Forest use and access to tenure rights

As previously mentioned, securing tenure rights to the forest and forested land is a foundation for forest protection and development, with the goal of genuine empowerment of direct forest users. In community forestry in Vietnam, state-centered policies allowed the state to control forestland and forest resources, giving only limited access to forest users, households, and communities (Ngai 2009; Tình and Nghị 2012) (LA – 54). From 1976 to1992, forest cover in Vietnam was reduced to 28% due to the mismanagement of state forest enterprises (Sikor 1998, 2001; To et al. 2014). The passing of two acts—the Land Law and the Forest Protection and Development Law (LAs - 02, 38)—was the cornerstone of the devolution of authority over forest management to individuals, families, households, and communities (Sikor 2001), as opposed to state forest enterprises at the central and provincial levels. This validates how access to tenure rights over forests and forest resources is of fundamental significance in any community forestry program. The passing of these laws marks the inception of community forestry in the context of state control over forested land and forest resources in Vietnam.

However, the Land Law and subsequent legal documents limited rights at the local level.

The state handed over rights of land classification and approval over land-use planning to the district, provincial, and central governments, but these could only be used for forestry purposes if the land was classified as forestry land.

Box 6. 1: Jurisdiction of making decision and approval of land-use planning - National Assembly decides on land-use planning of the whole country;

- Government ratifies the land-use planning of provinces and cities under the central government;

- People’s Committee of provinces and cities under the central government approve the land-use planning of the directly lower administrative units;

- People’s Committee at district, town, and city under the province levels approve the land-use planning of commune

(Source: Field survey 2012, 2013; LA – 38) Subsequent decrees and instructions mandated that natural forests and forested land in important watersheds not be allocated to households, but rather to communities, districts, state forest enterprises, or forest management boards. These entities in turn would sign protection contracts with individuals and households with small payments for protection activities and articles restricting their utilization of the forests.

Table 6.1: Access matrix of forest users over the forest and forest resources

Forest uses Prior

practice

Community forest practices Change

of access Free access Limited permit Ban

* Agro-Forestry Practices Notes: (-) means decrease; (0) means no change; (+/-) means insignificant change

(Source: field survey 2012, 2013; LA – 20, 21)

In the community forests, forest users must comply with local regulations regarding forest protection and development that restrict the use of forest resources. Any minor uses of or access to community forests by forest users must be approved by the traditional authority and forest user group committee.

Table 6.2: Restricted activities in community forest

Activities Restrictions Cases

Slash and burn Only cultivating in the planned areas, but must follow technical instruction of forest administration.

15

Fire use Prohibit using fire in the community forest to collect honey, and individual purposes

15 Forest products Individual must apply and get approval of

community forest committee

15 Timber Timber exploitation is only allowed in dry

season and ensured the correctness of species and quantity as approved plan

9

Non Timber Forest Products Only harvest for household demand and comply with approved quantity and schedules

15

Hunting Stringently prohibit wildlife hunting in community forests, except mice

15

(Source: field survey 2012, 2013; LA – 21) To ensure the further legal use of forests, various ties through commitments and regulations are signed between the forest administration and households/the forest user group committee (see Table 6.2). These documents are the guidelines that drive the utilization of the forest by local forest users and ensure forest protection and development tasks. To involve local forest users in the process of participation, strategies are adapted to fit the local communities’ conditions. The adaptations are mostly in the daily activities of the local community, such as in the collection of fuel wood/NTFPs, farming, and slash-and-burn agriculture.

Table 6.3: Forest protection ensured by rules and regulations

Commitments * Group regulations Local regulations Organized patrols Joint controls

1 Notes: (+) existed; (0) not existed; (-) not observed

* Commitments are mainly signed between forest ranger force and local people and local institutions which focus on forest fire prevention, wildlife hunting, and timber logging.

From the 15 case studies, we have found that commitments and local regulations are available in all cases with and without international donor involvement. These rules and regulations are seen as binding documents driving local people’s activities according to the forest protection strategy. In addition to these commitments and local regulations, the regulations of community forest protection and development are made by the joint involvement of the community forest committee, forest users under the assistance of the

forest administration, and donors (in cases of international donor involvement). Both group and local regulations stipulate that “the forest patrol team receives 30% of the fines received from forest users caught violating these regulations” (ISs – 15, 24, 28, 56, see Appendix 3).

“By engaging the local people in rules and regulations, a number of infringements of forest protection regulations have been reduced in the region” said by the head of Yen Chau district forest protection section (IS – 41). However, infringements of the forest still occur, often by relevant agents or local forest users. The main transgressions are in illegal timber harvesting, slash and burn, and hunting as shown in the photos and Table 6.4.

Photo 6.1: Illegal timber cuts in the community forests

(Source: field survey 2012) Table 6.4: Infringement cases of the community forests

No. Community forest

Timber cuts

Slash and burn

NTFP collection

Hunting Notes

1 Mu CF +

0

0

Direct forest users 2 Vo Khang CF

3 Mo CF 0 + Direct forest users

4 San CF

0

+ 5 Bac Hung CF

0

6 Bo CF + +

7 Sang CF + + + Direct forest users

8 Hon CF + External forest users

No. Community

Illegal timber harvesting is the common infringement happening in most observed cases.

The forest administrations of Son La province has stated that “The forest ranger force itself is unable to fulfill the assigned tasks due to limitations of human resources. A Forest patrol is carried out by forest rangers at the commune level in coordination with the community forest patrol team twice per month” (LAs – 7, 8, 39, 40, 41). However, community forest committees together with an unarmed forest patrol team are unable to prevent external infringements, and especially illegal external loggers.

“Members of the community forest committee are paid from the fines for infringements and the community fund paid into by all local citizens. The forest patrol team only gets paid for those working days in which they patrol the forest” (IS – 36).

However, the incentives to the community forest committee and forest patrol team are limited, especially when compared to their responsibilities. Moreover, even though local regulations are set to prevent both local and external forest users’ infringement of the community forest, the committee and forest patrol team confess that the rules are less effective when applied to external users.

In addition to illegal timber cuts, local forest users sporadically carry out non-timber forest collection, slash-and-burn agriculture, and cultivation in the allocated forests. “Although slash and burn is not allowed in the allocated forests, it still occur due to the traditional customs of the local community. Thus we must allow this activity as a concession to the local people to reduce impacts to the community forest and encourage local communities’

once again suggests that the forest administration will be unable to control the entire community forest.

The studied cases strongly indicate that although formal access has slightly improved as compared with the previous stage, actual access by direct forest users has declined considerably. Instead of directly controlling forest users’ activities, the forest administration and other relevant actors pass responsibility for controlling access to the community forest committee, led by the village patriarch. This empowerment of the community forest committee means that forest users are not allowed access to the community forest without the committees’ express permission.