Document(s) 11 of 24

Abstract

The livelihoods of upland ethnic minorities in Vietnam were traditionally dependent on shifting cultivation and harvesting non-timber forest products. Declining forest cover, government policies banning shifting cultivation and the migration of lowland farmers into upland areas have all led to dramatic pressures on upland communities to adopt new livelihoods. A research team from Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry took up the challenge of working with the uplands communities in the Hong Ha commune of A Luoi district in central Vietnam. The researchers used participatory methods to help farmers experiment with new agricultural production systems and build new farmer-led organizations for mutual support. Results appear to have benefited both men and women farmers, and have attracted attention and support from district extension officials. Based on these successes, the community has negotiated new forms of tenure on restricted forest lands, and increased the area they are allowed to cultivate. Lessons are being transferred to adjacent communities through a variety of mechanisms. We conclude that community-based upland natural resource management approaches should balance long-term resource management sustainability, mainly through resource tenure issues that are typically complex and difficult to resolve, with satisfying the shorter-term livelihood needs of villagers.

Introduction and background

Shifting cultivation is a traditional subsistence practice of upland minority peoples in Vietnam. During the war era in the municipality (commune) of Hong Ha, upland minorities migrated to forest areas along the Vietnam–Laos border. As they resettled their old lands and homes after the war, they were and continue to be faced with new challenges. These include forests that were seriously damaged by war (especially because of use of chemical defoliants), and new government policies requiring them to shift from their traditional swidden agriculture to a more sedentary farming system. According to the government, these policies are designed to protect the forest and provide better services and livelihoods. In addition, most traditional lands and forests were declared a watershed protection area and access to their forests and other natural resources is now limited. Trying to adapt to this new reality is very difficult, particularly because the arable land area per family is small.

To improve forest cover, in the early 1990s the government of Vietnam made efforts to invest in reforestation under national programmes such as 'Program 327', the United Nations World Food Programme reforestation effort and 'the five million hectare' reforestation programme. The government also issued a new forestry law (1991), a land law (1993) and a number of regulatory rulings recognizing and increasing the rights of farmers to land and forest. However, conditions in the uplands – and the top-down operation of state agencies – have contributed to a fragmentary implementation of these policies. These programmes were designed with little local consultation. Local people also complain that benefits often do not reach the local level and, when they do, local officials are forced to follow regulations that simply do not make sense to communities. Government officials blame poor management systems and the limited understanding of local people's implementation problems.

In Hong Ha, most of the land in and around the commune is now under watershed protection and management by the Bo River Watershed Department (a government agency). In practice, this means that local people only have access to about 1 per cent of the total land area for agriculture. At the same time, the population increased from about 300 people in 1975 to 1,200 people in 2003. Combined with the required changes in agricultural systems and the loss of access to resources, upland people have no option but to find ways to improve their livelihoods while using and managing their natural resources sustainably.

In response to these critical problems facing many uplands communes in Thua Thien Hue province and in other parts of central Vietnam, the Community-Based Upland Natural Resource Management project was developed by the University of Hue with support from the IDRC and the Ford Foundation. The project has been implemented by a research team from the Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry. Hong Ha commune was selected on the basis of its social, economic and natural conditions, as representative of the upland situation for many communes in central Vietnam. The aim of the project was to gain a better understanding of the links between poverty, resource degradation and policy, and to test local options to improve agricultural production and build human and social capital. Some recent changes in policy are encouraging. Local authorities have been meeting the researchers and the villagers to discuss various joint resource management arrangements or agreements. One of our ambitions is to make policies work for the poor. This requires involving different stakeholders at district, provincial and even national levels.

The project site

Hong Ha and Huong Nguyen communes are located in the A Luoi district of Thua Thien Hue province, in central Vietnam (Figure 5.1). There are 21 communes in A Luoi, a mountainous area where most local people belong to Pa Co, Ta Oi, Ca Tu and Pa Hy minorities. Hong Ha and Huong Nguyen are two of the 16 poorest communes in the A Luoi district, and among the approximately 1,200 designated poorest communes in the country, according to national poverty criteria. Hong Ha has been the initial research site of the project, since 1998. Huong Nguyen is a new site where lessons learned from Hong Ha will be disseminated in cooperation with different agencies, particularly the provincial Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD). Lessons from Hong Ha and Huong Nguyen will also be used to expand community-based upland natural resource management approaches to other upland communities.

Hong Ha commune has about 230 households with approximately 1,200 people from different ethnic groups, such as K'tu (47 per cent), Pa Co/Pa Hy (28 per cent), Ta Oi (16 per cent), Kinh (7 per cent) or lowland Vietnamese and BruVan Kieu. The commune's land area is 14,100 ha, consisting of agricultural lands (180 ha), forestry lands (11,000 ha) and barren hills (2,700 ha). Very little of the forested area is in good condition. In 2002 and 2003, thanks to support from a state agency, about 120 ha of forestry land was converted to new rubber plantations. Most of the forest is under the management of the State Forestry Enterprise or the Watershed Protection Board of Thua-Thien Hue province. People in Hong Ha are adapting to new agricultural production systems in conformity with the local and national policies, as explained above. They also keep some livestock, mainly cattle, which roam freely.

Currently, Hong Ha has a primary school with five classrooms accommodating 250 pupils in grades 1–5, and two kindergarten classes. Children who want to enrol in higher grades must go to Hue City or to A Luoi, far from their homes. Almost 30 per cent of the local people are illiterate.

Hong Ha has a new village health centre but it possesses limited medical and other support services. Due to limited cash income, people usually depend on traditional medicines and health treatments. Only when they get seriously ill do they buy medicines or visit a health centre or hospital. Common health problems include malaria, dysentery, asthma, influenza, miscarriages and premature births for women, and malnutrition among children. Other important problems in Hong Ha when we started our work were a lack of food and food insecurity. People remain extremely poor but we have seen significant changes in recent years.

With a total of 20 ha of paddy field, wetland rice provides the main commodity production and income of the local people. At the start of the project, rice yield was very low, with only 1.9 tonne/ha in 1998. Cassava was the main food crop and was used as staple food. Due to soil erosion and cultivation methods, crop production suffered from low productivity.

Huong Nguyen, like Hong Ha, is also one of the poorest communes in the A Luoi district, but in many ways, people are worse off. Their commune lies adjacent to Hong Ha, along the road from Hue City to the A Luoi Valley. Huong Nguyen was newly settled in 1995 under the government's compulsory resettlement programme. Originally, these people lived in a remote and inaccessible mountain valley and very rich forest area, near the Vietnam–Laos border. When they resettled, they were allocated unproductive Imperata grasslands, or wastelands, that needed to be converted to agricultural fields. They were allotted some farming tools and some food to help them begin their new lives. Unlike Hong Ha villagers who moved back to their own homelands after the war, these villagers were forced to resettle. Moreover, to compound their challenges, some time after being persuaded to resettle, the people observed that a state logging company was extensively logging their traditional forests. Outsiders had begun to harvest rattan and other forest products in a non-sustainable manner. They wondered why this was allowed to happen while, in their new homes, they did not have enough to eat. They were told by state authorities that this new life would be better for them and their families. However, many of them wanted to return to their own familiar forestlands.

Figure 5.1 Map of Vietnam, depicting its central region and study site
Source: Bao, 2002.

Our participatory research approach

A farmer's expectations are usually clear and simple: to meet daily requirements such as food, income, health and education. Hence, the project started with trying to improve farmers' livelihoods first. Simultaneously, project participants worked with state authorities to see whether the people's access to forests and other natural resources could be expanded.

They also asked for technical assistance in agricultural production. PAR was used to strengthen participation in the research process, from the identification of problems and possible solutions, to the joint implementation and testing of options. We employed participatory monitoring and evaluation as the work was undertaken (Figure 5.2). Participatory learning approaches were designed to include women and men farmers in all stages of the project.

Development of participatory approaches with local people and stakeholders

It is not easy to get male and female farmers and other stakeholders to participate in the whole process of action research. Participation is usually influenced by traditional top-down approaches to which researchers are accustomed. Researchers normally play all the main roles in all stages of research, from identifying problems to the implementation and evaluation of solutions. The levels of farmers' participation are low or nil. Through our work, we have learned that a good participatory approach requires a variety of methods. These must meet the practical needs of the farmers and simultaneously enhance their confidence. Some of the ways we tried to improve PAR and our CBNRM work are described next.

Figure 5.2 Learning cycles in PAR
Source: An, 2002.

The importance of a good initial diagnosis

It is crucial to diagnose the situation and research issues carefully at the beginning of the research process. Meetings with villagers should be organized according to different groups such as women, men, groups of the poor and groups of leaders. Most farmers are more interested in specific aspects of their daily lives and probably less interested in other things. For example, a good rice farmer is particularly proud of his or her production methods but another may be much more interested in cattle, which are looked after with great pride and care. In complicated production systems, one will always find farmers who are experimenting on their own and researchers can learn a lot by working with and learning from them. We were once told, 'If you want to teach a farmer you must first learn from a farmer.' This is something that we began to appreciate more and more. Problem diagnoses by different groups varied a great deal. Rather than leading to confusion, this helped researchers and villagers to understand the complexities of their situation better and to develop further steps for possible interventions (Table 5.1).

Improved criteria for selecting participants

Not all farmers have the same capacity to participate. It is normally easier for wealthy farmers and those who have higher social status in a community to articulate their views and participate more. Women and poor farmers rarely involve themselves. To encourage participation, community leaders helped the project team to list and classify farmers according to different wealth categories (very poor, poor, middle, better-off, and very rich) and according to a range of social indicators, not just income. Another categorization was based on people's motivations to work with one of several different production groups (we discuss these groups in more detail later on).

Table 5.1 Solutions identified by different farmer groups in Hong Ha

Source: Farmers' meeting in Hong Ha, 1999.

Acknowledging different farmer's motivations

Farmers have different reasons for participating in PAR. The usual reason is to improve production and income as well as to gain direct financial benefits. For example, some farmers wanted to be involved in the project's home gardening groups because they offered some financial subsidies for planting materials. However, their real intention was to use project funds for other purposes.

Based on past government-led interventions in Vietnam, farmers often expect financial support from outsiders for their needs. During initial meetings, villagers explain their situation mainly by the phrase 'a lack of'. Lack of money is often the highest priority, based on farmers' perceptions. In our project, we had to proceed carefully to explain that we were not a development agency. We needed them to understand that through participatory action research techniques, we wanted to learn with them and hoped they could learn and benefit from us. A deeper understanding of the situation emerged after many long discussions and many evenings spent in the village.

Upland people are poor and they often conceive of being poor as lacking money. However, many of them do not understand how to invest money loaned from outside agencies, a fact that usually results in them having heavier obligations and losses after such loans. We heard many unhappy stories regarding this situation from them. Hence, a careful analysis is vital. Farmers and village leaders were surprised to find that an outside group wanted to understand their situation and learn from them. This was vastly different from their experiences, where development agencies and government officials arrived already knowing the answers.

The social or economic status of a farmer or individual greatly affects the diagnosis of the problem. CBNRM starts with an understanding of the current situation and the diverse needs of many different groups in a given community. We must develop ways to help different groups overcome different problems, on their own.

Increasing farmers' participation

Using participatory development communication (PDC) methods and tools can improve local engagement in PAR. PDC is a powerful tool that facilitates the involvement of community members through various communication strategies (Bessette, 2004).

We used PDC in a variety of ways. For example, the use of video cameras and the production of leaflets encouraged farmers to participate and helped document new techniques that were applied locally. Project leaders were trained in how to use these kinds of communication tools and media for the benefit of researchers and local people. In the project, farmers were able to learn new production methods more easily with the help of videos on fish raising and livestock feed conservation. This was especially useful for illiterate farmers. An information resource centre was established in the commune, and stocked with a variety of information materials. Farmers said that they liked this manner of supplying information as it made access easier, although it was a challenge to provide suitable resources for low-literacy situations.

When interviewing or working with farmers, the types of questions and manner of talking are important to ensure good-quality participation. In-depth topical studies were used to help better understand their situation and ambitions. Open-ended questions were used to introduce topics and gather general information, but were followed up with probes for specific detail.

We encouraged farmers to form groups with shared interests to hold regular meetings and share information about their activities. This helped build their confidence to participate in other CBNRM activities, and to engage more actively in local government as well as in other types of meetings.

Arranging for adequate time and a proper place to participate

It is very important in the PAR process to consider the time and place of meetings. Most women (80 per cent in our study) noted that they could not attend meetings in the community centre. The centre is usually too far from their homes and is mainly used by community leaders, not by women. They stated that they were uncomfortable in this setting. Organizing meetings near their hamlets facilitated higher attendance and more active engagement. Even when they do not always attend such meetings, they often drop in as observers and then discuss with their friends later what they heard and observed. Researchers and extensionists need to sometimes stay overnight in the community and participate in household farming work. Team members who were able to do this found it a very productive way to learn and to build social relationships – and trust.

Improving the material livelihoods of the upland poor

Upland farmers in Hue and in many other parts of the country are adjusting or adapting both to new realities and farming systems. The policy environment for rural development has also changed dramatically over the last decade. Following the principles of PAR and PDC, our research project started by identifying farmers' needs and how to satisfy them. Meetings were conducted to identify problems and possible solutions. Partial results for some of our earlier meetings are summarized in Table 5.1.

Farmers' learning groups were then formed by inviting farmers to share their own interests and livelihood systems. These groups were built around different agricultural commodities. Each commodity served as an entry point to other linkages in the larger farming system, so the group interests were always broader than their main commodity. Groups included:

• rice production group;
  
  
• pig production group;
  
  
• fish raising group;
  
  
• home garden improvement group;
  
  
• cassava production group; and
  
  
• forestry production group.

The following section reports on some of the research team's experiences in improving livelihood options among poor farmers in Hong Ha. We focus on the lessons learned in our work with rice and pig production groups, because these are the foundations of their mixed farming system. Pigs are of particular interest to female farmers who see them as a way of earning a bit of extra cash for their other family needs. Extra cash allows them to pay for medicines, administer care when someone in the family is ill, or to buy books or other school supplies. When people in a village are desperate, often they can rely upon social support systems. However, having even small amounts of discretionary cash is extremely important for women.

Rice production group

Each production group initially consisted of no more than 15 farmers. Members began by discussing and explaining the problems they were facing, and identifying possible solutions. The project team facilitated these discussions, using their scientific and technical knowledge to complement the local people's knowledge.

As shown in Figure 5.3, one of the problems identified by the rice production group was low rice yields and productivity. They developed possible solutions, directly addressing the causes of the low rice yields and productivity as understood by them and the researchers. A range of solutions to be tested in their fields were discussed, as shown in Table 5.2.

The group decided to test these options:

• three new rice varieties (TH30, Khang dan, D116), using the local variety as a control;
  
  
• various levels of fertilizer application; and
  
  
• labour saving transplanting and direct-sowing methods.

In each experiment, between three and five farmers agreed to test one of the three options. The farmer group selected the farmers who would apply the different tests. Other group members participated in evaluation and learning meetings at least three times during the growing season: at the beginning during the planting and experimental design stage; during the growth period of rice; and at harvest time. During each meeting, farmers developed their own criteria to monitor and evaluate results, and made decisions on which varieties were performing well, how much and what fertilizer to apply, and which cultivation techniques to use. The results of on-farm monitoring and evaluation were shared with other rice farmers in the group, as well as with non-members and other production groups. Because of this, the learning process was expanded to other farmers in the community.

Based on the lessons learned from the on-farm experiments, researchers needed to take on facilitator roles to help farmers develop solutions based on their personal situation. Some farmers then could test new technologies, while others could monitor and evaluate the results and thus learn from those testing the options. The adaptability of options or solutions to other farmers should also be discussed, with the farmers supported by the researchers. The more familiar farmers become with new technologies and research results, the easier it is for them to share lessons more broadly with others (Table 5.3).

Figure 5.3 Problem analysis as performed by rice farmers
Source: Farmers' meeting in Hong Ha, 2002.

Pig production group

Similar steps of problem diagnosis and formulating solutions were also developed by the pig production group. Due to lack of agricultural land, farmers wanted to try to increase their incomes from livestock production. Some years ago, a number of projects had supported and introduced cattle to the commune. However, this only worked for middling well-off or better-off farmers who had sufficient money to buy better breeds or to pay herders to watch the cattle.

Poor farmers in Hong Ha and Huong Nguyen chose pig production as this endeavour is more suitable to their conditions. Pigs can be fed with farm products, such as cassava, vegetables and other home-grown or collected feeds. Some farmers had kept pigs in the past but their productivity was low. Pig production in upland conditions posed many problems such as low performance, poor husbandry techniques, lack of suitable feeds and diseases (Toan, 2003). Three experiments were carried out by different farmers: raising Mong Cai, a local breed of pigs that farmers favour, as mother pigs or as sows; raising crossbred animals associated with the fattening of pigs for the market; and making green feed (silage) from the widely grown cassava root and leaves.

Table 5.2 Rice production group: farmer-defined problems and solutions (not in priority order)

Table 5.3 Rice production group: results of testing options and adaptation rates by other farmers

In addition, two farmers were trained in basic veterinary practices for one month in Hue. This was supplemented by follow-up training in the village with the help of researchers and students. Vaccinations were also applied through veterinary service centres.

Meanwhile, other group members went to the district market centres to gather information on prices of the slaughtered pigs before selling to intermediaries. The farmers decided to sell their pigs together to get a higher price. These activities helped build social capital in the pig production group.

However, not all options or tests developed through PAR were successful. Mong Cai sows were introduced to 10 farmers. The sows produced good piglets in the first year through an artificial insemination service from the university. However, without the support of researchers or students, these sows could not get stud service since there were no boars in the village. As a result, Mong Cai sows stopped producing piglets and villagers decided not to keep sows any longer. Farmers now usually obtain piglets from a lowland commune near Hong Ha where sows produce high-quality piglets. It is anticipated that some of the more successful farmers may eventually invest in a boar or stud service and breed sows, after which time they will sell piglets locally.

Lessons learned

Over the last five years, livelihoods in Hong Ha commune have changed markedly as farmers have adapted technologies and modified both the forms and roles of local organization (interest groups, women's union, farmers' association and hamlet leaders). They have greatly improved their management capacity (collected information, made joint decisions, evaluated outcomes). This has resulted in increased food production and substantial income generation. The lessons learned from these initial experiences are as follows.

1. How to work with the poor and the disadvantaged groups in community. Poor and disadvantaged farmers usually do not participate in extension or development programmes because of assumptions about their poor status, low technical knowledge, and capacity to apply new technologies. Therefore it is important for researchers to understand and follow PAR and PDC methods with special attention to the poor. Farmers prefer to work in homogeneous groups where members have similar resource constraints and interests. It is also important that some farmers also want to belong to several groups. As farmers learn from one another and begin to adapt their own production methods, they gain greater confidence, judgement and skills. This helps them respond to new opportunities.
   
   
2. How best to adapt results to other people in the community or beyond. Research or development projects cannot work with everybody in a community at the same time. In this project, technical interventions were initially tested by a small number of farmers in the different interest groups. Other farmers had the opportunity to learn through the processes of research, communication and farmer-to-farmer interactions. Adapted technologies were evaluated by the farmers, who shared the lessons with other farmers. The role of researchers was generally limited to facilitating the learning process from farmer-to-farmer first in a commune and then at a broader level. Farmers themselves (or perhaps the provincial extension service) need to do this and researchers can only facilitate. The researchers' initial contribution was diverse, given that each group and each farmer had different interests and different resources. Therefore, they adopted or rejected new methods based on their own situation.
   
   There is little sense in trying to push a technology at farmers if they are not interested. For example, farmers planted new cassava varieties as on-farm experiments, to find the best for cultivation. Some farmers would prefer a particular variety while others differed. The reasons for this could be explained by their points of view regarding yield, market value, or taste, depending on the purpose for cultivation as well as individual preferences.
   
   
3. How to work with other line agencies for the poor. The results of our research would be more significant if applied and expanded to other areas and supported by additional agencies and policy-makers. In Vietnam, the agricultural extension system has a top-down approach, from central government to grassroots communities. Agricultural extensionists play critical roles in connecting the poor to different line agencies. Agricultural extension agents at provincial and district levels have cooperated in our research project as working partners. As a result, they are now beginning to use farmer-to-farmer learning approaches in their own work.

These are lessons that are important for agricultural extension agencies to grasp. In the research project, extensionists were given opportunities to participate in PAR processes themselves, as a way to facilitate their learning. Experiences from Hong Ha were shared with other communes throughout A Luoi district in extension meetings. Aside from individual farmer-to-farmer learning, extension meetings provide an opportunity to bring ideas to many other communities and gain feedback. The processes of participatory extension and adaptation with farmers need to be constantly evaluated. Government agencies must learn these processes.

An important tool for extension agencies is the participatory monitoring and evaluation process in which evaluation criteria were developed by farmers with support from extensionists and researchers. Evaluation workshops were organized regularly at community and district levels. In one of the earlier evaluations with both women and men, we were surprised to learn of the very high importance given to farm exchange visits and technical training. Farmers ranked this as their second most important priority (after work on rice). We adjusted our work accordingly. Another priority was that of building social assets in different ways, once basic livelihood needs were more secure.

Building assets

From our work, we have learned that agricultural production is an integral part of CBNRM. Natural resource management in complex uplands production systems requires that both private and collective resources be managed in a complementary fashion. Building assets (which includes access and rights to natural resource use) is essential to the process of poverty alleviation (Ford Foundation, 2002).

Assets as conceptualized in the research project include:

• financial assets such as credit and savings, and financial resources that local people can have the opportunity to access and utilize;
  
  
• natural resources in the uplands, such as forests, non-timber forest products (NTFPs), wildlife, land and livestock, which can provide communities with sustainable livelihoods with significant cultural value as well as environmental services, such as a water supply and quality;
  
  
• social assets which include the capacity to build productive relationships and organizations between people in the community and with the outside world (or terminate these links them when harmful); and
  
  
• human assets, including knowledge and skills, that can be employed to access services, market, health care and other opportunities.

Upland people are often deprived of these assets. Being poor makes people less secure in their livelihoods, and reduces access to educational opportunities, health services and other government programmes. This project has worked with local people to understand their asset situation, support local organizations and build assets of individuals in the community.

In most communes, social assets are constituted by formal and informal organizations. Formal organizations are established to manage community resources according to current government systems, such as the People's Committee of the commune, the Farmers' Association and the Women's Union, among others. These organizations have functions and responsibilities in developing upland communities. The research project has supported and worked with all three organizations very closely as they have long-established relationships with farmers and the poor within communities. Many meetings were held with these organizations to understand their roles, functions, and strong and weak points, and to formulate development plans with them to help build and empower their groups and organizations. Some of the results of this analysis are shown in Table 5.4.

The farmers' production or interest groups discussed above formed their own regulations on how to select members, how to request financial or technical support, and how to work together. (The box illustrates an example of this organization's set of requirements.)

Improving the skills, knowledge and confidence of leaders, individuals in the groups and commune organizations is one of the most important forms of human asset building. Participatory learning and evaluation approaches were introduced and applied by local organizations for their own needs, where users were encouraged to develop their own priorities and plans, and make greater contributions to community plans and activities. Training and study visits were also organized to provide learning opportunities and build confidence, especially in relation to outside groups.

In 2002 and 2003, study visits to China and Thailand were organized for commune leaders and others in their local organizations. They were given the opportunity to learn from innovative upland farmers and commune groups in these countries. The study visits helped create changes in the attitude of leaders, who became more active and motivated and better understood their own situations. As a direct result of our capacity-building efforts, Hong Ha was treated as a special case in the province in order to test different delivery approaches for local government support. The government of Vietnam currently has a special poverty alleviation plan for the 135 poorest communes in the country. Hong Ha is one of these, and will receive financial support (about US$30,000/year) for development activities. Hong Ha is the first commune in Hue province that has gained the autonomy to develop its own plans for spending the money. The community management board of Hong Ha is considered as the best among the upland communes in Thua Thien Hue. Its chairperson now also sits on a national committee for minority people, which provides further opportunities to share local lessons, and provide inputs into policies and programmes at a national level.

As far as financial assets are concerned, the commune Women's Union and the Farmers' Association were trained how to manage small, revolving credit schemes with an initial capital investment from the project. The fund started with about 10 farmers in the commune. After three years, 47 women had obtained benefits from the fund, which is entirely managed by local members. With this experience in credit management, both associations submitted a successful proposal for a much larger credit fund from an international NGO. They received about US$20,000 and started work in March 2004.

Table 5.4 Analysis of local organizations

Source: Local organization analysis by villagers, 2000.

Improving access to natural resources

In the uplands, local people's access to non-agricultural lands and forest resources is essential to their livelihood. In this section, we discuss access to forests to highlight the third pillar of our work. With over 70 per cent of the country's land area covered by forest (which is often badly degraded) and 20 million people living in upland areas, these resources can play a vital role in Vietnam's development (Quy, 1995; Rambo, 1995). Forest degradation continues due to the expansion of agricultural frontiers and a drive by the government to cultivate export crops. Improper policies or programming and illegal cutting of timber in some cases also challenge the sustainability of forestry resources. Maintaining existing forest or controlling degradation is a major challenge in efforts to reduce poverty and encourage sustainable development of the uplands. (Bao, 1999).

In Hong Ha, the agricultural land base is limited. However, forest lands cover 78 per cent of the land area, while unutilized lands or steep slopes covered by Imperata grass represent around 20 per cent. Forests help supply uncultivated foods, income from NTFPs, materials for house construction and traditional medicines for human health care. Sustainable extraction of these products need not degrade forests if they are well managed (Bao, 2002). It is important to note that the forests in the study sites are badly degraded. They have generally not recovered since the Vietnam war years; in fact, recovery has only commenced in a few valleys.

Under the Vietnamese land law (1993), all land belongs to the state. The state can assign user rights to individual farmers or legal organizations for a certain period. All the lands in Hong Ha once came under the jurisdiction of the commune, but now local people are given user rights only to agricultural lands. Forestry lands are managed and controlled by state forest enterprises or government forestry organizations. The Forestry Department of A Luoi district has the authority to check on timber extraction and protect the forest from illegal timber cutting. However, most of the forestlands fall under the provincial-level Watershed Management Board.

Forest policies and management are a major national issue in Vietnam. There are many programmes initiated by the central government designed to protect and reforest using central or local government funds. However, these programmes are often implemented differently in different districts and can create, or exacerbate, local conflicts. Programmes and funds often do not even reach the local level. As well, the duties and responsibilities of forestry departments at different levels overlap and are unclear (Du, 2003). Finally, the number of people available for forest security is insufficient to protect large areas and to stop the illegal cutting of timber.

By the early 1990s, reforestation was encouraged by the UN World Food Programme and national "327" programmes. The barren hills and unutilized lands were used for planting forest with Eucalyptus and Acacia species. The aim of the programmes was ostensibly to increase the surface area covered by forest in the country.

Programme implementation has been problematic. For example, the use of single species such as Acacia mangigum or Acacia eucoliformic for large reforestation projects and to protect watershed areas has been undertaken. Nevertheless, in large-scale plantations, this species is only useful for pulp production, and provides none of the benefits local people seek from forestlands. Local people are paid for their labour in planting and protecting tree seedlings, but have no rights to use the forests or products. Although the government has issued a number of more recent decrees on forestry and in some cases allocated lands to individuals or organizations, these have not been implemented in Hong Ha.

In general, forestry policies and management have focused mainly on protection, creating conflicts between forest protection and livelihood development needs. In line with this, the government enacted regulations under Decree 178 (November 2001). Unfortunately, this law is difficult to understand and has not been explained to local people. One important article is that local people can annually harvest up to 20 per cent of the total biomass in protection forests; therefore, about 80–90 per cent of the products should belong to them (Sen et al., 2003). In our study, this question was raised with the Watershed Protection Board: how can local people share in the costs and benefits in forest management? Discussion continues with co-management systems, benefit-sharing being our ultimate goal.

Experimenting with co-management and non-timber forest products

As a first step towards possible co-management regimes, the project organized meetings with those local farmers, commune leaders, district extension services and provincial agencies (especially the Watershed Management Board) which are responsible for identifying possible land and forest management options. Using a participatory approach, the group selected NTFPs as one area of high potential. This area could be developed by introducing valuable non-timber species into the existing forest plantation. With support from all the key stakeholders, the research team developed a trial to test the introduction of the Do Bau tree (Aquilaria crassna) in the Acacia mangium forest plantation. This species increased the density of the protection forest and provided income to farmers. Another experiment was to interplant bamboo in the forest and along the riverbanks to reduce soil erosion while providing a fast-growing cash crop for farmers.

Through these interventions, farmers have been able to increase their income and extend their formal resource tenure rights in forest areas. The lands with Aquilaria crassna and bamboo plantation have been recognized and legally allocated to farmers in the commune. The research project demonstrated that the NTFP model plantation did not cause any problems from an environmental perspective and the plantation is now legally recognized by the state.

The NTFP models established in Hong Ha with stakeholder participation are now informing the forest management strategy employed in A Luoi district by the agricultural and rural development sector. Aquilaria crassna and bamboo plantations have been recognized by the District People's Committee in 2004 as representing worthwhile production opportunities throughout the district. The budget for the district's agriculture and rural development department includes funds for seedlings and technical support in forest plantation. Lessons learned are also shared with other communities in A Luoi. Therefore, NTFP production is becoming an important element of the provincial agricultural extension service. The Bo River Watershed Protection Board is now using Aquilaria crassna as well, instead of only Acacia, in its reforestation projects.

More recently, the project has been working together with several of these government agencies to implement joint forest management where benefits and costs are shared between the government and local farmers. This is an important new research avenue that we will explore further. In meetings with A Luoi district officials, research on participatory forestry management options has been proposed by local government. The researchers hope that in the next several years options of co- and joint management forest tenure will be tested in A Luoi.

Conclusions

Commune leaders have told the research team that this CBNRM approach is very different from other projects. In the past, the ideas, priorities and local knowledge of commune leaders and other local people were mostly ignored by rural development experts or agricultural extension services. Giving poor farmers, including women, the opportunity both to improve their understanding and to work on their interests, as this project has done, builds confidence and skills among locals. Our experience suggests that poverty reduction in the heterogeneous upland areas of Vietnam is much more effective when it employs participatory tools and fosters adaptive learning.

We can summarize the key conclusions of the action research project in Hong Ha and neighbouring Huong Nguyen communes. First, improving their livelihoods is the first priority of the upland poor. Not all farmers have the same interest and capacity to improve their production and income generation, so participatory approaches must make special efforts to engage all local people, especially the women and poor. Second, successful new technologies and institutions can best be disseminated by structured farmer-to-farmer learning activities, and by extension agencies that use participatory tools and methods. Third, the key lesson learned from forest management in Hong Ha is that resource and land tenure must be identified clearly, along with other rights and responsibilities for forest protection, in order to ensure that there are local benefits. The direct involvement of different stakeholders from various levels of government is vital for learning, building consensus and resolving conflicts. The final goal of CBNRM is to achieve better natural resource management options in which the local community plays an important role. Increasing access to resources and building assets of upland people for collective action help to build social equity. Long-term resource management options should be balanced with the short-term needs of local people and other stakeholders.

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the extensive contributions to the research and preparation of this chapter made by other research team members: Hoang Thi Sen, Le Quang Bao, Le Duc Ngoan, Ngo Huu Toan, Nguyen Thi Thanh, Nguyen Thi Cach, Nguyen Minh Hieu, Nguyen Phi Nam, Dao Thi Phuong, Le Quang Minh, Nguyen Xuan Hong, Hoang Huu Hoa, Tran Minh Tri, Truong Tan Quan, Le Thi Thuy Hang, Tran Ngoc Liem and Nguyen Khoa Hieu.

Financial support from the IDRC of Canada and the Ford Foundation in Hanoi is gratefully acknowledged. The author would also like to thank Dr John Graham, IDRC senior program officer; Dr Charles Bailey, representative of the Ford Foundation in Hanoi, Vietnam and Thailand; the Department of Agricultural and Rural Development of Thua Thien Hue province; the Agricultural Extension Centre of Thua Thien Hue, the Forestry Department; the Watershed Management Board; the People's Committee of A Luoi district; the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development of A Luoi district; the Department of Forestry of A Luoi district; the People's Committee of Hong Ha commune, and farmers in Hong ha and Huong Nguyen communes.

Document(s) 11 of 24