protection station (consisting of four sub-stations and one moving unit); administrative division; accountant division and technical division. Besides management and Organisation functions, the Board also organises scientific research activities within the park. Forest Protection sub-stations with 38 forest guards have been established in eight sites on the boundary of the National Park.

1.3. Trends in forest condition

At the end of the 19th century, the French built 31 farms around Ba Vi mountain, especially at Che and Da Chong at Thibaud. Thousand of hectares of forests were cleared in that period. At the beginning of the 20th century, 200 villas were built between 400 and 800m and roads constructed up to 1,100m. Plantation forests at Da Chong were established between 1928 and 1930, and at Canh Ki Na farm in 1937.

Vegetation

Three main forest types occur in Ba Vi National Park:

� Close moist evergreen tropical forest;

� Close moist evergreen sub-tropical forest;

� Close moist mixed broad-leaved and coniferous evergreen sub-tropical forest.

A total 450 species of plants in 128 families has been found in the following orders:

Of the total area of the Park, only 1,544 ha, mainly located above 600m, is covered by original tropical and sub-tropical forest. Within this area, less than 950 ha is undisturbed or only slightly affected by human use. A further 450 ha is classified as heavily distributed and 145 ha as disturbed but regenerating naturally. Most of the severely disturbed and bare areas have been the subject of rehabilitation efforts using both exotic and native species (AREA/CRES, 1993). The current distribution of land cover is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Land cover in Ba Vi National Park

� Fern: 17 families with 43 species

� Gymnosperms: 5 families with 5 species

� Angiosperms: 106 families with 402 species

Land cover Area (ha) Area divided by sub-zones (ha)

Tan Linh Van Yen Da Chong

Khanh Thuong

Strict zone

FORESTED LAND

Light affected forest 260.1 260.1

Page 2 of 13

Source: MARDIBA Vi National Park, 1998

Fauna

Based on recent surveys, 45 species of mammals have been classified at Ba Vi. They belong to the following orders: Rodent (13 species), Carnivore (14 species), Chiroptera (3 species), Artiodactyla (6 species), Primates (3 species), Insectivora (2 species), Scandenta (2 species) Dermoptera (I species), and Pholidota (I species).

At lower elevations where human activities have been most severe, only small animals with low economic value can be found. Above 400 m, and particularly at 600-800 m, where forests are more intact, wildlife is more abundant. Above 800 m, wildlife numbers are low, but some animals can be found, such as Rhesus monkeys and Tibetan bear (Nguyen Van Truong and Nguyen Duc Khang 1996). However, due to heavy hunting and limited area, the number and diversity of species have been significantly reduced. Some species such as peacock, deer a d bear are now locally extinct (pers. com., Ba Vi National Park staff).

Causes of biodiversity loss

In the past, Ba Vi National Park provided a variety of natural resources such as fuelwood, fodder, lumber, other building and handicraft materials, medicines, wild foods, resins and dyes for local communities, government bodies and others. With the establishment of the area as a forbidden forest and later as a National Park, exploitation of the natural environment was prohibited. However, local communities and others still continue to illegally utilise the Park's natural resources both for domestic and commercial purposes. Rapid population growth, from both migration and natural increase, has added to the pressure on the Park's resources (AREA/CRES, 1993).

Compared to the situation before 1991, the forest area in Ba Vi National Park has gradually increased due to afforestation programmes. For example, 2,990 ha of forest were planted during 1992-1997 (MARD/Ba Vi National Park, 1998). However, forest quality is very poor with only small trees. Mammal species richness in Ba Vi is also very poor, large mammals

Intensive affected forest 499.1 499.1

Restoration forest 44.8 21.9 220.5 52.1 650.3

Bamboo 5.8 5.8

Planted forest 2,990.7 347.1 1,166.0 712.9 376.4 388.3

Sub-total 4,700.5 369.0 1,386.5 765.0 376,4 1,803.6

BARREN LAND

Grass land 975.5 135.9 166.2 270.7 237.3 165.4

Brush land 540,0 66.6 206.6 37.8 156.0 73.0

Fragmented tree land 551.7 9.2 256.8 8.2 179.5 98.0

Sub-total 2,067.2 211.7 629.6 316.7 572.8 336.4

AGRICULTURAL LAND 18.3 18.3

Sub-Total 18.3 18.3

TOTAL 6,786.0 580.7 2,016.1 1,100.0 949.2 2,140.0

Page 3 of 13

have become locally extinct, small-medium size mammals remain, but in small numbers and found mainly around the peaks above 800 metres. It is difficult to find them below 800 metres because of human activities.

Through interviews and discussions, the main factors leading to the dramatic decline in biodiversity were found to be:

� Logging, both by government timber units and also illegal cutting by various unofficialunits, has cleared large areas of forest. After 1954, timber was required by state organisations for construction. Forest cover was significantly reduced at the second half of the 1960s and at the beginning of the 1970s. For example, the Post sector cut 30,000 trees for electricity pillars, and the Fishery sector cut trees for boat making in the west side of Ba Vi mountain (MARD/Ba Vi National Park, 1998);

� Agricultural encroachment from the lowlands and unsustainable shifting cultivation practices extended, as rural people sought new areas for agricultural production;

� Collection of non-timber products including medicinal plants, honey, bamboo shoot, etc was common. Both within the Park and in the surrounding areas, up to 350 species of wild and cultivated flora have been identified as being of particular use to human. Within this group, over 200 species reportedly have medical value (AREA/CRES, 1993). An increasing volume of these products is now bartered and traded to the northern part of the country. It is estimated that about 250 tons of medicinal plants were extracted from the Park in 1997-1998 (pers. Com. Mr. On from AREA). It is estimated that over 80% of the Dao people in Ba Vi commune collect medical plants. It was the main source of income in the past and now is the second source of income;

� Foraging for fuelwood is widespread, but causes forest degradation rather than deforestation. It has been estimated that more than 90% of domestic energy consumption is derived from fuel wood, tree and agriculture residues and charcoal;

� Enforcement of Forest Protection Law was not strictly carried out in recent years. However, it is reported that from 1992-1994, there were 128 cases of Forest Law violation; 37 cases in 1995; 69 cases in 1996; 43 cases in 1997 and 57 cases in 1998 (Ba Vi National Park, 1998); and

� Forest fire caused degradation in both natural and plantation forests in some parts of the Park. It has been estimated that 365 ha of forest in the Park were destroyed by fire between 1992 and 1997.

1.4. Special projects associated with the Park

There have been no special projects implemented by government agencies to date. However, between 1992 and 1995 a total of VND 11-647 billion was spent on infrastructure, silvicultural restoration, forest protection, forest plantation, fire, control and land allocation. There was no external support from international organisations for activities in the Park, although several NGOs are carrying out projects in the buffer zones (see below for details).

2. The buffer zone

2.1. Description of the buffer zone

Page 4 of 13

The buffer zone contains seven communes (Ba Trai, Ba Vi, Tan Linh, Van Hoa, Yen Bai, Khanh Thuong and Minh Quang) of Ba Vi District. It is an area of degraded, undulating low hills, rising above marshy bottom valleys with small and intermittent springs. The buffer zone The consists of 8,645 ha which is divided into the following land use categories:

� Cultivated land: 2,479 ha

� Forestry land: 1,613 ha

� Special-use land: 2,876 ha

� Non-used land: 1,677 ha

The total population in the buffer zone is 42,496 persons in 1996 (not including army me based in the zone), accounting for 19.8 percent of the total population of Ba Vi District. There are three ethnic groups: Vietnamese Kinh, Muong, Dao and others (Table 3). Muong and Kinh are indigenous inhabitants around Ba Vi region, while Dao migrated to the area around the 1920s, settling above about 600m elevation where they practised shifting cultivation.

Table 3. Ethnic groups in buffer zone communes in Ba Vi National Park

Note: *: MARD, 1996; **: WRDIBA Vi National Park, 1998.

It was estimated in November 1998 that the total population in the seven communes in the buffer zone was 46,547 persons with 10,125 households (Table 4).

Table 4. Population of the seven buffer zone communes around Ba Vi National Park

Ethnic group Number of persons % of population in buffer zone

1996* 1998** 1996* 1998**

Vietnamese Kinh 22,265 27,347 51.9 58.8

Muong 18,731 17,500 43,6 37.6

Dao 1,499 1,700 3,37 3.6

Commune Household Population Labour force Ethnic group

1. Khanh Thuong 1,634 7,112 3,094 Kinh, Muong

2. Minh Quang 2,068 10,214 4,259 Kinh, Muong

3. Ba Trai 1,761 8,262 3,021 Kinh, Muong

4. Tan Linh 1,868 9,134 3,823 Kinh, Muong

5. Van Hoa 1,737 6,914 2,885 Kinh, Muong

6. Yen Bai 722 3,248 1,327 Kinh, Muong

7. Ba Vi 335 1,663 675 Dao, Kinh

TOTAL 10,125 46,547 19,084

Page 5 of 13

Source: MARDIBA Vi National Park, 11/1998

The economy of people in the buffer zone is not well developed and living conditions are difficult. Income is derived mainly from agricultural production and yields are low, with rice yields reaching only 1.5-2.0 tonnes per ha, which averages at 130 kg of paddy per capita per year (Nguyen Duc Khang and Phung Tien Huy, 1995). Few off-farm jobs are available, and people are forced to enter the park to collect forest products during periods of food deficit. Those encroaching are mainly from the low income families.

2.2. Special projects and government programmes in the buffer zone

There are currently no special government sponsored projects and programmes implemented in the buffer zone. The district focuses on infrastructure development, but at a very small scale and the investment tends to be fragmented. The government approved an investment project: "Forestry-Agricultural Economic Development in Buffer Zone of Ba Vi National Park" for 1992-1996 with a budget of VND 3.65 billion, coordinated by Ba Vi National Park Management Board. The project had the objective of resettling 85 households of Dao people from 400m contour (restoration zone of the park) to the buffer zone. However, the project was terminated in 1993. In 1998, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development start an "Agricultural System Project", but only in Yen Son Village, Ba Vi Commune.

Several projects funded by international organisations are currently operating in the buffer zone. These include:

� AREA, which carried out an inventory from 1992-1994, and since then has implemented a Community Development Project. Emphasis of the project has been on agriculture, aquaculture, medicinal plant development and food processing. Most activities have been carried out in Ba Vi Commune;

� Quaker Organisation supported a small project in So village in Ba Vi Commune, and is implementing activities on medicinal plant development in Yen Son Village, Ba Vi Commune;)

� The Institute of Ecological Economy has implemented an 'Ecological Village Project" in Ba Vi and Ba Trai Communes; and

� Japan International Co-operation Agency (JICA) through the Vietnam Forestry Science - Technology Association has carried out a "Community Forestry Project" in Yen Bai commune.

2.3. State forest enterprises

In 1962 two State Forest Enterprises (SFEs), Van Son and Minh Quang, were established with the purpose of establishing pine and Eucalyptus plantations in the Cam Quy, Suoi Hai, Dong Mo and Hoa Lac areas. These two SFEs subsequently amalgamated to form Ba Vi State Forest Enterprise. In 1983, Ba Vi SFE was cut into many new units. Many state farms, economic units, military bases and tourist companies are situated around the Park in the buffer zone communes, including:

Page 6 of 13

� Centre for cow and pasture study in Van Hoa Commune;

� Viet-Mong tea farm in Van Hoa - Yen Bai Communes;

� Cow breeding station-Moncada in Tan Linh Commune;

� Chicken enterprise in Tan Linh Commune;

� Centre for Vocational Education of Vietnam National University in Tan Linh Comm

� An area of 250 hectares, known as K9 in Minh Quang Commune;

� Military communication unit 614 in Tan Linh Commune;

� Ao Vua state tourist company and Huong Oi private tourist company situated in Van Hoa Commune;

� Khoang Xanh-Suoi Tien private tourist company situated in Van Hoa Commune;

� Suoi Tien private tourist company situated in Yen Bai Commune.

These enterprises and companies have little or no connection with the Park and are not aware of any potential effect of their activities on the Park The exception is Khoang Xanh-Suoi Tien private tourist company, which has received 100 ha of forest in the restoration zone for protection. There is, in fact, no overall plan for the Park and its buffer zone.

2.4 Data from sample communes

Agricultural crops are mainly rain fed, and there is little irrigation development. Crops grown include paddy and upland rice, cassava, tea, soy bean, peanuts, maize, sugar cane, ginger, some vegetable crops and fruits. However, yields are low with wet rice producing an average of 1.2 to 2.8 tonnes per ha. Aquacultural production has developed in recent years. In some areas there is a strong emphasis on single species planting to suit a perceived market demand or to avoid market saturation of the more common crops. Home garden are rather large, but are not well developed, with mostly low value crops being grown such as papaya and custard apple, and no cash crops except tea. There is little income from home gardens, especially among the Dao people in Ba Vi Commune. The land use pattern in the buffer zone communes is shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Land use pattern in buffer zone communes around Ba Vi National Park

Commune Natural area (ha)

Agricultural land (ha)

Forestry land (ha)

Special land (ha)

Other (ha)

Khanh Thuong 1,143.7 340.7 361.0 317.2 124.8

Ba Vi 749.9 40.1 150.0 221.2 338.6

Minh Quang 1,778.9 524.7 443.5 712.8 97.9

Ba Trai 1,270.3 454.3 182.0 486.5 147.5

Tan Linh 1,522.0 634.6 121.8 455.8 309.8

Page 7 of 13

Source: MARD/Ba Vi National Park, 11/1998

In Ba Vi commune, shifting cultivation was very common with forest being cleared for upland rice, maize and cassava cultivation by the Dao people. In this same commune, 76,5% of the land is forestry land, and agricultural land makes up 2,6%, home gardens-16.5%, and other land 4.4%.

Flat land for wet rice production is limited and unequally distributed between households.

For example, the average areas of agricultural land per person is only 96m2 in Ba Vi Commune and there are 81 out of 335 households without agricultural land (flat land). Forestry land is mainly bare of trees and highly eroded.

The major constraints in agriculture and socioeconomic development found in the three case study communes include:

� There is little available land for general agriculture;

� There is limited flat land for wet rice production;

� Forestry land is steep, highly eroded and of low fertility;

� Low input are available for agricultural production due- to lack of capital; soil additions are mostly chemical with little use of organic nutrients;

� Rice production is mainly rainfed;

� Farming system is monoculture; production practices are not advanced; only local varieties and strains are used in agricultural production, so yields are generally low; in some area there is an increasing use of chemical pesticides;

� Population is very high, while education is very low;

� High risks in livestock husbandry development;

� Lack of capital and technique for home garden development. Home gardens remain underdeveloped, with mostly low value crops being grown, no cash crops planted; and

� No potential for additional income generation activities.

The critical issue in the buffer zone communities surrounding the Ba Vi National Park is food security. Food shortage occurs for 4-5 months each year. Local people use cassava as the main food when there is food shortage. Living standards of people in the buffer zone communes are generally very low. Table 6 indicates the relative wealth of households in three sample communes in the buffer zone.

Table 6. Wealth ranking of households in three communes in the buffer zone

Van Hoa 1,616.3 378.1 388.1 483.8 360.3

Yen Bai 822.2 232.3 118.8 198.9 272.2

Total 8,903.3 2,604.8 1,765.2 2,876.2 1,657.1

Page 8 of 13

People, especially poor people, go to the forest and depend heavily upon the forest for non-timber forest product collection such as medical plants, firewood, honey and animals. Trees are also cut for timber. Collected products are sold at local markets and throughout northern part of the country, especially medicinal plants in the case of Dao people in Ba Vi commune.

2.5. Trends in biodiversity in the buffer zone

Natural forests have shrunk considerably and now cover only about 127 ha. Discussions with farmers in Ba Vi, Ba Trai, Yen Bai, Van Hoa, Khanh Thuong Communes indicated that:

� In the 1960s forests in the buffer zone were dense with big trees of 50crn-150cm in diameter;

� In the 1970s forests were heavily exploited by both local people and co-operatives for home use, school construction, bridge building, etc. By the end of the 1970s natural forests had largely disappeared from the buffer zone;

� In 1981-1982, forest plantations of eucalyptus were established. During 1985-1986, the planted eucalyptus were cut and the land left uncultivated or barren; and

� Forest plantations now cover about 1486 ha, but are sparsely stocked. Trees of high value such as camphor tree, Michelia species, Cinamomum spp., Cassia siamea, acacias, pines and tung oil trees are also planted but only on very small areas.

The vegetation cover can be described as follows:

� On hillsides: farm, cash and tree crops prevail, consisting mainly of cassava, hill mulberry, tobacco, tea, pineapple, eucalyptus, acacia, pines, mixed fruit crops such as longan, citrus and banana; and

� Natural vegetation on denuded hillsides includes a wide range of tall grasses (Imperata cylindrical, shrubs and some miscellaneous timber species. Generally speaking, the natural cover has been severely damaged, leading to denuded hillsides on which only shrubs thrive with some eucalyptus growing on poor soil.

Fauna in the buffer zone has largely disappeared. In the 1960s Muntjac were recorded and Dao people in Trung Son heard a tiger in 1967. Buffer zone communes have a potential for

House ranking Ba Vi Khanh Thuong Van Hoa

Rich household - - -

Better off 33 150 98

Average household 62 618 445

Poor household 150 300 417

Very poor/hunger household 95 432 126

Total household 340 1500 1265

Page 9 of 13

fresh water fish raising. In the past, fish productivity was very high and fishing was a source of income during the flood season. One fisherman could catch 20-30 kg of fish per day. However, fish productivity is now significantly reduced because surface water areas have been reduced and water quality has degraded.

3. Interactions between people in the buffer zone and park resources

3.1. Perceptions of National Park officials

The park is defined by the 100 m contour line. This makes it difficult to define on the ground. People in adjacent districts often go to forests in the Park to illegally collect forest products. There is great pressure to manage and protect the Park effectively. The current situation at Ba Vi requires a combination of changes in the management system and project initiatives in the buffer zone. Forest protection is a major issue due to high pressure of local people in the buffer zone. The Park Management Board has attempted to find a solution to the problem b making a contract with district police to become involved in dealing with illegal fares exploitation. In addition, commune policemen are involved in information supply an propagation on forest protection.

The buffer zone of Ba Vi is administered by the district, and Park staff are not involved in any decision making regarding buffer zone activities.

3.2. Perceptions of district officials

Although the buffer zone communes are administered by the district, there is no management committee responsible for socioeconomic development. There have been no special government projects or specific policies for buffer zone communes. District officials stress the shortage of finances, thus the investment for the buffer zone is too low to improve the economic situation for people living there. However, being aware of the importance of the buffer zone on the remaining natural resources of the park, the district has issued a resolution on forest fire fighting, shifting cultivation control, and forest exploitation in collaboration with the Park, and the district Forest Protection Station and police. Commune officials have to report monthly to the District on forest exploitation, shifting cultivation and hunting, an attend the exchange meeting with the National Park management board.

3.3. Perceptions of commune officials

Living standards of local people have been reduced due to a reduction of income from forest collection since the establishment of Ba Vi National Park. State investment is very low and filtered through many levels, so that very little reaches the communes and farmers. Commune leaders are afraid of "so-called projects" (comment from commune officials of Khanh Thuong). There is no master plan for socioeconomic development and no specific policies and efficient solutions for people in the buffer zone. The government should find urgent solutions to improve living standard for people in the buffer zone is still growing up and The main issue for people in the buffer zone is to ensure food security. Suggested solutions included:

� Upgrade water management system and build reservoir to intensify crop productions

� Reform home gardens through credit system and training on cash tree plantation;

Page 10 of 13

� Develop livestock husbandry after carrying out relevant training;

� Carry out equitably forestry land allocation to each household for application of agro-forestry models; and

� Transfer forest protection to community and households, and define clear user rights.

3.4. Perceptions of villagers

People who live far from the park and never use forest products such as those in Ba Trai Commune, have no idea about the buffer zone and say nothing about the impact of the park on their livelihood. People who rely on forest collection and practice shifting cultivation, such as the Dao people in Ba Vi Commune and Muong people in Khanh Thuong Commune, understand the concept of the park. However, they are poor, have no additional income other than that derived from selling forest products, so they have no alternative but to go to the forest. For most people, the park is an external system represented by the guard stations and the forest guards.

3.5. Impact of the Park on the livelihood of people in the buffer zone

Some people say that there has not been much impact. Shifting cultivation was stopped within the park area. Others said that instead of stopping their activities, they went to other places. Others changed the time when they went to the forest in the Park. Activities that they could previously do during daylight hours, now had to be done before the guards got up.

Direct impact of the park on the livelihood of people can be easily seen in the case of the Dao group in Ba Vi Commune. Before 1991 Dao people lived within the Park and practiced shifting cultivation. In 1992-1993 they were moved to the buffer zone where agricultural land is in limited supply. They lacked capital and knowledge and experience in settled agriculture. For these reasons they continue to collect forest product illegally in the Park.

4. Institutional issues

There are many state farms, economic units, military bases and tourist companies situated in the buffer zone communes. There is little co-ordination, no information exchange and little understanding of the objectives of Park. The Management Board of the National Park and Ba Vi District authorities have learned from the budget cut of the investment project "Forestry- Agricultural Economic Development in Buffer Zone of Ba Vi National Park" in 1993. It is felt that socioeconomic programmes for buffer zone communities should be managed by the Management Board of the National Park in close co-operation with local agencies. Other relevant agencies in the districts and provinces will be responsible for specific activities.

There should be specific programmes targeting those individuals and groups in the community who are the major and dependent users of forest resources in the Park, in particular, the Dao people in Ba Vi Commune and Muong people in Khanh Thuong Commune.

5. Discussion and recommendations

Page 11 of 13

5.1. Discussion

� The boundary of Ba Vi National Park is defined by contours, so it is difficult to manage and establish regulations for development;

� Biodiversity of plants and animals has been significantly reduced during recent decades;

� The park management board has established good working relations with local authorities and has contracted local police to become more active in apprehending forest law violators;

� People in the buffer zone are very poor. Income is mainly from agriculture production, but paddy land is very limited. There is little alternative but to go to the forest to collect non-timber forest products, especially medicinal plants, but also to carry out illegal cultivation and logging inside the Park;

� There are no specific policies for socioeconomic development in the buffer zone.

� There are no special socioeconomic programs implemented in the buffer zone communes by district, province or central government. The district focuses on infrastructure development

� Food security is the critical issue for people in buffer zone communes; and

� Many state agencies and private companies operate in the buffer zone. However, they have little co-ordination or information exchange and little understanding of nature conservation objectives of the national park. Local project staff do not have good co-operation with the national parks staff and in return, the national parks staff do not feel a sense of responsibility towards the buffer zone projects.

5.2. Recommendations

The following options may be considered for Ba Vi National Park and its buffer zone communities:

� The GOV should have specific policies that target those groups of people in the buffer zone which are the primary forest users e.g. the Dao people in Ba Vi Commune, the Muong people in Khanh Thuong Commune and the poor household living close to the Park in other communes;

� Policies should be modified to let people use forestry land for agro-forestry purposes to decrease their dependence on the forest;

� Food shortage is the critical issue for people in the Ba Vi buffer zone. Thus improving food security for local people by supporting the introduction of new varieties of cash crops and diversification of plant species is likely to have a major impact;

� The children of Dao people in Ba Vi Commune lack a local teacher, so the state should arrange to train a local Dao teacher, who should be chosen by the people themselves.

� There is unused land in the restoration zone in the Park. Consideration could be given to allowing people with little land to use this area for agro-forestry purposes;

Page 12 of 13

� Support the development of home gardens through credit and savings system;

� Support the development of traditional medicine of the Dao people in Ba Vi commune by improving storage, preservation and processing;

� Policy for use of plantation forest products when forests are harvested, should be made clear to all people (the poor and the rich); and

� Reduce institutional confusion and overlapping activities of different agencies in buffer zone communes through regular dialogue aimed at improving coordination.

Page 13 of 13

APPENDIX 4 BACH MA CASE STUDY



Location

Bach Ma National Park is situated in the central part of Vietnam, about equidistant between Hue and Da Nang City. The park is located in the two districts of Phu Loc and Nam Dong in Thua Thien Hue Province. The total area of the Park is 22,031 ha which is divided into three main zones: the core zone covering 7,123 ha, the ecological restoration zone of 12,61 ha and the headquarters, tourist and service zone of 2,295 ha.

Altitude

Bach Ma National Park is in the northern part of the Truong Son mountain range. The mountains have many peaks which are called "dong" such as Dong Truoi at 1,154m, Dong Nom at 1,186 in, Dong Dlip at 1,200 m. The highest peak is Bach Ma at 1,450 m. The terrain is quite rugged with slopes of 35 to 60 degrees being common.

Climate

Annual average temperature in Bach Ma is 250C. Above an altitude of 900 in, the average

summer temperature fluctuates from 180C to 230C. Annual rainfall is very high, from 3,000 mm-3,500 mm, the wet season normally starts in September and ends in January. Humidity is high year round. Bach Ma experiences tropical monsoons from both north west and south east directions.

Population

There are still two communities of local people living inside the boundary of the park. Forty three households live in Khe Su Hamlet in Loc Tri Commune (of which seven households of Muong group migrated freely and have been living three since 1994); 22 households in Huong Phu Commune, Nam Dong District.

1.2. History

The Park was established under the Council of Ministers Decision No. 214-CT dated 15 July 1991 to be managed by the Ministry of Forestry (now MARD). The management of Bach Ma National Park is currently the responsibility of a Management Board consisting of two members. The Board manages four units/divisions: 'forest protection station (consisting of seven sub-stations and one mobile unit); administrative division; accountant division; technical division (including eco-tourism, community development, propagation and education, animal research, plant research and visitor's centre). Forest protection sub-stations have been established at major sites on the boundary of the Park and there is a total of 40 guards.

1.3. Flora and fauna in the Park

Page 1 of 11

Flora

The forests in the Park are of two main types:

� Montane closed evergreen subtropical monsoon forest growing above 900m. Forest of this type is classified into two classes: poor forest and newly regenerated forest. The main timber species is Podocarpus spp. Mixed with Dacrydium pierrei, both of which are dominant on the peak of Bach Ma; and

� Closed evergreen tropical monsoon forest of lower elevations (below 900 m). The main species in this type are from the families of Dipterocarpecea, Fabaceae, Sapindaceae, Sterculiaceae, Guttifereae, Myrtaceae, Anacardiaceae and Lauraceae.

Five hundred and one vascular plant species belonging to 344 genera and 124 families have been classified.

Fauna

Bach Ma is well known for the richness of its fauna. There are 55 species of animals belonging to 23 families in 9 orders. Birds are also very diverse, and 233 species have been recorded. Some of these are endemic to the area and have very limited habitats, including black-crested blue pheasant, Lophura imperalis, white-crested blue pheasant, Lophura edwardsi, eyed-pheasant, Rheinardtia ocellata and peafowl. Other animals present in the area include langurs, monkeys, gibbons, tigers, elephants and leopard, some of which are listed in the Red Data Book. Initial surveys recorded 49 species of amphibians and reptiles including 19 species of frogs in five families. To date, 33 species of fish in 13 families and 7 orders have been recorded. Many of the plants and animals in the Park are listed as threatened, and Table 7 shows the details.

Table 7. Total number of threatened species in Vietnam and in Bach Ma National Park

Source: WWF/EC (1995)

1.4. Conservation importance of Bach ma

Bach Ma National Park, together with the Hai Van special-use forest constitutes an unbroken transect from the coast to the border with Lao PDR. This bioregion contains an extremely diverse range of habitats and species, some of which are listed above. In

Vietnam Government criteria (Reg 18-HDBT)

Red Book criteria

Vietnam Bach Ma Vietnam Bach Ma

Flora 67 8 356 26

Mammals 30 14 72 14

Birds 9 6 83 21

Reptiles 5 0 43 9

Amphibians 1 0 11 3

Total 112 28 565 73

Page 2 of 11

addition, the region contains a UNESCO World Heritage cultural site (Hue City). Thus, this region of central Vietnam is one of national and international significance for both natural and cultural values

1.5. Trends in biodiversity in the National park

The forests suffered extensively during past decades from a variety of factors. Considerable environmental damage was caused during the war due to a combination of bombing, use of herbicides as defoliants and heavy machinery. Since 1975, officially sanctioned forest exploitation by State Forest Enterprises resulted in several cycles of heavy logging over a 10-year period that removed most of the commercial trees. The incidence of forest fires, particularly in regenerating forests, added to the degradation. Large scale illegal exploitation for both timber and non-timber products has continued to the present time.

Interview results suggested that the collection of forest products provided the main source of cash income for farmers in all communes in the buffer zone. Virtually all households go to the forest for logging, leaf, rattan and firewood collection. Informants said that leaf and rattan supplies are now exhausted within easy reach of villages, and people now have go considerable distances for these products.

Farmers in Huong Phu commune confirmed that good forest is now far from the village. For example, people who live on the collection of non-timber forest products, have, to travel up to 20 km to obtain products such as palm fronds and rattan. In some cases local people have to stay in the forests for some days in which case they usually go with other villagers and set up a camp. Aquilaria is a very high value timber that was previously abundant in the Park close to settlements. It was reported that many people in Cau Hai built new houses using Aquilaria money during the 1980s. Aquilaria is now basically unavailable in the Park and people travel as far as Lao PDR to obtain trees.

Since 1975 there has been a rapid expansion of human population in the area surrounding the Park, both as a result of natural population increase and migration. New economic zones were opened on the western side of the Park and people were moved there from coastal areas. Expansion of agriculture into forested parts of the buffer zone impacted on the overall biodiversity of the region and placed additional pressure on the resources in the Park. People were obliged to harvest forest products from the buffer zone and the Park to satisfy the subsistence and cash needs.

Animal numbers have declined dramatically in recent decades, and it is now rare to see animals in the forest. Guns were banned and taken away by the government, but hunters now use traps to catch small animals either for food, sale or to keep for entertainment at home.

The Park staff actively enforce the regulations to the best of their ability and regularly apprehend and prosecute local people caught collecting products illegally. However, there seems to be little effort to apprehend the middle-men (often outsiders) who create the demand for the products. Table 8 shows the number of cases of violations prosecuted during the past five years.

Table 8. Forestry law violations in Bach Ma National Park from 11/1993 to 11/1998

Kind of violation Year

11/1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 11/1998

Page 3 of 11

The main reasons that have led to deforestation and degradation in the Park can be summarised as:

� Logging carried out by State Forest Enterprises. Nam Dong and Phu Loc Enterprises used 9-10 heavy tractors to log the forest from 1975 to 1986. It is estimated that this accounted for 95% of the timber cut at this time, while farmers cut 5% of the timber volume; and

� Forest exploitation for timber and non-timber forest products by the local communities. This provided the main source of cash income for local communities in the past, although it is now a secondary source of income after agricultural production. It is impossible to police the Park effectively.

1.6. Special projects associated with the Park

External support from international organisations hag provided important assistance for infrastructure development, equipment, training, carrying out resource inventories and socio-economic surveys and management plan development. For example, the World Pheasant Union assisted with pheasant protection; FFI helped with the establishment of an elephant protection programme at Yok Don National Park (Dak Lak Province) and Quang Nam-Da Nang Province and SNV has assisted with the compilation of a management plan.

2. The buffer zone


A buffer zone is recognised by the Park Board on the periphery of the Park even though there are no formal policies, regulations or guidelines for buffer zone management. Physic boundaries such as roads, rather than the administrative boundaries of the communes, delineate the buffer zone. The Director of the Park is responsible for administering some government development programmes (such as 327) in the buffer zone communities to reinforce the link between the buffer zone and the Park.

The buffer zone is an area of 22,300 ha consisting of a mix of natural forests, degraded forest, agricultural and residential land, and populated by approximately 62,000 people. It covers part of one District in Quang Nam Province, but is mainly within the boundaries of Phu Loc and Nam Dong Districts in Thua Thien Hue Province. There are a total of nine communes and one district town.

� Huong Loc, Huong Phu and Thuong Lo Communes in Nam Dong District (Thua Thien Hue Province);

Logging 4 61 83 26 36 29

Trading and transport 9 48 7 17 31 46

Hunting 3 3 10 14

Other 1 6 5 4 3 6

Total 14 121 97 50 80 95

Page 4 of 11

� Loc Tri, Loc Dien, Loc An, Loc Hoa, Xuan Loc Communes and Phu Loc Town in Phu Loc District (Thua Thien Hue Province); and

� Hoa Bac commune in Hoa Vang District (Da Nang City).

There are also four State Forest Enterprises that control much of the land in the buffer zone. The population in these areas is very low. Logging is still active in the southern areas, b has largely ceased in the northern and western areas.

Most of communes were established long ago except for the four new economic zone communes of Huong Phu, Huong Loc, Xuan Loc, and Loc Hoa on the western side of the Park. These were established after 1975 in accordance with the policy of reclaiming waste land and resettling people from densely populated parts of the country.

Land in the buffer zone is divided according to its uses and administrative responsibility.

� Land managed by timber companies (SFEs). This covers a large part of the buffer zone. The forest guard division supervises forest works for the companies, and the company itself is under the administrative control of the Provincial Agriculture and Rural Development Department;

� Land managed by the District Forest Protection Station. This land includes all other forested land not managed by timber companies. Technical management is in the hands of the district forest guards. Communes and districts have control of administration and policy; and

� Farming land. This is managed by farmers, with technical aspects administered by agriculture division of the districts. Administrative and political aspects and land tenure is under the responsibility of the communes and districts.

Most of the people living in the buffer zone are Kinh, although 528 Van Kieu people live in Xuan Loc Commune (Phu Loc District), and two Ka Tu communities live in Thuong Lo Commune (960 people) (Nam Dong District) and Hoa Bac Commune (Hoa Vang District). Agricultural production is the main activity of local people in the buffer zone communes, mainly paddy rice, hill rice, dry crops, livestock husbandry, forest planting and forest protection, and aquaculture. About 80-95% of the population depends on agriculture for their livelihood. There is little income from home garden production.

� There are major constraints to improving agricultural production, including:

� Limited area of flat land suitable for paddy rice production. Most households have only small rice fields;

� Land for forestry is steep, soil erosion is high and fertility low;

� Lack of capital limits investment in agriculture; a Rice production is mainly rainfed; and

� Mainly local varieties and strains are used in agricultural production, so yield is generally low. Rice yields range from 2,000kg to 3,200kg per hectare.

The living standard of people in the buffer zone communes is generally very low. On average, food shortages occur for 4-6 months/year. There is a high rate of unemployment (30-40% of the total population in the age range of 18-35 in the four communes visited). As

Page 5 of 11

a result people, especially poor people, go to the forest and depend heavily on the forest for non- timber forest products (such as rattan, leaves, firewood, honey), trapping animals, as well as timber logging. Most products are sold at local markets or to traders from Hue City, who come to villages with tractors to collect the products. Animals are mainly caught for domestic use but partly for sale to local restaurants (including one in Nam Dong District town). Timber is cut whenever a carpenter asks poor people in the village to provide a specific amount of wood for making furniture. Interview results suggest that the extent of use of products from the Park has reduced since its establishment, but it is still high (Table 9).

Table 9. Percent of the population of selected communes who derive a major part oftheir income from forest product collection and sale.

*Note: 16 persons in this commune survive totally from forest product collection and sale, out of a commune population of 2,739


Quite a number of socioeconomic programs have been implemented in the buffer zone during recent years. These include:

� Employment Promotion Program-120, the main objective was credit for hunger elimination;

� Rubber plantation project in Huong Loc and Huong Phu Communes co-ordinate by Nam Dong Forest Enterprise through credit and paying back in the form of products;

� Resettlement programme in Huong Phu and Thuong Lo Communes and Nam Dong District coordinated by Nam Dong Forest Protection Station;

� PAM 4304 program carried out in buffer zone communes of Phu Loc District with a total of 2,000 ha for the whole district;

� NAV Project is implementing in Huong Loc Commune with a fund of USD 3,000 over three years for technology transfer for animal husbandry and home garden, fish an for pig raising, kindergarten construction and well construction;

� World Vision is implementing project in Loc Hoa and Loc Tri Communes with a fund of USD 5,500 over three years for training and technical transfer, credit for fishing equipment purchase, livestock husbandry and home garden development an construction of schools, wells and dams;

Commune Percentage of Population

Before establishment of the park Current

Loc Tri 30 10

Xuan Loc 75 65

Thuong Loc 90 50

Huong Phu 100 15-20*

Page 6 of 11

� IDRC has finished the first phase of a study of rational use of hill areas in Xuan Loc Commune; and to

� Thua Thien Hue Agricultural Extension Centre is supporting several small investments on animal and crop production.

In While these programmes are useful and in general welcomed by people, they are not designed specifically to take pressure off the resources in the Park or to add to the conservation value of the buffer zone itself. In particular, there are no special programmes targeting those individuals and groups in the community who are the major users of forest resources in the Park.

The national 327/556 programme is perhaps the main government programme that can help to improve forest conditions in the buffer zone and thereby contribute to the conservation objectives of the Park. Under this programme people are paid to plant trees with seedlings supplied from the park nursery and look after them during a three year period.

2.3. State Forest Enterprises

There are four state four forest enterprises located surrounding the Park, including Phu Loc and Nam Dong Forest Enterprises of Thua Thien Hue province, Song Bac and Song Nam of Quang Nam-Da Nang province. Their functions are to:

� Carry out overall planning of forestry development in forested and non-forested areas in the District;

� Exploit natural forests based on the allowable level permitted by yearly plan determined by the Province;

� Cooperate with other government institutions to conduct forest extension activities; and

� Operate as a business by processing forest products and undertaking other forestry related activities.

2.4. Trends in Biodiversity of the buffer zone

The loss of natural forest cover and density in the buffer zone has been considerable over the years. According to statistical data sourced through the WWF/EC study (1997), income from illegal forest harvesting was 10.8% for Phu Loc District and 17.7% for Nam Dong District. Considerable exploitation by people from other areas also occurs. While local communities have contributed to the overall degradation and the loss of biodiversity, state and private forest enterprises operating within the area have also exacted a heavy cost over the years. Reductions in exploitation quotas for forest enterprises are being imposed and, while logging is to be banned in Phu Loc District in 1998, some illegal harvesting is likely to continue. The situation regarding future logging restrictions in Nam Dong District is unclear.

In the communes on the northern side of the Park the remnant forest is severely degraded

Page 7 of 11

and virtually all commercial trees have been harvested. People need to travel a great distance to harvest trees of any value. These forests are treated as "open access resources". Government programmes such as 327and PAM have had a limited impact.

In the communes on the western side of the Park (which were completely barren in 1975) extensive tree planting, using eucalyptus and acacias, has taken place under the auspices of a variety of government programmes. This has resulted in a substantial increase in forest cover and, in some of the better sites, there are signs of natural regeneration developing as an understorey.

State Forest Enterprises on the western and northern boundaries of the Park have carried out extensive tree planting with eucalyptus, acacias and pines-with mixed success. Overall tree cover has increased in many of these areas since 1975, and in the better sites there is some evidence of natural regeneration of indigenous species occurring as an understorey.


3.1. Perceptions of National Park authorities

The park is defined by physical boundaries such as roads, rather than by administrative boundaries. This make it difficult to manage in terms of interacting with commune and district staff and planning activities in the buffer zone. People in adjacent districts often go to forests to illegally collect f9rest products. There is a great pressure on management and control of the Park. Forest guards are insufficient, they have to travel a lot while their salary is ver low.

Major threats to the park are caused by a combination of administrative, socioeconomic an environmental factors:

� The park is situated overlapping two provinces, which impedes protection an management activities;

� The largest part of the land bordering the park is managed by timber companies;

� Exotic species have been planted in the buffer zone and in the park; and

� The natural resources of the park are exploited by rural communities living in buffer zone—both very poor people who need them to survive and by more weal people wishing to get more consumer goods.

The current situation in Bach Ma National Park requires a combination of changes in the management system and project initiatives in the buffer zone. Buffer zone development should not just be seen as developing agriculture, agro-forestry, education, and jobs in order prevent people using the forest. The buffer zone is administered by the district, but the Park may invest in it. However, the Park is not involved in any decision making. Currently the park is not involved in any buffer zone activities except for tree planting through the 327 programme.

3.2. Perceptions of provincial and district officials

The district response to the shortage of agricultural land was to suggest that the present under-utilised lands be brought into production. District officials in Nam Dong claimed that

Page 8 of 11

there is still land available at the former State Farm, and it should be used for agriculture. This would decrease pressure on the Park and the buffer zone. Officials stress the importance of improving infrastructure, particularly the road network. These days home gardens, fish ponds and animal husbandry are officially emphasised as one way to shift to high profit cash crops.


It is hard to stop people exploiting natural forests, because it is firmly rooted in the mind of the local people as the resource favoured by them to make a living. Generally speaking, natural forest exploitation is one way of earning a living by many people, not only because of their limited perception of nature but also because of their low level of income.

The boundary of the park and buffer zone should be the administrative boundary of a commune so that investment will be applied to the whole commune. This creates convenient conditions for management of the Park and commune authorities. Protection units based on community groups and households should be established with specific policies on their rights in forest protection activities.

Some areas without tree cover inside the boundary of the Park could be used for agricultural cultivation. It would be useful to have regulations to allow local people to use such land for agro-forestry to obtain short term income. This would reduce pressure on the natural forest.


When local people speak of Bach Ma it has nothing to do with the National Park per se, but solely with the Summit and the ruins of the French hill station. Similarly, the division of the park into several zones is not meaningful for local people. The park is seen as an abstract intervention from the outside, a government decision to protect and preserve the forest. Since its implementation in 1991 offices and guard stations have been built and personnel hired. Local people speak of "rung cam" (forbidden forest) and to a much lesser extent of Bach Ma National Park. This refers back to its title before being upgraded from a nature reserve to a national park. When people use the words they are not referring to forest, but to the guard stations. In the thinking of the uneducated people, forest exploitation is one of the ways of solving their difficult life. It is perceived that it does not harm anybody and on the other hand it helps young labourers earn money and supplies the better-off people with extra income. In addition, they are pushed for money by the timber smugglers.


Some said that the establishment of the Park has not had much impact on the livelihood of local people. Shifting cultivation was stopped within, the park area. Others said that instead of stopping what they did, they went to other places or changed their working hours. Things they could previously do in day light, now had to be done before the guards got up. On paper there is no room for negotiation as to how local people may use the forest resources. In practice the formal system is at best re-interpreted, at worst not working. There have not been violent conflicts between forest guards and forest users as has occurred further south in Vietnam. This may also be due to the very light control of the forest guards.

Interview results indicated that local people in the buffer zone are aware of the important role of the National Park in improvement of the local environment. However, everybody complains that local people have strongly depended upon the forests for a long time for their livelihood and that the establishment of Bach Ma National Park has influenced directly

Page 9 of 11

their life. The major impacts are less income from forest product collection, no grassland for cattle raising, and agricultural land inside the Park is unavailable.

The impact of activities such as the 327 programme on buffer zone communities is positive. However, the immediate needs such as domestic wood, firewood, pasture for cattle and farming land are still burning issues.


A multitude of government agencies is responsible for the activities in the buffer zone including PARDs, provincial Transport and Communications Department, and Department of Land Administration (DLA). Two state forestry enterprises are situated adjacent to the Park which are responsible for management of all production forest land and which also provide social services and community development functions. In this respect, SFEs overlap in function with local governments. The activities of all these entities are supposed to be coordinated by Provincial People's Committees and District People's Committee.

The National Park Management Board has established good working relations with local authorities in buffer zone communes and attempts to take a lead in delivering socio-economic programmes to the buffer zone communities. However, other institutions have little coordination and little understanding of the potential links between the buffer zone and the National Park.

5. Discussion and Recommendations

5.1. Discussion

� Biodiversity of plants and animals in both the Park and the buffer zone is significantly reduced compared to 1975 both in quantity and quality. It is estimate that the area of forest has been reduced by 30-40% since that time;

� There is no generally recognised definition of what should constitute a buffer zone and no government guidelines for socioeconomic development in the buffer zone;

� The buffer zone is defined by physical boundaries such as roads and it often bisect communes. Consequently it is difficult to manage administratively;

� The park management board has established good cooperation with local authorities and people in buffer zone communes through implementing the 327 programme and carrying out environmental education;

� People in the buffer zone are very poor, income is mainly from agriculture production, while paddy land is limited, population is increasing and unemployment is high. The only way for people to earn a living is to go to the forest for non-timber forest product collection, animal trapping and illegal logging; and

� There are many agencies with a mandate or partial mandate for management in the buffer zone. Consequence, there are overlapping lines of authority and responsibility that create confusion and uncertainty.

Page 10 of 11

5.2. Recommendations Policy

Policy

� Define the boundary of the buffer zone to coincide with commune boundaries;

� Develop policies for focusing development programmes in buffer zones on activities that specifically contribute to the conservation objectives of the National Park;

� Conservation objectives should also be set for the buffer zone so that it contributes to the objectives of the National Park;

� Consider allowing people to harvest defined forest products sustainably from inside the Park in exchange for carrying out protection activities; and

� Consider establishing a constructive dialogue between Park authorities and local communities aimed at moving towards more collaboration in planning and managing Park activities.

Institutional

� The Management Board should have one representative from each buffer zone commune to act as a liaison officer, and to represent the views of local people in discussions by the Board;

� Reduce institutional confusion and overlapping activities of different agencies in buffer zone communes through regular dialogue and coordination meetings; and

� Clearly define the authority and responsibility of the various agencies for both Park and buffer zone activities.

Development activities

� Plantation programmes should pay more attention to matching species with sites. Seedling quality should be greatly improved and seedlings should be better suited to the needs of farmers by allowing seedling production to move to private hands in villages and operate under a free market;

� Define a policy for the distribution of benefits from the harvesting of plantation forests which have been planted and protected by local people; and

� Support the development of home gardens through credit and saving schemes.

Page 11 of 11

APPENDIX 5: CAT TIEN CASE STUDY



Location

Cat Tien National Park is located in southern Vietnam, 150 km north-east of Ho Chi Minh City. The Park is administratively comprised of parts of Dong, Nai, Binh Phuoc (in the past Song Be), and Lam Dong Provinces.

Topography

The Park is composed of five topographic zones:

� High and steep mountains occur mainly in Cat Loc in the northern sector of the park. These form the southern end of Vietnam's Central Plateau. The altitude range is 200-.600m slopes are relatively steep. The mountains and hills are flat topped and are the source of springs and streams which flow into the Dong Nai River;

� Medium hills are present in the southwestern region of the park. The altitude range is 200-300m with slopes mainly between 15-200. Large streams such as the Dak Lua and Da Tapok originate in this hilly area, and they eventually flow into the Dong Nai River,

� Low hills and plains are located in the southeastern region of the park. The altitude

here is below 150m with slopes between 5-70;

� The Dong Nai river plain and low hills with lakes, ponds and wetlands is found in the region where the Dong Nai river forms the boundary between Dong Nai and Binh Phuoc Provinces, up to Ta Lai in the northwestern region of the park. Altitude in this area is about 130m; and

� Small streams, scattered wetlands, lakes and ponds occur in the tributaries of Dak Lua stream. This plain area is poorly drained and is often subject to flooding during the rainy season. In the dry season, only the largest wetland areas such as Bau Sa Bau Chim, Bau Ca and Bau Thai Binh Duong remain. The altitude of this area below 130m.

Climate

Cat Tien National Park is situated in the tropical monsoon region with two seasons: a d season from November/December to March/April, and a dry season from April/May to October/November. The mean annual rainfall is 2,435mm, mean annual temperature is

25.50C and mean relative humidity is 80%.

Hydrology

A varied hydrological landscape or rivers, streams, waterfalls, lakes and marshy wetlands is found in Cat Tien. The entire area of the Park is part of the water catchment of Tri An Reservoir on the lower Dong Nai River. Approximately 90km of Dong Nai River passes through or forms a natural boundary to the Park. The average width of the river is

approximately 100 meters with water flow of 405m3/second. The width and flow of the river

Page 1 of 16

increase greatly during the rainy season. Water from the Dong Nai River spills over the banks and enters the flood plain. The soils surrounding the wetlands, lakes and streams are wet all year round allowing a rich growth of rattan and bamboo, which is the preferred food for the Javan rhinoceros.

1.2. History

Nam Cat Tien was originally gazetted as a Forest Reserve under Decision No. 360/TTg of Council of Ministers dated 7 July 1978 and later upgraded to National Park status in 1986 under Government Decision No. 194/CT, dated 9 August 1986.'The Tay Cat Tien sector was also gazetted as Nature Reserve under the same Government Decision (No. 194/CT dated 9 August 1986). However no management plan was prepared for this area. The Bac Cat Tien area was developed into the Cat Loc Rhinoceros Sanctuary in 1992 following the recommendations of a MOF/WWF report (Santiapillai et al., 1991). On 13 January 1992, the Ministry of Forestry was requested to prepare a comprehensive plan under Government Decision No. 08/CT by which the Nam Cat Tien, Tay Cat Tien and Cat Loc areas would eventually be combined into a single administrative management unit with National Park status. The management plan was first completed in June 1993 and was thoroughly updated and revised in coordination with WWF in October 1994. The plan was approved at the National level on 22 December 1998.

Management of Cat Tien National Park is the responsibility of a Management Board headed by a director with three members. The board manages two sectors: Nam Cat Tien in Dong Nai Province and Cat Loc in Lam Dong Province with a total of 134 staff. Of these, 92 are forest protection guards. Cat Loc sector, with only seven staff covering 30,065 ha, has recently been amalgamated with Nam Cat Tien.

1.3. Flora and fauna

General

The area is a biodiversity hotspot, as it is located at the intersection of two bio-geographical zones. The northern part of the Park is famous for its small population of Java rhinoceros, probably the most endangered large mammal species in the world. The southern area (the original Nam Cat Tien National Park) harbours a large seasonal swamp that contains a population of the endangered Siamese crocodile. Other interesting areas are the more or less undisturbed tropical rain forests of larger Stroemia/Dipterocarp. The whole area is rich in birds, mammals and tree species.

The area is valued as a representative of the types of forest largely destroyed by chemical warfare (Thai Van Trung, 1985) and it has considerable potential for scientific research, conservation education and tourism. The confirmation of the presence of Javan rhinoceros emphasises the importance of Cat Tien, as the only other location in which the species is known to exist is Ujong Kulon National Park on the western tip of Java.

Flora

The flora of Cat Tien is typical of the Dong Nam Bo biogeographic region (the eastern part of the southern Mekong Delta) with Dipterocarpaceae and Lythraceae the most commonalty represented families in areas where human modification is minimal. Ten main vegetation

Page 2 of 16

types are found in the Park (Table 10).

Table 10. Vegetation types found in Cat Tien National Park

Source: WRD, 1997

In forests disturbed by humans, the major families represented are Pandannacea, Euphorbiaceae and Moraceae. The seasonally flooded grassland is dominated by Saccharum spontaneum and Negradia neyraudiana and the Swamp forest by Hydrocarpusanthelmuntica mixed with Ficus benjamica (Scott, 1989). The wetland is bounded to the east, south and west of by dense humid evergreen forest with Dipterocarpus spp., Such as D. alatus D. dyeri and Anisoptera costata as well as Shorea spp. and Hopea spp., coinciding with deep alluvial soils at lower altitudes. Hills and shallow latosols support semi-evergreen and deciduous forest with Lagerstroemia calyculata and Leguminosae such as Afzeliaxylocarpa, Dalbergia bariensis, D. cochinensis and Pterocarpus pedatus. Extensive areas of pure bamboo brakes Bambusa procera and B. arundinaceae and other species are found to the north and south. Some 653 species, in 442 branches and 1125 family and sub-family have been recorded including endemic Dipterocarpus bandii and Dracontomelum schmidii(FIPI, 1993).

Fauna

The fauna of Cat Tien includes many species which are recognised as being either nationally or international threatened. Of the 56 rare species known in Indochina, Cat Tien has 20 species, 18 of which are listed in the CITES and IUCN protected species lists. These include three endangered species: Java rhino Rhinoceros sondaicus (E) Black gibbon Hylobates concolor (1), elephant Elephas maximus (E), tiger Panthera tigris (E), leopard P. pardus (V), cloud leopard Neofelis nebulosa, gaur Bos gaurus (V), banteng B.banteng, deer Cervus spp., Indian muntjac Muntiacus muntjak and wild boar Sus scrofa. This is the only location in mainland south east Asia where southern douc langur Pygathrix nemaeus nigripes is still recorded. Reports of kouprey Bos sauveli (E) being found in the park (Thai Van Trung, 1985) are disputed (MacKinnon, 1986). Over 130 bird species have been

Vegetation types Total National park Section

Area % of area Nam Cat Tien (Dong

Nai)

Tay Cat Tien (Binh Phuoc)

Cat Loc (Lam Dong)

Primary evergreen forest 687 0.9 662 25 -

Logged evergreen forest 17,132 23.1 7,182 122 9,828

Semi-evergreen forest 5,907 7.0 5,097 - -

Bamboo forest 28,805 40.1 10,519 2,692 16,594

Mixed forest 14,361 19.3 11,760 529 2,072

Plantation 62 0.1 - 62 -

Bush/scrub forest 487 0.6 487 - -

Grasslands 2,388 3.2 1,109 577 702

Cultivation area 2,509 3.4 69 1,001 1,439

Wetlands and lakes 1,630 2.2 1,287 434 -

Other 61 0.1 30 31 -

TOTAL 74,219 100.0 38,202 5,382 30,635

Page 3 of 16

recorded out of an estimated total of 230 resident and wintering species. Avifauna includes peafowl Pavo miticus (V), Siamense fireback Lophura diardi (K), endemic Germain's peacock-pheasant Polyplectron germainii (K), endemic red-vented bulbul Magalaima lagrandieri, Indian darter Anhinga melanogaster, milky stork Mycteria cinerea (Vo Quy, 1988) and a wide variety of resident and migratory waterfowl. Some migratory ducks are present during winter. The park is also rich in birds of prey including several species associated with the wetland, such as osprey Pandio haliaetus, black kite Milvus migrans.

The only known surviving population of Java rhinoceros in mainland South East Asia is located in the Cat Loc sector of the Park. Five individuals were thought to be present in 1983. In 1989 the size of the population was estimated at 10-15 animals (Schaller, 1989) and in 1991 it probably comprised a minimum of eight and a maximum of 12 animals. The most recent surveys indicated the presence of only 7-9 animals which appeared to be concentrated in a small area of mixed broad-leaved bamboo forest around the headwaters of the Da Thoi and Da Dim Bo Rivers (Haryono et al., 1993). The size of the elephant population is not known, but no more 20 elephants occur in the central and western parts of Nam Cat Tien (Dawson et al., 1993).

1.4. Trends in forest condition

Most of the area was sprayed with chemical defoliants during the war and since then much of the forest has been heavily exploited for timber and cleared for agriculture. Following the war North Vietnamese army units were allowed to plant rice and sugar cane in the north and south-east and also outside the park to the south of Dong Nai River. During the years from 1975 to 1987, the military "unit 600" maintained bases from Nam Cat Tien in Dong Nai

Province across to Binh Phuoc Province in the West and Lam Dong Province in the North aimed at ensuring both national security and food security for the military. These bases were responsible for agricultural production, including livestock production, and were scattered over a large area. In Nam Cat Tien National Park, there were two army farms. The total area occupied by these farms was 3,000ha, of which 1,000ha of natural forest was converted for sugar cane and rice cultivation. The army used 100 tractors for forest exploitation and land preparation during a 10-year period. The major forest destruction occurred from 1975 to 1977. At that time the forest was logged by the military and their families to acquire agricultural land and to produce logs for exportation to the south western Delta. In addition, shifting cultivation was practiced by indigenous ethnic S'Tieng and Chau Ma.

Since then the human population has increased considerably and populations of large animals such as Java rhinoceros, elephant, gaur, crocodile and macaques have declined. There are still widespread shooting, fishing and burning as well as illegal felling of valuable timber trees. Hunting and fires due to honey collection during the dry season are the only threats to the wetland. The principal threat to the remainder of the park is human population growth and consequently increased exploitation of the forest and its wildlife for timber, food and profit. According to statistical data from the Forest Protection Station of Cat Tien National Par forestry law violations are very common (Table 11).

Table 11. Details of forestry law violations in Cat Tien National Park in recent years

Violation 1995 1996 1997 1998

case persons case persons case persons case persons

Logging 41 156 46 113 17 31 16 21

Page 4 of 16

Source: Pers. com. Mr. Thanh-Head of Forest Protection Station of Cat Tien National Park

1.5 Special projects associated with the Park

A management plan for Cat Tien National Park (CTNP) was completed in June 1993. In 1994 it was translated into English with the assistance of WWF and WB Norwegian trust fund. It was expanded to include a detailed proposal for international financial support. The management strategies identified for CTNP are separated into four programmes (park management and protection; buffer zone and community development; eco-tourism development; scientific research) and they are specifically designed to meet the park's management objectives. The revised document is a comprehensive attempt to address many of the problems which presently impede effective management of the area, but it has not been endorsed at the national level. This is due to several factors including: (1) the problem associated with designing a practical management strategy for the large human population resident along the Dong Nai River between the Cat Tien and Cat Loc sectors of the Park, and (2) difficulties relating to the integration of three protected areas in three provinces under one administration.

Various research institutes and universities carried out basic surveys to assess the value of the Cat Tien region and to make inventories of the flora and fauna resources. Most notable among these are:

� Forest Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI) which undertook field surveys as part of its management and data collection duties within the Ministry of Forestry (now Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development);

� The Institute of Tropical Biology's Sub-Institute for Ecology and Biological Resources (IEBR), a Ho Chi Minh City based institute, received a two year grant from the MacArthur Foundation to undertake studies on the biodiversity situation in Nam Cat Tien;

� Expatriate researchers have carried out ecological studies in the Park. Notable among these have been elephant surveys undertaken in February-March 1993 by a team consisting of WWF, FIPI and IEBR field biologists, and a remote sensing and ground truthing project undertaken in August-September 1992 with technical assistance from Gent University and FIPI and with WWF funding support;

Trading and transport 6 10 10 19 47 85 25 44

Hunting 5 12 10 21 12 18 29 49

Shifting cultivation 1 9 6 20 1 1 5 9

Non-timber product collection 85 255 145 311 21 45 95 169

Forest product storage 1 1 1 1 6 6 12 25

Forest encroachment 19 28 1 1 - - 77 127

Fishing 33 60 42 42 384 76 57 120

Other 49 100

Illegal settlement in the Park 4 12

TOTAL 191 528 300 690 142 262 320 585

Page 5 of 16

� Eight training courses were carried out under the auspices of a UNDP/GEF Project on Conservation Training and Biodiversity Action Plan. These aim to strengthen the capacity of the Government of Vietnam to implement programmes which protect areas of high bio diversity through a broad range of training activities both in country and through overseas fellowships and study tours; and

� The Cat Tien National Park Conservation Project is being implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) funded by the Netherlands Government with the following objectives:

Long-term objectives:

� The remaining tropical rain forest and its biodiversity is conserved;

� A viable population of Javan rhinoceros resident within the park is established; and

� A critical part of the water catchment area of Tri An reservoir is protected.

Immediate objectives:

� Effective park management is established;

� Important forest types and habitat monitoring programmes are established;

� Wildlife research and habitat monitoring programmes are established;

� Public awareness of the physical and biological values of the park and its environment is enhanced;

� Income generating opportunities for the park and the local human population are improved through developed tourism infrastructure; and

� Dependency of the local human population upon park resources is reduced.

2. The buffer zone


According to the Management Plan of Cat Tien National Park, the buffer zone surrounding the Park consists of 67,225 ha which are comprised of 8 districts, 42 communes and some 160,000 people in four provinces. Most of the buffer zone communes are newly established due to the New Economic Zone Programme or due to spontaneous migration after liberation of the south. The distribution of the buffer zone across the various provinces is as follows:

� Dong Nai Province 18,500 ha

� Lam Dong Province 20,450 ha

� Binh Phuoc Province (Song Be in the past) 17,000-20,000 ha

� Dak Lak Province 8,275 ha

Page 6 of 16

� Estimated Total 67,225 ha

In all districts and communes visited by the study team, definition of the boundary between the Park and the buffer zone communes was found to be unclear. For example, as a result of redefinition of the boundary between Dong Nai and Binh Phuoc, a number of households in Dang Ha Commune (Bu Dang District, Binh Phuoc Province) find themselves located within the boundary of the Nam Cat Tien sector of the Park in Dong Nai Province. According to statistical data from Management Board of Cat Tien National Park, there are still 218 households with 1,047 people living within the Park boundary in Dang Ha Commune. It is planned to remove the households from these Park. However, the process for doing this is not clear.

In general, both long term land use rights agreement (red book) and short term land allocation contracts are absent in all buffer zone communes. As a result, households in some communes are not entitled to borrow money from the banks under current banking law. Due to the shortage of eligible borrowers, many households in Dang Ha, Ta Lai, Thanh Son, and Thong Nhat Communes had to return unused bank funds available under the Hunger Eradication and Poverty Alleviation Programme, a national programme which lends at subsidised interest rates to the very poor.

Ethnic minorities in buffer zone communes are far from being uniform. Those causing pressure on the forest within the buffer zone and inside the park can be conveniently divided into three groups, which have different histories in the area, different connections to administrative structures, and also differ in land use strategies and ethnicity. These three groups are:

� Lowland Vietnamese (Kinh);

� Indigenous ethnic minorities, such as S'Tieng and Chau Ma; and

� Recently migrated minorities from northern provinces (Lang Son, Cao Bang, Bac Kan provinces) such as Tay, Nung, Dao, Hoa, H'Mong, etc.

The differences between these three groups suggest that different strategies will be required to achieve a goal of sustainable development that incorporates ideas of resource conservation.

S'Tieng, Chau Ma, and Chau Ro tribes have lived in the central valley of the park for several centuries, and hundreds of people are currently resident in Ta Lai Commune, Dak Nua Commune (Tan Phu district), and Thanh Son Commune (Dinh Quan District) in Dong Nai Province. These indigenous minorities have a long history of sedentary shifting cultivation. They traditionally leave tree stumps and logs in the field rather than remove them. This has the beneficial effect of reducing erosion and speeding regeneration of fields that are left fallow. For these people there appear to be no viable alternatives to shifting cultivation.

The recently migrated minorities from the northern provinces started arriving about 1987, but most have come since 1990. They have settled in large numbers between Nam Cat Tien National Park and Cat Loc Nature Reserve (now Cat Tien National Park). The principal means of livelihood are fishing and hunting within the Park and fishing, hunting and shifting cultivation in surrounding areas. The adjacent areas of Dong Nai Province on the east bank of the river, and of Lam Dong Province on the north bank, are new economic zones, created since 1975. The ethnic Vietnamese agricultural population is still growing by immigration and has cleared much of forest outside the park in these areas.

Page 7 of 16


There are no special projects and programmes implemented in the buffer zone by the central government. The district Agricultural Divisions helped only in extension services as in other communities in the district. The districts focus on infrastructure development through national programmes such as 327 programme, fixed cultivation and fixed resettlement starvation eradication and poverty alleviation, rural clean water programme, etc., but generally at a small scales and with fragmented investment.

2.3. State Forest Enterprises

There are 11 State Forest Enterprises (SFE) surrounding Cat Tien National Park. In addition, the La Nga National Forest Company-formerly a forest science enterprise-adjoins the Cat Tien National Park. In some cases forest enterprises directly adjoin park and reserve boundaries, in others, they are separated from the Park by the Dong Nai River. Information on SFEs is presented in Table 12.

Table 12. State Forest Enterprises surrounding the Cat Tien National Park

2.4. Data from sample communes

The two main types of land used for agriculture are lowland plain or swampy areas with high water tables, and upland areas with slopes greater than 200 agricultural land. Upland forest or shrub land (degraded forest) is a third class of land used mainly for public grazing of livestock and for collection of livestock fodder, fuelwood and roof thatching. The choice of cash crops planted by farmers has recently been strongly influenced by industrial and urban development in the wider region especially towards Ho Chi Minh City where there are processors of cashew, rubber, coffee, tobacco and cotton. In 1985 settlers in the new economic zone cleared a large part of the eastern area.

Land use patterns have been strongly influence by the majority Kinh, Vietnamese, who have

Name of SFE Surrounded sector Province Area (ha)

Total Natural forest land

Other land

Vinh An Nam Cat Tien Dong Nai 17,850 15,159 2,691

Tan Phu Nam Cat Tien Dong Nai 15,131 11,066 4,065

La Nga Nam Cat Tien Dong Nai 22,613 10,971 11,642

Da Te Nam Cat Tien & Cat Loc Lam Dong 25,374 16,729 8,645

Loc Bac Cat Loc Lam Dong 43,500 32,908 10,592

Nghia Trung Cat Loc & Tay Cat Tien Dong Nai 36,847 35,124 1,723

Doan 600 Cat Don Dong Nai 36, 474 12,090 3,384

Thong Nhat Cat Loc Binh Phuoc 19,828 16,724 3,104

Bu Dang Cat Loc Binh Phuoc 28,832 32,292 12,108

Suoi Nhung Cat Loc Binh Phuoc 35,724 4,918 3,432

Dao Nghia Cat Loc Dak Lak 4.918

Page 8 of 16

developed a highly productive wet rice cultivation and a home garden system which can include a range of fruit trees, vegetables and medicinal crops integrated with penned livestock and fish raising in a small pond. Both fixed and shifting cultivation systems are practised, depending on the type of land, household resources, population density and ethnic tradition. Shifting cultivation in the uplands has been favoured by the indigenous ethnic minorities, although settled farming systems are gradually taking over where appropriate technology is adopted and benefits are perceived. This process has been accelerated by substantial migration of northern Kinh to Cat Tien areas. Rice is the preferred staple food, with cassava, sweet potato and maize mostly for livestock or as food reserve. Other migrants include ethnic minorities from the mountainous northern regions who are adopting Kinh practices or are gradually adapting their shifting cultivation experience to the constraints of their new agro-environment.

Lowland cropping systems

Wet rice cultivation on swampy plains and river valleys using a paddy structure is the preferred farming system of the majority Kinh Vietnamese. Yields of wet rice even without irrigation are much higher than upland rice cultivation. The area of paddy land per household depends on land availability and available household labour required for cultivation. Two 100-day rice crops per year (April-July and August-November) are obtained in the lowlands except where annual flooding occurs on the plains of Cat Tien District.

Sugar cane is the predominant industrial crop in the lowlands and there are former state-owned processing unit in Tan Phu and Cat Tien Districts. Mulberry is grown as a perennial crop for silkworm feed along the recent alluvial terraces of the Dong Nai River, especially in Cat Tien District. Other annual crops on the lowlands in seasonal rotation with rice are maize, green bean, black bean, soy bean and small amounts of peanut, sweet potato and vegetables.

Upland cropping systems

Shifting cultivation is practised in upland areas, and there are three prevailing ''systems commonly used in the buffer zone and even in the park area:

� Settled households who live in more or less permanent villages and who make a cyclical use of the same fields. This is the typical system used by indigenous ethnic groups such as S'Tieng and Chau Ma;

� Migrant shifting cultivators who live in temporary villages and cultivate their plots until the soil is exhausted. The recently immigrated Dao from the north belong to this group; and

� Supplementary shifting cultivators who are sedentary farm households who combine or supplement their use of permanent irrigated or rain fed plots with shifting cultivation. The recently immigrated Muong, and Tay belong to this group.

However, due to increased population pressures, these ethnic groups are steadily changing their farming practices.

A wide range of fruit and vegetables is grown in home gardens for household consumption with some small quantities sold for cash. Livestock kept in stalls in home gardens are fed with cassava, surplus maize, sweet potato leaves, household waste and rice bran. Manure and bedding straw are applied as fertiliser to field crops.

Page 9 of 16

Most of the food production originates from rice. The average yield of paddy per hectare is very low. The main reasons for low productivity of agriculture are natural calamities, poor soils, poor infrastructure, low technological level and investment capital. Cotton is a new experimental crop in the eastern region and has been planted with support from a processing company in Ho Chi Minh City. Other crops grown either for food or for livestock production are maize, cassava and sweet potato. Industrial crop growing is common in the buffer zone, including cashew, coffee, hot pepper and rubber. Livestock rearing is an important source of income for farmers. However, the productivity is rather low, due to diseases, poor quality of animal strains, shortage of proper feed and poor management.

The groups most dependent on subsistence products from the forest are the indigenous minorities and the recent settlers who are still trying to establish an agricultural or alternative livelihood basis. Because of growing population pressure, the agricultural practices of these groups are becoming increasing unsustainable. People in the buffer zone are very poor. Poor and very poor households make up 30% of the total. The reasons for this are said to be lack of labour, too many children, poor soil, lack of capital and credit, poor health, lack of knowledge and information and no planning capacity. The better off households live- in the small townships and villages near the roads and the markets.

Generally, the more remote the place, the higher the degree of poverty and food insecurity. As the demand for arable land increases, land trading between migrant and indigenous people- has driven indigenous inhabitants deeper into the forest. The great majority of people in the less remote areas are Vietnamese Kinh. In the remoter areas of Tay Cat Tien and Cat Loc, where cultivated land is becoming more scarce and exhausted, and where access to infrastructure and other facilities is limited or non-existent, people are short of rice for several months of the year. Most of the inhabitants in these areas belong to indigenous groups and -the migrant ethnic groups from the north.

Lack of wet rice land is a typical problem for the local indigenous minorities and the recent settlers such as those at Cat Loc and Tay Cat Tien. People need to rely on harvesting forest resources to obtain sufficient income. They need large areas for cultivation, harvesting and living. In some cases, the main source of income is from selling non-timber forest products and from illegal logging.

The major constraints in the buffer zone surrounding Cat Tien National Park are:

� Lack of a sound productive resource base;

� Lack of physical infrastructures;

� Lack of agricultural support services; and

� Insufficient health and education facilities and services.

Geographic isolation and other factors also contribute to the poverty of the people in the buffer zone. Low levels of formal education and technical knowledge are common among members of poor households.

2.5. Trends in biodiversity of the buffer zone

Prior to 1975 much of the buffer zone areas that is now under agriculture was forested. Some forest areas were destroyed by herbicide spraying and other activities during the war. Intentional and unintentional forest and shrub fires exacerbated forest clearing for traditional shifting agriculture of the original inhabitants. Access to the area was greatly improved as

Page 10 of 16

part of the security concerns during the war, resulting in greater exploitation of forest resources and in turn decreasing land available for shifting agriculture. During the years from 1975 to 1985, the military maintained bases throughout the area aimed at ensuring both national security and food security for the military. These bases were responsible for agricultural production, including livestock production and were scattered over a large area from Nam Cat Tien in Dong Nai Province across to Binh Phuoc Province in the West and Lam Dong Province in the North.

However, prior to 1985, large parts of the area were still forested with only a few inhabitants of ethnic Chau Ma and S'Tieng. These people had experienced little human interference other' than the spraying of some areas with chemical herbicides during the war. The first migrants arriving after 1985 from northern Vietnam. These were both spontaneous as well as those under the government sponsored New Economic Zone programme. These new settlers established themselves across large areas, and cleared vast areas of forest for agricultural land for wetland rice cultivation and dry crops. Some households in the buffer zone have more than 10 ha of cultivated land, while the lowest is one hectare.

The ethnic Chau Ma and S'Tieng communities located next to or on the boundary between the Park and buffer zone still continue to practice shifting cultivation. It is the Tay and Nung spontaneous immigrants who have no access to paddy land, who are considered to be responsible for much of the forest destruction due to their continued reliance on shifting cultivation. The chairman of Bu Dang District said that in 1998 his district lost 300ha of forested land due to spontaneous migration from the north. New spontaneous settlers often settle in remote areas where forest is available. They go to the forest for non-timber forest product collection and for hunting animals during the day. They start cutting forest for agricultural land (cashew and coffee cultivation) from 4 p.m. to avoid detection by forest protection guards. Spontaneous migrants tend to secure land either by purchasing it from indigenous ethnic minorities or clearing forests.


3.1. Perceptions of National Park staff

The transferring of the Park from the provincial leadership of Dong Nai to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development will make it more difficult to manage as there will be less support from the provincial government. The boundary of the park and definition of the buffer zone have not been clearly defined. The current situation in Cat Tien requires a combination of changes in the management system and more focused project initiatives in the buffer zone in conjunction with the World Bank Project. Buffer zone development should concentrate on agriculture, agro-forestry, education and jobs in order to remove people's dependence on the forest for livelihood support. The district administers the buffer zone, but the Park may invest in it through community development. However, the Park is not involved in any decision making. The Park is involved in forest protection in Ta Lai Commune and implementation of the resettlement program.

There should be two classes of buffer zone: social buffer zones and forestry buffer zones. Social buffer zones can be understood as zones where there are communes. Forestry buffer zones can be thought of as zones where the forests belong to State Forest Enterprises or where community forestry is practiced. If a SFE is next to the National Park, the SFE should be considered as a unit of the buffer zone and then converted into an area of the National Park. The government should have a policy on buffer zone forests that are managed by SFEs, in order to reduce pressure on the National Parks. There is a danger that unless this

Page 11 of 16

is done, SFEs will exploit timber from the Parks to fulfil the requirements of their annual exploitation plan.

There are no regulations governing forest protection and management for socioeconomic units situated in the buffer zone. These units should spend a small part of their budget on these activities and consider their responsibility in natural resource management as a necessity task. There should be a small fee for local authorities to participate in forest protection and forest management.

The best way to work with indigenous ethnic minorities is not to change their traditional practices, but rather to concentrate on education, and develop mechanisms for them to participate in forest protection and management. This should be supported by a policy on use of forest products which have been planted and protected by local people.

3.2. Perceptions of provincial/district officials

The district administers the buffer zone communes, but there is no management committee responsible for socioeconomic development. There have been no special projects and specific policies for buffer zone communes. District officials stress the shortage of finances-thus the investment for the buffer zone is too low to improve the economic situation for people in the zone. However, being aware of the importance of the buffer zone on the remaining natural resources of the Park, the Districts have focused on improving infrastructure such as electricity, small reservoirs, schools and inter-commune roads.

The districts of Tan Phu (Dong Nai Province) and Cat Tien (Lam Dong Province) have issued resolutions on forest fire fighting, shifting cultivation control, and forest exploitation in collaboration with the Park and district Forest Protection Station and police.

Indigenous ethnic minorities such as S'Tieng and Chau Ma lived in primary forest and practiced shifting cultivation prior to 1993. They have since been resettled under the government's fixed cultivation and fixed resettlement programme. However, recent redefinition of the Park boundary has resulted in these people again being inside the Park. They object to being removed once again. If this does occur, there is a risk of serious conflict and the forest could be further destroyed. The best solution is to let them remain where they are and attempt to improve their living standard through upgrading infrastructure (roads, irrigation system, school, clinic), improving their agricultural practices, allocating them land and defining land use rights.


State investment is provided mainly in the context of resettlement or mountain development programmes. However, it is limited and focused mainly on infrastructure, including roads, schools and houses. Buffer zone communities are newly established under the New Economic Zone programme or are spontaneous migrants. The Park and buffer zone boundaries are not clearly defined. People are very poor, lack capital, have low formal education, and lack marketing and communication skills. Because of this, agricultural output is low. There are no land certificates, although selling and buying of land are going on illegally and land conflicts are common. Moreover, migrants are still arriving, thus increasing the pressure on land and other resources.

Recommended solutions include:

� Clearly delineate the buffer zone and Park boundaries and allocate long-term land use rights for people so that they can receive credit from government agencies;

Page 12 of 16

� Develop irrigation systems so that cropping can be intensified. Develop other infrastructure including roads, schools, and clinics;

� Establish credit and savings systems with long term repayment for agricultural practices and livestock husbandry;

� Establish an information and marketing system;

� Establish a government system to sell construction material (brick, cement, metal, etc.) in the form of "pay in installments-step by step" to reduce forest logging for house building; and

� Develop a clear policy for commune officials on their responsibility, and establish a fee to encourage their involvement.


There is a general understanding of the Cat Tien National Park as the "forbidden forest". This means that people are likely to be fined if they are caught removing any wood or non-wood forest products. The knowledge about the "forbidden forest" was obtained from the local government authorities in the communes and districts and the forest control stations at provincial and districts levels. In some places, when people are asked about the Park, they do not refer to the Park per se, but rather to the State Forest Enterprises or to the forbidden forest or to the forest protection guards and guard stations. People who live far from the park and never use forest products have no idea about the buffer zone and have nothing to say about the impact of the Park on their livelihood. However, people who lived on the collection of forest products and who practice shifting cultivation, especially S'Tieng, Chau Ma, Dao, Nung and Tay people, understand the concept of the Park.

It was reported that rattan was the product taken out most frequently and in great quantities. Other items were wild animals, fuelwood, leaves for special cakes and bamboo for chopsticks and incenses. Products from the forest are collected by two main groups of people. Indigenous people and migrant ethnic groups use the forest mainly to collect products to exchange for rice during pre-harvest time. On the other hand Kinh people make extensive collections of rattan for sale to the market. People recognise the high risk of going into the forest due to malaria and other diseases. However, they are poor and have no additional income other than that derived from the collection and sale of forest products.


Direct impact of the park on the livelihood of people can easily be seen in the case of indigenous ethnic minorities and spontaneous migrants from northern Vietnam. As a result of the establishment of boundaries for the protected area and the delineation of the buffer zone, they are denied access to forestry land. They have no way to generate additional income other than by harvesting forest products. In general, shifting cultivation has been significantly reduced within the park area. However, people in Bu Dang District said that instead of stopping what they did, they migrated to other places. Others again, said that they had changed their working hours. Things that they could previously do in day light, now had to be done before the guards got up. However, the extent to which the forest is used for slash and burn agriculture is not clear mainly for two reasons. First of all the boundaries of the Park have yet to be determined clearly and secondly the continued spontaneous migration of ethnic groups from northern Vietnam causes an unclear picture of what is permitted and acceptable to local and central authorities. Local indigenous and migrant ethnic groups perceive land as food, and officials acknowledge that they can not be denied

Page 13 of 16

this basic need. There were violent conflicts between forest guards and forest users before 1995 and in May- June 1998. A forest guard was shot by an illegal forest user in 1995.


District and commune officials are responsible for the management of socioeconomic development in their areas. However, SFEs located within districts and communes are responsible for this role in their areas. The whole area (31,000ha) of Commune Thanh Son belongs to La Nga Unit; and farmers living there have only temporary contracts on managing forest plantations and forest protection. Although this SFE adjoining the Cat Tien National Park has a range of institutional and technical strengths in forest, land and social development, there is a fundamental conflict in management philosophy between forest exploitation by SFEs and the need for sustainable development of the buffer zone. There is in practice no bilateral cooperation (between commune and SFE officials) on general planning and investment. The Province and District's master plan focuses on intensifying farming systems in accordance with expanding the area under cultivation. However, the unused land in the buffer zone belongs to the SFEs. District and commune officials are of the opinion that non-forested land belonging to SFEs should be allocated to farmers in order to ensure food security and to keep people focused on agricultural activities so that they have no need to go to the forest.

5. Discussion and recommendations

5.1. Discussion

� The Cat Tien National Park is a biodiversity hotspot, famous for its small population of Javan rhinoceros - the most endangered large mammal species in the world, a population of the endangered Siamese crocodile and the more or less undisturbed tropical rain forest of larger Stroemia/Dipterocarp. The whole area is rich in birds, mammal and tree species;

� The flora of Cat Tien is typical of Dong Nam Bo biogeographic region with Dipterocarpaceae and Fabacea the most commonly represented families in areas where human modification is minimal. In forests disturbed by humans, the major families represented are Pandannaceae, Euphorbiaceae and Moraceae. The fauna of Cat Tien includes many species, which are recognised as being either nationally or international threatened. Of the 56 rare species known in Indochina, Cat Tien has 20 species, 18 of which are listed in the CITES and IUCN protected species lists including three endangered species (Java rhino, elephant and tiger);

� Biodiversity of the park is threatened by human population growth and consequently increased exploitation of the forest and its wildlife for timber, food and. profit. Current excessive hunting and fires due to honey collection during the dry season are the only threats to the wetland;

� The buffer zone surrounding the Park consists of 67,225 ha covering parts of 8 districts, 42 communes and some 160,000 people in four provinces. Redefinition of the boundary between the Park and the buffer zone communes is unclear. Some households now find themselves inside the boundary of the P ark whereas they had previously been outside;

Page 14 of 16

� In general, both long-term land use rights agreement (red book) and short-term land allocation contracts are absent in all buffer zone communes. As a result, households in some communes are not entitled to borrow money from the banks under current banking law;

� Ethnic minorities in buffer zone communes are far from being uniform. The groups causing pressure on the forest lands within the buffer zone and inside the park areas can be conveniently divide into three groups, which have different histories in the area, different connections to administrative structures, and also differ in land use strategies and ethnicity. These three groups are: lowland Vietnamese (Kinh); indigenous ethnic minorities, such as S'Tieng and Chau Ma; and recently migrated minorities from northern provinces such as Tay, Nung, Dao and Hoa. The differences between these three groups suggest that different strategies will be required to achieve a goal of sustainable development;

� People in the buffer zone are very poor, income is mainly from agriculture production, while paddy land is limited. Population is increasing and there are few non-agricultural income generation possibilities. The only way for people to earn cash income is to go to the forest for the collection of non-timber forest products, animal trapping and logging. The more remote the place, the higher the degree of poverty and food insecurity. As the demand for arable land increases land trading between migrant and indigenous people has driven indigenous inhabitants deeper into the forest;

� There is no specific policy for socioeconomic development in the buffer zone; and

� Many agencies operate in the buffer zone including State Forest Enterprises and the military. Although the, SFEs have a range of institutional and technical strengths in forest, land, and social development, a fundamental conflict in management philosophy exists between forest exploitation and the need for sustainable development of the buffer zone as a key element of the National Park conservation strategy. The Province and District's master plan focuses on intensive farming and expanding the cultivated areas.

5.2. Recommendations

� The boundary between the park and the buffer zone should be clearly delineated;

� Protection units should be established based on community groups and households with specific policies on their rights in forest protection activities;

� Community education programmes should be established to inform buffer zone inhabitants about the importance of the National Park and the role of buffer zone conservation in contributing to the goals set for the Park;

� The Management Board should include community representatives from the buffer zone communes;

� Consider the possibility of having greater community involvement in planning and management of National Park and buffer zone activities;

� Develop policies to transfer unused forest land in the buffer zone under the control of SFEs to local people for agro-forestry use;

� Focus special socioeconomic activities on those individuals and groups who are the

Page 15 of 16

majors users of forest products;

� Reduce institutional confusion and overlapping activities of different agencies in buffer zone communes through clarifying the institutional arrangements for managing forest land;

� Clarify the long-term use-rights for communities living in the buffer zone

� Develop policies for managing spontaneous and sponsored migration to the buffer zone to minimise their impact on the forests in both the Park and the buffer zone; and

� Consider the possibility of allowing some use of natural resources inside the park (possibly on a short-term basis), consistent with maintaining the integrity of the Park.

Page 16 of 16

APPENDIX 6

LIST OF KEY GOVERNMENT LAWS, DECREES AND DECISIONS

RELATED TO PROTECTED AREAS IN VIETNAM

1. Decree No. 246-TTg dated 17 May 1958 by the Prime Minister on hunting gun utilization.

2. Instruction No. 134-TTg dated 21 June 1960 by the Prime Minister on forbidding of elephant hunting.

3. Decision No. 72-TTg dated 7 July 1962 by the Prime Minister on the establishment of Cuc Phuong Forest Reserve with 25,00 ha.

4. Decree No. 36-CP dated 5 April 1963 by the Prime Minister on forest wildlife hunting.

5. Decree on Protection of Forest (1972) with the Forest Protection Network of 10,000 person's staff.

6. Law on Forest Protection (1973) including articles of administration of forest wildlife.

7. Decision 41-TTg dated 24 January 1977 on establishment of 10 forest reserves: Den Hung (Lam Thao, Vinh Phu province)-285 ha; Pac Bo (Ha Quang District, Cao Lang Province)-3,000ha; Bac Son (Bac Son District, Cao Lang province)-4,000 ha; Tan Trao (Son Duong district, Ha Tuyen province)-1,081 ha; Dao Ba Mun (Cam Pha District, Quang Ninh province)-1,800 ha; Ba Be (Cho Ra district, Bac Thai province)-5,000 ha; Ba Vi (Ba Vi district, Ha Son Binh province)-2,144 ha; Tam Dao Mountain (Tam Duong, Lap Thach-Vinh Phu, Son Duong-Tuyen Quang, Dai Tu-Bac Thai)-19,000 ha; Ban Dao Son Tra (Quang Nam-Da Nang province)-4,000ha; Ku Rung Thong Da Lat (Lam Dong province)-4,000 ha.

8. Decision 360-TTg dated 7 July 1978 on establishment Nam Cat Tien Nature Reserve with 35,000 ha.

9. Decision 65-HDBT dated 7 April 1982 on establishment of Mon Ray-Ngoc Vinh with an area of 10,000 ha.

10. Decision 85-CT dated 1 March 1984 on establishment Con Dao National Park with an area of 6,000 ha.

11. National Conservation Strategy (1985).

12. Decision 79-CT dated 31 March 1986 on establishment of Cat Ba National Park with an area of 15,200 ha.

13. Decision 194-CT dated 9 August 1986 on establishment 73 Natural reserves of which is Cuc Phuong, with an area of 769,512 ha.

14. Decisions 276 of Ministry of Forestry (1989) forbidding the hunting of 38 wildlife species. 15. Law on Forest Protection and Development (1991) including articles on protection and administration of wildlife.

15. National Plan on Environment and Sustainable Development 1991-2000 (1991) (This plan served as a basis leading to the drafting and later on the adoption of the Law on

Page 1 of 4

Environmental Protection in 1994, as well as to the establishment of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment and Department of Science, Technology and Environment in provinces).

16. Vietnam Forestry Sector Review, Tropical Forestry Action Programme (1991).

17. Decision 352-CT dated 29 October 1991 on establishment Yok Don National Park with an area of 58,200 ha.

18. Regulation 17-HDBT dated 17 January 1992 by Council of Ministers on implementation of forest protection and development law.

19. Regulation 18-HDBT dated 17 January 1992 by Council of Ministers on list of endemic forest plants and animals and protection and management.

20. Circular 1171-QD by Minister of Forestry Ministry (1992) on regulation of production, watershed and special used forests

21. Decision No. 327/CT dated 15 September 1992 - on policies for the use of bare land, denuded hills, forests alluvial flats, and water bodies: Providing for the establishment of a national programme for upland development, combining agriculture, forestry and related economic sectors, using the resources of households as well as State units in the sectors

22. Decree 14-CT dated 5 December 1992 by Prime Minister on Administration punishment in forest protection and management.

23. Decision 18 by the Council of Ministers (1992) on a total ban on logging and hunting of 13 species of tree and 36 species of animals and a limited ban on logging/harvesting of 19 plants species and animals.

24. Decree 130-TTg dated 27 March 1993 by Prime Minister on management and protection of endemic plant and animals.

25. Circular 1586 LN/KL dated 13 July 1993 by Minister of Forestry Ministry on Buffer zone of Nature Reserves and National Parks.

26. Land Law dated 24 July 1993.

27. Introduction 462-TTg dated 11 September 1993 by the Prime Minister on timber exploitation, transportation and export.

28. Introduction 525-TTg dated 2 November 1993 by the Prime Minister on policies and methods for continued economic and social development in mountainous areas.

29. Government Instruction on protection and administration of precious, rare floral and fauna species (1993).

30. Law of Environmental Protection (1994).

31. Biodiversity Action Plan for Vietnam (1995).

32. Decision 202-TTg dated 2 May 1994 by the Prime Minister on contracts for forest

Page 2 of 4

protection, maintenance, natural regeneration and planting.

33. Government Decision 39-CP dated 18 May 1994 by the Prime Minister on the Organisation, duties, and authority of the Forest Inspectorate.

34. Regulation 4893/KGVX dated 5 September 1994 on establishment Xuan Thuy Nature Reserve with an area of 7,100 ha.

35. Regulation 4991 / KGVX dated 2 February 1994 on establishment Tram Chim Tam Nong with an area of 7,500 ha.

36. Government Decision 01-CP dated 4 January 1995 on land allocation in agricultural production, forestry, aquaculture of state enterprises.

37. Official correspondence 1259 LN/KL dated 18 May 1995 by Forestry Ministry on strengthen of special used forest management and protection.

38. Decree No. 556 dated 12 September by the Prime Minister on revising and supplementing Decision No. 327 of 15 September 1992 of Chairman of Council of Ministers.

39. Circular No. 04 NN/KL-TT dated 5 February 1996 by Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development on implementation Decision No. 02-CP of 5 January 1995 by the Prime Minister.

40. Regulation No. 359-TTg dated 29 May 1996 by the Prime Minister on urgent methods for wildlife protection and development.

41. Official correspondence No. 2472-NN-KL/CV dated 24 July 1996 by Ministry of

42. Agriculture and Rural Development on strengthen of wildlife protection and development.

43. Decree No. 77-CP dated 29 November 1996 by the Prime Minister on administration treatment in forest protection, management and forest product.

44. Decision No. 460/TTg dated 30 July 1997 by the Prime Minister on approval of Cat Tien national Park Project.

45. Decision No. 38/QD-TTg dated 16 February 1998 by the Prime Minister on transferring the Cat Tien National Park belonging to People's Committee of Dong Nai, lam Dong, Binh Phuoc to Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.

46. Decision No. 661/QD-TTg dated 29 July 1998 by the Prime Minister on objectives, tasks, policy and Organisation for implementation the 5 million hectares afforestation national programme.

International Conventions of environment and biodiversity:

1. UN Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD) (1977), signed 26 August 1980.

2. Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972), signed 19 October 1987.

Page 3 of 4

3. Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar) (1971), signed 20 September 1988.

4. Convention on International trade in Endangered species of wild Fauna and Flora (1973), signed 20 January 1994.

5. Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), signed 16 November 1994.

Page 4 of 4

buffer zone management in vietnam · in vietnam, buffer zones are routinely added when the...

Documents