FGM Workshop Background Paper - REDD - VietNam
FGM Workshop Background Paper - REDD - VietNam
FGM Workshop Background Paper - REDD - VietNam
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Forest Governance<br />
Monitoring in Viet Nam<br />
<strong>Background</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
( Final)<br />
Dr. Le Khac Coi<br />
December, , 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
PAGE<br />
LIST OF TABLES 4<br />
LIST OF FIGURES 5<br />
LIST OF BOXES 6<br />
ACRONYMS AND ABBRIVIATIONS 7<br />
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 8<br />
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 9<br />
1.1. <strong>Background</strong> and context 9<br />
1.2. Method of preparation of the background paper for the workshop 10<br />
Chapter 2: RATIONALE FOR STRENTHENING <strong>FGM</strong> IN VIETNAM 12<br />
2.1. What is Forest Governance? 12<br />
2.2. Why strengthen forest governance? 16<br />
2.3. Why monitor forest governance? 18<br />
2.4. Principles of effective forest governance monitoring 20<br />
Transparency: 20<br />
Accountability: 21<br />
Effectiveness: 21<br />
Participation : 21<br />
Fairness 22<br />
Efficiency: 22<br />
Chapter 3: FOREST GOVERNANCE MONITORING IN VIETNAM –<br />
MAIN FINDINGS 25<br />
3.1. Vietnam policy, legal, institutional and regulatory framework:<br />
introduction 25<br />
3.2. Sustainable Forest Management and Development 27<br />
3.2.1. Forestry land and 3 types of forest 28<br />
3.2.2. Forest and forest land rental and allocation 29<br />
3.2.3. State forest enterprise restructuring 31<br />
3.2.4. Timber harvesting from natural forests 34<br />
3.2.5. Forest conversion into rubber plantation and other purposes 34<br />
3.2.6. Beneficiary policy 35<br />
3.3. Program of Forest protection and conservation, PES and Forest<br />
Finance 37<br />
3.3.1. Forest Protection 38<br />
3.3.2. Handling of violations related to forest 39<br />
3.3.3. Forest fire prevention and fire fighting 41<br />
3.3.4. Protection forests and special-use forests 42<br />
3.3.5. Forest environmental services 43<br />
3.3.6. Forestry finance 44<br />
3.4. Program “Forest Products Processing and Trade” 46<br />
3.5. Planning and decision-making processes 47<br />
3.5.1. Forest governance cycle 47<br />
3.5.2. Planning and decision making process 48<br />
3.5.3. Planning and decision making at provincial and local level 49<br />
3.6. Implementation, enforcement and compliance 51<br />
2
3.6.1. Implementation, enforcement and compliance at national level 51<br />
3.6.2. Finance at provincial and local level 52<br />
3.6.3. Forest land management and allocation at provincial and local<br />
level 54<br />
3.6.4. Coherence and cooperation at local and provincial level 56<br />
3.6.5. Staff capacities at provincial and district level 57<br />
3.7. Main initiatives relevant to <strong>FGM</strong> in Vietnam 58<br />
3.7. 1. FLEGT and VPA 58<br />
3.7.2. <strong>REDD</strong>+ 59<br />
Chapter 4: <strong>FGM</strong> ASSESSED BY 3 PILLARS AND 6 PRINCIPLES –<br />
MAIN FINDINGS<br />
61<br />
Chapter 5: STRENGTHENING FOREST GOVERNANCE MONITORING<br />
IN VIETNAM 66<br />
5.1. <strong>FGM</strong> is new for Vietnam 66<br />
5.2. Current indicator systems for Vietnam forest sector 66<br />
5.2.1. Indicators of the General Statistics Office (GSO) 66<br />
5.2.2. Indicator system of MARD 66<br />
5.2.3. Indicator system to monitor implementation of Vietnam Forestry<br />
Development Strategy 2006-2010 of VNFOREST, MARD 67<br />
5.3. Strengthening <strong>FGM</strong> in Vietnam – a set of proposed indicators 71<br />
5.4. Next steps proposed for strengthening <strong>FGM</strong> in Vietnam 87<br />
Chapter 6: CONCLUSION 89<br />
LITERATURE 92<br />
ANNEX 01: LIST OF PEOPLE RECEIVED <strong>FGM</strong> FAO FRAMEWORK<br />
WITH 13 COMPONENTS AND 77 SUB-COMPONENTS 93<br />
ANNEX 02: LIST OF PEOPLE DIRECTLY INTERVIEWED 95<br />
ANNEX 03: LIST OF THE INTERVIEWEES AND ORGANIZATIONS AT<br />
PROVINCIAL LEVEL 96<br />
3
LIST OF TABBLES<br />
PAGE<br />
Table 01: Overall assessment by 6 principles 65<br />
Table 02: 18 indicators of MARD for the forest sector 66<br />
Table 03: List of 72 forest-sector indicators (FOMIS) 68<br />
Table 04: Indicators proposed for strengthening <strong>FGM</strong> in Viet Nam 73<br />
4
LIST OF FIGURES<br />
PAGE<br />
Figure 01: Relationship between forest governance and forest/SFM 14<br />
Figure 02: Pillars and Principles of Forest Governance. 15<br />
Figure 03: The roots and fruits of forest governance (adapted from:<br />
World Bank, 2009) 17<br />
Figure 04: Relationship between forest governance and Viet Nam<br />
forestry development strategy and emerging issues. 26<br />
Figure 05: Forest governance cycle 47<br />
Figure 06: Forest Governance Monitoring – Assessed by Score Rating 62<br />
Figure 07: Forest Governance Monitoring – Assessed by the 6<br />
Principles 62<br />
Figure 08: Pillar 1 “Policy, legal, institutional and regulatory framework” –<br />
Assessed by 6 principles 63<br />
Figure 09: Pillar 2 “Planning and decision making process” – Assessed<br />
by 6 principles 64<br />
Figure 10: Pillar 3 “Implementation, enforcement and compliance” –<br />
Assessed by 6 principles 64<br />
Figure 11: A framework for forest governance monitoring design 87<br />
5
LIST OF BOXES<br />
PAGE<br />
Box 01: Objectives of Viet Nam Forestry Development Strategy 2006-<br />
2020: 11<br />
Box 02: COFO about forest governance 12<br />
Box 03: Sustainable development definition 15<br />
Box 04: Seven key components of sustainable forest management<br />
(SFM): 16<br />
Box 05: Safeguards for <strong>REDD</strong>+ 18<br />
Box 06: The Power of Measuring Results 18<br />
Box 07: <strong>REDD</strong>+ and forest monitoring 20<br />
Box 08: Key success factors for improving and sustaining <strong>FGM</strong> 24<br />
Box 09: Tasks of Program “Sustainable Forest Management and<br />
Development” 27<br />
Box 10: Main legal regulations on forest and forest land 28<br />
Box 11: Forest and forest land rental and allocation 31 December 2009 29<br />
Box 12: Results of state forest enterprise restructuring 31<br />
Box 13: Status of timber harvesting from natural forest 34<br />
Box 14: Forest conversion into rubber plantation 34<br />
Box 15: Tasks of Program of Forest protection and conservation, PES 37<br />
Box 16: Forest protection system 38<br />
Box 17: Violations related to forest 39<br />
Box 18: Status on forest fire 41<br />
Box 19: Protection and special-use forest 42<br />
Box 20: Status of forest environmental service 43<br />
Box 21: Status of forestry finance 44<br />
Box 22: Tasks of Program “Forest Products Processing and Trade” 46<br />
Box 23: Status of legal regulation for timber processing and trade 46<br />
Box 24: Status of FLEFT and VPA in Viet Nam 58<br />
Box 25: Status of <strong>REDD</strong> in Viet Nam 59<br />
Box 26: Score rating 61<br />
6
ACRONYMS AND ABBRIVIATIONS<br />
COFO Committee on Forestry<br />
CoIST Centre of Information Technology and Statistics<br />
Provincial Department of Agriculture and Rural<br />
DARD Development<br />
DoF Department of Forestry<br />
DoFD Department of Forest Development<br />
DoFU Department of Forest Utilization<br />
DoPF Department of Provincial Finance<br />
DoST Department of Science & Technology<br />
EU European Union<br />
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization<br />
FBM Forest bio-physical monitoring<br />
FFPD Provincial fund for forest protection and development<br />
FG Forest governance<br />
<strong>FGM</strong> Forest governance monitoring<br />
FIPI Forest Inventory & Planning Institute<br />
FIS District Forest Inspection Section<br />
FLEG Forest law enforcement and governance<br />
FLEGT Forest law enforcement, governance and trade<br />
FM Forest monitoring<br />
FPD Forest protection department<br />
FRA Forest resources assessment<br />
FSC Forest Stewardship Council<br />
FSEM Forest socio-economic monitoring<br />
HRD Human Resource Department<br />
JEM Joint expert meeting<br />
MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development<br />
NC National Customs<br />
NFMA National forest monitoring assessment<br />
NGO Non-governmental organization<br />
NTFP Non-timber forest product<br />
PDoF Provincial Department of Finance<br />
PEFC Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification<br />
PFPD Provincial FPD<br />
PPC Provincial People Committee<br />
QPPL Legal regulation<br />
Reduction of emission from forest degradation and<br />
<strong>REDD</strong> deforestation<br />
SFM Sustainable forest management<br />
SOM Senior officer meeting<br />
TWG Technical working group<br />
UN<strong>REDD</strong><br />
VFDS Vietnam Forestry Development Strategy 2006-2020<br />
VNFOREST Vietnam Forest Administration<br />
VPA Voluntary Participation Agreement<br />
7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT<br />
This document on forest governance monitoring in Vietnam has benefitted from the<br />
contributions and insights of several organizations and persons which is gratefully<br />
acknowledged by the authors.<br />
First of all, special high appreciation is to Tran Huu Nghi, Arend Jan van Bodegom,<br />
and Savenije Herman, because the background paper could not be completed<br />
without their valuable contributions.<br />
My sincere thanks goes to Dr. Nguyen Ba Ngai, Nguyen Huu Dung, Cao Chi Cong,<br />
Nguyen Tuong Van, Dr. Nguyen Nghia Bien, Doan Diem, Nguyen Ton Quyen,<br />
Huynh Thach, Vu Long, To Dinh Mai, Pham Minh Thoa, Dr. Pham Xuan Phuong,<br />
and Dr. To Xuan Phuc for their patience in answering demanding and complex<br />
questions from the national consultant.<br />
Many thanks also to Vu Thanh Nam, Le Cong Uan, Dr. Ho Van Cu, Tran Le Huy, To<br />
Manh Tien, and Huynh Thach for their patient assessment of Viet Nam <strong>FGM</strong> against<br />
the FAO <strong>FGM</strong> framework consisting of 13 components and 77 sub-components.<br />
I am extremely grateful to Lauri Vesa; Rametsteiner, Ewald; Akiko Inoguchi;<br />
Leppanen, Mikko; Cheney, Emelyne; Ho Manh Tuong; Dr. Nguyen Phu Hung; and<br />
Tore Langhelle.<br />
I gratefully acknowledge numerous other colleagues who provided valuable inputs to<br />
the development of this document, especially Stephanie Lackey for English language<br />
edit for the document.<br />
8
1.1 <strong>Background</strong> and context<br />
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION<br />
Due to the increasing recognition of the importance of forest governance quality on<br />
progress towards SFM, FLEGT and the reduction of deforestation and forest<br />
degradation (<strong>REDD</strong>+), increasingly many efforts are taken to monitor and report<br />
forest governance and governance quality. Several initiatives and different<br />
methodologies exist for monitoring and reporting forest governance, including those<br />
related to Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (FLEG), reporting based on<br />
SFM criteria and indicators and on international agreements, as well as those of the<br />
World Bank. Recently, the <strong>REDD</strong> negotiations under the UN Framework Convention<br />
on Climate Change have agreed on safeguards, initiative of EU FLEGT VPA, and<br />
timber supply chain policy of different governments that relate to forest governance,<br />
further increasing the need for monitoring. However, perhaps most importantly,<br />
forest governance monitoring systems at the country level need to meet national<br />
monitoring needs in order to be relevant. This means that monitoring of forest<br />
governance should be most of all useful to better fulfill national and local priorities for<br />
forest management. Any forest governance monitoring that is established by<br />
countries needs to be feasible, cost-effective, reliable (verifiable), allow reliable<br />
measurement of change over time, and fulfill international reporting requirements.<br />
To meet these goals, Government of Vietnam (MARD) has requested the assistance<br />
of FAO to help integrate forest governance monitoring into national-forest related<br />
monitoring systems. The work on forest governance monitoring is undertaken in the<br />
context of the FAO/Finland 1 work on a National Forest Assessment (NFA) system.<br />
To this end, FAO is providing support through the services of a national consultant<br />
and international technical consultants.<br />
As a first step, from June to October 2011, the national consultant carried out a<br />
scoping study in collaboration with and with inputs from several organizations of the<br />
Vietnamese Government and other stakeholders. The aim of the study – that has<br />
been based on review of relevant documentation and stakeholder interviews - was to<br />
inventory and assess the present status of <strong>FGM</strong> and propose steps to develop a<br />
preliminary proposal for strengthening FG monitoring. The results of the study are<br />
laid down in the present draft report. The report will serve as the background<br />
document for the multi-stakeholder consultation workshop on 5-7 December 2011,<br />
where the results, key issues and main questions and proposals of the report will be<br />
evaluated as a basis to provide concrete, practical recommendations for next steps<br />
to take.<br />
The background paper consists of 6 chapters:<br />
• <strong>Background</strong>;<br />
• Rationale for strengthening forest governance monitoring in Viet Nam;<br />
• Forest governance monitoring in Viet Nam – Maim findings;<br />
1 FAO Finland Forestry Programme: “Strengthening Forest Resources Management and Enhancing its<br />
Contribution to Sustainable Development, Land use and Livelihoods”<br />
9
• Forest governance monitoring in Viet Nam assessed by 3 pillars and 6<br />
principles;<br />
• Strengthening forest governance monitoring in Viet Nam;<br />
• Conclusion.<br />
1.2. Method of preparation of the background paper for the workshop<br />
Forest governance is a broad concept and a complex issue to monitor. Moreover in<br />
the Vietnamese context – like in many other countries- the term forest governance is<br />
relatively new term that is not readily understood by everybody as to what it means,<br />
what it entails, and in which it differs from (or relates to) forest monitoring (see<br />
chapter 2). Moreover emerging international frameworks like one mentioned in the<br />
program on forests (PROFOR) Food and Agricultural Organization of United nations Rome, 2011 that is<br />
elaborated into 3 pillars, 6 principles, 13 components and 77 sub-components, - if<br />
untailored - appear to be too generic and too difficult for their immediate application<br />
in the context of countries like Vietnam; this proofed to be particularly so at the level<br />
of components and sub components. 2<br />
In the context of Viet Nam the Viet Nam Forestry Development Strategy 2006-2020<br />
is the main policy programme for forest (see Box 01). In other words, – and in line<br />
with the opinion of the persons interviewed - the governance to implement the 5<br />
programs of the strategy and their targets should be the focus and starting point of<br />
forest governance monitoring.<br />
Because of explanations above the documentation analysis and interviews, were<br />
conducted in the context of the following two relations:<br />
• Firstly, the relation between <strong>FGM</strong> on one side and implementation of the 5<br />
programs of Vietnam Forestry Development Strategy 2006-2020 and their<br />
targets, on the other side. In current circumstances this, perhaps, is an<br />
appropriate way to get the background paper for the workshop, because by<br />
this way the paper can bring what the workshop participants are familiar with,<br />
interested in and confident to join discussions.<br />
• Secondly, <strong>FGM</strong> is assessed through documentation analysis and interviews in<br />
the context of the FAO <strong>FGM</strong> framework, but only of the 3 pillars and 6<br />
principles and not 13 components and 77 sub-components.<br />
Recently, Vietnam achieved some very important results in forest sector, especially<br />
in increase of forest cover, forest products export and poverty reduction in<br />
mountainous areas. The way in which forest governance is taking place in Vietnam,<br />
no doubt, has provided considerable contributions to those achievements, also<br />
2 This is illustrated by the experience of the national consultant at the earlier stages of this study. Initially, the<br />
national consultant tried to use 13 components and 77 sub-components of the FAO/PROFOR framework, to<br />
assess <strong>FGM</strong> in Vietnam. The consultant sent the framework to 46 people (including 32 from domestic<br />
organizations and 14 from international organizations) requesting them to assess <strong>FGM</strong> in Vietnam accordingly to<br />
13 components and 77 sub-components of the framework. Opinion of majority of the requested was that it is too<br />
difficult to assess <strong>FGM</strong> in Vietnam by using the 13 components and 77 sub-components of the framework. And<br />
the consultant is in the similar view. In fact, it is too difficult to classify what is being done in Vietnam, in terms of<br />
<strong>FGM</strong>, into 13 components and 77 sub-components of the “FAO framework for assessing and monitoring forest<br />
governance”. Until time when the consultant started writing the background paper, only 6 assessments in the<br />
mentioned way were received. As explained by the respondents the main reason of the difficulties is the<br />
components and sub-components of the FAO framework are still general.<br />
10
providing valuable experiences for the development of forest governance and its<br />
monitoring. This report will focus on finding the issues to be addressed - not for<br />
criticism but rather for opportunities - to advance the forest governance towards<br />
sustainably managed forests and sustainable development of Vietnam forestry. The<br />
documentation analysis and the discussions with the key organizations and persons<br />
in this field during preparation of this report therefore were conducted following this<br />
way.<br />
Due to the complexities of “forest governance monitoring” and time and resources<br />
constraints, , the background paper must be seen as “work in progress” and as a<br />
growth document to improve on step by step. It surely contains certain shortcomings<br />
for which the authors expect to get and appreciate every input from colleagues to<br />
address them.<br />
Box 01: Objectives of Viet Nam Forestry Development Strategy 2006-2020:<br />
a) To sustainably establish, manage, protect, develop and use 16.24 million ha<br />
of land planned for forestry;<br />
b) To increase the ratio of forested land with forest up to 42 – 43% by the year<br />
2010 and 47% by 2020;<br />
c) To ensure a wider participation from various economic sectors and<br />
social organizations in forest development, and to increase their<br />
contributions to socioeconomic development, environmental protection,<br />
biodiversity conservation and environmental services supply, in order to reduce<br />
poverty and improve the livelihoods of rural mountainous people, and to<br />
contribute to national defense and security.<br />
11
Chapter 2: RATIONALE FOR STRENTHENING <strong>FGM</strong><br />
2.1. What is Forest Governance?<br />
IN VIETNAM<br />
Box 02: COFO about forest governance<br />
“It is now broadly understood that good governance in the forest sector is vital<br />
for achieving sustainable forest management. Furthermore, realizing the full<br />
potential of forests to contribute to reducing poverty can only be achieved if the<br />
forest sector is governed in such a way that it ensures poor people’s access to<br />
and benefits from forest resources. However, forest governance means different<br />
things to different people and there is no internationally agreed definition.<br />
Originally, the term was understood as being almost synonymous with<br />
government or the way the government was ruling. With changing vision of the<br />
role and responsibilities of governments, a broader vision of governance has<br />
evolved, which takes into consideration the new roles of civil society and the<br />
private sector. It involves multiple actors and multiple levels (local, national and<br />
international) and acknowledges that different stakeholders have different views,<br />
values and interests. Improving forest governance to move forward towards<br />
sustainable forest management therefore is a complex endeavor involving the<br />
active participation of a range of stakeholders, not just forestry administrations.”<br />
COFO/2010/6.2<br />
Forest governance is a generic term for describing the way in which people and<br />
organizations rule and regulate forests. This relates to how they allocate and secure<br />
access to, rights over and benefits from forests, including the planning, monitoring<br />
and control of their use, management and conservation. Important aspects include a<br />
coherent set of laws and regulations, both within the forest sector and in other<br />
sectors that influence forest management;<br />
1. the coherent implementation of these laws;<br />
2. the decision making processes about rules, laws and regulations<br />
3. clear mandates of, and arrangements between different stakeholders (various<br />
units and levels of the government, NGO, community organizations business<br />
sector, etc.), and<br />
4. staff capable of executing the tasks that have been assigned to them.<br />
Relation between forest governance and forest/SFM is described in figure 01. Forest<br />
governance, by nature, is to make influence in order to achieve expected results on<br />
(i) extent of forest resources; (ii) forest biological diversity; (iii) forest health and<br />
vitality, (iv) production functions of forest resources; (v) protective functions of forest<br />
resources, (vi) socio-economic functions of forest resources through action programs<br />
and legal, policy and institutional arrangements (vii).<br />
Forest governance monitoring is one of the components of forest-related monitoring<br />
system including (i) forest bio-physical monitoring, (ii) forest socio-economic<br />
monitoring, and (iii) forest governance monitoring.<br />
12
The term Forest Governance also emerged in response to a changing vision of the<br />
roles and responsibilities of the government vis-à-vis other stakeholders: from the<br />
‘old’ style of governance – the government is steering – to a new situation (or<br />
conceptual understanding) in which several actors are co-steering. In this vision the<br />
government does not bear sole responsibility for the governance situation, but every<br />
actor is meant to play a role and assume specific responsibilities. Important aspects<br />
of this new situation are its multi-actor, multi-level (national, international, and local)<br />
and multi-meaning nature, recognizing that different stakeholders may embrace<br />
different values, interests and world views. The term Forest governance is to a large<br />
extent non-normative. See also the COFO description of forest governance in box 1.<br />
The concept of forest governance is being used by many institutions, each<br />
emphasizing certain aspects. But in general there is broad agreement on what forest<br />
governance relates to 3 .<br />
Good Forest Governance is following a different approach: it is normative and it is<br />
about quality. Important principles often mentioned in relation to ‘Good Governance’<br />
include: participation (stakeholder engagement), fairness, decency, accountability,<br />
transparency, efficiency, equity and sustainability 4 . They are supposed to be<br />
universally applicable, as they are based on the Universal Declaration of Human<br />
Rights. However, there is always debate on what principles have to be included and<br />
what exactly is meant by them. The interpretation of such principles is value-laden<br />
and debatable. Different stakeholders may have different perspectives, interests and<br />
interpretations of what good forest governance means to them and how it should be<br />
operationalized. It is also possible that stakeholders may agree that a certain<br />
concrete issue is part of forest governance, but they may disagree about the<br />
question under which principle the issue should be categorized.<br />
3 For an extensive discussion on forest governance, good governance and good enough governance see Van<br />
Bodegom, A.J., D. Klaver, F van Schoubroeck and O. van der Valk, 2008. FLEGT beyond T: exploring the<br />
meaning of ‘Governance’concepts for the FLEGT process. Wageningen UR, The Netherlands<br />
http://www.cdi.wur.nl/UK/resources/Publications/<br />
4 ODI, 2006. Governance, development and aid effectiveness: a quick guide to complex relationships. Briefing<br />
paper March 2006. 4pp.<br />
13
FOREST<br />
GOVERNANCE<br />
Vietnam Forestry<br />
Development Strategy 2006-<br />
2020 (5 programs)<br />
FSEM<br />
FBM<br />
<strong>FGM</strong><br />
FOREST/SFM<br />
(1) Extent of forest resources<br />
(2) Biological diversity<br />
(3) Forest health and vitality<br />
(4) Productive functions of forest<br />
resources<br />
(5) Protective functions of forest<br />
resources<br />
(6) Socio-economic functions<br />
(7) Legal, policy and institutional<br />
framework<br />
<strong>FGM</strong>: Forest Governance monitoring<br />
FBM: Forest bio-physical monitoring<br />
FSEM: Forest socio-economic monitoring<br />
SFM: Sustainable Forest Management<br />
Figure 01: Relationship between forest governance and forest/SFM<br />
A joint initiative between UN<strong>REDD</strong>/Chatham House and the World Bank is underway<br />
to formulate together with international experts indicators for (Good) Forest<br />
Governance. The resulting indicators are grouped into three pillars: (1) policy, legal,<br />
institutional and regulatory frameworks, (2) decision-making processes; and (3)<br />
implementation, enforcement and compliance. 5<br />
5 Capistrano, D., 2010. Forest Governance Indicator Development: Early Lessons and Proposed Indicators for Country <br />
Assessments. FAO, 34 pp. <br />
14
In each of these pillars the following principles have to be applied: transparency,<br />
accountability, effectiveness, participation, fairness and efficiency. See figure 02. We<br />
will take the three pillars and six principles as a starting point for discussions on what<br />
(good) forest governance in a country could mean.<br />
Box 03: Sustainable development definition<br />
"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present<br />
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".<br />
World Commission on the Environment and Development.<br />
FOREST GOVERNANCE<br />
Transparency<br />
Accountability<br />
Effectiveness<br />
Participation<br />
Fairness/Equity<br />
Efficiency<br />
Policy, legal, institutional<br />
and regulatory framework<br />
Planning & decision making<br />
process<br />
Implementation, Enforcement<br />
and compliance<br />
Figure 02: Pillars and Principles of Forest Governance.<br />
Box 04: Seven key components of sustainable forest management (SFM):<br />
1) Extent of forest resources;<br />
2) Biological diversity;<br />
3) Forest health and vitality;<br />
4) Productive functions of forest resources;<br />
5) Protective functions of forest resources;<br />
15
6) Socio-economic functions;<br />
7) Legal, policy and institutional framework.<br />
United Nations Forum on Forestry (UNFF)<br />
2.2. Why strengthen forest governance?<br />
Before ourselves asking the question: why monitor forest governance, we need to<br />
ask ourselves: why enhance forest governance? We may approach this question<br />
from two angles: a) assessing the costs of bad governance and b) assessing the<br />
benefits of good governance.<br />
Inadequate forest governance has often contributed to the following interrelated<br />
costs 6 :<br />
• Environmental impacts resulting in deforestation, forest degradation and<br />
biodiversity loss and loss of environmental services such as clean water and<br />
carbon sequestration;<br />
• Economic impacts caused by poor governance and corruption which distort<br />
forest economies. This may lead to unfair competition between legal and<br />
illegal forest practices and it may lead to loss of revenues for the state and<br />
other stakeholders. Areas with poor governance will pose risks that<br />
discourage investors (so lack of trust). Also, the forest sector may get a bad<br />
reputation, which affects the investment climate.<br />
• Poverty reduction and social impacts caused by poor governance that harms<br />
forest-dependent communities. Livelihoods of indigenous people and the rural<br />
poor may be threatened through unclear and insecure land tenure and other<br />
property rights, lack of adherence to rule of law, and excessive discretionary<br />
authority.<br />
6 See: World Bank, 2009. Roots for Good Forest Outcomes: An Analytical Framework for Governance reform.<br />
Report No. 49572-GLB. 47 pp.<br />
16
Figure 03: The Roots and fruits of forest governance (adapted from: World Bank,<br />
2009)<br />
In most countries the situation in and around forests is rapidly changing and has<br />
become increasingly dynamic and complex. An increasing number of – often<br />
competing – claims and uses is exerted on the country’s forests by a growing range<br />
of actors, each with their specific needs, interests and powers. So there is a need to<br />
tackle this complex situation.<br />
The promotion of forest governance can bring about many benefits or fruits. Good<br />
forest governance makes it possible to optimize the production of goods and<br />
services from the forest. See figure 03.<br />
Important fruits of forest governance may include profit from new opportunities<br />
created by internationally driven processes. These may generate additional forest<br />
revenues through penetration to international timber markets (in the case of FLEGT)<br />
or international payments for forest carbon capture, storage and avoided emissions<br />
(in the case of <strong>REDD</strong>+). For these processes durable results at a national level like<br />
17
‘legally produced timber’ and ‘decreased deforestation’ will be important selling<br />
points and requirements. Such results can only be realized and ensured in the longer<br />
term if an adequate forest governance system is in place. In the case of <strong>REDD</strong>+ the<br />
in 2010 formulated ‘safeguards’ (see box 05) can be considered governance<br />
aspects.<br />
Box 05: Safeguards for <strong>REDD</strong>+<br />
When undertaking <strong>REDD</strong>+ activities, the following safeguards should be<br />
promoted and supported:<br />
“(a) Actions complement or are consistent with the objectives of national forest<br />
programmes and relevant international conventions and agreements;<br />
(b) Transparent and effective national forest governance structures, taking into<br />
account national legislation and sovereignty;<br />
(c) Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of<br />
local communities, by taking into account relevant international obligations,<br />
national circumstances and laws, and noting that the United Nations General<br />
Assembly has adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of<br />
Indigenous Peoples;<br />
(d) The full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular,<br />
indigenous peoples and local communities, in actions referred to in paragraphs<br />
70 and 72 of this decision;<br />
(e) Actions are consistent with the conservation of natural forests and biological<br />
diversity, ensuring that actions referred to in paragraph 70 of this decision are<br />
not used for the conversion of natural forests, but are instead used to incentivize<br />
the protection and conservation of natural forests and their ecosystem services,<br />
and to enhance other social and environmental benefits;<br />
(f) Actions to address the risks of reversals;<br />
(g) Actions to reduce displacement of emissions. “<br />
Source: Annex I from draft decision -/CP.16, LCA, Cancun 2010<br />
2.3. Why monitor forest governance?<br />
Box 06: The Power of Measuring Results<br />
• If you do not measure results, you cannot tell success from failure<br />
• If you cannot see success, you cannot reward it<br />
• If you cannot reward success, you are probably rewarding failure<br />
• If you cannot see success, you cannot learn from it<br />
• If you cannot recognize failure, you cannot correct it<br />
• If you can demonstrate results, you can win public support<br />
(Source: Kusek & Rist, 2004 7 )<br />
Promoting forest governance may be good, but why should one engage in<br />
monitoring such governance? Would it not be better to spend funds in a more useful<br />
7 Kusek, J., and Rist, R., 2004, 'Ten Steps to a Results-based Monitoring and Evaluation System', World Bank,<br />
Washington, D.C. 268 pp. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/27/35281194.pdf<br />
18
way, for example on the actual improvement of governance directly? To these<br />
questions several answers are possible, which are basically an elaboration of box 3:<br />
Monitoring improves performance of the forest sector:<br />
Strategic management: Monitoring helps to check whether policies are on the<br />
right track, by providing crucial information over time on status and progress to<br />
inform the definition and adjustment of shared goals, objectives, strategies and<br />
outcomes that are important to the stakeholders. Monitoring supports a<br />
development agenda that is working towards greater accountability of the<br />
governance system. Governance monitoring can help to clarify and improve the<br />
roles and performance of various stakeholders in the sector and the relations<br />
between them. Up to date information can create an overview, needed<br />
particularly in a situation characterized by increasing complexity. Monitoring can<br />
help answer vital questions like: does the governance in the sector advance in<br />
the direction that was originally envisaged? Monitoring also helps with adaptive<br />
management in situations where changes need to be made to meet new<br />
demands/priorities, new weaknesses/vulnerabilities need to be addressed, and<br />
emerging new strengths could be built on.<br />
Operational management/Implementation: Monitoring helps to improve<br />
operations. It provides information needed for co-ordinating human, financial and<br />
physical resources committed to different programmes and projects across and<br />
within organizations and sectors, for improving coordination, collaboration and<br />
performance in the forest sector, and for targeting particular geographic and/or<br />
programmatic areas to enhance effectiveness of investments.<br />
Monitoring improves reputation and credibility towards the general public,<br />
investors and the international community: Monitoring provides a basis for<br />
demonstrating to taxpayers, beneficiaries and partners that expenditure, actions<br />
and results are as agreed or could reasonably be expected in the situation. This<br />
transparency helps to build legitimacy, or the “social license to operate”, which in<br />
turn reduces investment risks. Reduced risk improves the investment climate. For<br />
international processes (e.g. <strong>REDD</strong>+ and FLEGT) monitoring of forest<br />
governance is a tool for creating evidence that forest governance is indeed<br />
improving at an acceptable level. The rationale here is that (a) better forest<br />
governance is needed to effectively decrease deforestation (see figure 1 on ‘roots<br />
and fruits’); (b) reduction of deforestation cannot be pursued at all social costs,<br />
hence certain safeguards are needed (see box 2). In the <strong>REDD</strong>+ process<br />
governance monitoring is therefore a requirement (see box 4).<br />
Monitoring improves visibility to other departments within government and<br />
other economic sectors: A governance monitoring system helps to build trust<br />
between stakeholders in the sector and improve the image of the sector towards<br />
the outside world. But it can also demonstrate that the forest sector is important<br />
in the country and contributes to sustainable development of the country.<br />
19
Box 07: <strong>REDD</strong>+ and forest monitoring<br />
Paragraph 71 from draft decision -/CP.16, LCA, Cancun 2010:<br />
71. Requests developing country Parties aiming to undertake activities …., in the<br />
context of the provision of adequate and predictable support, including financial<br />
resources and technical and technological support to developing country Parties,<br />
in accordance with national circumstances and respective capabilities, to<br />
develop the following elements:<br />
(a) A national strategy or action plan;<br />
(b) A national forest reference emission level and/or forest reference level or, if<br />
appropriate, as an interim measure, sub-national forest reference emission<br />
levels and/or forest reference levels, in accordance with national circumstances,<br />
and with provisions contained in decision 4/CP.15, and with any further<br />
elaboration of those provisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties;<br />
(c) A robust and transparent national forest monitoring system for the monitoring<br />
and reporting of the activities referred to in paragraph 70 above, with, if<br />
appropriate, sub-national monitoring and reporting as an interim measure, in<br />
accordance with national circumstances, and with the provisions contained in<br />
decision 4/CP.15, and with any further elaboration of those provisions agreed by<br />
the Conference of the Parties;<br />
(d) A system for providing information on how the safeguards referred to in<br />
annex I to this decision are being addressed and respected throughout the<br />
implementation of the activities referred to in paragraph 70, while respecting<br />
sovereignty.<br />
2.4. Principles of effective forest governance monitoring<br />
The principles of Forest Governance (see figure 02) are: transparency, accountability,<br />
effectiveness, participation, fairness and efficiency. These principles are also<br />
applicable to forest governance monitoring. Below we list the six principles and<br />
examples of their effective application in forest governance monitoring 8 :<br />
1. Transparency:<br />
a. Transparency about data. There is a need to be as open as possible<br />
about disclosure of data. However, a balance is necessary, as it is<br />
unproductive to disclose all detailed data, but aggregated data should<br />
be disclosed as much as possible.<br />
b. Communication and transparency. In order to secure coordination<br />
within forest agency and across sectors it is important to clearly<br />
communicate the process of strengthening forest governance<br />
monitoring to stakeholders from the start so that they understand what<br />
it involves. It is also very important to disseminate the results of the<br />
monitoring in a transparent way so that the users help build a demand<br />
for the service. If the results from monitoring aren’t used, then even the<br />
best designed system will—and indeed should—die from neglect.<br />
2. Accountability:<br />
8 Partially based on the national forest programme principles and on Saunders & Reeve. 2010 Monitoring<br />
Governance for Implementation of <strong>REDD</strong>+. Chatham House<br />
20
a. Credibility of the monitoring process and data quality is key. Monitoring<br />
is only of use if the data quality is adequate. There needs to be a<br />
mechanism for quality control and quality assurance of the data that is<br />
collected and reported and for continually adapting data collection and<br />
analysis methods.<br />
b. Iterative learning, incremental improvement and adaptive management.<br />
Just like in the nfp process, the monitoring system is meant to provide<br />
a basis for learning that allows for sharing the realities experienced<br />
along the way; and for using the lessons learned for fine-tuning and<br />
adapting the process. The monitoring system is meant to be a self-help<br />
tool for the government and other stakeholders in a country to improve<br />
accountability, to promote sectoral learning and adaptive management,<br />
and to promote better strategic and operational management and<br />
capacity building in the sector. Adjustment in forest governance is -<br />
like governance reform itself - essentially an institutional change<br />
management process in which big steps are not to be expected<br />
overnight; it is important to take a realistic view on the situation of<br />
‘here and today’ and what would be attainable goals and pathways in a<br />
process of gradual improvements within a given time frame.<br />
c. Capacity building at all levels. Capacity will be needed, and may need<br />
to be built, for all stakeholders engaged in the design and<br />
implementation of systems. To engender ownership, trust and<br />
accountability, these efforts to monitor forest governance should be<br />
developed in partnership with local institutions, respecting national<br />
circumstances.<br />
3. Effectiveness: the monitoring should fit within goals set by the country.<br />
Aspects include:<br />
a. Country leadership and national ownership: A national driven<br />
process ownership and firm commitment and a strong political and<br />
societal will to manage forests sustainably and to monitor forest<br />
governance.<br />
b. Consistency with national policies, strategies/NFP document:<br />
Integration with the country’s sustainable development strategies, intersectoral<br />
approaches, consistency with the country’s legal frameworks,<br />
recognition and respect for customary and traditional rights and secure<br />
land tenure arrangements.<br />
4. Participation: partnership and inclusive multi-actor participation are key for<br />
success, as are involvement of all relevant stakeholders, decentralisation and<br />
empowerment, coordination and conflict-resolution.<br />
a. The monitoring system should be developed and implemented jointly<br />
by major stakeholders and take into consideration various relevant<br />
geographic and administrative levels in the country, also recognizing<br />
the differences in influence, means, roles and mandates of the different<br />
stakeholders.<br />
b. Multi-stakeholder participation in the identification of indicators as well<br />
as in the design and implementation of the tools and institutional<br />
21
arrangements for monitoring, reporting and verification will result in<br />
more credible and useful information and more accountable<br />
institutions. It will also help to build trust between stakeholders and<br />
break down barriers between historically antagonistic parties.<br />
5. Fairness: Fairness implies the degree to which rules apply equally to<br />
everyone in society. It is also about who is part of the negotiation and who is<br />
left out.<br />
a. Meaningful participation of disadvantaged stakeholders in the<br />
country: remote and resource dependent communities, unorganized<br />
actors, and women may lack the possibilities and opportunities (power<br />
and recognition, time, funds, and distance) to effectively participate in<br />
the forest governance monitoring process.<br />
b. Meaningful participation of groups that at first sight do not see<br />
the importance of forest monitoring for them. The private sector<br />
may not be interested in participating because they do not see any use<br />
in it. However such stakeholders do matter and it is critical that they are<br />
encouraged or enabled to participate effectively in and benefit from the<br />
process.<br />
6. Efficiency: this principle has several very important aspects:<br />
a. Building on existing data sets, data collection routines, IT<br />
infrastructure and organisational frameworks as much as possible.<br />
Building on existing monitoring, including data collection/reporting<br />
commitments (e.g. FLEGT VPA impact monitoring, NFMA, FRA<br />
reporting and domestic collection of social statistics), and institutions<br />
will increase transparency and reliability of data while at the same time<br />
as reducing costs.<br />
b. Don’t do it all at once, but prioritize and incentivize progress.<br />
Forest governance encompasses many aspects.<br />
i. Prioritize. By paying attention to all of them, the data collection<br />
and monitoring grid may become unmanageable, due to<br />
expense and limited capacities for data collection and analysis;<br />
moreover it may take away the motivation of those engaged, as<br />
the dimensions of the tasks are beyond their capacities and<br />
means, urging the need for prioritizing what is really needed. A<br />
key issue for success is the extent to which key stakeholders<br />
can agree on what is “good enough” 9 , within the circumstances,<br />
with a strategy for building capacity and monitoring reach,<br />
moving forward over time.<br />
9<br />
‘Good Enough’ is related here to Good Enough Governance, a concept which brings the discussion of ‘good governance’<br />
from the realms of idealism - and sometimes the imposition of values - back to on-the-ground realities: what can be done from<br />
‘here and now’; an analysis should be made of the existing situation and a set common objectives and priorities identified and<br />
agreed by national stakeholders, because it will not be possible to achieve everything at once and in a way that different<br />
stakeholders would ideally want it to be. We need to emphasize that the “here and now” mentioned above, is dynamic. ‘Good<br />
enough’ today should not be considered good enough 10 years from now. There needs to be a discussion on how to incentivize<br />
progress in a sensible sequence, because ‘good enough’ is never an excuse for not pushing forward. See also:<br />
Grindle, M.S., 2004. Good Enough Governance: poverty reduction and reform in developing countries. Governance: an<br />
institutional journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, Vol. 17, No. 4, October 2004 (p. 525-548), and: Grindle, M.S.<br />
2005. Good enough governance revisited. A report for DFID with reference to the Governance Target Strategy <strong>Paper</strong>, 2001.<br />
Harvard University, USA. 27 pp.<br />
22
ii. Use as much as possible existing data. An example is private<br />
certification. There are already several certification schemes<br />
(e.g. FSC, PEFC) for assessing and monitoring<br />
sustainable/legal forest management, focusing on the forest<br />
management unit, but forest governance encompasses the<br />
relation with other economic sectors: dealing with competing<br />
claims on natural resources through land use planning<br />
legislation etc. Such aspects are largely unaddressed in market<br />
based certification schemes.<br />
c. Consistency and complementarity in national and international<br />
systems. Data needs at domestic and international levels should<br />
harmonised and collected and reported ideally through a coordinated<br />
national and international institutional architecture with appropriate<br />
oversight mechanisms involving verification at both national and<br />
international level. Similarly, it is important to be multi-level (this<br />
initiative has a field level evidence collection focus), multi-sector, and<br />
multi actor (private/public) appropriately involved in <strong>FGM</strong>.<br />
d. Sustainability and cost of governance monitoring. The forest<br />
monitoring system must be feasible, implementable and cost effective.<br />
It must be compatible with the country’s longer term institutional and<br />
organizational capacities and resources for forest related monitoring. If<br />
the process of gathering, assessing, and reporting of information is too<br />
costly there is a high risk that the system will collapse. In particular, this<br />
risk may occur in the case of external financing once donors have gone<br />
or funding cycles ended. Responsibilities and tasks within the<br />
monitoring system must be agreed and properly institutionalized<br />
among the different stakeholders to ensure continuity of the system<br />
and delivery of results.<br />
Box 08: Key success factors for improving and sustaining <strong>FGM</strong><br />
Established demand and a sense of urgency. Major stakeholders, in<br />
23
particular the government and parliament, in the country need to be convinced of<br />
the urgency, relevance/value added and benefits of developing and/or improving<br />
monitoring or forest governance.<br />
Ownership, commitment, and championship. From the outset, the major<br />
national stakeholders in the forest sector should express co-responsibility and<br />
active support for the process, which requires that they are able to participate in<br />
guiding and benefiting from the process. Ownership and commitment is<br />
particularly important in the case of funding of the process by international<br />
donors, hence to avoid the risk and impression that it is becoming a donor driven<br />
action rather than a process designed to meet nationally identified needs.<br />
Existence of national champions to advance <strong>FGM</strong> is indispensable, both in state<br />
agencies and other stakeholders in the sector. Champions are persons who<br />
constantly and energetically promote the cause of <strong>FGM</strong>.<br />
Credibility of leadership. The organisation that leads the process must be<br />
considered as open, trustworthy, and effective to guide and facilitate the process<br />
of monitoring. Stakeholders are likely to forgive gaps or errors in data as long as<br />
they believe that the organisations that are in charge of the forest governance<br />
monitoring are doing the utmost to give a fair picture of the situation, while<br />
striving for improvement and allowing outside oversight.<br />
Chapter 3: FOREST GOVERNANCE MONITORING IN<br />
VIETNAM – MAIN FINDINGS<br />
3.1. Vietnam policy, legal, institutional and regulatory framework: introduction<br />
24
As mentioned above, forest governance, in this background paper, is analyzed in<br />
relation with Vietnam National Forestry Development Strategy 2006-2020,<br />
particularly its three key programs including<br />
• sustainable forest management and development program,<br />
• program on forest protection, biodiversity conservation and environmental<br />
services development,<br />
• forest products processing and trade program and<br />
• newly emerging issues, not yet included in the strategy: FLEGT and <strong>REDD</strong>.<br />
However, FLEGT and <strong>REDD</strong>, in spites of the fact that they have different stating<br />
point and approach, both of them aim to sustainably managed forest. See figure<br />
04.<br />
Since 2003 Vietnam central governmental agencies have issued 165 legal<br />
documents related to forest policy and institution: Resolution: 01 document (The<br />
Communist Party Political Bureau); Law: 5 documents; Decree: 39 documents;<br />
Decision, directions by Prime Minister: 20 documents; Circular, Decision, Direction<br />
by ministries: 105 documents. However, some documents only mention forest policy<br />
and institution at one or some articles, or even at some expressions. Only about 140<br />
out of 165 documents issued since 2003 are legally valid.<br />
This legal system has made their way into society, creating a legal base and<br />
mobilizing resources into forest protection and development, which contributes to<br />
continuous increase of forest cover, a stable socio-economic development, poverty<br />
reduction and improvement of people’s living in the highland and mountainous areas.<br />
However, as mentioned above, this report will focus rather more on finding<br />
opportunities of improvements in <strong>FGM</strong>.<br />
Vietnamese system of key legal regulations for forest governance consists of Land<br />
Law 2003; Forest Protection and Development Law 2004; decisions, circulars<br />
dealing with different areas of or related with forest and forestry. Generally those<br />
legal regulations form a system covering all aspects of forest governance that need<br />
to be addressed, including:<br />
• Forestry land and 3 types of forest;<br />
• Forest and forest land rental and allocation;<br />
• State forest enterprise restructuring;<br />
• Timber harvesting from natural forests;<br />
• Conversion of natural forest into rubber plantation and other purposes;<br />
• Beneficiary policy;<br />
• Forest Protection;<br />
• Handling of violations related to forest;<br />
• Forest fire prevention and firefighting;<br />
• Protection forests and special-use forests;<br />
• Forest environment services ;<br />
• Forestry finance;<br />
• Forest Products Processing and Trade.<br />
25
FOREST<br />
GOVERNANCE<br />
<strong>REDD</strong><br />
FLEGT<br />
NATIONAL FORESTRY<br />
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY<br />
2006-2020<br />
(1) Sustainable forest<br />
management and development<br />
program<br />
(2) Forest protection,<br />
biodiversity conservation and<br />
environmental services<br />
development<br />
(3) Forest products processing<br />
and trade program<br />
(4) Research, Education,<br />
Training and Forestry Extension<br />
(RETE)<br />
(5) Renovation of the forest<br />
sector institutions, policy,<br />
planning and monitoring<br />
Figure 04: Relation between forest governance and Vietnam forestry development<br />
strategy and emerging issues.<br />
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
•<br />
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
• Number of forest-related legal regulations newly issued.<br />
• Number of forest-related legal regulations withdrawn (out of effectiveness).<br />
3.2. Sustainable Forest Management and Development<br />
Box 09: Tasks of Program “Sustainable Forest Management and<br />
26
Development”<br />
• Establish the national permanent forest estate for three forest<br />
types, mapping and boundary demarcation in field, manage<br />
sustainably and effectively all stable production forest areas,<br />
including 3.63 million ha of natural forests and 4.15 million ha of<br />
plantation forests (including industrial raw material plantations, NTFP<br />
and other plantation forests).<br />
• All forests and forest lands are to be allocated, or leased, to forest<br />
management entities before 2010.<br />
• Establish and implement plans of forest management and capacity<br />
building for forest owners, such as: forestry companies, cooperatives,<br />
communities, and foreign fund- invested enterprises, etc.<br />
• Stabilize wood production from natural forests, plantation forests and<br />
scattered planted trees with timber production targets of 9.7 million<br />
m 3 / year by 2010 and 20 - 24 million m 3 / year by 2020 (including 10<br />
million m 3 large timber) and develop NTFPs to meet major demands<br />
for domestic consumption and export.<br />
• Provide small timber for pulp processing: 3.4 million m 3 /year by 2010,<br />
and 8.3 million m 3 /year by 2020. Improve the productivity and quality<br />
of plantation forests, with an average annual increment of<br />
15 m 3 /ha based on the implementation of forest tree seed strategy<br />
during period 2006-2020.<br />
• Enrich 0.5 million ha of poor degraded forests contributing to<br />
increase the quality of natural forests.<br />
• Afforest 1.0 million ha of new forests by the year 2010 (of which, 0.75<br />
million ha of production forest and 0.25 million ha of special-use<br />
forest) and 1.5 million ha for the next phase, and harvested forest will<br />
be replanted after logging operations at the rate of 0.3 million<br />
ha/year.<br />
• Annually plant 200 million scattered trees, equivalent to 100,000 ha<br />
of plantation forests, to serve local demands of wood and fuel-wood<br />
for home consumption.<br />
• Undertake forest inventory periodically; consolidate and update<br />
database of forest resources and related socio-economic aspects.<br />
• 100% of production enterprises will develop, implement, monitor and<br />
evaluate the forest management proposals (plans).<br />
• At least 30% of production forest areas are to be issued with<br />
certification on sustainable forest management by 2020.<br />
• Invest in equipment to modernize forest management work.<br />
3.2.1. Forestry land and 3 types of forest<br />
Box 10: Main legal regulations on forest and forest land<br />
Land Law 1993 and Land Law 2003; Law on Forest Protection and Development<br />
1991 and Law on Forest Protection and Development 2004; Directive<br />
38/2005/CT-TTg dated 25/12/2005 by Prime Minister on Three-type-forest<br />
Classification; Decision 1828/QĐ-BNN-TCLN dated 11/8/2011 of MARD on<br />
national forest status year 2010.<br />
27
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED:<br />
1. Land Law 2003 replaced the term “Forest land” by a new term which is “land<br />
of special-use forest, land of protection forest and land of production forest”<br />
(point c, d, đ section 1, article 13). Forest Protection and Development Law<br />
2004 did the same and only mentions three types of forests which are<br />
“special-use forest”, “protection forest” and “production forest”. Since those<br />
laws became effective the term “forest land”, including land with forest on it<br />
and bare land identified for forestry, no longer exists. Forest land, from a legal<br />
point of view now only consists of land of special-use forest, land of protection<br />
forest and land of production forest. Thus following this term only the land with<br />
forest on it is forest land and bare land, even on mountains, is no longer forest<br />
land. This legal provision leads to the fact that the forest sector is not clear<br />
where to get land for the target of 16.24 million ha as decided by Decision<br />
17/2007-TTg dated 05 February 2007 by Prime Minister for implementation of<br />
Vietnam Forestry Development Strategy 2006-2020.<br />
2. Planning for 3 forest types has been done only as master plan, not clearly<br />
marked on maps and in the field therefore often can be changed by other<br />
sectors’ planning.<br />
3. Many communes with forests have not been approved with their planning and<br />
detailed land use plan, so these plans have been pending and overlapped.<br />
What is being monitored already?<br />
• Existing forests on lands (special-use forest land, protection forest land,<br />
production forest land).<br />
What needs to be monitored in the future?<br />
• Total national land, defined for management of the Forest Sector, with clear<br />
boundaries in the field.<br />
• Total national land area, with forest, defined for management of the Forest<br />
Sector with clear boundaries.<br />
• Total area of production forest.<br />
• Area of production forest with clearly defined boundaries in the field.<br />
• Area of production forest with clear demarcation in the field.<br />
• Area of protection forest.<br />
• Area of protection forest with clearly defined boundaries in the field.<br />
• Area of protection forest with clear demarcation in the field.<br />
• Area of special-use forest.<br />
• Area of special-use forest with clearly defined boundaries in the field.<br />
• Area of special-use forest with clear demarcation in the field.<br />
3.2.2. Forest and forest land rental and allocation<br />
Box 11: Forest and forest land rental and allocation 31 December 2009<br />
According to FPD report, on 31 December 2009 total forest area of 13,258,843<br />
ha was allocated by the state to forest mangers as follows: (1) forest<br />
28
management boards 4,318,492 ha (33%), state enterprises 2,044,252 ha (15%),<br />
households 3,287,070 ha (25%), people committees 2,422,485 ha (18%), other<br />
organizations 659,935 ha (5%), military forces 243,689 ha (2%), communities<br />
191.383 ha (1%), other economical organizations 91,537 ha (1%).<br />
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED:<br />
• Available legal documents do not explain clearly legal terms such as “forest<br />
allocation”, “forest allocation by contract”, “forest rental”, which results in<br />
inadequate perceptions and implementation of forest policies, particularly<br />
between forest allocation and forest allocation for rental.<br />
• Lack of specific regulations on classification for which kind of special-use<br />
forests, protection forests, production forests can be allocated for rental,<br />
which results in the fact that most of land allocated to local people is bare land<br />
or poor natural forests. Medium and rich natural forests remain managed by<br />
state companies.<br />
• Legal content on natural forest use and beneficiary rights have not been<br />
transparently explained and regulated in legal documents, particularly the<br />
relation between the government - as natural forest owner and forest<br />
managers - as bodies authorized by the government to use the forests<br />
through allocation and forest rental.<br />
• Forest Protection and Development Law 2004 (Article 29, 30) defines that<br />
forest allocated to local communities by the Government is for common<br />
benefits of the communities regardless of forest types as special-use,<br />
protection or production forests. However, the Land Law does not define land<br />
allocation to local communities; Decree No. 181/2004/NĐ-CP on guidelines to<br />
perform Land Law at Article 72 stimulating that only protection forests would<br />
be distributed to local communities.<br />
• According to the Land Law, forest enterprises are entitle to receive forest<br />
rental or allocation with land use charge, but no legal document is available to<br />
define specific price of forest rental charge.<br />
• Slow allocation of land and forests. By 2009, only about 70% of forest land<br />
has been distributed to different managers. The area allocation to communes’<br />
People’ Committees reaches more than 2.4 million ha (accounting for 18% of<br />
the total national forest area in use), without clear responsibilities.<br />
• Land allocation and forest allocation do not link together closely (there is no<br />
close collaboration between Agriculture and Rural Development Sector and<br />
Natural Resources and Envrionemnt Sector).<br />
• Forests allocated to households and communities are mainly with low<br />
standing-tree stock with small and scattered area and bad transportation<br />
conditions. Therefore, they are not accurate to run a good business.<br />
• Fee of masurement, recording, and issuing land use certificate (Red Book) is<br />
high while government budget allocated to this item is limited.<br />
• The unclear demarcation in the field has created more difficulties to<br />
management leading to difficulties in dealing with illegal forest land use<br />
transformation, which results in overlapped land allocation and conflicts<br />
among forest owners.<br />
29
• There is no connection between land allocation and forest allocation (area is<br />
identified but there is no data about forest status, standing stock, etc, thus<br />
there is no basis for beneficiary calculation.<br />
• Land disputes and encroachments in some areas occurred because of<br />
different reasons. They have not been solved.<br />
• Civil Law in 2005 (Basic Law) does not recognize village communities (called<br />
community) as a legal entity. Therefore, they do not have rights like other<br />
forest owners to transform, transfer, rent, mortgage, act as a gurantee with<br />
their allocated forest land. Legal status of village communities should be<br />
clearly identified for forest resource management.<br />
• It is unclearly perceived that forest is a property, so forest allocation and forest<br />
rental policies are treated as natural forest protection policies rather than<br />
property protection and defined only for two criteria: forest area and cover.<br />
• What are the rights of forest enterprises when they work with forest rental or<br />
allocated forest with rental charge or fee payment (especially natural forest<br />
land).<br />
What is being monitored already?<br />
• Allocation of land and forests<br />
What needs to be monitored in the future?<br />
• Number of Forest Management Boards having forest allocated, but without<br />
land use certificate.<br />
• Number of Forest Management Boards clearly knows in-the-field defined<br />
boundaries of the forest under their management.<br />
• Number of Forest Management Boards made in-the-field demarcation for the<br />
forest under their management.<br />
• Total area of land, forest allocated to households.<br />
• Area of land, forest allocated to households having clearly defined boundaries<br />
in the field.<br />
• Area of forest allocated to households but without land-use certificate.<br />
• Number of land-related conflicts between households and organizations.<br />
• Number of land-related conflicts between households and organizations<br />
solved.<br />
• Number of land-related conflicts between households and other households.<br />
• Number of land-related conflicts between households and other households<br />
solved.<br />
3.2.3. State forest enterprise restructuring<br />
Box 12: Results of state forest enterprise restructuring<br />
• The number of SFEs decreased from 355 (2005) down to: only 157 SFEs<br />
converted into Forest Companies (FCs), 68 SFEs converted into Forest<br />
Management Boards and 28 Forest Management Committee newly<br />
established due to splitting of protection forests from SFEs, and 14 SFEs<br />
dissolved.<br />
• Total area under management of 157 FCs) is more than 2 million ha<br />
(2005: 4.08 million ha).<br />
• Total area managed by forest management boards (converted from SFEs<br />
30
and newly established) : more than 4 million ha.<br />
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED:<br />
• Rights, duties, and responsibilities of FCs for forest management as forest<br />
enterprises have not been clearly identified in legal documents, particularly,<br />
the policy on natural forest with production function allocated to FCs.<br />
According to the current law, natural forests with production function are<br />
important production materials of the company, but they are not accepted as<br />
FCs’ asset. FCs therefore manage the allocated forests as natural resources<br />
not as asset.<br />
• According to Forest Protection and Development Law, for FCs the<br />
Government executes the land and forest land allocation or forest rental with<br />
rental charge paid by FCs, but there is no specific provisions to address that.<br />
Currently, the Government has performed the land allocation without land<br />
and forest use/rental charge for many FCs. Some provinces implement forest<br />
rental, but FCs can not afford the payment for the rental charge due to lack of<br />
budget.<br />
• Decree No. 200 also does not have any provision facilitating FCs to get longterm<br />
loans for plantation cycle, essential for FCs to run their operation, even<br />
FCs operating in remote areas.<br />
• According to Forest Protection and Development Law (Article 64), though FCs<br />
have paid forest use and rental charge from their own budget (no government<br />
budget), they only are allowed to profit from the value added to the forests,<br />
but there is no transparent and clear regulation how to identify the value<br />
added and how to benefit from it.<br />
• SFEs that do not have harvestable plantation and mainly have poor natural<br />
forests were converted into FCs, do not afford to manage and protect this<br />
forest area and can generate profits.<br />
• Land withdrawn from SFEs for allocation to other bodies has not been<br />
implemented well. In some localities, numerous area of forest land has been<br />
withdrawn from FCs but failed to be allocated to other bodies. Commune<br />
People Committes therefore temporarily manage this area, but they are not<br />
forest owners and have no capacity for management and protection, which<br />
results in “ownerless” circumstances for the forest land.<br />
• Almost all FCs have not completed their forest and forest land management<br />
plans or have plans available but fail to apply as a “legal” instrument for land<br />
and forest management.<br />
• In some provinces, FCs do not have self-control right for their own financial<br />
issues during their natural forest business because in the provincial policy,<br />
profits from standing tree auction is collected by Provincial Financial<br />
Department and reallocated a part to FCs as forest management unit<br />
operating under provincial budget.<br />
• FCs had to hand over good-quality and close-to-communities lands for<br />
agricultural purposes, so they had to move to more remote region and do their<br />
business with poor-quality land left, poor infrastructure, long production cycle<br />
with lots of risks which results in higher costs, particularly transportation and<br />
lower efficiency.<br />
31
• When SFEs established by establishment decisions, in which allocated land<br />
for management was only identified in the map, not in the field. And in<br />
practice, many organizations and companies do not know exactly the<br />
boundary and demarcation of their forest area.<br />
• Many FCs operate their business without land-use right certificate (Red Book)<br />
because they do not have enough money for making land measurement and<br />
land documentation, even though the Decree No. 200 defines the local budget<br />
is responsible to cover this cost for FCs but no payment is from local budget<br />
for them in reality.<br />
• Currently, FCs lack of capital for their business and forest development, but<br />
they find difficult to get loans. According to Decree No. 200, FCs manage<br />
allocated poor natural forests in the enrichment and rehabilitation stage which<br />
has not reached the harvesting stage (FCs located in remote areas with<br />
mainly ethnic groups) are supported by the Government for management and<br />
protection cost as protection forests. But in practice, they do not receive any<br />
support.<br />
• Decree No. 200 defines “FCs are supported by the Government in<br />
development and application of advanced technology into their production,<br />
processing, particularly high-productivity trees; establishing multiplication<br />
facilities to provide seedlings; advanced technical hand-over and developing<br />
agro-forestry extension services and providing marketing information to local<br />
people”, but factually, no considerable support in technology and capacity<br />
building activities are available.<br />
• Some FCs manage allocated protection forests, but without proper investment<br />
as defined to protection forests.<br />
• No proper financial and crediting policies are available to natural forest<br />
management (budget for poor natural forest protection, enrichment and<br />
development).<br />
• No policy on forest rental charge. Forest value is not identified yet thus there<br />
is no basis for dealing with forest, during its management, as an asset.<br />
• In many cases the conversion from SFE to FC is just change of name, the<br />
management and all other aspects of doing business remain unchanged. So<br />
FC cannot operate in line with the Enterprise Law 60/2005/QH11, dated 29<br />
November 2005.<br />
• Almost FCs are in lack of financial resources, but they cannot use natural<br />
forest under their management as guarantee to get loan from bank because<br />
the natural forest is not an asset having concrete financial value.<br />
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
• Number of SFE and FCs.<br />
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
• Number of forest companies having allocated forest but with land-use<br />
certificate.<br />
• Number of forest companies having land and forest with clearly defined<br />
boundaries in the field.<br />
• Number of forest companies having land and forest with clear demarcation in<br />
the field.<br />
• Total forest area allocated to forest companies.<br />
32
• Total land area allocated to forest companies (with land-use certificate).<br />
• Total land area and forest area allocated to forest companies having clear<br />
demarcation in the field.<br />
• Number of forest companies doing business according to Company Law<br />
2005.<br />
• Number of forest companies financially independent in line with the Company<br />
Law 2005.<br />
• Number of forest companies trained in sustainable forest management.<br />
• Number of companies having forest management plan.<br />
• Number of forest companies received fund supporting enrichment of poor<br />
forest.<br />
• Number of forest companies received support in application of new<br />
technology.<br />
• Number of forest companies providing forestry extension and market<br />
information for local communities.<br />
• Number of forest companies managing protection received investment as<br />
defined by policy for protection forest.<br />
• Number of forest companies received long-term preferential credit appropriate<br />
to timber-production cycle.<br />
• Number of provinces having forest value defined when the forest is allocated<br />
to forest companies.<br />
• Number of provinces having forest rental price defined when rent the forest to<br />
forest companies.<br />
• Number of provinces having forest rental price defined when rent the forest to<br />
forest companies.<br />
• Number of companies defined forest value when the forest is allocated to<br />
them.<br />
• Number of forest companies having forest-added-value calculation defined.<br />
• Number of forest companies paid forest rental charge.<br />
3.2.4. Timber harvesting from natural forests<br />
Box 13: Status of timber harvesting from natural forest<br />
Implementing the Plan “To promote afforestation in bare land toward closing<br />
‘gates’ of natural forest" started in 1996:<br />
• From 1997 timber harvesting is suspended in all protection forests and a<br />
considerable part of natural forests with production function.<br />
• The number of provinces and companies busy with timber harvesting has<br />
been decreased remarkably.<br />
• Volume of timber harvested from natural forests decreased from 1 million<br />
m 3 (2000) to around 0.2 million m 3 in 2009.<br />
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED:<br />
Today some shortcomings of the timber-harvesting-limit policy, revealed clearly:<br />
• Timber-harvesting-limit and/or logging ban policy makes presence of forest<br />
managers in the natural forest much less which results in a situation that the<br />
33
forest is like without real “ownership”, which at the end makes more chance<br />
for illegal logging in practice.<br />
• Timber-harvesting-limit and/or logging ban policy minimizes or eliminates<br />
revenue from forest which substantially affects the basis of from-forest-benefit<br />
policy and makes it ineffective,<br />
• No resources for forest managers and government to re-invest in natural<br />
• Moreover, harvesting ban also means forest is without sylvicultural activities<br />
because timber harvesting itself is a necessary sylvicultural measure to<br />
manage forest.<br />
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
• Volume of timber harvested from natural forests by quota.<br />
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
• Number of forest companies are in condition accurate for implementation of<br />
sustainable timber harvesting.<br />
• Number of forest companies allowed to do timber harvesting in line with<br />
timber production of their allocated forest.<br />
3.2.5. Forest conversion into rubber plantation and other purposes<br />
Box 14: Forest conversion into rubber plantation<br />
Conversion of poor natural forest, with low timber production, to rubber<br />
plantation is allowed by government from late 2006. The conversion of this kind<br />
of forest aims to generate more jobs and income for local poor people lacking<br />
production land.<br />
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED:<br />
• The criteria for identifying the conversion forest are not clear.<br />
• Some good natural forest was converted to rubber plantation.<br />
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
• Area of natural forest converted to rubber plantation and other purposes.<br />
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
• Area of natural forest converted to rubber plantation.<br />
• Total number of projects to convert natural forest to rubber plantation.<br />
• Number of projects to convert natural forest to rubber plantation appraised by<br />
relevant authority from forest sector.<br />
• Number of projects to convert natural forest to rubber plantation rejected by<br />
relevant authority from forest sector after appraisal.<br />
• Total area of forest converted to hydro-power plants.<br />
• Number of hydro-power plant projects requesting conversion of natural forest.<br />
• Number of hydro-power plant projects appraised by relevant authority from<br />
forest sector.<br />
• Number of hydro-power plant projects rejected by relevant authority from<br />
forest sector after appraisal.<br />
34
• Area of natural forest lost due to mining activities.<br />
• Number of mining projects requesting conversion of forest.<br />
• Number of mining projects appraised by relevant authority from forest sector.<br />
• Number of mining projects rejected by relevant authority from forest sector<br />
after appraisal.<br />
3.2.6. Beneficiary policy<br />
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED:<br />
• The term “benefit” is not consistent among different currently effective<br />
documentations.<br />
• There are no clear criteria for identifying forest major and minor products. For<br />
instance: the major product of resin-pine forest is resin, the major product of<br />
cinnamon forest is tree bark, while Decision 178 stipulates timber annual<br />
allowed cut only, (point 5 article 14).<br />
• The beneficiary policy is practically efficient where harvesting and selling<br />
harvested products are in place. For forest without timber standing stock and<br />
non-timber products for harvesting, and forest land with poor-quality-soil for<br />
agricultural activities, and forest in remote area, forest in limestone mountains,<br />
forest close to borders, protection forest along sea coasts, forest with CITES<br />
species, etc the beneficiary policy is not feasible.<br />
• Benefit for households contracted for special forest protection is much lower<br />
than ones contracted for protection and production forest.<br />
Benefit is based on the forest added production, in practice, is not feasible because<br />
the timber standing stock of forest at the time of allocation and annual additional<br />
timber standing stock (annual growth) are not identified. Therefore there is no clear<br />
basis for-households benefit identification.<br />
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
• Area of forest allocated to households.<br />
• Payment for households for provided forest protection service.<br />
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
• Number of provinces having forest value defined when the forest is allocated<br />
to households.<br />
• Number of provinces having forest rental price defined when rent the forest to<br />
households.<br />
• Number of provinces defined forest value when the forest is allocated to<br />
households.<br />
• Number of provinces defined real income from forest (including pay for forest<br />
protection and others from forest), per ha of forest allocated to households.<br />
• Number of provinces defined total real income from forest (including pay for<br />
forest protection and others from forest) and its ratio to total income of local<br />
households.<br />
35
3.3. Program of Forest protection and conservation, PES and Forest Finance<br />
Box 15: Tasks of Program of Forest protection and conservation, PES<br />
a) Forest protection (protection, special-use and production)<br />
• Protect effectively 16.24 million ha of forest and forest land area.<br />
• One hundred percent of documents regulating forest protection are<br />
disseminated to forest owners and local people.<br />
• The State will continue to allocate 1.5 million ha special-use and<br />
protection forests under protection contracts by 2010.<br />
• Reduce by 80% the cases violating the forest protection and<br />
development law.<br />
• 100% of forest owners, villages, and communes having forests will<br />
arrange their forest protection forces and 100% forest rangers at<br />
communes and forest protection forces will be trained to improve<br />
capacity.<br />
• Invest to infrastructure, equipment, operational costs for<br />
protection, forest fire prevention and control, and pest and disease<br />
control.<br />
b) Management of protection and special-use forest systems<br />
36
• Develop and consolidate the protection forest system (watershed,<br />
coastal and urban environment) with a total area of about 5.68<br />
million ha and special-use forest system with a total area not<br />
exceeding 2.16 million ha.<br />
• 100% of protection and special forest areas will have their<br />
management owners (state agencies, private owners or communities)<br />
and availability of planning, medium- and long-term forest protection<br />
and development plan. 0,25 million ha of new protection and specialuse<br />
forests will be planted by 2010.<br />
• Continue to pilot and scale-up community-based forest management<br />
modality and other modalities (community management, shareholding<br />
company, cooperative, joint venture, joint business, etc.)<br />
c) Environmental services<br />
• Study on the valuation of the forest environmental services, such<br />
as water source protection, erosion control, sedimentation<br />
prevention, CO2-sequestration, ecotourism, etc.; develop<br />
mechanisms for payment of environmental services during the<br />
period 2006-2010.<br />
• The Forest Protection and Development Fund will be established and<br />
implemented by 2007.<br />
3.3.1. Forest Protection<br />
Box16: Forest protection system<br />
Forest protection system from commune level up to national level established.<br />
Forest ranger system at all levels (about 11,000 people) including: Forest<br />
Protection Department under VNFOREST, 63 provincial FPD at provincial level,<br />
490 district Forest Inspection Section (FIS) at district level and 735 ranger posts.<br />
4,289 rangers are in service in 4,816 communes out of 5,985 communes with<br />
forests. 88 FIS of special-use forests established (out of 164 management<br />
boards). They succeed to prevent illegal logging on a large scale and some<br />
forest protection and development models have been established. 42,000<br />
groups of local forest protection have been set up.<br />
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED:<br />
• Lack of financial mechanism to permit close and regular collaboration<br />
between forest ranger forces and other legal execution agencies; lack of<br />
active involvement by local authorites and people in forest protection as well<br />
37
as a lack of connection and integration between poverty and rural<br />
development programmes at the one hand and forest protection activities in<br />
the area at the other hand.<br />
• Legal status of forest rangers is weak, so they cannot perform in an effective<br />
way.<br />
• Forest rangers have a hard job with limited capacity and supportive tools as<br />
well as low income and an allowance of 100,000vnd/ month only, no housing<br />
and transportation support to perform their work.<br />
• Lack of synchronous and sustainable support policies to protect natural<br />
forests. Almost all financial support comes from Program 661, but only for an<br />
area of 1.5-2 million ha out of 8 million ha of protection and special-use<br />
forests, furthermore Program 661 ended end of 2010. This is a big challenge<br />
because without further support, this area will be put in a risk of faster<br />
deforestation.<br />
• No proper policy available to involve local communities in forest protection<br />
because forests are not their property and they do not receive any profits from<br />
the forests (in case of poor and immature forests) or too little (if they are<br />
contracted for protection and special-use forest protection). Beside of that<br />
there is no policy facilitating sustainable livelihoods for people depending on<br />
forests.<br />
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
• Number of local forest rangers.<br />
• Number of communes having local forest rangers.<br />
• Area of forest under financial support of the program 661.<br />
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
• Number of local forest rangers.<br />
• Number of communes having local forest rangers.<br />
• Number of plans of forest protection authorities, forest companies, forest<br />
management boards to cooperate with local authorities and communities in<br />
forest protection agreed and signed.<br />
• Number of violations of Forest Protection and Development Law that are not<br />
treated due to legal position of forest protection officers (forest rangers) is<br />
limited.<br />
• Number of forest patrol units having forest regular patrol plans.<br />
• Number of patrols conducted.<br />
• Number of villages having common forest protection agreement.<br />
• Number of communes having forest officer.<br />
• Number of communes having forest protection team.<br />
3.3.2. Handling of violations related to forest<br />
Box 17: Violations related to forest<br />
• According to the data of the Forest Protection Department in 2009,<br />
Government has found 40,929 cases of violations of the Law on Forest<br />
Protection and Development; has handled 34,370 cases, including<br />
34,046 cases for administrative sanctions and 324 cases for criminal<br />
38
sanctions with 210 defendants. However, the number of cases brought to<br />
trial is very low (47 cases with 52 defendants).<br />
• Material evidences and means confiscated timber includes 25,598.9 m3<br />
round wood (1,779.5 m3 precious wood), lumber 26,316.9 m3 (3,998.1<br />
m3 rare wood); wildlife 12,930 individuals (with 723 individual rare) with a<br />
volume close to 38 tons and seized several transportation vehicles of<br />
illegal forest products.<br />
• The total amount collected in 213 billion VND - up 3% compared with<br />
2008 (penalties 62.5 billion VND; sale seized exhibits 149.3 billion VND,<br />
tax arrears 0.159 billion VND; other revenue 1.09 billion VND), put to<br />
state budget over 186 billion VND.<br />
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED:<br />
• In recent years, the situation of the violation of the Law on forest protection<br />
and development is extremely complex, especially against people on duty<br />
also are widespread in many regions rich in forests.<br />
• Land conflicts land disputes between local people and business bodies<br />
(companies and others) in several regions.<br />
• Illegal deforestation is concentrated particularly in forests which (by the<br />
classification) changed from protection function to production forests, and in<br />
the forests under projects of transferring from SFE to local management.<br />
• Illegal logging, illegal timber transport and illegal forest products processing<br />
take place throughout in many areas where the natural forests exist,<br />
especially in areas which are having convenient condition for transportation by<br />
road and river, and in areas with many small-scale wood processing facilities<br />
in and near forest.<br />
• The level of punishment for violations to the legal documents is too soft, so it<br />
has no deterrent effect to offenders, leading to their contempt of law,<br />
challenging the public authorities. The 2009 Amended Criminal Law only<br />
provided for forest deforestation criminal is the highest for 15 years and fines<br />
up to 100 million VND.<br />
• The handling of forest law violations was not strict, doesn’t punish strictly the<br />
instigators.<br />
• If the offender does not abide, they will be enforced to implement decisions on<br />
administrative sanctions under Article 45 of Decree 99/2009/ND-CP. In many<br />
cases when the decision is taken for administrative punishment (for example<br />
encroachment, illegal exploitation of forests, deforestation for cropping, using<br />
a hunting rifle ...), the fines cannot be collected , so rates of fine collection are<br />
usually lower. The cause is that the offenders have low-income,, they belong<br />
to families of poor, ethnic minorities, so the decisions to implement<br />
administrative sanctions (by fine) is not implemented. The consequence is<br />
that the effectiveness of the enforcement decision is lost. Another type of<br />
punishment would be imprisonment.<br />
• Law enforcement was to some extent carried out at the local level, but it still<br />
could not meet the real demands. When a document and/or policy was<br />
released, DARD made an announcement and sent it together with guiding<br />
papers or technical guidelines (if any) to its belonging organizations. However,<br />
few policy-updating meetings were held for relevant staff members, thus<br />
39
district and commune staff members had few chances to get informed about<br />
these policies and papers. As a consequence, staff at district levels (District<br />
Department of Natural Resources and Environment, District Department of<br />
Agriculture and Rural Development), and staff at commune levels (vicechairman/chairwoman<br />
in charge of agriculture and forestry field) had limited<br />
information about forest-relating policies. This constraint was due to the fact<br />
that there was not a sufficient number of staff carrying out forestry activities at<br />
DPC. More over, DPC is merely in charge of state management, and not<br />
assigning forestry activities. At the district level, the Forest Protection Section<br />
was responsible for carrying out the law on forest protection, while forest<br />
companies conducted forest trade activities, and forest protection and<br />
management boards took the roles of forest protection and management.<br />
• At provincial and local level, the following information was gathered.<br />
Implementation of forest policies faced a number of challenges because there<br />
were several constraints in the current law system. For instance, if a staff<br />
member of a forest company discovered illegal logging during his forest<br />
patrol, the only action he could take was to inform the forest protection and<br />
security forces in the area. However, the forest protection and security forces<br />
could not always make themselves available when needed. Due to limited<br />
budget availability, many forest companies could not involve relevant<br />
organizations/parties in fighting against violating cases. This problem also<br />
happened at the commune level because the CPC did not have a budget for<br />
these types of activities. Consequently, both forest protection enforcement<br />
and the development law created limited impacts at the commune and<br />
community levels.<br />
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
• Number of forest-destroy cases.<br />
• Area of destroyed forest.<br />
• Volume/value of seized timber.<br />
• Number of illegal timber transportation cases.<br />
• Volume/value of illegal-transported timber seized.<br />
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
• Number of cases against people on duty.<br />
• Number of forest-destroy cases.<br />
• Area of destroyed forest.<br />
• Volume/value of seized timber.<br />
• Value of illegal-logging means seized.<br />
• Number of illegal timber transportation cases.<br />
• Volume/value of illegal-transported timber seized.<br />
• Value ofillegal-timber-transporting means seized.<br />
• Number of criminal-violation cases.<br />
• Number of contriver-found violations.<br />
• Number of violation punishments that violators do not follow.<br />
3.3.3. Forest fire prevention and fire fighting<br />
40
Box 18: Status on forest fire<br />
• From 2005 to 2009, there has been 3,102 forest fire cases with the<br />
damaged of 11,752 hectares, 2,350 hectares on average damage per<br />
year. Forest area is damaged by fire continuously decreased over the<br />
years and forest fire is controlled actively. Compared with 2005, the area<br />
of damage in 2009 only 34.8%.<br />
• Fired forests are mainly planted forests with tree species like Pine,<br />
Melaleuca, Eucalyptus, Acacia;<br />
• Direct causes of forest fires during the last years are: burning vegetation<br />
for cropping, burning to clean fields for agricultural activities account for<br />
63.7%, using fire for hunting, collecting honey, collecting materials count<br />
for 13.6%, careless use of fire in the forest 6%, and 7.7% of other<br />
causes, and particularly in recently burning forest on purpose (burning<br />
due to conflict, revenge and on purpose) 9%.<br />
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED:<br />
• Decree 09/2006/NĐ-CP dated 16/1/2006 specifies that forest managers who<br />
do not benefit from the state budget have to cover expenses for forest fire<br />
prevention and fire fighting from their own budget. This is a big problem for<br />
forest owners who are households, communities and also the state<br />
enterprises and the management boards of protection forests and special-use<br />
forests. Therefore when the fire occurs, district forest inspection sections and<br />
forest owners face difficulties because there is no accurate budget for<br />
firefighting.<br />
• Budget to support fire prevention and fire fighting at commune level also is<br />
very limited. It depends on the budget of local authorities which is very limited,<br />
too.<br />
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
• Number of forest fire cases.<br />
• Area of forest lost by fire.<br />
• Direct causes of fire.<br />
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
• Number of organizations having fire-prevention and fire-fighting plans, and<br />
resources to implement those plans.<br />
• Number of agreement of forest range units; forest companies; forest<br />
management boards to cooperate with local authorities and communities in<br />
fire-prevention and fire-fighting, signed.<br />
• Number of communes having budget, plan, means and forces for fire<br />
prevention and fire fighting.<br />
3.3.4. Protection forests and special-use forests<br />
Box 19: Protection and special-use forest<br />
According to the FPD report monitoring changes of forest resources, to<br />
41
31/12/2009 the country has 2 million ha of special use forests (of which 1.92<br />
million ha of natural forests and 0.08 million ha planted forest) and 4.83 million<br />
hectares of protection forest (of which 4.24 million ha of natural forests and 0.59<br />
million hectares of planted forest). There are 164 special-use forest management<br />
boards, including 30 national parks, 58 nature-conservation areas, 11 speciesconservation<br />
areas, 45 landscape-conservation areas and 20 scientific<br />
research, experiment areas. Most provinces have the management boards of<br />
protection forests, of which the new management are formed after reviewing<br />
three types of forest following the Directive 38/2005/CT-TTg dated 12/05/2005 of<br />
the Prime Minister.<br />
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED:<br />
• Management boards, in average, have very limited staff capacity (around 7-10<br />
people), funded from the budget of Program 661, therefore they face many<br />
difficulties in managing protection and special-use forests;<br />
• Payment for forest protection service is too low (initially 50,000 vnd/ha/year,<br />
then increased up to 100,000 vnd/ha/year.<br />
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
• Area of protection and special-use forest.<br />
• Number of forest management boards.<br />
• Pay for provided forest-protection service.<br />
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
• Number of forest management boards having forest management plan<br />
(protection and special-use forest).<br />
• Number of forest management boards having forest-patrol plan (protection<br />
and special-use forest).<br />
• Number of patrols conducted vs planned.<br />
• Average of actual income of a staff of forest management boards.<br />
• Number of forest management boards that do not get fund for forest<br />
management on time.<br />
3.3.5. Forest environmental services<br />
Box 20 : Status of forest environmental service<br />
• After nearly 2 years, two provinces Lâm Đồng and Sơn La following<br />
decision No 380/2008/Decision No-TTg on April 10 th 2008 of Government<br />
Prime Minister, the two provinces have screened and updated the<br />
allocated area, contracting to family households, individuals,<br />
organizations, enterprises. Up to February 2010 of implementation there<br />
are 7 hydraulic power plants and clean drinking water supply committed<br />
to pay for 2009 with the total of 234, 4 billion VND and 300 million VND<br />
from tourist units in Lâm Đồng;<br />
• The Government issued Decree No 99/2010/Decree No-CP on<br />
September 24 th 2010 on policy of paying forest environment services<br />
(PES);<br />
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED:<br />
42
• The implementing progress is slow (up to February 2010): in Lâm Đồng just<br />
paying 20, 23% of the pilot area and in Sơn La just with 9/156 communes of<br />
12, 9% of the pilot area. Reason is that the forest status and forest boundary<br />
have not been defined. Besides, catchment’s area and fields are not clear on<br />
maps There is lack of budget to screen forest;<br />
• Confusion in the establishment Forest Protection and Development Fund<br />
(FPDF) in the localities;<br />
• Regulation of “K” factor is difficult when forest quality is not grasped;<br />
• Collaboration with ministries and the pilot localities is not close enough,<br />
especially pilot budget arrangement for the provinces.<br />
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
• Information from box 20 and the information in the first bullit above<br />
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
• Number of provinces having clearly defined principles, calculation method and<br />
procedure for paying for forest environmental service.<br />
• Number of organizations, households who are entitle to get payment for forest<br />
environmental service provided, but payment has not been made.<br />
• Number of provinces having clearly defined area providing forest<br />
environmental services.<br />
• Number of provinces having clearly defined forest status with “K” – pay<br />
coefficient.<br />
• Number of provinces having clearly defined in-the-field forest boundaries of<br />
organizations and households providing forest environmental service.<br />
3.3.6. Forestry finance<br />
Box 21: Status of forestry finance<br />
• Decision 147/2007/ QĐ-TTg dated 10/9/2007 issued by the prime<br />
minister for production forest development.<br />
• Circular 02/2008/TTLT-BKH-NN-TC dated 23/6/2008 jointly issued by<br />
MPI, MARD, and MOF on guidelines for implementation of Decision<br />
147/2007/ QĐ-TTg dated 10/9/2007<br />
• Decree 05/2008/NĐ-CP dated 14/1/2008 issued by the government on<br />
establishment, management and use of fund for forest protection and<br />
development.<br />
• Decision 114/2008/QĐ-BNN dated 28/11/2008 issued by MARD on<br />
establishment of fund for forest protection and development.<br />
• Law on natural resources tax 2009.<br />
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED:<br />
43
Decision 147/2007/ QĐ-TTg dated 10/9/2007<br />
• Article 12 of Decision No 147 is about funding for local budgets Funds are<br />
collected from e.g.: (a) standing tree selling, (b) forest resources tax, (c)<br />
money collected from punishments for violations of laws on forest protection<br />
and development, (d) environment protection fee, (e) fee from hydraulic<br />
power plants to make local budget for production forest development. This<br />
article is not feasible, because:<br />
o Collection from hydraulic power plants is only paid for protecting<br />
watershed forest,<br />
o Standing tree selling money and resource tax collection is not sufficient<br />
(small) to manage and protect the trees and the forest,<br />
o Environment protection fee must be approved by the Government, and<br />
o Money collection of from administrative punishment is mainly put to<br />
local-government budget for other-than-forest purpose and the rest<br />
only can cover some cost of forest protection activities done by the<br />
forest rangers and collaboration with the other forest protection bodies.<br />
• Decision No 147 stipulates total investment for implementation of the decision<br />
is 40,000 billion VND, in which contribution from all economic sectors is<br />
31,000 billion VND, contribution from central government budget is 8,000<br />
billion VND and contribution from local government budget is 1,000 billion<br />
VND. However, in reality contribution for implementation of this decision from<br />
the central government budget hardly reaches amount of 1,000 billion<br />
VND/year.<br />
• For credit policy: Only Vietnam Forest Product Corporation (VINAFOR) and<br />
Vietnam <strong>Paper</strong> Products Corporation (VINAPACO) can access the<br />
concessionary loans. For other enterprises, family households and individuals<br />
who are planting production forest, so far, the access to this kind of credit is<br />
impossible.<br />
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
• Budget information under second bullit.<br />
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
• Number of provinces collecting standing-tree fee.<br />
• Amount of money that forest sector receive from national budget.<br />
• Amount of money that forest sector receive from provincial budget.<br />
• Number of households having access to preferential credit for forestry<br />
activities.<br />
Vietnam fund for forest protection and development<br />
• Vietnam Fund for Forest Protection and Development (VN FFPD) is still is not<br />
operating, as there is no financial resources: it is stipulated that the state<br />
budget supports the fund 100 billion VND as soon as it is established, but so<br />
far it is not sufficient in spites of the fact that 2 years gone after the fund<br />
establishment;<br />
• There is no mechanism to mobilize willingly contribution of international<br />
organizations; organizations, individuals in country and outside the country;<br />
44
• The provincial fund for forest protection and development (FFPD) is not<br />
established there is no guidance from MARD how to get resources for the<br />
fund. Many provincial DARDs have submitted proposals to PPCs requesting<br />
for establishment of the fund, but so far almost is still unsolved.<br />
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
• Amount of money invested in forestry.<br />
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
• Size of the National Forest Protection and Development Fund.<br />
• Number of organizations, individuals providing contributions to the National<br />
Forest Protection and Development Fund.<br />
• Amount that organizations and individuals contributed to the National Forest<br />
Protection and Development Fund.<br />
• Number of provinces established provincial forest protection and development<br />
fund and set up the fund management system.<br />
Law on natural resources tax 2009:<br />
• Tax rate of timber class I and II is higher than all metal mineral and non metal<br />
ones, coal, and natural gas, and from 4 to 7 times higher than tax rate of<br />
natural sea products. Timber is a natural renewable resource, therefore<br />
charge it at a tax rate higher than that of non renewable resources is not<br />
accurate/fair.<br />
• Too high tax rate promotes illegal logging, especially illegal logging of highvalue<br />
timber from natural forest.<br />
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
• Total amount of natural-resource tax paid by forest companies.<br />
• Total amount of natural-resource tax paid by households.<br />
3.4. Program “Forest Products Processing and Trade”<br />
Box 22: Tasks of Program “Forest Products Processing and Trade”<br />
a) Reorganize the wood and NTFP processing industries in order to match<br />
the production capability with the sustainable raw material supply sources.<br />
b) Strengthen the production capacity of forest product processing industry to meet<br />
the basic demands for domestic consumption and for export, which are:<br />
• Total capacity of sawn timber: 6 million m3/year<br />
• Particle board: 320,000 m3 of products/year<br />
• MDF board: 220,000 m3 of products/year<br />
• Value of exported wood products: 7.0 billion USD (3.5 million m3 of<br />
products)<br />
• NTFPs for export: 0.8 billion USD<br />
c) By 2020, NTFPs will become one of the main production commodities,<br />
45
accounting for more than 20% of the total value of forestry production, the<br />
average exported NTFP value will increase 15-20%, attracting 1.5 million<br />
laborers and incomes from NTFPs will comprise 15-20% of the rural household<br />
economy.<br />
Box 23: Status of legal regulation for timber processing and trade<br />
Timber processing and timber trade is governed by Circular 35/2011/TT-<br />
BNNPTNT, dated 20 May 2011, of MARD on timber and NTFP harvesting;<br />
Decision 44/2006/QĐ dated 01 June 2006, of MARD, on managing and using<br />
for-harvesting- timber-mark hammer and forest protection hammer; Decision<br />
59/2005/QĐ-BNN dated 10 October 2005 of MARD, on timber and forest<br />
products control.<br />
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED:<br />
• Control system for timber supply chain ensuring timber legality in line with<br />
FLEGT and Lacey Act requirement.<br />
• There is lacking of an official and comprehensive study on domestic timber<br />
consumption and its market.<br />
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
• Annual export value of timber products.<br />
• Annual import value of imported timber material.<br />
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
• Total number of wood processing companies.<br />
• Number of wood processing companies having timber product exporting<br />
business.<br />
• Number of companies importing timber to Vietnam.<br />
• Volume of from-natural-forest imported timber.<br />
• Volume of from-plantation-forest imported timber.<br />
• Volume of from-domestic-plantation processed into timber products for export.<br />
• Volume of exported wood chip.<br />
• Total volume and value of exported timber products.<br />
3.5. Planning and decision-making processes<br />
46
3.5.1. Forest governance cycle<br />
Sustainably<br />
FOREST<br />
managed forest<br />
GOVERNANCE<br />
& forestry<br />
1 2<br />
Implementation,<br />
Enforcement<br />
and compliance<br />
6<br />
Policy, legal,<br />
institutional<br />
and regulatory<br />
framework 3<br />
Good<br />
Forest<br />
governance<br />
monitoring<br />
5<br />
Bad<br />
Planning &<br />
decision<br />
making process<br />
4<br />
Figure 05: Forest governance cycle<br />
Figure 05 roughly describes forest governance cycle, from three-pillar-relationship<br />
point of view, including planning and decision making process (step 4) producing<br />
policy, legal, institutional and regulatory framework (step 3). Implementation of<br />
policy, legal, institutional and regulatory framework in practice (step 6) brings results<br />
and impact of forest governance (step 1) leading to sustainably managed forest and<br />
forestry (step 2). Besides of that demand from sustainable forest management and<br />
sustainable development of forestry generates needs for new or revision of current<br />
policy, legal, institutional and regulatory framework. In fact the demand generates<br />
inputs for planning and decision making process (step 4). Apart from that monitoring<br />
implementation of the policy, legal, institutional and regulatory framework (step 5)<br />
can bring two kinds of results. If the result is good then current policy, legal,<br />
institutional and regulatory framework can continue. If the result is bad which means<br />
that the implementation of the policy, legal, institutional and regulatory framework<br />
creates bad or negative impacts, then the framework must be revised or a new one<br />
needs to be issued, which generates inputs for step 4 of the process.<br />
3.5.2. Planning and decision making process at national level<br />
47
The planning and decision making process is defined in Law number 17/2008/QH12,<br />
dated 03/06/2008 and consists of steps as follows:<br />
• Needs assessment: Occurrence of needs (new or revision) on policy, legal,<br />
institutional and regulatory framework can be identified by forest governance<br />
practice (found by local people/organizations, found by researchers, found by<br />
working visits, etc).<br />
• Description of need and its rationale: Organization who found the need should<br />
clearly describe the need and its rationale to have new or revised policy, legal,<br />
institutional arrangements.<br />
• Need approved and put into plan: After proven, need will approved and put<br />
into plan to develop new or revise current policy, legal, institutional and<br />
regulatory framework of relevant institutions, organizations (ministries,<br />
government, etc). The plans are reviewed at operational meeting of those<br />
institutions, organizations.<br />
• Development of policy, legal, institutional and regulatory framework and<br />
consultation with stakeholders: Unit who is assigned to develop or revise<br />
policy, legal, institutional and regulatory framework has to develop and get<br />
consultation from stakeholders.<br />
• Monitoring implementation of the plan: Plan to develop or revise policy, legal,<br />
institutional and regulatory framework is reviewed at every operational<br />
meeting of the concerned institutions, organizations. The assigned units must<br />
report progress and result of their works at the meetings.<br />
• Issuance of new or revised policy, legal, institutional and regulatory framework<br />
: After the regulation is developed or revised, it must go through consultation<br />
process with stakeholders, before official issuance by authorized bodies.<br />
It is very clear that (i) quality of finding, describing, identifying the need of new or<br />
revised policy, legal, institutional and regulatory framework, and (ii) quality of<br />
consultation of stakeholders are crucial for getting good policy, legal, institutional and<br />
regulatory framework for forest governance.<br />
Other institutional and regulatory arrangements follow procedure similar to one<br />
mentioned above.<br />
FSSP and the planning and decision making process for policy, legal, institutional<br />
and regulatory framework<br />
FSSP has created many fora, where Government of Viet Nam and international and<br />
domestic partners could exchange information on scientific technology,<br />
management, institutions and policies relating to forestry at national, regional and<br />
global scale. Through information sharing and policy dialogue fora, FSSP has<br />
definitely made remarkable contributions on important issues of the forest sector of<br />
Viet Nam, such as in development of Forest Protection and Development Law 2004,<br />
development and implementation of National Forestry Strategy 2001 – 2010, and<br />
Viet Nam Forestry Development Strategy 2006 – 2020, and other legal documents of<br />
the sector.<br />
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
•<br />
48
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
• Number of needs assessments executed before new policy.<br />
• Number of initiatives on policy, legal, institutional and regulatory framework to-<br />
MARD proposed by FSSP.<br />
• Number of initiatives on policy, legal, institutional and regulatory framework to-<br />
MARD proposed by FSSP considered by MARD.<br />
• Number of initiatives on policy, legal, institutional and regulatory framework to-<br />
MARD proposed by Forestry Regional Network, FSSP.<br />
• Number of initiatives on policy, legal, institutional and regulatory framework to-<br />
MARD proposed by Forestry Regional Network, FSSP considered by MARD.<br />
• Number of initiatives on policy, legal, institutional and regulatory framework to-<br />
MARD proposed by organizations, individuals (including civil society).<br />
• Number of initiatives on policy, legal, institutional and regulatory framework to-<br />
MARD proposed by organizations, individuals (including civil society),<br />
considered by MARD.<br />
• Number of monitoring implementation reports.<br />
• Number of reports on consultations after issuance of new or revised policy,<br />
legal, institutional and regulatory framework.<br />
3.5.3. Planning and decision making at provincial and local level<br />
The inventory for forest for management and protection is generally prepared by<br />
provincial agencies, while the preparation of both a short and medium-term plan is<br />
assigned to authorized organizations at district and commune levels based on the<br />
provincial master plan.<br />
Forest land planning and use specification were clearly indicated in the Land Law<br />
2003, Decree 181/NĐ-CP, and Circular 30 issued by the Ministry of Natural<br />
Resources and Environment (MONRE).<br />
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED:<br />
• The development of an inventory for forest protection and management<br />
mainly depended on professional organizations and statistics data, rarely<br />
involving local people and organizations at district and commune levels. As a<br />
consequence, the feasibility of a forest plan was limited. Concerning the<br />
decision making of how to record the annual volume of logged timber and<br />
changing of land-use purposes, national and provincial agencies are the ones<br />
who formulate and make every decision with little consultation from district<br />
and commune-level organizations.<br />
• The cooperation among in-charge agencies in the vertical axis (from<br />
provincial to district and commune levels) and among ones in horizontal axis<br />
(between professional departments at the same level as provincial and<br />
district) is not always good. This was proved when a large area of forest land<br />
in the Central Highlands was changed into rubber plantations, which was not<br />
indicated in the forest sector’s plan for the 2006-2010 period. The interviews<br />
with the leaders of the provincial forest sector (during the review meeting of<br />
the Central Highlands forestry network on 9 September 2011) indicated that<br />
the decision to change the natural poor forests into rubber plantations was<br />
made in haste, and thus did not receive support from the grass root level.<br />
49
There was even some feedback that went against the decision, especially<br />
those residing in the forest sector. The statistics show that in 2007, the PPC<br />
of Gia Lai province allocated more than 73,000 ha of forest to forest<br />
enterprises in order to convert this forested land to rubber plantations. From<br />
2007 to 2011, Kon Tum and Dak Lak provinces allocated 47,000 ha and<br />
35,000 ha of forested land to forest enterprises to convert the plots into rubber<br />
plantations. Most of these rubber plantations were managed by state<br />
companies or corporations, not by local people.<br />
• Furthermore, there was a lack of transparency in every stage of decisionmaking<br />
process. A specific decision may be well received by one professional<br />
discipline (rubber production), while it failed to get support from the other field<br />
(forestry sector). The report on rubber plantation development by 2010,<br />
created by the Gia Lai People’s Council, pointed out several constraints of this<br />
policy. “Changing natural poor forests into rubber plantations in Gia Lai<br />
province was not a careful decision, which lacked of comprehensive field<br />
research, which resulted in the circumstance that not much land was allocated<br />
for planting rubber compared to its land potentials” (from Baogialai.com.vn).<br />
• The provincial and district policies and regulations on forest and forest land<br />
use were mainly based on ones from the national level. Most of documents<br />
released by provincial agencies were guiding papers which clarified national<br />
policies, not their own initiatives or policies. There was not much ownership or<br />
initiative at the provincial and district levels because they were not<br />
empowered in the decision-making process, even if those decisions were<br />
directly related to their local needs. This indicates that participatory<br />
approaches were rarely used at the local level.<br />
• When asked to point out some constraints of national policies and regulations,<br />
most interviewees could not indicate them distinctly. In general, there were no<br />
serious mistakes in the forestry sector’s policies and regulations (in terms of<br />
clarity of words, and general orientation). However, discussions on the<br />
implementation of policies brought about a number of various, different ideas.<br />
In short, the research team found out that there was a big gap in policy<br />
implementation compared to what was stated by the policy itself. This gap<br />
was due to the low feasibility and effectiveness of the policies because once<br />
the state policies were made without adequate consultation from relevant<br />
stakeholders and local people, they could not create a substantial effect.<br />
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
• Number of ha converted from forest to rubber plantations.<br />
• Number of the state companies and the private companies involved in the<br />
rubber plantation.<br />
• Total amount of investment to rubber plantation and potential number of job<br />
created by planting rubber according to the reports from companies.<br />
• The process of rubber planting after clearing forest/vegetation in comparison<br />
with the plan.<br />
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
• Who are the owners of rubber plantations.<br />
• How many local and poor households allocated land for rubber plantation.<br />
• How many jobs are created by this program.<br />
50
• Impacts of conversion from forest to rubber plantation on biodiversity loss,<br />
and vulnerable group especially ethnic minorities and the poor.<br />
3.6. Implementation, enforcement and compliance<br />
3.6.1. Implementation, enforcement and compliance at national level<br />
Normally the issued legal regulation contains a provision on its implementation<br />
where specifies who is mandatory to implement it and when. After that, depending<br />
on the issued legal regulation itself, a written guideline in form of anther legal<br />
regulation (e.g. circular) or administrative letter will guide how to implement the<br />
issued legal regulation. And in many cases, trainings on the issued legal regulation<br />
implementation are taken place.<br />
The implementation of the issued legal regulation is also reported in operation<br />
meetings to aim (i) for right implementation of the regulation and find opportunities<br />
for improvement of its implementation or gaps that need to be addressed by its<br />
possible revision or even by possible issuing new regulation like described in the<br />
<strong>FGM</strong> cycle (figure 05).<br />
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
• Number of forest-related legal regulations newly issued.<br />
• Number of forest-related legal regulations withdrawn (out of effectiveness).<br />
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
• Number of feedbacks on implementation of legal regulations from Forestry<br />
Regional Network, FSSP to MARD.<br />
• Number of feedbacks on implementation of legal regulations from Forestry<br />
Regional Network, FSSP to MARD, considered by MARD.<br />
• Number of feedbacks on implementation of legal regulations from<br />
organizations, individuals (including civil society) to MARD.<br />
• Number of feedbacks on implementation of legal regulations from<br />
organizations, individuals (including civil society) to MARD, considered by<br />
MARD.<br />
3.6.2. Finance at provincial and local level<br />
Normally the issued legal regulation contains a provision on its implementation<br />
where specifies who is mandatory to implement it and when. After that, depending<br />
on the issued legal regulation itself, a written guideline in form of anther legal<br />
regulation (e.g. circular) or administrative letter will guide how to implement the<br />
issued legal regulation. And in many cases, trainings on the issued legal regulation<br />
implementation are taken place.<br />
The implementation of the issued legal regulation is also reported in operation<br />
meetings to aim (i) for right implementation of the regulation and find opportunities<br />
for improvement of its implementation or gaps that need to be addressed by its<br />
possible revision or even by possible issuing new regulation like described in the<br />
<strong>FGM</strong> cycle (figure 05).<br />
51
At the provincial level, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development<br />
(DARD), together with Forest Protection Sub-Department and Forestry Sub-<br />
Department, which belong directly to DARD, are key agencies in charge of state<br />
management of forest activities. Though placed under the management of technical<br />
and professional aspects from MARD, most of the forestry activities at provincial,<br />
district and commune levels are coordinated by the policies enforced by the<br />
provincial people’s committee (PPC).<br />
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED:<br />
• The annual publication of exploited timber, as well as projects pertaining to<br />
afforestation and forest development, which use the provincial budget, have<br />
shown that although most of forest policies are carried out at provincial and<br />
district levels, there is usually a lack of staff members to perform the assigned<br />
tasks. The number of permanent staff members is based upon the decisions<br />
made by the provincial Department of Home Affairs and the PPC.<br />
• Another interesting finding is that DARD cannot be active in recruiting staff to<br />
carry out the required assignments. Concerning the preparation of provincial<br />
forest production and development plan, DARD is often assumed to be the<br />
agency in charge of plan development, which in turn would be submitted to<br />
the PPC. However, due to technical requirements, the final decision actually<br />
depends greatly on the provincial Department of Finance. The cooperation<br />
between these organizations is not always good, which can create difficulties.<br />
The forestry sector is often less active than it would like to be, especially<br />
under the implementation of its sector plan, due to the dependency on budget.<br />
• This difficulty happens even when the income generated from forest, which in<br />
principle would be used for forest protection and care, cannot be accessed by<br />
the forest sector. This amount of money often goes to the State of Treasure<br />
first, then is allocated through the provincial Department of Finance, based on<br />
its annual budget plan. This creates unnecessary paper work, time-consuming<br />
procedures and roots of bad practices.<br />
• The stagnation in budget allocation causes a delay in planting forests,<br />
resulting in the slow progress of forest development, and bad quality of<br />
plantations. However, those reports failed to explain the reasons for the delay,<br />
which organizations are now blamed for, and consequences in terms of profit<br />
losses and what should be done to fix the problem.<br />
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
• Number of staff members at local and provincial level.<br />
• Procedures for budgeting and budget flows based on the regulation of<br />
Ministry of Finance or the PPC at provincial level.<br />
• Annual forest plantation and forest protection area plan based on the existing<br />
forested area and land available for plantation.<br />
• Annual report of forest production, forest protection area including the number<br />
of forest law violation cases.<br />
• Annual forest production turnover including domestic production and exporting<br />
forest products.<br />
52
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
• Income generated from forest sector of domestic and exporting forest<br />
products.<br />
• Budget allocation and actually transferred funds to the forestry sector based<br />
on the real demand from grass root level, such as the number of forest area<br />
must be protected, the available barred land for forest plantation.<br />
• Number of staff really function well and appropriate with their educated<br />
background and assessment of their performance based on the results of<br />
assigned tasks as well as the feedback from their counterparts at all level.<br />
This measure the accountability of the civil servants downward the local<br />
population and upward to the policy level.<br />
• Training needs assessment should be conducted by the third party in the link<br />
with real demand of forestry sector and the long term education strategy of<br />
forest university and colleges. This assessment also reflects how many<br />
percent of educated student got proper job with their background, and the<br />
number of new staff appointed proper position in the forestry organizations.<br />
• The cost-benefit analysis for the forest production and forest protection if the<br />
budget allocating to the forestry sector delayed.<br />
• Policy analysis for the current mechanism of budgeting process and budget<br />
follows inside and outside forestry sector in order to point out which steps<br />
should be skipped so as to save time and reduce transaction cost.<br />
3.6.3. Forest land management and allocation at provincial and local level<br />
For the field of forest and forest land management, Decision 245/QĐ, enforced by<br />
the Prime Minister in 1998, stated that at the provincial level, “the<br />
chairman/chairwoman of PPC is responsible for reporting to the Prime Minister on<br />
forest and forestry land use, protection and development in the province. DARD is<br />
assigned to assist PPC in carrying out the state management of forest and forest<br />
land. The provincial Department of Forest Protection (FPD) is responsible for<br />
inspecting and monitoring the implementation of laws regarding forest protection and<br />
development within the provincial area. In particular situations, the FPD is<br />
encouraged to cooperate with army and public security forces in the province to<br />
establish a forest patrol, arrest forest violators, and fight against forest fire. The<br />
provincial Department of Land Administration is assigned to help PPC carry out the<br />
state management of forest land” (extracted from Decision 245).<br />
At the provincial level, the PPC is responsible for forest land allocation (FLA) and<br />
issuance of land use right certificates for institutes and organizations, and the district<br />
people’s committee is associated with assignments for individuals, households and<br />
community groups. The Department of Natural Resources and Environment is the<br />
advisory agency in charge of paper work for FLA process.<br />
The Decision 245/QD on the state management of forest and forestry land, which<br />
should be carried out by commune people’s committee (CPC) indicates that:<br />
The chairman/chairwoman of commune people’s committee is responsible for<br />
reporting to the chairman/chairwoman of the district people’s committee about forest<br />
protection and management, and forest land use within the area of its commune.<br />
a) Management of forest and forested land occur within a commune’s area, in<br />
terms of the list of forest owners, forest area and borders, forest land<br />
allocation (FLA) papers, forest protection contracts, rehabilitation and<br />
53
afforestation activities among organizations, households and individuals in the<br />
commune.<br />
b) There will be instructions given to villages and communities in order to<br />
prepare and carry out the rules on forest protection and management; and<br />
planting forests for use which should be in line with current regulations.<br />
c) Based on the district’s inventory and plan, the CPC is in charge of making<br />
plans and checking inventory for forest protection and development, forest<br />
land use; preparing the FLA options, which should be first sent to the<br />
commune people’s council for their comments, and then submitted to DPC;<br />
and carrying out FLA process among organizations, households, and<br />
individuals according to the instructions of DPC, while setting the landmarks in<br />
the field among forest owners.<br />
d) Keeping records of forest and forested land change in order to write reports<br />
for the authorized organizations; regularly inspecting forests and forested land<br />
use by organizations, households and individuals in the commune.<br />
e) Cooperating with forest rangers, public security and army forces, and<br />
communities to protect forests in the commune, efficiently preventing any<br />
action that many lead to destroying forests.<br />
f) Making awareness campaigns on forest fire control, and involving relevant<br />
organizations and security forces to assist forest owners to fight against forest<br />
fires in the commune.<br />
g) Distributing fines to any violations against forest protection and management<br />
policies based upon legalized rights and responsibilities.<br />
h) Solving any disputes about forest and forested land within the commune area.<br />
(Extracted from Decision 245/QĐ-TTg)<br />
Issues that need attention:<br />
• The field trips in two provinces showed that the majority of field inventory and<br />
measurement and a part of FLA paper work were carried out by forestry<br />
organizations (Forest Companies, provincial Forest Inventory and Planning<br />
Institutes). Another fact found in the areas visited by researchers was that the<br />
management of forest and forest land allocation was not given adequate<br />
attention by the authorized organizations. This management task is not even<br />
considered as an official and regular assignment. Instead, it is only performed<br />
if there is an evaluation and inspection mission.<br />
• Most forest companies in the Central Highlands have not been given land use<br />
right certification for the land areas that they have been cultivating and<br />
managing since their date of establishment. One of many reasons for this is<br />
that those companies could not afford the fees of issuance of a land use right<br />
certificate. This obstacle made those companies fail to access bank loans for<br />
their production development. This difficulty has existed for a long time, right<br />
from the date when the Decision on reforming state forest enterprises came<br />
into effect (Decision 187/QĐ-TTg 1999, and later revised one 200/NĐ-CP<br />
2004).<br />
• The management of forest and forest land at the district level, by the time the<br />
research group carried out this study, was based on Decision 245/QĐ-TTg,<br />
also enforced by the Prime Minister in 1998, on decentralization within forest<br />
management. In reality, there has been no document/paper instructing the<br />
responsibilities and rights of forest activities. As a consequence, a couple of<br />
organizations at district level were not consulted during the process of project<br />
54
design and development relating to changing land use purposes, including<br />
forest land. It can be understood that though districts and communes are<br />
greatly associated with forest management within their area, they did not play<br />
a role in the decision making process. They did not have a budget for carrying<br />
out activities and lacked staff to carry out assignments. In general, Decision<br />
245 failed to bring its effect and significance of decentralization of forest<br />
management into life. However, it has been ten years since the the Decision<br />
was issued, and no official evaluation has been made to figure out the effect<br />
of this Decision.<br />
• In order to carry out all the above-mentioned assignments (ranging from” a” to<br />
“h”), there must be enough permanent staff members at CPC. However, most<br />
of those assignments were not implemented at the communal level. The<br />
reason being that only forested communes where a “ forest team’’ was set<br />
up were able to perform the tasks. The team members included a vicechairman/chairwoman<br />
of CPC, who often took the position of team leader,<br />
head of commune public security force, and some other members from army<br />
groups. Still, the team leader was often the only person to receive a monthly<br />
allowance of around VND 80,000. Though the CPC had to carry out the state<br />
management of forests in its area, they did not receive salary, and could not<br />
make decisions if any problems arose. For instance, if the commune forest<br />
team established a forest patrol and discovered a case of illegal logging, they<br />
would confiscate the tools and illegal timber, and bring them all to CPC’s<br />
venue. However, all the illegal timber would be sold by another authorized<br />
district agency (District Section of Forest Protection and District Department of<br />
Finance). The profit gained from selling the illegal timber was out of the<br />
control of the CPC and the CPD was left to pay the forest patrol fees and<br />
collect the illegally logged timber. This left the CPC unmotivated to protect the<br />
forests because they did not make any profit.<br />
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
• Number hectares of forest and land allocated to the state forest companies,<br />
local people and communities and its existing land use.<br />
• The roles and responsibilities for forest management at all levels province,<br />
district and commune indicated in Decision 245/TTg.<br />
• The volumes of timber logged yearly based on the demand of the province<br />
which approved by People Council Committee and MARD at central level.<br />
• The total area of new plantation made from government funding sources<br />
(normally from state forest companies for production forest, and state budget<br />
for protection forest), and the number of tress planted scatter of the year.<br />
• Number hectares of deforestation and forest fire around the year in the<br />
province.<br />
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
• Information on amounts obtained by selling illegally logged timber.<br />
• The effectiveness of forest and land used by state forest companies.<br />
• Number of state forest companies got land certificate (red book), and how<br />
many of them can mortgaged it for loan from the bank.<br />
• Information from assessment of allocated forestland to the local people and<br />
communities.<br />
• The area of new plantation made by the private sector and individuals.<br />
55
• Analysis and impact assessment of forestland allocation policy and the<br />
performance at province, district and commune level to explore how the<br />
policies, regulations functioning on the ground.<br />
• Information of feedback from district, and commune level about the<br />
implementation of Decision 245/TTg in term of forest management<br />
decentralization process.<br />
3.6.4. Coherence and cooperation at local and provincial level<br />
The cooperation among relevant organizations in carrying out state policies within<br />
the vertical axis was relatively good, as indicated by most of the interviewees and<br />
discussion groups. Nevertheless, the cooperation among agencies in the horizontal<br />
axis still faced a great deal of challenges. For instance, there were a lot of<br />
differences in the forest resources and land data recorded by DARD and provincial<br />
Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DONRE). When asked about<br />
the differences, these two agencies gave reasonable explanations based on their<br />
own viewpoints.<br />
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
• The guidelines, and policy direction mentioned generally about cooperation,<br />
collaboration among government organizations, departments during carrying<br />
out the policies.<br />
• Number of committees mixed members from different department to regulate<br />
certain projects and programs for forest development.<br />
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
• Transparent of policy development process including budgeting and cost<br />
benefit analysis for all forest management and development project with<br />
cleared tasks and responsibility of each actors involved.<br />
• Number of time that head of different department have meeting to deal with<br />
crucial issues happening in the province, and district levels.<br />
• The information/data jointly published by two or more government agencies.<br />
• Frequency of the regular meetings, and the ad hoc meeting held among the<br />
departments at province level.<br />
3.6.5. Staff capacities at provincial and district level<br />
Concerning the capacity of local forestry organizations, results from interviews and<br />
group discussions indicated that provincial agencies/organizations were well trained<br />
and capable of completing their tasks. Each professional discipline was managed by<br />
given organizations and agencies. Provincial staff members often received good<br />
training based on the human resource development strategy of forest sector.<br />
Issue that needs attention:<br />
• At the district and commune levels, staff members were not qualified enough.<br />
Moreover, there were not sufficient numbers of staff working for the forest<br />
sector. This was because of a budget shortage and preparations for<br />
permanent staff members. Another reason was that many people assumed<br />
that the forest sector was not a productive field.<br />
56
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
• Number of staff working for forestry sector at province, district and commune<br />
level and their education level (technician, engineer, and post-graduation).<br />
• Number of training courses provided to the local staff yearly.<br />
• Number of staff got refreshing courses for their professional.<br />
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
• Capacity building efforts at district and commune level.<br />
• Percent of new staff appointed proper to their background in forestry sector.<br />
• Training need assessment at district and commune levels.<br />
• Amount of time that staff at district and commune level really involved in<br />
forestry activities rather than the other tasks.<br />
• Information about local educated students come back home to work in<br />
forestry sector and the seasons.<br />
• Job competition and the opportunity for staff working in forestry sector based<br />
on the statistic information in the past (it should be available in the personnel<br />
section of the district).<br />
3.7. Main initiatives relevant to <strong>FGM</strong> in Vietnam<br />
3.7. 1. FLEGT and VPA<br />
FLEGT and VPA is relevant to <strong>FGM</strong> because it is towards transparent and cleanfrom-illegal-timber<br />
supply chain which involve participation of stakeholders from<br />
private sector in timber processing, timber trading (domestic and imported) industry<br />
and forest mangers harvesting timber that joins the timber supply chain. But this<br />
initiative, as mentioned in previous chapter, is in an early stage.<br />
Box 24: Status of FLEGT and VPA in Vietnam<br />
• Vietnam established organizations relevant to VPA negotiation, including<br />
Steering Committee, Negotiation Mission/Technical Working Group,<br />
FLEGT and Lacy Act Standing Office, working groups.<br />
• Completed three important researches, providing input information for the<br />
VPA negotiation and other related activities, including (i) Domestic and<br />
imported timber flows in Vietnam, (ii) Timber legality definition, and (iii)<br />
Stakeholders analysis in Vietnam.<br />
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED:<br />
• Complete VPA negotiation and sign VPA by end of 2012.<br />
• Establish and run the timber legality assurance system (TLAS).<br />
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
•<br />
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
57
• Number of organizations/individuals trained in FLEGT, VPA, EU Timber<br />
Regulation 995/2010 and Lacey Act.<br />
• Number of organizations/individuals consulted during VPA negotiation/VPA<br />
implementation.<br />
• Number of initiatives/suggestions/requests from organizations/individuals<br />
contributed to VPA negotiation/VPA implementation.<br />
• Number of companies having COC certificate.<br />
• Number of companies having FSC FM certificate.<br />
• Total forest area FSC FM certified.<br />
• Number of organizations/individuals competent to provide consultancy in<br />
timber supply according to COC requirement.<br />
• Number of organizations/individuals competent enough to provide<br />
consultancy in forest management according to FSC FM requirement.<br />
• Number of organizations/individuals trained in TLAS.<br />
• Number of organizations/individuals competent enough to verify timber supply<br />
chain according to TLAS requirement.<br />
• Number of organizations competent enough to do FLEGT licensing for timber<br />
products exported to EU.<br />
• Number of organizations competent enough to conduct independent<br />
monitoring for TLAS.<br />
• Volume of legal/controlled/certified timber imported into Vietnam.<br />
• Number of shipments need to be licensed for export to EU market.<br />
• Number of companies competent enough to get “operator-based licenses” for<br />
their timber products exported to EU market.<br />
• Volume/value of timber products exported to each of 27 countries of EU.<br />
3.7.2. <strong>REDD</strong>+<br />
<strong>REDD</strong>+ is relevant to <strong>FGM</strong> because it is towards sustainably managed forest in<br />
country and also to purpose of preventing leakage. But this initiative, as mentioned in<br />
previous chapter, is also in very early stage.<br />
Box 25: Status of <strong>REDD</strong> in Vietnam<br />
Established:<br />
• National Steering Committee for <strong>REDD</strong>;<br />
• <strong>REDD</strong> Standing Office;<br />
• National <strong>REDD</strong>+ Network;<br />
• Sub-technical working groups (STWG):<br />
o STWG on <strong>REDD</strong> governance (STWG-Governance);<br />
o STWG on measurement, reporting and verification (STWG-MRV);<br />
o STWG on finance and benefit distribution system (STWG-BDS)<br />
o STWG on local implementation of <strong>REDD</strong> (STWG-LI).<br />
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED<br />
• National <strong>REDD</strong> program<br />
• <strong>REDD</strong> governance;<br />
• Forest data, forest inventory, data management;<br />
58
• Monitoring, reporting, verification;<br />
• Finance and benefit distribution;<br />
• Implementation of <strong>REDD</strong> at district and community level.<br />
What is monitored/ measured already?<br />
•<br />
What needs to monitored/measured in the future?<br />
• Number of forest companies/forest management boards competent enough<br />
(meeting all conditions) to join <strong>REDD</strong>+.<br />
• Total forest area meeting all conditions to join <strong>REDD</strong>+.<br />
• Number of communities competent enough (meeting all conditions) to join<br />
<strong>REDD</strong>+.<br />
• Number of forest companies, forest management boards having forest area<br />
with defined c-stock.<br />
• Total area of forest having defined c-stock.<br />
• Number of communities having established system for from-<strong>REDD</strong>+ benefit<br />
distribution (BDS).<br />
• Number of provinces having established system for measuring, reporting and<br />
verification (MRV).<br />
• Number of forest companies, forest management boards participate in carbon<br />
voluntary market.<br />
• Total C-stock of Vietnam forest.<br />
• Total amount of money received from <strong>REDD</strong>+.<br />
59
Chapter 4: <strong>FGM</strong> ASSESSED BY 3 PILLARS AND 6<br />
PRINCIPLES – MAIN FINDINGS<br />
During interviews, after discussion about the current status and issues of <strong>FGM</strong>,<br />
interviewees were requested to assess Vietnam <strong>FGM</strong> by using the 3 pillars and the 6<br />
principles of the FAO framework and by giving score rating to each principle in each<br />
pillar. See box 26.<br />
Box 26: Score rating<br />
0 = If there is no sign that <strong>FGM</strong> considers the principle. Score 0 is 0% when<br />
transferred to 100% mark scale.<br />
1 = If there is sign that a minor part of the principle is considered by <strong>FGM</strong>.<br />
Score 1 is 33% when transferred to 100% mark scale.<br />
2 = If there is sign that a major part of the principle is considered by <strong>FGM</strong>.<br />
Score 2 is 66% when transferred to 100% mark scale.<br />
3 = If there is sign that the principle is fully considered by <strong>FGM</strong>. Score 3 is<br />
100% when transferred to 100% mark scale.<br />
Because the principles are not indicators having measurement unit the assessment<br />
of the interviewees is their perception. However, on one side, the interviewees are<br />
experts in their FG and <strong>FGM</strong>-related working area and, on the other side, their<br />
judgment was done after a long discussion with the consultant and on top of that<br />
they had to explain their own score rate by giving their own evidences and<br />
arguments. The evidence and arguments sourced from their own practice, their<br />
working experiences, as well as their expectations how a good FG and <strong>FGM</strong> in<br />
Vietnam should be.<br />
For instance, about the principle “Effectiveness”, person rated it with score 3 argued<br />
that FG and <strong>FGM</strong> is under a national driven process ownership and firm commitment<br />
and a strong political and societal will to manage forests sustainably and to monitor<br />
forest governance with evidence that FG and <strong>FGM</strong> considerably contributed to<br />
increase of the forest cover from 27.2 % in 1990 up to 39.1% in 2009 and millions of<br />
households in mountainous areas received land and thanks to that they got rid of<br />
poverty. But the “Effectiveness” is rated by another interview with score 1 with other<br />
arguments that FG and <strong>FGM</strong> is without integration with the country’s sustainable<br />
development strategies, inter-sectoral approaches, and evidences of weak<br />
effectiveness is problematic conversion of natural forest to rubber plantation and<br />
60
other non-forest purposes, and responsibilities and beneficiary policy for people<br />
managing allocated is not clear enough.<br />
In terms of gathering all possible information on FG and <strong>FGM</strong> in Vietnam, both<br />
people mentioned here provided the consultant with a very good help in getting<br />
multi-vision and multi-experience based information. Therefore with the score rating<br />
for 3 pillars and 6 principles, the consultant at least achieved two purposes: (i) know<br />
how overall <strong>FGM</strong> in Vietnam is seen by the deeply- in-<strong>FGM</strong>-involved people, and (ii)<br />
all arguments and evidences of the interviewees to back their own score rating are<br />
really good ideas and suggestions for how a good <strong>FGM</strong> in Vietnam should be.<br />
Figure 06 describes result of the score rating mentioned above. Following that 27%<br />
of the interviewees rated <strong>FGM</strong> in Vietnam with score 1, while another 62% consider<br />
that the <strong>FGM</strong> is entitle with the score 2, and only 11% of them given the <strong>FGM</strong> the<br />
score 3.<br />
Figure 06: Forest Governance Monitoring – Assessed by Score Rating<br />
Figure 07 reflects result of <strong>FGM</strong> assessment (as mentioned above) by 6 principles.<br />
According to that principle “Transparency” is rated at 56% (56/100 mark) which is the<br />
lowest, from lowest to highest, then follow by “Accountability” and “Participation” both<br />
at 60% (60/100 mark), “Fair/Equity” and “Effectiveness” at 63% (63/100 mark), and<br />
finally and highest is “Efficiency” at 67% (67/100 mark).<br />
61
Figure 07: Forest Governance Monitoring – Assessed y 6 Principles<br />
Data on the figure 07 advise us that if Vietnam wants to improve its <strong>FGM</strong> the<br />
prioritized focus should be more on “Transparency”, (ii) “Accountability” and<br />
“Participation” than other principles.<br />
Figure 08 is scoring result of the pillar 1 “Policy, legal, institutional and regulatory<br />
framework”. The data on the figure shows that 3 principles including “Transparency”,<br />
“Accountability” and “Participation” have the lowest mark 63% (63/100 mark), then<br />
“Efficiency” 67% (67/100 mark) and finally “Fair/Equity” and (Effectiveness” both at<br />
70% (70/100 mark).<br />
Data of pillar 1 assessment once again advise that if Vietnam wants to improve its<br />
<strong>FGM</strong> the prioritized focus should be more on “Transparency”, (ii) “Accountability”<br />
and “Participation” than other principles.<br />
62
Figure 08: Pillar 1 “Policy, legal, institutional and regulatory framework” – Assessed<br />
by 6 principles<br />
Figure 09 describes scoring result of the pillar 2 “Planning and decision making<br />
process” which shows that “Transparency” gets 52% (52/100 mark), “Accountability”<br />
scored at 59% (59/100 mark), are the lowest ones. All three “Effectiveness”,<br />
“Participation”, “Fair/Equity” reached 63% (63/100 mark). And the highest one is<br />
“Efficiency” 67% 67/100 mark).<br />
Data of pillar 2 assessment once again tell us if Vietnam wants to improve its <strong>FGM</strong><br />
the prioritized focus should be more on “Transparency”, (ii) “Accountability” than<br />
other principles.<br />
63
Figure 09: Pillar 2 “Planning and decision making process” – Assessed by 6<br />
principles<br />
In the Figure 10 we can see “Transparency” scored at 52% (51/100 mark) which is<br />
very lowest and very low. This means that if Vietnam wants to improve its <strong>FGM</strong> the<br />
first priority focus should be “Transparency”.<br />
Figure 10: Pillar 3 “Implementation, enforcement and compliance” – Assessed by 6<br />
principles<br />
The Table 01 is overall assessment by scoring whole <strong>FGM</strong> and each pillar by the 6<br />
principles. The data clearly show that the first attention in strengthening <strong>FGM</strong> should<br />
be paid to (i) “Transparency”, (ii) “Accountability”, and (iii) “Participation”.<br />
64
Table 01: Overall assessment by 6 principles<br />
PRINCIPLE <strong>FGM</strong> PILLAR 1 PILLAR 2 PILLAR 3 AVERAGE<br />
Transparency 56% 63% 52% 52% 56%<br />
Accountability 60% 63% 59% 59% 60%<br />
Effectiveness 63% 70% 63% 56% 63%<br />
Participation 60% 63% 63% 56% 60%<br />
Fair/Equity 63% 70% 63% 56% 63%<br />
Efficiency 67% 67% 67% 67% 67%<br />
65
Chapter 5: STRENGTHENING FOREST GOVERNANCE<br />
MONITORING IN VIETNAM<br />
5.1. <strong>FGM</strong> is new for Vietnam<br />
The term of forest governance has not been officially used in the legal documents of<br />
the forestry sector, at least at the provincial, district and commune levels. The targets<br />
in forest monitoring and evaluation, which have been used by the forest sector,<br />
mainly focus on technical aspects such as forest cover, area of plantation forests,<br />
and volume of logged timber. Meanwhile, there is still a lack of targets relating to the<br />
transparency in policy making, the extent of involvement in forest activities, or<br />
gender equity in forest land allocation. There are no specific policies and regulations<br />
for forest governance monitoring, nor implementation instruction at the local level.<br />
The results from the interviews conducted in Dak Lak and Thua Thien Hue provinces<br />
indicated that the annual report from the forest sectors contains a great deal of<br />
information on forest governance, nevertheless the information is general and lack<br />
specific targets, foundation and a performance guide.<br />
5.2. Current indicator systems for Vietnam forest sector<br />
Current indicator systems for Vietnam forest sector are structured as a pyramid. At<br />
national level, indicators are the highest synthetic mode. From national level down to<br />
sectoral, provincial, and local level those indicators split off to detailed indicators.<br />
5.2.1. Indicators of the General Statistics Office (GSO)<br />
The GSO indicator system is formed in line with the Decision 305/2005/QDTTg,<br />
dated 24 November 2005 of the Prime Minister. This system consists of 24 groups of<br />
indicators. Forest sector indicators belong to group number 9 (agricultural and<br />
fishery indicators according to Vietnam classification) which includes 17 indicators,<br />
namely from 0901 to 0917. But there are only 3 indicators for the forest sector which<br />
are: Production value of forestry-0901, area of newly planted forest-0912, and<br />
volume of harvested timber-0913.<br />
5.2.2. Indicator system of MARD<br />
MARD indicator system is formed according to Decision 71/2006/QD-BNN of MARD<br />
dated 14 September 2006, containing 19 groups with 231 indicators including 18<br />
indicators for the forest sector, classified in group 3. See table 02.<br />
Table 02: 18 indicators of MARD for the forest sector<br />
No<br />
Indicator Name<br />
Time<br />
period of<br />
reporting<br />
Organization<br />
leading in &<br />
reporting<br />
Information<br />
source<br />
A B D E F<br />
66
45<br />
Current status of<br />
forest land<br />
Year FPD PFPD<br />
46 Area of current forest<br />
Year/5<br />
years<br />
FPD/FIPI<br />
PFPD/FIPI<br />
48 Forest cover Year FPD PFPD<br />
49 Area of lost forest Month FPD PFPD<br />
50<br />
Forest<br />
force<br />
protection<br />
Year FPD PFPD<br />
51<br />
Ratio of special-use<br />
forest conserved<br />
Year FPD PFPD<br />
52<br />
List of rare and<br />
endanged of forest<br />
plants and animals<br />
Year FPD PFPD<br />
53<br />
Timber<br />
stock<br />
standing<br />
5 years DoF FIPI<br />
54<br />
Area of newly planted<br />
forest<br />
Month<br />
DoF<br />
PDoF,<br />
DARD<br />
55<br />
Area of planted forest<br />
after harvesting<br />
Month<br />
DoF<br />
PDoF,<br />
DARD<br />
56<br />
Area of forest under<br />
enrichment<br />
Month<br />
DoF<br />
PDoF,<br />
DARD<br />
57<br />
Area of forest under<br />
enrichment became<br />
forest<br />
Month<br />
DoF<br />
PDoF,<br />
DARD<br />
58<br />
Number of scattered<br />
planted trees<br />
Quarter<br />
DoF<br />
PDoF,<br />
DARD<br />
59<br />
Area of forest under<br />
protection<br />
Month<br />
DoF<br />
PDoF,<br />
DARD<br />
60<br />
Volume of harvested<br />
and forest products<br />
harvested<br />
6 months DoF<br />
PDoF,<br />
DARD<br />
67
61<br />
Area of clear-cut<br />
plantation<br />
Year<br />
DoF<br />
PDoF,<br />
DARD<br />
62<br />
Volume, industrial<br />
value of timber and<br />
other forest products<br />
processing<br />
6 months DoF<br />
PDoF,<br />
DARD<br />
63<br />
Investment<br />
sylvicultural works<br />
in<br />
Year<br />
DoF<br />
PDoF,<br />
DARD<br />
5.2.3. Indicator system to monitor implementation of Vietnam Forestry<br />
Development Strategy 2006-2010 of VNFOREST, MARD (see table 03)<br />
Table 03: List of 72 forest-sector indicators (FOMIS)<br />
No CODE INDICATOR<br />
1. OVERALL OBJECTIVE AND IMPACTS INDICATORS<br />
1 1.1 Existing forest areas FPD<br />
2 1.2 Forest cover FPD<br />
3 1.3<br />
Gross domestic product (GDP) contributions from the forest<br />
sector<br />
GSO<br />
4 1.4 Poverty rate of forested areas GSO<br />
2. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE INDICATORS<br />
2.1 Economic objectives and outcome indicators<br />
5 2.1.1 Gross forest output value GSO<br />
6 2.1.2 The structure of forest output value GSO<br />
7 2.1.3 Timber volume FIPI<br />
8 2.1.4<br />
Investment in forestry at current and constant price by<br />
ownership<br />
Future<br />
9 2.1.5 Profit from planting 1 ha of forest Future<br />
2.2 Social objectives and outcome indicators<br />
10 2.2.1 Number of poor communes under Program 135 CoITS<br />
11 2.2.2 Area of allocated and leased forestland MoNRE<br />
12 2.2.3 Average monthly income per capita GSO<br />
13 2.2.4<br />
Number of annual jobs in forestry (created by the Program 661<br />
and wood processing sector)<br />
2.3 Environmental objectives and outcome indicators<br />
DoFD<br />
14 2.3.1<br />
No. of forest fauna and flora species that are rare of endangered<br />
(threatened with extinction)<br />
FPD<br />
15 2.3.2 Rate of forest cover by elevation and slope FIPI<br />
16 2.3.3<br />
Rate of crown cover and number of forest layers in protection<br />
forest<br />
Future<br />
17 2.3.4 Area of forestland threatened by desertification Future<br />
3. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS<br />
68
3.1 Sustainable forest management and development program<br />
18 3.1.1 Area of land planned as forest land to 2010 MoNRE<br />
19 3.1.2 Area of land for natural regeneration DoFD<br />
20 3.1.3 Land planned for new forest plantation MoNRE<br />
21 3.1.4 Area of production forests DoFD<br />
22 3.1.5 Area of annual newly planted forests DoFD<br />
23 3.1.6 Area of annual forests re-planted after harvesting DoFD<br />
24 3.1.7 Area of land for natural regeneration that has become forest DoFD<br />
25 3.1.8 Number of scattered trees planted each year DoFD<br />
26 3.1.9 Area of certified production forests DoFD<br />
27 3.1.10 Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) DoFD<br />
28 3.1.11<br />
Area of forest that has approved plan for forest protection and<br />
development<br />
Future<br />
3.2 Forest protection, biodiversity conservation and environmental services development<br />
program<br />
29 3.2.1 Area of protection forests FPD<br />
30 3.2.2 Area of special-use forests FPD<br />
31 3.2.3 Area of forests under forest protection contracts FPD<br />
32 3.2.4 No. of forest rangers working at commune level FPD<br />
33 3.2.5 Area of damaged forests FPD<br />
34 3.2.6 No. of Forest Protection and Development Law violation cases FPD<br />
35 3.2.7 No. of villages having forest protection conventions FPD<br />
36 3.2.8 Total values of environmental services of forests (collected) Future<br />
3.3 Forest products processing and trade program<br />
37 3.3.1 Harvested timber volume DoFU<br />
38 3.3.2 Volume of harvested NTFPs DoFU<br />
39 3.3.3 Volume of harvested fuel wood GSO<br />
40 3.3.4 Gross output values of wood processing industry GSO<br />
41 3.3.5 Export value of forestry sector GSO<br />
42 3.3.6 Value of imported wood and wood materials GSO<br />
43 3.3.7 Productivity of main forest products from the processing industry GSO<br />
44 3.3.8<br />
Areas (and gross outputs) of agroforestry production in the<br />
forestland<br />
Future<br />
45 3.3.9 Gross outputs of wood and NTFP of craft villages Future<br />
46 3.3.10 Price index for main forest products Future<br />
47 3.3.11 Total value of retail sale of forest products Future<br />
3.4 Research, education, training, and forestry extension program<br />
48 3.4.1 No. of people working in forest science and technology DoST<br />
49 3.4.2 No. of seed species to be certified DoFD<br />
69
No. of scientific research results post-tested and transferred or<br />
50 3.4.3 applied into production<br />
DoST<br />
51 3.4.4 No. of agro-forestry extension staff CoIST<br />
52 3.4.5<br />
No. of forestry students (in vocational, technician, high schools<br />
and universities)<br />
HRD<br />
53 3.4.6 No. of government staff working in forestry sector are re-trained Future<br />
54 3.4.7<br />
55 3.4.8<br />
No. of on-farm farmers to assess and benefit from in forestry<br />
and agriculture activities<br />
No. of farmers participated in voluntary forestry extension<br />
groups<br />
3.5 Renovation of the forestry sector institutions, policies, planning and monitoring<br />
program<br />
56 3.5.1<br />
No. of laborers in forestry-related economic and administrative<br />
agencies<br />
Future<br />
Future<br />
CoIST<br />
57 3.5.2 Number of forest product processing enterprises GSO<br />
FSSPCO<br />
58 3.5.3<br />
Number of SFEs converted to forestry companies/ enterprises<br />
(Decree 200) and management area<br />
59 3.5.4 Value of fixed assets of forestry production enterprises GSO<br />
60 3.5.5 Number of households working in forestry GSO<br />
61 3.5.6 No. of forest farms, laborers and management area GSO<br />
62 3.5.7 Revenue of forest farms GSO<br />
63 3.5.8<br />
No. of cooperatives participating in forest<br />
management/protection and forest areas managed<br />
Future<br />
64 3.5.9<br />
No. of village communities participating in forest management/<br />
protection and managed forest areas<br />
4. INPUT INDICATORS<br />
4.1 Financial investment<br />
Future<br />
65 4.1.1 Total basic construction investment capital for the forestry sector CoIST<br />
FSSPCO<br />
66 4.1.2 No. of ODA projects in forestry sector (signed, implemented)<br />
67 4.1.3<br />
Total value of FDI projects in forestry sector (signed,<br />
implemented)<br />
FSSPCO<br />
68 4.1.4 Investment in forest science and technology DoST<br />
69 4.1.5 Outputs values for silvicultural investment DoFD<br />
4.2 Human resource development<br />
70 4.2.1 Expenditures on forest extension CoIST<br />
71 4.2.2 No. of people in working age in rural areas GSO<br />
70
72 4.2.3 Expenditure on forest training, education HRD<br />
5.3. Strengthening <strong>FGM</strong> in Vietnam – a set of proposed indicators<br />
Based on results of the analysis of related documentation and interviews, issues to<br />
be addressed and monitoring needs the strengthening <strong>FGM</strong> in Vietnam may<br />
consider indicators suggested, by the consultant, listed in table 04. The proposed<br />
indicators are in line with area of the Vietnam Forestry Development Strategy 2006-<br />
2020 and issues that need to be addressed and monitoring needs, as summarized in<br />
the chapter 3 of this report, to get better implementation of the strategy.<br />
Criteria for proposal of the indicators are as:<br />
1. Strengthening <strong>FGM</strong> is to improve quality of FG for implementation of<br />
programs of Vietnam Forestry Development Strategy 2006-2020;<br />
2. Strengthening <strong>FGM</strong> should be appropriate to forestry sector administration<br />
system, in terms of sectoral, multi-sectoral and geographical aspects;<br />
3. Strengthening <strong>FGM</strong> should not require to much additional resources;<br />
4. Strengthening <strong>FGM</strong> should be appropriate to FAO framework so that <strong>FGM</strong> in<br />
Vietnam can be, to certain extent, similar with global <strong>FGM</strong>.<br />
Total number of proposed indicators is 150, including 16 areas as bellows:<br />
• General indicators;<br />
• Forestry land and 3 types of forest;<br />
• Forest and forest land rental and allocation;<br />
• State forest enterprise restructuring;<br />
• Timber harvesting from natural forests;<br />
• Conversion of natural forest into rubber plantation and other purposes;<br />
• Beneficiary policy;<br />
• Forest Protection;<br />
• Handling of violations related to forest;<br />
• Forest fire prevention and fire fighting;<br />
• Protection forests and special-use forests;<br />
• Forest environment services ;<br />
• Forestry finance;<br />
• Forest Products Processing and Trade.<br />
• FLEGT và VPA;<br />
• <strong>REDD</strong>.are<br />
71
In the table 04, indicator number is in the column A. Area of the <strong>FGM</strong> concern is in<br />
the column B. Indicator name is in the column C. Indicator measurement unit is in<br />
the column D. The column E is about availability of the indicators information as<br />
follows: “Y” means the information is available, “N” means the indicator information is<br />
not available, and “P” means the indicator information is partially available. The<br />
column F is about organization leading for information collection and reporting for<br />
indicators. The column G is about reporting period which, at national level, is one<br />
year. However, at lower levels, is can be shorter according to different kinds of<br />
organizations and their monitoring needs. The column H is about “code” of indicators<br />
within FAO forest governance monitoring framework.<br />
The set of proposed indicators do not require establishment of a new agency,<br />
because all indicators can be integrated into roles and tasks of the current<br />
organizations. Furthermore most of indicators having “count” as measuring unit<br />
therefore the proposed system do nor require much additional resources. Major part<br />
of information needed for the proposed indicators can be provided if organizations<br />
have a standard documentation system for their day-to-day operations.<br />
In terms of method and methodology of collection and treatment, FORMIS and NFA<br />
projects can support the <strong>FGM</strong> through their action plan and pilot case studies.<br />
72
Table 04: Indicators proposed for strengthening <strong>FGM</strong> in Vietnam<br />
No AREA OF <strong>FGM</strong> SUGGESTED INDICATOR UNIT INFORMA<br />
TION<br />
AVAILABIL<br />
ITY (Y/N/P)<br />
ORGANIZ<br />
ATION IN<br />
CHARGE<br />
REPORT<br />
ING<br />
PERIOD<br />
REFERE<br />
NCE TO<br />
FAO<br />
FRAME<br />
WORK<br />
A B C D E F G H<br />
1 General Number of forest-related legal regulations Count Y VNFORE 1 year<br />
indicators newly issued.<br />
ST<br />
2 Number of forest-related legal regulations Count Y TCLN 1 year<br />
withdrawn (out of effectiveness).<br />
3 Number of initiatives on policy, legal,<br />
institutional and regulatory framework to-<br />
MARD proposed by FSSP.<br />
Count P FSSP<br />
Office<br />
1 year 0204<br />
4 Number of initiatives on policy, legal,<br />
institutional and regulatory framework to-<br />
MARD proposed by FSSP considered by<br />
MARD.<br />
5 Number of initiatives on policy, legal,<br />
institutional and regulatory framework to-<br />
MARD proposed by Forestry Regional<br />
Network, FSSP.<br />
6 Number of initiatives on policy, legal,<br />
institutional and regulatory framework to-<br />
MARD proposed by Forestry Regional<br />
Network, FSSP considered by MARD.<br />
7 Number of feedbacks on implementation<br />
of legal regulations from Forestry<br />
Regional Network, FSSP to MARD.<br />
8<br />
Number of feedbacks on implementation<br />
of legal regulations from Forestry<br />
Count P FSSP<br />
Office<br />
Count P FSSP<br />
Office<br />
Count P FSSP<br />
Office<br />
Count P FSSP<br />
Office<br />
Count P FSSP<br />
Office<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
73
Regional Network, FSSP to MARD,<br />
considered by MARD.<br />
9 Number of initiatives on policy, legal,<br />
institutional and regulatory framework to-<br />
MARD proposed by organizations,<br />
individuals (including civil society).<br />
10 Number of initiatives on policy, legal,<br />
institutional and regulatory framework to-<br />
MARD proposed by organizations,<br />
individuals (including civil society),<br />
considered by MARD.<br />
11 Number of feedbacks on implementation<br />
of legal regulations from organizations,<br />
individuals (including civil society) to<br />
MARD.<br />
12 Number of feedbacks on implementation<br />
of legal regulations from organizations,<br />
individuals (including civil society) to<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
MARD, considered by MARD.<br />
13 P1A)* Total national land, defined for<br />
ha N VNFORE 1 year<br />
Forestry land management of the Forest Sector, with<br />
ST<br />
and 3 types clear boundaries in the field.<br />
14 of forest Total national land area, with forest, ha N MoNRE, 1 year<br />
defined for management of the Forest<br />
DARD<br />
Sector with clear boundaries in the field.<br />
15 Total area of production forest ha Y VNFORE 1 year<br />
ST<br />
16 Area of production forest with clearly ha N VNFORE 1 year<br />
defined boundaries in the field.<br />
ST<br />
17 Area of production forest with clear<br />
ha N VNFORE 1 year<br />
demarcation in the field.<br />
ST<br />
18<br />
Area of protection forest. ha Y VNFORE 1 year<br />
74
ST<br />
19 Area of protection forest with clearly<br />
defined boundaries in the field.<br />
ha N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
20 Area of protection forest with clear<br />
ha N VNFORE<br />
demarcation in the field.<br />
ST<br />
21 Area of special-use forest. ha Y VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
22 Area of special-use forest with clearly ha N VNFORE<br />
defined boundaries in the field.<br />
ST<br />
23 Area of special-use forest with clear ha N VNFORE<br />
demarcation in the field.<br />
ST<br />
24 P1B) Forest Number of Forest Management Boards Count N VNFORE<br />
and forest having forest allocated, but without land<br />
ST<br />
land rental use certificate.<br />
25 and<br />
Number of Forest Management Boards Count N VNFORE<br />
allocation clearly knows in-the-field defined<br />
ST<br />
boundaries of the forest under their<br />
management.<br />
26<br />
Number of Forest Management Boards Count N VNFORE<br />
made in-the-field demarcation for the<br />
ST<br />
forest under their management.<br />
27 Total area of land, forest allocated to<br />
households.<br />
28 Area of land, forest allocated to<br />
households having clearly defined<br />
boundaries in the field.<br />
29 Area of forest allocated to households but<br />
without land-use certificate.<br />
30 Number of land-related conflicts between<br />
households and organizations.<br />
ha N MoNRE/<br />
VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
ha N MoNRE/<br />
VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
ha N MoNRE<br />
VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N MoNRE<br />
VNFORE<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
75
31 Number of land-related conflicts between<br />
households and organizations solved.<br />
32 Number of land-related conflicts between<br />
households and other households.<br />
33 Number of land-related conflicts between<br />
households and other households solved.<br />
34 P1C) State<br />
forest<br />
enterprise<br />
Number of forest companies having<br />
allocated forest but without land-use<br />
certificate.<br />
35 restructuring Number of forest companies having<br />
allocated forest but with land-use<br />
certificate.<br />
36 Number of forest companies having land<br />
and forest with clearly defined boundaries<br />
in the field.<br />
37 Number of forest companies having land<br />
and forest with clear demarcation in the<br />
field.<br />
38 Total forest area allocated to forest<br />
companies.<br />
39<br />
Total land area allocated to forest<br />
companies (with land-use certificate).<br />
40 Total land area and forest area allocated<br />
to forest companies having clear<br />
demarcation in the field.<br />
41 Number of forest companies doing<br />
business according to Company Law<br />
2005.<br />
ST<br />
Count N MoNRE<br />
VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N MoNRE<br />
VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N MoNRE<br />
VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
ha Y VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
ha N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
ha N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
76
42 Number of forest companies financially<br />
independent in line with the Company<br />
Law 2005.<br />
43 Number of forest companies trained in<br />
sustainable forest management.<br />
44 Number of companies having forest<br />
management plan.<br />
45 Number of forest companies received<br />
fund supporting enrichment of poor forest.<br />
46 Number of forest companies received<br />
support in application of new technology.<br />
47 Number of forest companies providing<br />
forestry extension and market information<br />
for local communities.<br />
48 Number of forest companies managing<br />
protection received investment as defined<br />
by policy for protection forest.<br />
49 Number of forest companies received<br />
long-term preferential credit appropriate<br />
to timber-production cycle.<br />
50 Number of provinces having forest value<br />
defined when the forest is allocated to<br />
forest companies.<br />
51 Number of provinces having forest rental<br />
price defined when rent the forest to<br />
forest companies.<br />
52 Number of companies defined forest<br />
value when the forest is allocated to<br />
them.<br />
53 Number of forest companies having<br />
forest-added-value calculation defined.<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
77
54 Number of forest companies paid forest Count N VNFORE 1 year<br />
rental charge.<br />
ST<br />
55 P1D) Timber Number of forest companies are in Count N VNFORE 1 year<br />
56<br />
harvesting<br />
from natural<br />
forests<br />
condition accurate for implementation of<br />
sustainable timber harvesting.<br />
Number of forest companies allowed to Count N<br />
ST<br />
VNFORE 1 year<br />
do timber harvesting in line with timber<br />
production of their allocated forest.<br />
ST<br />
57 P1E)<br />
Area of natural forest converted to rubber ha Y VNFORE 1 year<br />
58<br />
Conversion<br />
of natural<br />
plantation.<br />
Total number of projects to convert Count N<br />
ST<br />
VNFORE 1 year<br />
59<br />
forest into<br />
rubber<br />
natural forest to rubber plantation.<br />
Number of projects to convert natural Count N<br />
ST<br />
VNFORE 1 year<br />
60<br />
plantation<br />
and other<br />
purposes<br />
forest to rubber plantation appraised by<br />
relevant authority from forest sector.<br />
Number of projects to convert natural Count N<br />
ST<br />
VNFORE 1 year<br />
forest to rubber plantation rejected by<br />
relevant authority from forest sector after<br />
appraisal.<br />
ST<br />
61 Total area of forest converted to hydropower<br />
ha Y VNFORE 1 year<br />
plants.<br />
ST<br />
62 Number of hydro-power plant projects Count N VNFORE 1 year<br />
requesting conversion of natural forest.<br />
ST<br />
63 Number of hydro-power plant projects Count N VNFORE 1 year<br />
appraised by relevant authority from<br />
forest sector.<br />
ST<br />
64 Number of hydro-power plant projects Count N VNFORE 1 year<br />
rejected by relevant authority from forest<br />
sector after appraisal.<br />
ST<br />
65 Area of natural forest lost due to mining ha Y VNFORE 1 year<br />
activities.<br />
ST<br />
66<br />
Number of mining projects requesting Count N VNFORE 1 year<br />
78
conversion of forest.<br />
ST<br />
67 Number of mining projects appraised by<br />
relevant authority from forest sector.<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
68 Number of mining projects rejected by Count N VNFORE<br />
relevant authority from forest sector after<br />
ST<br />
appraisal.<br />
69 P1F)<br />
Number of provinces having forest value Count N VNFORE<br />
Beneficiary defined when the forest is allocated to<br />
ST<br />
policy households.<br />
70 Number of provinces having forest rental Count N VNFORE<br />
price defined when rent the forest to<br />
ST<br />
households.<br />
71 Number of provinces defined forest value Count N VNFORE<br />
when the forest is allocated to<br />
ST<br />
households.<br />
72<br />
Number of provinces defined real income Count N VNFORE<br />
from forest (including pay for forest<br />
ST<br />
protection and others from forest), per ha<br />
of forest allocated to households.<br />
73 Number of provinces defined total real Count N VNFORE<br />
income from forest (including pay for<br />
ST<br />
forest protection and others from forest)<br />
and its ratio to total income of local<br />
households.<br />
74 P2A) Forest Number of local forest rangers. Count Y VNFORE<br />
Protection<br />
ST<br />
75 Number of communes having local forest Count Y VNFORE<br />
rangers.<br />
ST<br />
76<br />
Number of plans of forest protection Count N VNFORE<br />
authorities, forest companies, forest<br />
ST<br />
management boards to cooperate with<br />
local authorities and communities in<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
79
forest protection agreed and signed.<br />
77 Number of violations of Forest Protection<br />
and Development Law that are not<br />
treated due to legal position of forest<br />
protection officers (forest rangers) is<br />
limited.<br />
78 Number of forest patrol units having<br />
forest regular patrol plans.<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
1 year<br />
Count N VNFORE 1 year<br />
ST<br />
79 Number of patrols conducted. Count N TCLN 1 year<br />
80 Number of villages having common forest Count Y VNFORE 1 year<br />
protection agreement.<br />
ST<br />
81 Number of communes having forest Count N VNFORE 1 year<br />
officer.<br />
ST<br />
82 Number of communes having forest Count N VNFORE 1 year<br />
protection team.<br />
ST<br />
83 P2B)<br />
Number of cases against people on duty. Count N VNFORE 1 year<br />
84<br />
Handling of<br />
violations Number of forest-destroy cases. Count Y<br />
ST<br />
VNFORE 1 year<br />
85<br />
related to<br />
forest Area of destroyed forest. ha Y<br />
ST<br />
VNFORE 1 year<br />
ST<br />
86 Volume/value of seized timber. m 3 /vnd Y VNFORE 1 year<br />
ST<br />
87 Value of illegal-logging means seized. vnd N VNFORE 1 year<br />
ST<br />
88 Number of illegal timber transportation Count Y VNFORE 1 year<br />
cases.<br />
ST<br />
89 Volume/value of illegal-transported timber<br />
Y VNFORE 1 year<br />
seized.<br />
ST<br />
90<br />
Value ofillegal-timber-transporting means<br />
seized.<br />
vnd N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
1 year<br />
80
91 Number of criminal-violation cases. Count Y VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
92 Number of contriver-found violations. Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
93 Number of violation punishments that Count N VNFORE<br />
violators do not follow.<br />
ST<br />
94 P2C) Forest Number of organizations having fireprevention<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
fire<br />
and fire-fighting plans, and<br />
ST<br />
prevention resources to implement those plans.<br />
95 and fire Number of agreement of forest range Count N VNFORE<br />
fighting units; forest companies; forest<br />
ST<br />
management boards to cooperate with<br />
local authorities and communities in fireprevention<br />
and fire-fighting, signed.<br />
96<br />
Number of communes having budget, Count N VNFORE<br />
plan, means and forces for fire prevention<br />
ST<br />
and fire fighting.<br />
97 P2D)<br />
Number of forest management boards Count N VNFORE<br />
Protection having forest management plan<br />
ST<br />
forests and (protection and special-use forest).<br />
98 special-use Number of forest management boards Count N VNFORE<br />
forests having forest-patrol plan (protection and<br />
ST<br />
special-use forest).<br />
99 Number of patrols conducted vs planned. Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
100 Average of actual income of a staff of<br />
N VNFORE<br />
forest management boards.<br />
ST<br />
101<br />
Number of forest management boards<br />
that do not get fund for forest<br />
vnd per<br />
capita<br />
per<br />
year<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
81
management on time.<br />
102 P2E) Forest<br />
environment<br />
services<br />
Number of provinces having clearly<br />
defined principles, calculation method<br />
and procedure for paying for forest<br />
environmental service.<br />
103 Number of organizations, households<br />
who are entitle to get payment for forest<br />
environmental service provided, but<br />
payment has not been made.<br />
104 Number of provinces having clearly<br />
defined area providing forest<br />
environmental services.<br />
105 Number of provinces having clearly<br />
defined forest status with “K” – pay<br />
coefficient.<br />
106<br />
Number of provinces having clearly<br />
defined in-the-field forest boundaries of<br />
organizations and households providing<br />
forest environmental service.<br />
107 P2F) Forestry Number of provinces collecting standingtree<br />
finance<br />
fee.<br />
108 Amount of money that forest sector<br />
receive from national budget.<br />
109 Amount of money that forest sector<br />
receive from provincial budget.<br />
110 Number of households having access to<br />
preferential credit for forestry activities.<br />
111 Size of the National Forest Protection and<br />
Development Fund.<br />
112<br />
Number of organizations, individuals<br />
providing contributions to the National<br />
Forest Protection and Development Fund.<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count Y VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
vnd Y VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Y VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
vnd N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
82
113 Amount that organizations and individuals<br />
contributed to the National Forest<br />
Protection and Development Fund.<br />
114 Number of provinces established<br />
provincial forest protection and<br />
development fund and set up the fund<br />
management system.<br />
115 Total amount of natural-resource tax paid<br />
by forest companies.<br />
116 Total amount of natural-resource tax paid<br />
by households.<br />
117 P3) Forest Total number of wood processing<br />
companies.<br />
Products<br />
118 Number of wood processing companies<br />
Processing having timber product exporting business.<br />
119<br />
and Trade<br />
Number of companies importing timber to<br />
Vietnam.<br />
120 Volume of from-natural-forest imported<br />
timber.<br />
121 Volume of from-plantation-forest imported<br />
timber.<br />
122 Volume of from-domestic-plantation<br />
processed into timber products for export.<br />
vnd per<br />
year<br />
N<br />
VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
vnd per<br />
year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
N DoPF 1 year<br />
DoPF<br />
1 year<br />
Count N MARD 1 year<br />
Count N MARD 1 year<br />
Count N MARD 1 year<br />
m 3 N MARD 1 year<br />
m 3 N MARD 1 year<br />
m 3 N MARD 1 year<br />
123 Volume of exported wood chip. Ton N MARD 1 year<br />
124<br />
Total volume and value of exported m 3 /usd N/Y MARD 1 year<br />
timber products.<br />
125 FLEGT and Number of organizations/individuals Count Y FLEGT & 1 year<br />
VPA<br />
trained in FLEGT, VPA, EU Timber<br />
Lacey<br />
Regulation 995/2010 and Lacey Act.<br />
Act Office<br />
126<br />
Number of organizations/individuals Count Y FLEGT & 1 year<br />
consulted during VPA negotiation/VPA<br />
Lacey<br />
implementation.<br />
Act Office<br />
83
127 Number of Count N FLEGT & 1 year<br />
initiatives/suggestions/requests from<br />
Lacey<br />
organizations/individuals contributed to<br />
Act Office<br />
VPA negotiation/VPA implementation.<br />
128 Number of companies having COC Count Y MARD 1 year<br />
certificate.<br />
129 Number of companies having FSC FM Count Y VNFORE 1 year<br />
certificate.<br />
ST<br />
130 Total forest area FSC FM certified. Count Y VNFORE 1 year<br />
ST<br />
131 Number of organizations/individuals Count N VNFORE 1 year<br />
competent to provide consultancy in<br />
ST<br />
timber supply according to COC<br />
requirement.<br />
132 Number of organizations/individuals<br />
competent enough to provide consultancy<br />
in forest management according to FSC<br />
FM requirement.<br />
133 Number of organizations/individuals<br />
trained in TLAS.<br />
134 Number of organizations/individuals<br />
competent enough to verify timber supply<br />
chain according to TLAS requirement.<br />
135 Number of organizations competent<br />
enough to do FLEGT licensing for timber<br />
products exported to EU.<br />
136 Number of organizations competent<br />
enough to conduct independent<br />
monitoring for TLAS.<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
Count N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
m 3 N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
m 3 N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
m 3 N VNFORE<br />
ST<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
137 Volume of legal/controlled/certified timber m 3 N NC 1 year<br />
imported into Vietnam.<br />
138 Number of shipments need to be licensed Count N FLEGT & 1 year<br />
84
for export to EU market.<br />
139 Number of companies competent enough<br />
to get “operator-based licenses” for their<br />
timber products exported to EU market.<br />
140 Volume/value of timber products exported<br />
to each of 27 countries of EU.<br />
141 <strong>REDD</strong> Number of forest companies/forest<br />
management boards competent enough<br />
(meeting all conditions) to join <strong>REDD</strong>+.<br />
Lacey<br />
Act Office<br />
Count N FLEGT & 1 year<br />
Lacey<br />
Act Office<br />
m 3 /usd N/Y TCHQ 1 year<br />
Count N <strong>REDD</strong><br />
Office<br />
1 year<br />
142 Total forest area meeting all conditions to<br />
join <strong>REDD</strong>+.<br />
143 Number of communities competent<br />
enough (meeting all conditions) to join<br />
<strong>REDD</strong>+.<br />
144 Number of forest companies, forest<br />
management boards having forest area<br />
with defined c-stock.<br />
145 Total area of forest having defined c-<br />
stock.<br />
146 Number of communities having<br />
established system for from-<strong>REDD</strong>+<br />
benefit distribution (BDS).<br />
147 Number of provinces having established<br />
system for measuring, reporting and<br />
verification (MRV).<br />
148<br />
Number of forest companies, forest<br />
management boards participate in carbon<br />
voluntary market.<br />
ha N <strong>REDD</strong><br />
Office<br />
Count N <strong>REDD</strong><br />
Office<br />
Count N <strong>REDD</strong><br />
Office<br />
ha N <strong>REDD</strong><br />
Office<br />
Count N <strong>REDD</strong><br />
Office<br />
Count N <strong>REDD</strong><br />
Office<br />
Count N <strong>REDD</strong><br />
Office<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
85
149 Total C-stock of Vietnam forest. Ton N <strong>REDD</strong><br />
Office<br />
150 Total amount of money received from vnd N <strong>REDD</strong><br />
<strong>REDD</strong>+.<br />
Office<br />
1 year<br />
1 year<br />
Note:<br />
*: Within abbreviation P1A, P1 stands for program 1 of Vietnam Forestry Development Strategy 2006-2020 (VFSD), A means part<br />
“A” of the program 1. Whole P1A means area of <strong>FGM</strong> concern under part A, Program 1, VFDS. P2, P3 have similar meanings.<br />
Number in the H column is indicator code having 4 digits. The first two digits represent pillar of FAO <strong>FGM</strong> framework. The two rest<br />
digits represent principle of FAO <strong>FGM</strong> framework. Following that the pillars have their code as: the pillar 1 “Policy, legal,<br />
institutional and regulatory framework”: 01; the pillar 2 “Planning and decision making process”: 02; the pillar 3 “Implementation,<br />
strengthening and compliance”: 03. Similarly the principles have their code as: “Transparency”: 01, “Accountability”:02,<br />
“Effectiveness”:03, “Participation”): 04, “Fair/Equity”:05, “Efficiency”:06. In the table 04: indicator number 3 “Number of initiatives on<br />
policy, legal, institutional and regulatory framework to-MARD proposed by FSSP” has code 0204 which means that the indicator<br />
number 3 belongs to the pillar 2 (planning and decision making) and principle 4 (participation) of FAO <strong>FGM</strong> framework. This code<br />
number may be put into the “H” column, by the international <strong>FGM</strong> consultant , after the workshop in order to a certain link of those<br />
indicators with the FAO <strong>FGM</strong> concept.<br />
86
5.4. Next steps proposed for strengthening <strong>FGM</strong> in Vietnam<br />
In case, Vietnam would like to strengthen <strong>FGM</strong> systematically, what will be mention<br />
below can be a reference.<br />
Figure 11: A framework for forest governance monitoring design<br />
Figure 11 presents a generic design overview for forest governance monitoring. The<br />
overview distinguishes between a number of building blocks that need to be<br />
addressed in the process of preparing for design, actual design, and sustaining the<br />
designed forest governance monitoring.<br />
1. Creating a forest governance reference framework – establishing shared<br />
understanding of what is involved in forest governance and its monitoring. As a<br />
starting point for such a reference framework figure 1 from the previous chapter can<br />
be used. It is composed of three “pillars” (i.e. in a way the structural elements for<br />
Forest Governance to function) and “principles” (the quality of how well Forest<br />
87
Governance functions,. In a kind of matrix, under each pillar and principle specific<br />
forest governance issues can be identified.<br />
2. Agreeing on a defined purpose & vision – establishing a shared understanding of<br />
the key reasons for engaging in forest governance monitoring. Such an<br />
understanding needs to be consistent with national policies, strategies/NFP<br />
document and fit within the country’s sustainable development strategies, intersectoral<br />
approaches. It would be consistent with the country’s legal frameworks,<br />
recognition and respect for customary and traditional rights and secure land tenure<br />
arrangements.<br />
3. Making information needs explicit – establishing shared understanding of what<br />
information is needed to answer forest governance performance questions, taking<br />
into consideration the need to prioritize amongst the many information needs.<br />
4. Selecting methods & methodologies for data collection – establishing shared<br />
understanding of the ways in which needed information will be gathered from which<br />
sources of information; use of primary and secondary data; clarification of IT part of<br />
the methods and methodologies (storage, retrieval etc.).<br />
5. Creating an outline of the organization (flow) & intended use of information –<br />
establishing clear processes for turning data into information and the way in which it<br />
will flow to/be accessed by intended audiences.<br />
6. Agreeing on roles & responsibilities – establishing shared understanding of who<br />
will be expected to do what to make functional forest governance monitoring happen;<br />
7. Activating a plan for putting in place operational capacities & conditions for<br />
functional forest governance monitoring – establishing a shared understanding of<br />
what will be required in terms of capacities and conditions to sustain efforts.<br />
8. Providing an Institutional embedding – establishing forest governance monitoring<br />
in existing organizational and institutional arrangements.<br />
The background paper partially touched the points 1, 2, 3 of the framework in figure<br />
11. So very first step of the process for strengthening <strong>FGM</strong> in Vietnam can start with<br />
discussing the background paper then take relevant actions to complete steps 1, 2, 3<br />
and all the rest steps.<br />
88
Chapter 6: CONCLUSION<br />
Due to the increasing recognition of the importance of forest governance quality on<br />
progress towards SFM, FLEGT and the reduction of deforestation and forest<br />
degradation (<strong>REDD</strong>+), increasingly many efforts are taken to monitor and report<br />
forest governance and governance quality. Recently, the <strong>REDD</strong> negotiations under<br />
the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change have agreed on safeguards,<br />
initiative of EU FLEGT VPA, and timber supply chain policy of different governments<br />
that relate to forest governance, further increasing the need for monitoring. However,<br />
perhaps most importantly, forest governance monitoring systems at the country level<br />
need to meet national monitoring needs in order to be relevant. This means that<br />
monitoring of forest governance should be most of all useful to better fulfill national<br />
and local priorities for forest management. Any forest governance monitoring that<br />
should be established by countries needs to be feasible, cost-effective, reliable<br />
(verifiable), allow reliable measurement of change over time, and fulfill international<br />
reporting requirements.<br />
To meet these goals, Government of Vietnam (MARD) has requested the assistance<br />
of FAO to help integrate forest governance monitoring into national-forest related<br />
monitoring systems. To this end, FAO is providing support through the services of a<br />
national consultant and international technical consultants.<br />
Initially, the national consultant tried to use 13 components and 77 sub-components<br />
of the “FAO framework for assessing and monitoring forest governance”, to assess<br />
<strong>FGM</strong> in Vietnam. The consultant sent the framework to 43 people (including 29 from<br />
domestic organizations and 14 from international organizations) requesting them to<br />
assess <strong>FGM</strong> in Vietnam accordingly to 13 components and 77 sub-components of<br />
the framework. Opinion of majority of the requested is too difficult to assess <strong>FGM</strong> in<br />
Vietnam by using the 13 components and 77 sub-components of the framework. And<br />
the consultant is in the similar view. In fact, it is too difficult to classify what is being<br />
done in Vietnam, in terms of <strong>FGM</strong>, into 13 components and 77 sub-components of<br />
the “FAO framework for assessing and monitoring forest governance”. Until time<br />
when the consultant starts writing the background paper, only 6 assessments in the<br />
mentioned way were received. As explained by the requested the main reason of the<br />
difficulties is the components and sub-components of the FAO framework are still<br />
general. Besides of that a common understanding about forest governance in<br />
Vietnam is governance to implement Vietnam Forestry Development Strategy 2006-<br />
2020. In another words, it is governance to implement the 5 programs of the strategy<br />
and their targets. This fact is a self explanation that: (i) FAO vision on assessment of<br />
<strong>FGM</strong> based on FG with the 13 components and 77 subcomponents is rather quite far<br />
from Vietnam circumstances on assessment of <strong>FGM</strong> based on FG towards<br />
implementation of the Forestry Development Strategy 2006-2020; (ii) The first step<br />
to shorten the gap, perhaps, is both sides (FAO & Vietnam) to work out indicators of<br />
assessment of <strong>FGM</strong> (because any monitoring can be effective if is based on clearly<br />
identified indicators); and based on that (iii) a base for comparison of those<br />
indicators to select indicators appropriate for Vietnam and also for FAO, to apply for<br />
<strong>FGM</strong> in Vietnam.<br />
Because of explanations above, this background paper is written based on analysis<br />
of related documentation and interviews of selected government officers in forest<br />
89
sector at central level and local level; different experts; some key NGOs; and<br />
representatives of private sector in Vietnam, about issues of assessment of <strong>FGM</strong> in<br />
Vietnam. The documentation analysis and interviews, mainly, were conducted in the<br />
context of the two relations:<br />
• Firstly, the relation between <strong>FGM</strong> on one side and implementation of the 5<br />
programs of Vietnam Forestry Development Strategy 2006-2020 and their<br />
targets, on the other side. In current circumstances this, perhaps, is an<br />
appropriate way to get the background paper for the workshop, because by<br />
this way the paper can bring what the workshop participants are familiar with,<br />
interested in and confident to join discussions.<br />
• Secondly, <strong>FGM</strong> is assessed through documentation analysis and interviews in<br />
the context of the FAO <strong>FGM</strong> framework, but only of the 3 pillars and 6<br />
principles and not 13 components and 77 sub-components.<br />
Recently, Vietnam achieved some very important results in forest sector, especially<br />
in increase of forest cover, forest products export and poverty reduction in<br />
mountainous areas. Forest governance in Vietnam, no doubt, provided considerable<br />
contributions to those achievements. However, this report will rather focus on finding<br />
issues, not for criticism but for opportunities to improve the forest governance<br />
towards sustainably managed forests and sustainable development of Vietnam<br />
forestry. The documentation analysis and the discussions with the key organizations<br />
and persons in this field during preparation of this report therefore were conducted<br />
following this way.<br />
The background paper tried to provide (i) an overall picture of <strong>FGM</strong> in Vietnam, and<br />
f(ii) propose a set og indicators for strengthening <strong>FGM</strong> in Vietnam based on criteria:<br />
• Strengthening <strong>FGM</strong> is to improve quality of FG for implementation of<br />
programs of Vietnam Forestry Development Strategy 2006-2020;<br />
• Strengthening <strong>FGM</strong> should be appropriate to forestry sector administration<br />
system, in terms of sectoral, multi-sectoral and geographical aspects;<br />
• Strengthening <strong>FGM</strong> should not require to much additional resources;<br />
• Strengthening <strong>FGM</strong> should be appropriate to FAO framework so that <strong>FGM</strong> in<br />
Vietnam can be, to certain extent, similar with global <strong>FGM</strong>.<br />
Total number of proposed indicators is 150, including 16 areas as bellows:<br />
• General indicators (12);<br />
• Forestry land and 3 types of forest (11);<br />
• Forest and forest land rental and allocation (10);<br />
• State forest enterprise restructuring (21);<br />
• Timber harvesting from natural forests (2);<br />
• Conversion of natural forest into rubber plantation and other purposes (12);<br />
• Beneficiary policy (5);<br />
90
• Forest Protection (9);<br />
• Handling of violations related to forest (11);<br />
• Forest fire prevention and fire fighting (3);<br />
• Protection forests and special-use forests (5);<br />
• Forest environment services (5);<br />
• Forestry finance (10);<br />
• Forest Products Processing and Trade (8).<br />
• FLEGT và VPA (16);<br />
• <strong>REDD</strong> (10).<br />
Each from the set of the proposed indicators has its own reference code to the 3<br />
pillars and the 6 principle of FAO <strong>FGM</strong> framework which is a effort to get the first<br />
basis for getting a certain resemblance of Vietnam <strong>FGM</strong> with FAO <strong>FGM</strong> framework.<br />
Due to time and resources constraints, and “forest governance monitoring” is a<br />
complex issue, the background paper surely contains certain shortcomings which we<br />
expect to get and appreciate every input to address them.<br />
LITERATURE<br />
1. Vietnam Forestry Development Strategy 2006-2020<br />
91
2. Vietnam Forestry Development Strategy 2006-202 - 2010 progress report<br />
3. The Vietnam province governance and public administration performance index<br />
PAPI 2010<br />
4. World Bank, 2009. Roots for Good Forest Outcomes: An Analytical Framework for<br />
Governance reform. Report No. 49572-GLB. 47 pp.<br />
5. Partially based on the national forest programme principles and on Saunders &<br />
Reeve. 2010 Monitoring Governance for Implementation of <strong>REDD</strong>+. Chatham House<br />
6. Capistrano, D., 2010. Forest Governance Indicator Development: Early Lessons<br />
and Proposed Indicators for Country Assessments. FAO, 34 pp.<br />
7. Grindle, M.S., 2004. Good Enough Governance: poverty reduction and reform in<br />
developing countries. Governance: an institutional journal of Policy, Administration,<br />
and Institutions, Vol. 17, No. 4, October 2004 (p. 525-548),<br />
8. Grindle, M.S. 2005. Good enough governance revisited. A report for DFID with<br />
reference to the Governance Target Strategy <strong>Paper</strong>, 2001. Harvard University, USA.<br />
27 pp.<br />
9. James Mayers | Stephen Bass | Duncan Macqueen | 2002 : The Pyramid<br />
A DIAGNOSTIC AND PLANNING TOOL FOR GOOD FOREST GOVERNANCE<br />
10. JOANGO Hutan, September 2006: Forest governance in Malaysia<br />
An NGO perspective<br />
11. Krister Andersson and Ashwin Ravikumar, University of Colorado at Boulder, July<br />
15, 2010 : Monitoring Forest Governance: A Field-Based Approach from Tanzania<br />
12. Kusek, J., and Rist, R., 2004, 'Ten Steps to a Results-based Monitoring and<br />
Evaluation System', World Bank, Washington, D.C. 268 pp<br />
13. Nigel Dudley, Nguyen Cu and Vuong Tien Manh: A Monitoring and Evaluation<br />
System for Forest Landscape Restoration in the Central Truong Son Landscape,<br />
Vietnam<br />
14. Nguyen Hang, Wulf Killmann, Xuan Phuong Pham and Eveline Trines: Viet Nam<br />
National <strong>REDD</strong>+ Program: <strong>Background</strong> document UN-<strong>REDD</strong> PROGRAMME Version<br />
3 February, 2011<br />
15. ODI, 2006. Governance, development and aid effectiveness: a quick guide to<br />
complex relationships. Briefing paper March 2006. 4pp.<br />
16. Pham Xuan Phuong, Doan Diem, le Khac Coi: Assessment on forest policy<br />
formulation and execution phase 2006-2010 and proposal for forest policy<br />
amendment, revision phase 2011-2015.<br />
17. Simon Counsell: Forest Governace in Africa. 2009<br />
18. Tim Holland and Doan Diem: Scoping Study of Forest Governance Indicators in<br />
Vietnam<br />
19. Van Bodegom, A.J., D. Klaver, F van Schoubroeck and O. van der Valk, 2008.<br />
FLEGT beyond T: exploring the meaning of ‘Governance’concepts for the FLEGT<br />
process. Wageningen UR, The Netherlands<br />
ANNEX 01: LIST OF PEOPLE RECEIVED <strong>FGM</strong> FAO FRAMEWORK WITH 13<br />
COMPONENTS AND 77 SUB-COMPONENTS<br />
92
No Name Position Position<br />
1 Dr. Nguyễn Bá Ngãi Vice director VNFOREST<br />
2 Nguyễn Tường Vân Vice director<br />
Department of Science;<br />
Technology and International<br />
Cooperation, VNFOREST<br />
3 Nguyễn Hữu Dũng<br />
4<br />
Dr. Nguyễn Nghĩa<br />
Biên<br />
Director<br />
Planning and Finance<br />
Department, VNFOREST<br />
5 Cao Chí Công Director<br />
Department of Forest Utilization,<br />
VNFOREST<br />
6 Vũ Thành nam Seniot officer<br />
Management Board for Forestry<br />
Enterprises<br />
7 Đàm Ngọc Năm Vice director<br />
Department of Agricultural<br />
Products Processing and Trading<br />
and Salt Production, MARD<br />
8 Trần Hữu Thành Senior officer<br />
Department of Agricultural<br />
Products Processing and Trading<br />
and Salt Production, MARD<br />
9 Phạm Minh Thoa Director<br />
Department of Science;<br />
Technology and International<br />
Cooperation, VNFOREST<br />
10<br />
Dr. Phạm Mạnh<br />
Cường<br />
Director<br />
<strong>REDD</strong> Standing Office,<br />
VNFOREST<br />
11 Dr. Đinh Đức Thuận Director Forestry Projects, MARD<br />
12 Tô Mạnh Tiến Director<br />
Provincial Department of<br />
Forestry LN, DARD Lào Cai<br />
13 Phạm Trọng Minh Vice general director Vietnam Forestry Corporation<br />
14<br />
Dr. Nguyễn Phú<br />
Hùng Vice director FIPI, VNFOREST<br />
15 Hồ Mạnh Tường NFA Project, FIPI, VNFOREST<br />
16<br />
Dr. Nguyễn Văn<br />
Tuấn Vice director Vietnam Forestry University<br />
Forestry Business & Management<br />
17<br />
Dr. Nguyễn Quang<br />
Hà<br />
Faculty, Vietnam Forestry<br />
University<br />
18 Dr. Lê Minh Chính<br />
Dr. Phạm Xuân<br />
19 Phương<br />
Faculty Head<br />
Senior lecturer in forestry<br />
economics<br />
Freelance consultant<br />
20 Tô Đình Mai Director<br />
21 Đoàn Diễm Freelance consultant<br />
22 Vũ Long Freelance consultant<br />
23 Nguyễn Tuấn Phú Freelance consultant<br />
General Secretary, Vice<br />
24 Nguyễn Tôn Quyền<br />
Chairman<br />
25 Huỳnh Thạch Senior officer<br />
26 Chu Đình Quang Freelance consultant<br />
27 Lê Duy Phương Freelance consultant<br />
28 Trần Lê Huy General Secretary<br />
Vietnam Forestry University<br />
Former vice director of Legal and<br />
Institutional Framework, MARD<br />
Centre for Environment and<br />
Community Development<br />
Vice chairman of Forestry<br />
Science & Technology<br />
Association<br />
Former director of Forestry<br />
Economics Institute<br />
Former director of Agriculture<br />
Department, Vietnam government<br />
Office (expert in FPES)<br />
Vietnam Forest Products<br />
Association (VIFORES)<br />
Vietnam Forest Products<br />
Association (VIFORES)<br />
Former coordinator to Vietnam-<br />
Germany Forestry Program<br />
Bình Định Forest Product<br />
Association<br />
93
29 Nguyễn Chiến Thắng Chairman<br />
Handicraft & Wood Processing<br />
Association (HAWA)<br />
30 Huỳnh Văn Hạnh Vice-chairman<br />
Handicraft & Wood Processing<br />
Association (HAWA)<br />
31 Trần Quốc Mạnh Vice-chairman<br />
Handicraft & Wood Processing<br />
Association (HAWA)<br />
32 Nguyễn Văn Vy General Secretary<br />
Handicraft & Wood Processing<br />
Association (HAWA)<br />
33 Akiko Inoguchi Officer FAO<br />
34 Dr. Juergen Hess Director MNR Program, GIZ<br />
35 Tô Thị Thu Hương Component Manager FP, GIZ<br />
36 Tapio Leppänen CTA FORMIS<br />
37 Lê Công Uẩn GFTN VN Coordinator WWF, GFTN<br />
38 Dr. Hồ Văn Cử<br />
Vietnam Country<br />
Representative TFT<br />
39 Dr. Tô Xuân Phúc<br />
Vietnam Country<br />
Representative Forest trends<br />
40 Trần Hữu Nghị<br />
Vietnam Country<br />
Representative Tropenbos International<br />
41<br />
Dr. Nguyễn Quang<br />
Tân<br />
Vietnam Country<br />
Representative RECOFTC<br />
42 Goetz Eberhard Advisor to HAWA HAWA/CIM<br />
43 Heiko Woerner CTA GFA<br />
44 Lutz Lehmann CIM advisor to Kontum Kon Tum<br />
45 Tim Dowson FLEGT VPA Advisor EC Hanoi<br />
46 Lauri Vesa CTA NFA Project<br />
Note:<br />
People who filled 77 sub-components of the FAO <strong>FGM</strong> framework<br />
ANNEX 02: LIST OF PEOPLE DIRECTLY INTERVIEWED<br />
No Name Position Position<br />
94
1<br />
Dr. Nguyễn Bá<br />
Ngãi Vice director VNFOREST<br />
2<br />
Nguyễn Tường<br />
Vân<br />
Vice director<br />
Department of Science;<br />
Technology and<br />
International Cooperation,<br />
VNFOREST<br />
3<br />
Nguyễn Hữu<br />
Dũng<br />
4<br />
Dr. Nguyễn<br />
Nghĩa Biên<br />
Director<br />
Planning and Finance<br />
Department, VNFOREST<br />
5 Cao Chí Công Director<br />
Department of Forest<br />
Utilization, VNFOREST<br />
6 Phạm Minh Thoa Director<br />
Department of Science;<br />
Technology and<br />
International Cooperation,<br />
VNFOREST<br />
7<br />
Dr. Phạm Xuân<br />
Phương<br />
Freelance consultant<br />
Former vice director of<br />
Legal and Institutional<br />
Framework, MARD<br />
8 Tô Đình Mai Director<br />
Centre for Environment and<br />
Community Development<br />
9 Đoàn Diễm Freelance consultant<br />
Vice chairman of Forestry<br />
Science & Technology<br />
Association<br />
Former director of Forestry<br />
10 Vũ Long Freelance consultant<br />
Nguyễn Tôn General Secretary, Vice<br />
11 Quyền<br />
Chairman<br />
12 Huỳnh Thạch Senior officer<br />
Dr. Tô Xuân<br />
Vietnam Country<br />
13 Phúc<br />
Representative<br />
Economics Institute<br />
Vietnam Forest Products<br />
Association (VIFORES)<br />
Vietnam Forest Products<br />
Association (VIFORES)<br />
Forest trends<br />
ANNEX 03: List of the interviewees and the organizations at provincial level<br />
95
No. Name, position of<br />
Position and Organization<br />
interviewees<br />
1 Mr. Y Manh Adrong, Vice Chairman of District People Committee<br />
2 Mr. Huynh Duc Luan Director of Ea Hleo State Forest Company<br />
3 Mr. Le Cong Hung Vice director of Ea Hleo SFC<br />
4 Mr. Nguyen Ngoc Vice head of Technical Section of Ea Hleo SFC<br />
Hung<br />
5 Mr. Phung Chi Hai Head of Technical Section of Ea Hleo SFC<br />
6 Mr. Ho Duy Tan Chairman of Ea Sol Commune People Committee<br />
7 Mr. Nguyen Van Xuan Deputy Director of Dak Lak province DARD<br />
8 Mr. Nguyen Quoc<br />
Hung<br />
Vice Director of Forest Sub-Department of Dak Lak<br />
province<br />
9 Mr. Le Van Minh Deputy Director of Lam Dong Province DARD<br />
10 Mr. Nguyen Trong Director of Thua Thien Hue Department of Forestry<br />
11 Mr. Nguyen Vu Linh Vice Director of Bach Ma National Park, Thua<br />
Thien Hue<br />
12 Mr. Nguyen Huu Dai Director of Phong Dien Forest Company, Thua<br />
Thien Hue<br />
13 Mr. Le Van Tam Director of Forest Protection Unit, Nam Dong<br />
district, Thue Thien Hue province<br />
14 Mr. Truong Xang Vice Director of Forest Protection Unit, Nam Dong<br />
district<br />
96