Six Monthly Technical Progress Report July 2011December ... - WWF

compared
to
other
logging
quotas
outside
the
project
region
assessed
in
the
baseline
study.
Progress
WWF,
DoFI
(Laos)
and
FPD
(Vietnam)
have
jointly
decided
that
fact‐finding
studies
in
Vietnam
and
Laos
shall
be
conducted
in
order
to
ensure
that
the
tender
documents
for
the
international
leakage
baseline
study
can
be
completed
and
evaluated
on
an
adequate
information
basis.
Two
separate
scoping
studies
to
get
some
fundamental
data
on
the
situation
of
illegal
timber
trade/logging
in
the
project
area
have
been
completed.
The
missions
were
carried
out
by
DoFI
and
the
provincial/district
agencies
PoFI
and
DAFO
(for
Laos),
and
supported
by
WWF
(in
Laos)
and
a
consultant
(in
Vietnam).
Roughly
70%
of
the
expected
data
has
been
collected,
and
the
reports
have
been
written
up
and
translated.
Regarding
the
procurement
process
for
the
leakage
study,
it
was
decided
to
pursue
two
consultancies
below
80,000
EUR,
instead
of
targeting
one
international
tender.
This
will
maintain
the
project’s
flexibility
to
assign
the
final
study
after
4
years
to
a
suitable
consultant.
The
draft
ToR
for
the
first
study
has
been
completed.
A
German
M.Sc
student
from
the
university
of
Frankfurt
has
acquired
2011
Rapid‐
eye
hi‐res
satellite
imagery,
and
the
desk‐based
analysis
of
logging
roads
has
been
concluded
in
mid
December.
Information
on
access
development
to
Xe
Sap
NPA
has
been
derived
by
remote
sensing
technology.
The
study
identified
preliminary
“hotspots”
for
illegal
logging
activities
in
the
project
area
and
has
now
moved
to
the
final
ground
truthing
stage.
Maps
showing
accessibility
and
the
risk
for
illegal
logging
are
expected
by
February
2012
to
coincide
with
the
beginning
of
the
leakage
baseline
study.
Challenges
and
solutions
Data
 on
 timber
 trade
 is
 very
 sensitive
 and
 not
 always
 available,
 and
 data
 sources
provide
 conflicting
 information.
 Data
 collection
 and
 sharing
 has
 been
 particularly
challenging
in
Vietnam
where
a
part
of
the
information
collected
was
not
allowed
to
be
shared
by
the
PMU
because
it
was
sensitive,
partly
due
to
the
fact
that
it
was
not
collected
through
“official
channels”,
and
thus
not
deemed
acceptable
by
PMU.
The
information
collection
was
commissioned
to
DoFI
(Laos)
and
FPD
(Vietnam)
and
supported
by
the
component
managers.
However,
shortcomings
in
government
capacity
and
possibly
also
the
lack
of
real
transparency
due
to
confidentiality
challenges,
made
it
challenging
to
get
to
the
desired
result.
In
Laos,
some
substantial
information
on
legal
logging
under
“special
quotas”
is
still
missing,
whilst
the
official
information
on
timber
imports
in
Vietnam
didn’t
match
informally
collected
information
during
the
survey.
On
the
other
hand,
if
WWF
staff
was
collecting
information
with
more
limited
involvement
of
government
counterparts,
access
to
informants
would
have
been
more
difficult
and
the
results
might
have
been
24