Vai trò của vốn xã hội và thể chế địa phương trong quản lý rừng cộng đồng khu vực Bắc Trung Bộ TTA

Nội dung bản trích yếu 2.1. Mục đích và đối tượng nghiên cứu của luận án - Mục đích nghiên cứu của đề tài: Đánh giá vai trò của vốn xã hội và thể chế địa phương trong quản lý rừng cộng đồng khu vực Bắc Trung Bộ nhằm cung cấp các cơ sở khoa học và thực tiễn góp phần nâng cao hiệu quả quản lý rừng cộng đồng ở khu vực nói riêng và Việt Nam nói chung. - Đối tượng nghiên cứu: Các nhân tố vốn xã hội và thể chế địa phương trong quản lý rừng cộng đồng. 2.2. Các phương pháp nghiên cứu đã sử dụng Phương pháp nghiên cứu của luận án dựa trên cách tiếp cận thể chế và vốn xã hội trong quản lý tài nguyên rừng, được phát triển từ khung phân tích tài nguyên chung của Oakerson (1992) và khung phân tích vốn xã hội trong quản lý tài nguyên chung của Ostrom (1998). Luận án sử dụng các phương pháp cụ thể sau đây để thu thập thông tin và phân tích số liệu: (i) Đánh giá nông thôn có sự tham gia (PRA) tập trung thu thập thông tin về khía cạnh lịch sử thôn bản, hệ thống quy chế/quy ước (thể chế) quản lý rừng cộng đồng và đánh giá ở cấp độ nhóm về kết quả thực thi các hoạt động quản lý rừng, thực thi thể chế và hiệu quả quản lý rừng cộng đồng ở cấp cộng đồng; (ii) Phỏng vấn hộ gia đình và cá nhân bằng bộ câu hỏi cấu trúc (structured questionaires) về các yếu tố vốn xã hội (trên cơ sở tham khảo hệ thống câu hỏi về vốn xã hội của Ngân hàng thế giới (2004)), hành động tập thể, hiệu quả của quản lý rừng cộng đồng; (iii) Đánh giá nhanh hiện trạng rừng bằng cách khảo sát nhanh hiện trường và kết hợp với tài liệu thứ cấp về đặc điểm và biến động tài nguyên như về diện tích và chất lượng rừng; (iv) Phương pháp xác định các chỉ số và phân tích thống kê: áp dụng công cụ likert-scale để định lượng hoá các biến số và các phương pháp phân tích thống kê định lượng, bao gồm tính các giá trị đặc trưng mẫu (số trung bình mẫu, sai tiêu chuẩn) cho các chỉ số, phân tích sự khác biệt số trung bình của các chỉ số vốn xã hội ở các thôn bản nghiên cứu bằng phân tích phương sai 1 nhân tố (ANOVA), phân tích sự liên hệ cho các biến không có thứ bậc và có thứ bậc theo tiêu chuẩn phi tham số như c2, Kendall và phân tích tương quan giữa hiệu quả quản lý rừng với các chỉ số về vốn xã hội và với một số biến về thể chế địa phương. 2.3. Các kết quả chính và kết luận Các kết quả chính: Các cộng đồng địa phương đang quản lý diện tích rừng khá lớn ở khu vực Bắc Trung Bộ từ nhiều đời nay theo cách truyền thống. Ở khu vực có hai hình thức cấu trúc tổ chức quản lý rừng cộng đồng theo toàn thôn và theo nhóm hộ thể hiện sự đa dạng về cấu trúc tổ chức quản lý phản ánh đặc điểm điều kiện tự nhiên, lịch sử quản lý rừng cộng đồng tại các địa phương và thể hiện việc quản lý thích ứng. Nghiên cứu này chỉ ra rằng tính đa chiều, nhiều khía cạnh khác nhau của vốn xã hội (từ mạng lưới đến giá trị và quan điểm chia sẻ) cũng như có sự khác biệt về giá trị vốn xã hội ở các cộng đồng nghiên cứu. Trong các chỉ số vốn xã hội, có sự khác biệt lớn nhất giữa các cộng đồng ở các chỉ số về sự tin tưởng và sự tương hỗ, cũng như mạng lưới xã hội. Các kết quả phân tích thống kê định lượng đã chứng minh rằng vốn xã hội địa phương có tương quan thuận chặt chẽ với với hiệu quả quản lý rừng cộng đồng. Nơi có vốn xã hội cao thì hiệu quả quản lý rừng cộng đồng tốt hơn. Trong đó, các chỉ số vốn xã hội thành phần như sự tin tưởng và sự tương hỗ là các chỉ số có ảnh hưởng rõ rệt và lớn nhất đến hiệu quả quản lý rừng cộng đồng. Hệ thống thể chế trong quản lý rừng cộng đồng tại khu vực nghiên cứu về cơ bản có cấu trúc khá tương đồng và đều được xây dựng theo khuôn mẫu do Kiểm lâm địa phương hỗ trợ, bao gồm (i) các quy định hoạt động và (ii) các quy định tập thể dựa trên quy định của Nhà nước về quản lý rừng và quy chế truyền thống của các cộng đồng. Nhìn chung các quy chế này còn thiếu chi tiết về quản lý lâm sản ngoài gỗ, cơ chế giải quyết xung đột và đảm bảo thực thi quy chế. Thể chế địa phương (thể hiện ở các quy định, mức độ chi tiết và mức độ thực thi quy chế) là một yếu tố quan trọng ảnh hưởng trực tiếp đến các hành động tập thể và hiệu quả quản lý rừng cộng đồng. Kết quả nghiên cứu cho thấy các mô hình quản lý rừng cộng đồng được đánh giá cao, có hiệu quả là các mô hình có thể chế rõ ràng và được thực thi nghiêm, dẫn đến rừng cộng đồng được bảo vệ tốt, kiểm soát tốt diện tích đất rừng và chất lượng rừng được cải thiện. Kết luận Nghiên cứu đã xác định được vốn xã hội và thể chế địa phương của các cộng đồng là các nhân tố quan trọng, có ảnh hưởng đến việc tổ chức quản lý và hiệu quả quản lý rừng cộng đồng, làm cơ sở khoa học quan trọng cho việc thiết kế cơ cấu quản lý, hệ thống thể chế và thúc đẩy các nhân tố vốn xã hội của cộng đồng địa phương nhằm nâng cao hiệu quả quản lý tài nguyên rừng cộng đồng.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING - MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF FORESTRY NGO VAN HONG THE ROLE OF SOCIAL CAPITAL AND LOCAL INSTITUTIONS IN COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT IN THE NORTH CENTRAL REGION OF VIETNAM Specialization: Forest Resources Management Code: 9620211 DISSERTATION OF FORESTRY - SUMMARY HANOI, 2022 Completed at Vietnam National University of Forestry Supervisors: Assoc Prof Dr DO ANH TUAN Assoc Prof Dr TRAN NGOC HAI Examiner 1: Examiner 2: Examiner 3: The Thesis shall be defended in front of the Institutional-level Dissertation Committee at: Vietnam National University of Forestry …/ …/2022 (hh AM/PM, dd/MM) Copies of the Thesis can be found at: - National Library of Vietnam; - Library of Vietnam National University of Forestry At …, LIST OF PUBLICATIONS WITH RELEVANCE TO THE THESIS Ngo Van Hong, Do Anh Tuan, Bui The Doi (2021), Local management structures and institutions in community forest management in the North Central Region of Vietnam Journal of Forestry Science and Technology No 5/2021 Ngo Van Hong, Bui The Doi, Tran Ngoc Hai, Do Anh Tuan (2021), Characteristics and effects of social capital on community forest management in the North Central Region Journal of Forestry Science No 6/2021 FOREWORD The necessity of the dissertation Forests and forest land are essential natural resources and one of the primary sources of livelihood for locals and communities Forests and forest land are typically maintained and utilized under one of the following ownership regimes: governmental ownership, individual ownership, or community ownership (also known as common ownership) (Hanna, 1995) Community-owned resources are not owned by individuals or the state, but rather by a local community or group of people who own access, use, and management rights jointly Community forest management (CFM) is a system of forest management that serves the common interests of forest-dwelling people based on legislation, traditional knowledge, and community activities (Nguyen Ba Ngai, 2009) In recent years, a large number of theoretical and practical investigations have demonstrated that local communities can successfully manage their forest resources for generations by adhering to their regulations or customary standards In which factors such as social capital and institutions significantly affect the effectiveness of community forests (Ostrom, 1990) Currently, community forest development (CF) is regarded as an important solution in forestry development in many nations in order to draw the participation of communities, thereby contributing to sustainable forest management (Hajjar, 2020) In Vietnam, community forests are forests maintained by villages or clans that were traditionally managed (managed according to customary laws) or assigned by the State during the implementation of forest policy The provinces of the North Central area are home to millions of ethnic minorities, whose livelihoods are dependent on forest resources and whose cultural and spiritual lives have been intertwined with woods for millennia Local communities in this region have managed tens of thousands of hectares of community forest for decades, and in some cases, for generations Several studies have demonstrated that CFM in Vietnam has actively contributed to the proper management and protection of forest resources and the improvement of community livelihoods (Do Anh Tuan, 2012, Ha Huy Tuan, 2015) However, past research has concentrated mostly on characterizing the actual status and significance of community forests, as well as their technical features and CFM planning In Vietnam, no systematic and quantitative research has been undertaken on the current situation and role of social capital and local institutions in CFM Therefore, the implementation of this study is crucial in establishing a scientific and practical foundation for enhancing the efficacy of CFM in the region and across the nation Objectives 2.1 General objective Assess the role of social capital and local institutions in the community forest management of the North Central region in order to offer a scientific and practical basis for enhancing the effectiveness of community forest management in the region and throughout Vietnam 2.2 Specific objectives (1) Systematize and provide the theoretical basis of community forest management, the role of social capital and local institutions in community forest management; (2) Evaluate the existing quo of social capital and local institutions in community forest management; (3) Evaluate the impact of social capital and local institutions on the efficacy of community forest management, and propose strategies to strengthen their roles in order to enhance the effectiveness of community forest management Research scope and object The dissertation focuses on social capital and local institutions in CFM as its area of study This study was conducted between 2015 and 2020 in the provinces of Nghe An, Quang Binh, and Thua Thien Hue in the North Central Region As case studies, six (6) village-level community forest management approaches were chosen Findings - Summarize in general terms the theoretical foundation for community forest management based on the theory of common resource management and collective action, as well as the function of institutions and social capital in community forest management The research findings relate to the function of social capital and local institutions in CFM theory - The study has quantitatively modeled the direction and extent of social capital and local institutions' influence on the efficiency of community forest management in the area under study Scientific and practical significance 5.1 Scientific significance Identifying local social and institutional capital of communities as important factors influencing management organization and effectiveness of community forest management, serving as an important scientific basis for the design of the community forest management organization structure, institutional system, and promote social capital factors to improve the efficiency of community forest resource management 5.2 Practical significance - Determining the diversity of structure management, demonstrating the adaptability of local forest management - Determining the impact of social capital elements (network, trust, and reciprocity) on the efficiency of community forest management - Determining the characteristics and impact of institutions (the system of conventions and regulations) on the effectiveness of community forest management - Providing essential recommendations for a practical application on proposing organizational structure, developing appropriate systems/regulations, and promoting social capital aspects to enhance the efficacy of community forest management Chapter 1.1 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH PROBLEMS Common-pool/community resources, ownership regime and collective action 1.1.1 Common-pool resources In many areas, natural resources, natural resources, such as water areas, pastures, and woods, are maintained and utilized by local communities or groups of people rather than individuals or the state In natural resource management, it is crucial to comprehend the institutional economic character of resources and the ownership framework under which resources are held All products/resources and services can be categorized into four groups based on two features of use: I the ability to exclude others from accessing and utilizing, and (ii) the type of loss in use: private goods, public goods, charged goods/services, and common/community goods/resources Common goods and resources (e.g., a village's shared forest) have two crucial characteristics: usage depletion and the inability to prevent others from accessing and utilizing them Therefore, many academics have concluded that it is challenging to successfully manage shared resources (Hardin, 1968) 1.1.2 Regime of community resource ownership Some studies suggest that the most important thing for natural resource management is not the type of resource but the regime of resource ownership Berkes et al., 1989; Ostrom, 1992; Feeny, 1994; Pomeroy, 1996) classified four different regimes of ownership: i) derelict, ii) private ownership, iii) state ownership and iv) common/community ownership Common ownership (also known as community ownership) is a kind of ownership in which the rights to own/use resources are held and governed by an interdependent group or community In this context, a community forest is a resource managed under common ownership, also called as community ownership Establishing ownership of communal resources is necessary, but not sufficient, according to Hanna et al (1995) In the absence of secured and enforced usage rights and rules, overexploitation and depletion of the shared resource are still possible He emphasized that any ownership regime must effectively address two fundamental management problems: I control access to resources to address the problem of outsider exclusion; and (ii) have (institutional) regulations on resource use to address competition of interests/conflicts to ensure successful management of common resources 1.1.3 Collective action in common resource management The theory of collective action is related to the creation of collective action through the cooperation of two or more individuals Marshall (1998) defines collective action as "an action performed by groups of people in pursuit of the common interests of their members" According to this concept, common/community resource management also involves other collective activities, such as group creation, the establishment of regulations, access control, exploitation and usage, and monitoring, etc Members of a group or local community organize collective efforts for mutual benefit As a result of the public good nature of collective efforts, however, they frequently meet potential organizational issues Theoretical studies on common resources and collective actions have shown that in essence , community forest management is essentially organizing collective actions at the village or household group level to manage forest resources of the community because (1) community forest is a resource under common ownership or use of the community and (ii) community forest management requires the establishment and execution of collective actions, such as forest protection patrol, care, use and development 1.2 Community forest management 1.2.1 Definition Community forest management is usually associated with three terms: (i) community forestry, (ii) community forest management, and (iii) community-based forest management FAO defines Community Forestry (CF) as "any activity and environment that encourages the participation of local people in forestry activities." According to Do Anh Tuan (2011), community forest management has a narrower connotation than community forestry when referring to the management of forests that the local community has the right to use/own under either the official state or the traditional self-recognition In terms of CF or community participation in forest management, it covers a sequence of actions that connect villagers to forests, trees, forest products, and the distribution of forest benefits This notion also include community-based forest management (in which the community is not the owner of the forest but a participant in forest protection through a contract with other forest owners such as management boards of protection forests and specialuse forests) The management forms of CFM around the world range from forest use groups with significant ownership/use rights, as in Nepal, to co-management (between the local community and the forestry agency) The 2017 Forestry Law in Vietnam legally recognizes communities as forest owners Tens of thousands of residential communities or household groups, primarily ethnic minority communities, manage and use more than 2.5 million hectares of forests and forest land, accounting for nearly 15 percent of the total forest area of the country The State has allocated more than million hectares of forests to communities for management (Nation council, 2017) Numerous studies in Vietnam have demonstrated that local communities have sustainably governed community forest management for the common interests of the entire community, not only for economic purposes but primarily for environmental benefits (such as protecting water sources for agricultural production and daily life) and also for culture and spirituality purposes (such as sacred forests, ghost forests, religious forests) (Tran Thi Thu Ha, 2003, Nguyen Ba Ngai, 2005; Do Anh Tuan et al., 2018; Vo Dinh Tuyen, 2015) 1.2.2 Evaluate the effectiveness of community forest management Globally, the evaluation of forest management in general and CFM in particular focuses mostly on forest conservation, biodiversity, people's rights, and compliance with agreements/international law on timber and forest products In this study, the effectiveness of the CFM model is evaluated according to the following index groups: (1) Outcomes related to CFM objectives (the integrity of CF resources); (2) Participation (level of participation, fairness, and level of conflict); and (3) Effects on the household economy (indicated by the index on the ratio of income from forests to the household economy) 1.3 The role of social capital and local institutions in CFM 1.3.1 Definitions of social capital and local institutions 1.3.1.1 The definition of social capital In recent decades, the concept of social capital has become one of the most widely-discussed subjects in social science and in disciplines such as economics, political science, education, development research, and public health (Coleman, 1988; Fukuyama, 2001; Putnam, 1995) Social capital exists in human relationships Social capital is defined by Fukuyama (2001) as "an actualized informal norm that fosters collaboration amongst individuals." This study defines local social capital in a narrow sense as a social resource linked in the relationships between community members to promote effective local forest resource management, including components such as connection, trust, mutuality, values, and shared perspectives of community members at the village level 1.3.1.2 The definition of local institutions Common resource management is the process of organizing collective actions for the mutual benefit of a group or community According to the theory of collective action, institutions are developed to regulate the behavior of those engaged in the administration of shared resources Institutions are viewed as "rules" by a number of experts in the field of new institutional economics (NIE) (North, 1990; Ostrom, 1990; Bromley, 1991) "Institutions are the rules of the game in a society are the human-made limits that shape human interaction," as defined by North (1990) Formal (in line with the law) or informal institutions exist (in accordance with tradition) Institutional arrangements consist of the arrangement of rules They establish who determines what in respect to whom by defining authority connections (Oakerson, 1992) Institutional arrangements give means for operating management in accordance with a predetermined set of rules in order to attain goals (North, 1990) Institutional arrangements consist of three distinct sets of rules: operational rules, collective action rules (sometimes called governance rules), and institutional rules (Ostrom, 1990; Oakerson, 1992) Operational rules are deemed "direct level" rules because they have the most direct and evident impact on user behavior (e.g rules on community forest exploitation and protection) Collective action rules are intermediate-level rules that contain participation mechanisms for various entities in collective actions (e.g., the mechanism for electing a community forest management board or a benefit-sharing mechanism are examples of collective action rules in community forest management) Institutional rules are the foundation upon which collective action rules and operational rules are developed State-issued policies and legislation governing forest and land management are examples of these regulations In this study, "local institutions" refers to village-level legislation and agreements governing communal forest management In numerous publications, the phrases social capital, institutions, and organization are frequently used interchangeably Although social capital, institutions, and organizations are all social elements, there is a relative distinction between them Institutions are the "game rules," whereas organizations are the "game participants." Simply said, if organizations are the "hardware" of computers, then institutions are the "software" that defines how the "hardware" operates (Messer and Townsley, 2003) In contrast to institutions, which are mandatory "hard" regulations that regulate the behavior of individuals in a community, social capital is a "soft" characteristic that is related with relationships between community members and also influences the behavior of individuals 1.3.2 Measure social capital Measuring social capital is challenging due to the elusive nature of social capital and the difficulty of reaching consensus on its definition How social capital is defined, understood, and applied to social phenomena influences how it is measured The methodologies used to measure social capital are also dependent on the field of application (e.g., economics, sociology, management, health, etc.), components of social capital (structure, relation, and cognition and analytical levels), and the degree of social capital (individual, group and organization, community and country) The World Bank (2004) developed the integrated questionnaire for the measurement of social capital (SC-IQ) with an emphasis on research and use in poor countries, comprising six dimensions with over two hundred social capital indices In this study, the author employs a series of questions to assess social capital variables chosen with reference to the World Bank's questionnaire 1.3.3 The role of social capital and local institutions in community forest management 1.3.1 In the world Numerous theoretical and experimental research have proven that institutions and social capital are significant determinants of the formation and execution of effective collective activities in resource management in general and in community forest management in particular (Ostrom, 1900; Thomson 1992; Ascher, 1995; Coleman, 1988; Putnam et al, 1993; Grootaert, 1999) While institutions (rules) establish and restrict the actions and interactions that individuals in a community can and cannot perform, benefit, and be punished for, it directly shapes and restricts individual motivation and the interaction between members through rights and obligations, influencing and restricting the motivation and self-interested actions of each individual in community activities Social capital is an important resource that, unlike institutions, indirectly affects the effectiveness of collective actions by fostering cooperation, reducing community conflicts, and lowering transaction costs in order to achieve positive outcomes in collective actions through social connection, mutual trust, reciprocity, and view/perception and value sharing (Coleman, 1988; Maluccio et al, 2000) Ostrom et al (1999), in a summary of research conducted in seven nations, concluded that the success of forest management is directly tied to social capital Increased social capital results in improved forest management Ayako Ido (2019) concluded from her research on community forest management in Cambodia that the presence of social capital characteristics (such as social networks) enables communities to coordinate effective collective actions in community forest management 1.3.2 In Vietnam Very few studies on social capital exist in Vietnam, primarily in the fields of artisan villages and public health Among the most notable is Nguyen Van Ha's (2006) study on the significance of social capital (consisting of three components: network, trust, and reciprocity) as crucial production function determinants in the development of the handmade village economy in northern Vietnam Other research on social capital in development and public health, such as that of Wang et al (2011), Beak (2016), Luong (2018), Quoc Dinh et al (2016), and Nielsen et al (2017), has been conducted (2013) All of these researchs conclude that social capital contributes to community development There has been no research on social capital in community forest management before to this point Some qualitative studies on community forest management rules primarily describe the rules without assessing judgments based on the theory of collective action in shared resource management, such as the research of Nguyen Quang Tan (2006), Sikor (2011), and Vo Dinh Tuyen (2012) According to the idea of collective action, Tran Thi Thu Ha (2003) and Do Anh Tuan et al (2018) explore the role of local institutions in CFM from a qualitative standpoint 1.4 Theoretical gaps and research directions The above theoretical review illustrates the significance of institutions and social capital in common/community resource management in general, and CFM in particular, by establishing and modifying the behavior of each individual in collective activities However, it can be seen that there are still some theoretical and practical gaps that need to be addressed when studying CFM in Vietnam as follows: i) There are few studies on institutions and social capital in CFM in the world, mainly focusing on either institutions or social capital Furthermore, very few studies are quantitative; ii) Professor Ostrom1, a world-renowned scholar proposed institutional principles for sustainable management of common resources So how these principles can be tested and applied to CFM in our country is still an important question to consider; iii) Vietnam's legal regulations on community forests only recognize a form of village-wide community, while in terms of practical and theoretical research above, the form of household group can also exist iv) The development of regulations on CFM (institutional factor) in our country is often stereotyped, and in many places, it is still not detailed enough to ensure the requirements of organizing successful collective actions in forest management, especially ensuring the monitoring and enforcement of regualtions v) Social capital is a very important factor in community resource management in general and community forest in particular, but most research on community forest management focuses on technical aspects Up to now, there has not been any systematic and quantitative research on institutional and social capital factors in community forest management in our country The author selected research on the function of social capital and local institutions in CFM in the North Central area in order to provide a scientific and practical basis for enhancing the efficacy of CFM in the region and Vietnam as a whole Chapter RESEARCH CONTENT AND METHODOLOGY 2.1 Research content On the basis of identifying the research's objectives, objects, and scope, the dissertation executes the subsequent research contents: i) Theoretical and practical basis for community forest management, the role of social capital and institutions in community forest management; ii) Current status of community forest management in the North Central region and characteristics of socio-economic status and forest resources in the study area; iii) Characteristics of local social and local institutions in community forest management and the influence of these factors on the effectiveness of community forest management in the study area; iv) Orientations and solutions to improve the role of social capital and local institutions in community forest management 2.1.Research methodology 2.1.1 Research approach The theoretical framework of the dissertation is based on the approach of institutions and social capital in forest management, developed from the framework of common resource analysis by E Ostrom, former president of the American Political Science Association, is the first woman in the world to win the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics for economic systems based on the research of common natural resource management (comm-pool resources) area of 3,126,704 hectares by the end of 2020, representing 21,3% of the country's total forest area The average forest covering rate is significantly greater than the national average, which is 42.01% The forest area assigned to the community for management in the North Central region by the end of 2020 is 89,948 hectares, taking up 2.8% of the total area compared to other objects in the region The province with the highest rate of forests allocated to the community for management is Thua Thien Hue province with an area of 20,339 ha, accounting for 6.5% of the province's forest area Chapter RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Socio-economic characteristics and organizational model of CFM 3.1.1 Socio-economic characteristics and history of community forest management Table 3.1 presents some socio-economic characteristics and community forest resources in selected community forest research models In these models, there is a diversity of ethnic groups participating in community forest management, including 02 models of Kinh people in Uyen Phong and Cua Rao villages and 04 models of ethnic minorities including Thai, Co Tu and Ma Lieng people Table 3.1 Socio-economic characteristics and community forest resources Village/hamlet name Characteristics A Tin Ke hamlet Cua Rao Quang Thinh Doi hamlet Uyen Phong Co Tu Ma Lieng Kinh Thai Co Tu Kinh Poverty + near-poverty rate (%) 41.0 98.0 18.1 15.1 30.0 5.4 Area (ha) 285.6 465.0 153.4 238.3 689.2 52.2 Major groups ethnic Forest type Average timber reserves (m3/ha) Production Production Production 125 120 78 Special Use 300 Production Production 80 180 The area of community forests ranges from 52.2 (over 15% of the total village area) in Uyen Phong village to 689.2 (77.4% of the total village area) in Doi village Forests within the study sites are mainly poor natural forests (78 - 125 m3/ha in 4/6 models) Only in two villages, Uyen Phong and Quang Thinh, are there medium and rich natural forests (180 m3/ha and 300 m3/ha respectively) The Kinh community has been managing the community forest in Uyen Phong village for generations The forests managed by ethnic minorities include the community forests of A Tin and Doi villages (Thua Thien Hue) where Co Tu people make up the majority of the population, and Ke hamlet (Quang Binh) inhabited by Ma Lieng people The community forest in Quang Thinh hamlet has been under management by the Thai community for over 200 years In Cua Rao village, forests have been allocated to the community since 1994 3.1.2 Organizational structure of community forest management within the study sites The CFM organizational structures in the 06 villages/hamlets in question are implemented via two models: (i) village community forest management model and (ii) household group community forest management model In the village community forest management model (Figure 3.1.), all participating households are community members who jointly use and manage the forest The management and protection of forests may be performed by a designated forest protection group/team, or by households taking turns to patrol under the assignment, direction and supervision of the CFM Board This structure was observed in Quang Thinh, Cua Rao 2, Ke and Uyen Phong villages/hamlets COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT BOARD UNIT Coordination Households COMMUNITY FOREST PROTECTION GROUP Coordination Households Figure 3.1 Diagram of village CFM structure COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT BOARD UNIT HOUSEHOLD GROUP HOUSEHOLD GROUP… HOUSEHOLD GROUP Figure 3.2 Diagram of household group CFM structure In the model of management by household group (Figure 3.2), the forest is still considered a common "asset" of the whole village However, forests are managed by groups of households, where each group is usually composed of several households that mostly either belong to one family line, or own forest areas in close proximity (5 to 10 households/group) Each household in the group would directly participate in forest management and protection activities The group leaders are responsible for assigning and monitoring its members in forest patrol, protection and other group activities The village management board is only responsible for general management This is the form of CFM observed in Doi and A Tin villages in Thua Thien Hue province 3.2 Characteristics of social capital in community forest management 3.2.1 Social network Participation of community members in social and professional organizations at the village level demonstrates social connections at a community level, thus forming the local social network The network index, calculated as the number of association network per capita was selected to represent the social network index Table 3.2 shows the number of participants, the number of networks (each association is considered a network) and the average number of networks per capita for each village in the study Each person in a village/hamlet participates in a maximum of four groups/associations, and the number of participants in groups/associations varies significantly across all villages/hamlets This index is highest in Uyen Phong and A Tin villages, and lowest in Cua Rao and Doi villages Table 3.2 Average number of networks per capita Village/ Number of participants and number of networks hamlet (NW) in participation Province Thua Thien Hue Quang Binh Nghe An NW NW NW NW Average # of Standard NWs in interviewees error participation Number of Doi 18 32 1.94 0.67 A Tin 18 31 2.26 0.68 Uyen Phong 15 11 27 2.37 0.56 Ke hamlet 12 15 30 1.70 0.65 Quang Thinh 26 30 2.13 0.35 Cua Rao 21 31 1.81 0.54 32 113 35 181 2.30 0.63 Average ANOVA statistical analysis Anova value F=8.851; Significance level Sig.= 0.000 3.2.2 Trust Community-level trust in this study focuses primarily on aspects related to the management, use and distribution of benefits in community forest management This includes mutual trust among members of the community, as well as the community's trust in outsiders (including people outside of the community, local authorities and forest rangers) in CFM activities Figure 3.3 illustrate the aspects (questions) of the trust index through interview results from the villages/hamlets Statistical analysis results show significant differences (with a significance level of 0.05) for (out of 9) components of the trust index, except for trust in the role of forest rangers - that is, all villages/hamlets in question highly value the role of forest rangers in supporting CFM activities The average trust index at the village level is relatively high in Quang Thinh (2.85) and Uyen Phong (2.82) villages, whereas it is the lowest in Doi and Cua Rao villages (2.44 and 2.65 respectively) Dỗi A Tin Uyên Phong Bản Kè Quang Thịnh Cửa Rào 3.00 Trust in rangers' CF support role Believe in members' compliance with regulations 2.50 Believe that members are not exploiting one another 2.00 1.50 Trust in the role of local government in supporting CF 1.00 Trust in CFM PMU's leadership 0.50 0.00 Trust in the role of local government in supporting CF Consider CFM's divisions to be equitable Having the belief that CFM PMU is not profiting from it trust the members of the village Figure 3.3 Trust index components at the study sites 3.2.3 Reciprocity Figure 3.4 reveals the level of support experienced in the community (from lowest (1) to highest (3)) at the study sites The results show that the value of this index is highest in Uyen Phong village (2.8), then Ke hamlet (2.74), Quang Thinh village (2.67) and lowest in Cua Rao village (2.29) and Doi village (2,36) The results of statistical analysis according to ANOVA also show that there is a clear difference in the correlation index among the study villages/hamlets (Sig = 0,000) Dỗi A Tin Uyên Phong Quang Thịnh Cửa Rào Tổng Bản Kè 3.00 Help each other on patrol 2.00 Help each other on production 1.00 0.00 Help each other in filial piety help each other on exploiting Figure 3.4 Community support level at the study sites The results also show that: (i) Reciprocity is quite high in aspects related to spiritual culture (such as weddings or funerals), collective activities (such as community forest patrolling), or in agricultural work; (ii) Reciprocity is quite high in Uyen Phong (in Quang Binh) and Quang Thinh (in Nghe An) villages These findings are quite similar to several results by Ostrom (1999) and other authors, on the topic of social capital in a number of Asian countries (Nepal) and Africa 3.2.4 Shared awareness of the value of community forests and the goals of CFM Shared awareness of community forest values and CFM objectives were selected as an indicator of social capital that could represent the homogeneity in awareness of CFM values and objectives Figure 3.5 presents the shared value index (max=1 i.e all households provided the same answer) on the role of community forests and CFM objectives for each community in question Thôn Dỗi Bản Kè 1.00 Agree on CFM goals A Tin Uyên Phong Quang Thịnh Cửa Rào Agree on the roles of the environment 0.50 Agree on the roles of firewood 0.00 Agree on the role of culture and beliefs Agree on economic roles Figure 3.5 Shared value index in the study sites The figure above shows high values (approaching 1) in villages regarding the shared value index of management goals, except Ke hamlet (with a value of 0.59) due to an overall preference of the economic goal Similarly, the level of homogeneity regarding the environmental value of community forests is also quite high (nearly 1) However, for other values such as firewood, trade or spirituality, the shared value index is not as high and varies greatly among villages The overall shared value index in the perception of CFM values and management goals was the highest in Uyen Phong village (0.72), followed by A Tin and Ke hamlet (both 0.67), and the lowest (0.58) in Quang Thinh village 3.2.5 Summary of social capital indexes at the study sites Table 3.3 summarizes the values of the social capital indexes of the communities in question, including the Network index, the Trust index, the Reciprocity index and the Shared value index These indicators range from (min) to (max) Table 3.3 Component indexes for social capital at the study sites Province Thua Thien Hue Quang Binh Nghe An Village/hamle t Social capital indexes at the study sites Network Index Trust Index Reciprocity Index Shared Value Index Doi A Tin Uyen Phong Ke hamlet 1.94 2.26 2.37 1.70 2.44 2.70 2.82 2.63 2.36 2.59 2.80 2.74 1.91 2.01 2.17 2.00 Quang Thinh 2.13 2.85 2.47 2.65 2.67 2.29 2.57 1.75 1.91 1.96 Cua Rao Average 1.81 2.04 Uyen Phong village has the highest social capital across most indicators, followed by Quang Thinh hamlet and A Tin village with the same ranking In contrast, the two villages Cua Rao and Doi were ranked the lowest 3.3 Local institutional features in community forest management The local institution in this study is a system of local regulations/principles established for community forest management, including (i) operational rules and (ii) community rules Most of these regulations are based on legal documents or pilot documents on community forest allocation, as well as the Forest Protection and Development Law (2004) and the Forestry Law (2017) Regulations on community forest management activities Each household group is assigned to patrol a specific forest area according to their monthly assigned schedule Usually, different groups would patrol on different days to ensure presence in the community forest All operating regulation systems of these community forest management models contain regulations on forest use restrictions, protection and patrol, forest care, fines and contributions However, the regulation contents are not the same across different groups, for they reflect the characteristics of forest resources and socio-economic conditions of each community Community rules The level of detail varies from village to village, and while some contents may not included in the community rules, they may still be implemented In general, it can be seen that the systems of regulations/conventions on community forest management of the models in question are quite similar in terms of structure, content and form instead of being locality-specific, since most are based on guided legal documents approved by local authorities and forest rangers 3.4 Deploying collective activities CFM 3.4.1 Organization of CFM collective activities The analysis results show that every model of the main collective activities in community forest management includes forest protection activities (patrol and handling violations), forest care and enrichment, planning, organizing community meetings and participating in training Logging has been prohibited according to State regulations, therefore in most cases, no collective harvesting activities may occur NTFP and firewood harvesting is allowed in villages except Uyen Phong Next, despite community patrol being the main and most essential activity in forest protection, the frequency of which may vary across communities There are two models where community forest patrol and protection is carried out on a regular basis: in Uyen Phong and Quang Thinh villages The funding to support forest patrol and protection groups in Uyen Phong village is community-based in the form of kg of rice/household/year, and this incentive has remained unchanged since the very beginning In the model of Quang Thinh village, forest protection activities are covered by contracted funds for forest protection according to the State's regulations In other villages, patrol frequency is performed less frequently, on a weekly or even monthly basis (1-2 times/month) as observed in Doi, Ke or Cua Rao villages/hamlets 3.4.2 Involvement in community forest management 3.4.2.1 Involvement of community members The level of community member involvement in collective forest management activities is measured on a three-point scale: Not positive (=1), Normal (=2), and Positive (=3) The interview results in Table 3.4 reveal differences among villages/hamlets regarding the level of group participation Uyen Phong village has the highest rate of participation (17/27), followed by A Tin village (18/31) In contrast, this rate is the lowest in Ke hamlet and Cua Rao village Table 3.4 Level of member involvement in forest management groups for each study site Province Thua Thien Hue Village/ Nghe An Total Sample Standard (n) mean x2 13 32 2.28 0.68 12 18 31 2.55 0.57 10 17 27 2.63 0.49 Ke hamlet 20 30 2.00 0.59 Quang Thinh 11 13 30 2.23 0.77 Cua Rao 20 31 2.10 0.60 Not positive Normal Positive Doi 15 A Tin hamlet Uyen Quang Binh Level of involvement Phong deviation The mean involvement level was the highest in Uyen Phong and A Tin villages, followed by Quang Thinh hamlet and Doi village, and the lowest in Cua Rao village and Ke hamlet The results of statistical analysis based on standard x2 highlighted the existence of the distinction (with Sig =0.003) of the level of CFM group engagement in the study villages 3.4.2.2 Stakeholder engagement The research on stakeholders in villages indicates the similarities in the context of CFM in many different localities which based on the current legal framework for State management of forestry Basically, the direct stakeholder’s engagement in CFM at the community level includes: (i) Community forest management boards in villages; (ii) Local government at commune level; (iii) Local Forest Protection Agency and (iv) Non Government Organization (NGO) Most communities highly appreciate the impact of forest protection force in forest management and protection while local corporation is rated at a lower level 3.4.3 The implementation of CFM regulations In this study, the implementation of CFM regulations by communities in CFM models is measured by an indicator known as execution level The community members are instructed to discuss in groups and determine the execution level of natural resource management based on different criteria (e.g land encroachment, boundaries, forest exploitation, etc) Execution level of a CFM group can receive one of the following four values: (low); (average); (relative) and (high) Table 3.5 Execution level of regulations of community forest resource protection Village/hamlet Execution level Execution level of community forest land Doi A Tin Uyen Phong Ke hamlet Quang Thinh Cua Rao Low Average High High High Average Average Moderate High Average High Average boundaries management Execution level of logging and hunting management Execution level of NTFP management Overall assessment of execution level of forest management and Low Average Average Low Average Average Low (1) Moderate (3) High (4) Moderate (3) High (4) Average (2) protection Uyen Phong (Quang Binh) and Quang Thinh (Nghe An) are two villages/ hamlets with high execution level of regulations, as shown in Table 3.5 In these two villages/ hamlets, the management of community forest boundaries is effectively implemented In recent years, there has been no land loss due to prevention of encroachment on the community forest boundaries Activities to prevent logging, hunting and exploitation of NTFPs are highly appreciated, with nearly no notable infractions in recent years 3.4.4 The integrity of community forest resource Table 3.6 presents the assessment of the integrity of community forest resources in CFM models, as reflected by the change in area and quality of community forest at villages/ hamlets in recent years In which, the levels of change are determined by the following: Decrease (-1), Stay unchanged (0), Increase (1) and Rocket (2) There are variations and considerable differences in forest quality amongst communities In Uyen Phong village and Quang Thing hamlet, the forest quality is identified to increase significantly, in particular, high-value timber trees are not chopped In addition, the areas of forest that have been previously degraded or burnt and are now recovering In A Tin and Cua Rao villages, the forest quality is also identified to increase slightly However, in Doi village, the forest quality is identified to decrease due to uncontrolled logging and non-timber forest products Table 3.6 Evaluate the levels of change in areas and forest resource quality Evaluation criteria Thua Thien Hue Quang Binh Doi A Tin Change in area Decrease (-1) Stay unchanged (0) Uyen Phong Stay unchanged (0) Change in quality Decrease ( -1) Increase (1) Significantly increase (2) Ke hamlet Stay unchanged (0) Stay unchanged (0) Nghe An Quang Thinh Stay unchanged (0) Significantly increase (2) Cua Rao Stay unchanged (0) Increase (1) Resource (-1) 2 integrity 3.4.5 Household income from community forest In terms of income from community forest, the calculation findings in Table 3.7 indicates that the forest revenue contributes 12.6% to total household income on average for all villages/ hamlets By contrast, the percentage of revenue from community forest fluctuate significantly within localities and between different household economic groups Ban Ke is the community with the highest percentage of income from community forest, accounting for 51% of average household income Also, 100% household in Ban Ke are poor and near-poor, therefore, their livelihoods are heavily dependent on community forest, mainly from harvesting forest products (bamboo shoot) and firewood Due to the prohibition on exploitation of all forest products, there is almost no income from the forest in Uyen Phong Likewise, in A Tin, Cua Rao villages and Quang Thinh hamlet, the precentage of income from the forest is also quite low (only 2.8 to 6.9%) Table 3.7 The percentage of income from community forest in the study villages Village/hamlet The comparison between the percentage of income from community forest (%) and total household income Average Poor households Near-poor households Median household Well-off and rich household Doi 17.5 7.4 11.9 6.0 10.8 A Tin 0.0 11.2 6.3 6.9 Uyen Phong 0.0 0.2 0.1 Ke hamlet 53.0 33.3 0 51.0 Quang Thinh 3.6 3.5 1.8 3.3 Cua Rao 7.5 2.2 3.6 2.8 In terms of household economy, poor households are the most dependent on community forest with approximately 50% of income from forests compared to 10% for the near-poor households Meanwhile, well-off and rich households account for a negligible percentage, only nearly 3.5% The results of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) indicates that there is a statistically significant difference in the percentage among various household economic groups Also, the analysis reveals that the poverty level is in direct proportion to income from forest 3.4.6 Equity in community forest management Table 3.8 presents the findings of interviews with 181 individuals in communities to assess the level of equity (between their rights and contributions as well as the benefit distribution in the community when participating in community forest management) According to the findings in this table, all of the interviewees evaluate that there is high equity in their rights and benefit distribution in the study models Only nearly 1% (2/181) of those said that it was unfair Table 3.8 Evaluate the level of equity in the rights in CFM Level of equity in CFM Doi A Tin Village/hamlet Uyen Ke Phong hamlet Quang Thinh Cua Rao Total No 0 0 2 Reasonably fair 16 4 10 11 12 57 Perfectly fair 16 27 23 20 17 19 122 Total 32 31 27 30 30 31 181 Comapred to other villages, Uyen Phong and A Tin have the highest level of equity, whereas Doi village has the lowest However, in general, the level of equity of other villages sounds reasonable (>50%) Individuals in Doi village did not highly appreciate the level of equity in this region because community members believed that there land encroachment has not been properly sanctioned, resulting in unfairness 3.4.7 Sustainability The sustainability of the model can be evaluated from many different perspectives Based on the research, some regions, such as Doi village, with a high degree of conflict (particular in land boundary control) and a low level of management board activities are at risk of sustainability By contrast, in some villages with good ability to control all types of conflict and effective management activities such as Uyen Phong (Quang Binh), the sustainability of the model can be judged at a high level 3.4.8 Overall assessment of effective CFM Table 3.9 reveals that out of villages/ hamlets, Uyen Phong is ranked at the highest level (with about 90% of interviewees replying at a high level), while the others believe that the village at a moderate level Similarly, the effectiveness of CFM in Qunag Thinh hamlet is also rated as 80% at a high level and 20% at a moderate level However, in Doi village, up to 25/32 (78%) of interviewees assess the effectiveness of CFM at a low level In Cua Rao village, the majority of interviewees evaluate the effectiveness at a average level (23/31, 74%) Most citizens in A Tin and Ban Ke villages regard the effectiveness of CFM at a moderate level (23/ 31 and 19/30, 74.2% and 61.3%, relatively) Table 3.9 Overall assessment of the effectiveness of CFM at the study sites The levels of evaluation Thua Thien Hue Quang Binh Nghe An Total Uyen Ke Quang Cua Rao Phong hamlet Thinh Low (1) 25 0 0 28 Average (2) 23 41 Moderate (3) 23 19 58 High (4) 23 24 54 Total 32 31 27 30 30 31 181 3.5 The influence of social capital and institutions on the effectiveness of CFM 3.5.1 The influence of social capital on the effectiveness of CFM 3.5.1.1 Social network and effectiveness of CFM In Doi village, the majority of citizens only participate in 1-2 networks and evaluate the effectiveness of CFM at a low level and a average level Similarly, in Cua Rao village, individuals only participate in 1-2 networks and evaluate the effectiveness of CFM at a low level and a average level By contrast, in Quang Thinh and Uyen Phong villages, people participate in more social networks, with one individual joining from to networks All the interviewees in Ban Ke state that Doi A Tin they only join social network and the majority (19/30) evaluate the effectiveness of CFM at a moderate level The number of individuals participating in 2-3 networks in A Tin village (20/31) is not much higher than in Ban Ke, while the majority regard the effectiveness of CFM at a moderate level (23/31) The results of statistical analysis reveal a correlation coefficient r = 0.0148 and significance level Sig = 0.046, indicating that there is a correlation between the index of number of social networks and the effectiveness of CFM Therefore, the more people join organizations or networks, the more effective CFM will be, 3.5.1.2 The relationship between social trust and the effectiveness of CFM The statistical analysis of the relationship between trust in state managemet agencies (local authorities and forest protection force) indicates the codependent relationship between social trust and the effectiveness of CFM However, for the trust of people outside the village, statistical distribution and the results of statistical analysis not demonstrate a clear correlation between trust and management effectiveness This indicates that the trust of the community members and state management agencies is the primary factor to the effectiveness of CFM 3.5.1.3 The influence of social preciprocity and effectiveness of CFM Based on the analysis results, in terms of trust and mutuality factors among community members, a large proportion of individuals who evaluate reciprocity (frequently) and the effectiveness of CFM at a high level In addition, the findings of the statistical analysis based on Kendall standard for all questions show the significance level (Sig < 0.05), implying that there is a positive correlation between reciprocity and the effectiveness of CFM 3.5.1.4 The sharing of awareness and the effectiveness of CFM Analysis of the relationship between awareness (CFM values and objectives) and the effectiveness of CFM reveals that: There is a relationship at the significance level (Sig = 0.05, the level of trust 95%) between management effectiveness and the perception of economic, cultural and spiritual aspects of the forest, indicating that the appreciation of these roles results in high management effectiveness In contrast, no significant association exists between management effectiveness and perceptions of the importance of forest products (firewood) and forest management objectives The role of CFM in soil and water conservation is associated with management effectiveness but only at 90% the level of trust (sig =0.06) This clearly illustrates that all villages share the same perception of the environmental protection value of the community forest; nevertheless, the effectiveness of forest management does not depend much on this perception 3.5.1.5 Correlation between social capital indicators and the effectiveness of CFM Summary of social capital indicators and CFM results shown in Table 3.10 indicates that a correlation between social capital indicators such as social trust and reciprocity and management effectiveness Communities where these indicators are high also have a high management effectiveness In contrast, low trust and reciprocity index leads to poor managment effectiveness Table 3.10 Summary of social capital indicators and CFM results Village Number of households (n) Network Index Trust Index Reciprocity Index Shared Value Index CFM results Doi 32 1.94 2.44 2.36 1.91 1.25 A Tin 31 2.26 2.70 2.59 2.01 2.94 Uyen Phong 27 2.37 2.82 2.80 2.17 3.85 Ke hamlet 30 1.70 2.63 2.74 2.00 2.90 Quang Thinh 30 2.13 2.85 2.67 1.75 3.80 Cua Rao 31 1.81 2.47 2.29 1.91 2.06 2.04 2.65 2.58 1.96 2.80 Average Based on the findings of the statistical analysis, there is a correlation equation with a high correlation coefficient r = 0.084 (coefficient R2 = 0.648) between the effectiveness of CFM and socai capital: Management effectiveness = -6.832 + 0.129 * network index + 0.76 * trust index + 0.558 * reciprocity index Table 3.11 Correlation between social capital indicators and the effectiveness of CFM Social capital indicators Capacity (n) Row number a Correlation coefficient with the effectiveness of CFM Significance level Sig -6.832 0.000 Network Index 181 0,129* 0.084 Trust Index 181 0.761** 0.000 Reciprocity Index 181 0.558** 0.000 6a 0.406 0.425 Shared Value Index The findings of the study demonstrate that the important role of social capital in forest resource management, which is consistent with the conclusion of other research about the significance of social capital in public health (Nguyen & Berry, 2013) and craft village development (Nguyen Van Ha, 2004) Compared with the study of Ayako Ido, (2019) the role of the network in CFM , the research results are similar, but the degree of influence of this factor is not as large as the trust and mutuality factors In accordance with Ostrom's (1999) research on general resource management, the forest resources in many communities with high levels of social capital are effectively managed and protected 3.5.2 The relationship between institutions and the effectiveness of community forest management In the highly effective community forest management models such as Uyen Phong and Quang Thinh, there are clear and detailed local regulations and guaranteed enforcement These villages have very strict regulations on fines for violations At the monthly and irregular CFM board meetings, the developments on forest regulation violations are discussed in detail These areas' forests are well protected and restored There has been no encroachment on forest land, logging, or production of non-timber forest products in the forest in recent years (Table 3.12) Table 3.12 The relationship between management organizations, local institutions and effectiveness of CFM Criteria Village/hamlet A Tin Doi hamlet Management model Household group Household group Regulations on CFM Effective forest management Execution Acreage Quality level changes change Detail Moderate Unchanged Increase Detail Low Gradually Gradually decrease decrease Content CFM efficiency index 2.94 1.25 Ke hamlet Security team Detail Moderate Unchanged Unchanged 2.90 Uyen Phong Security team Detail High Unchanged Significantly increase 3.85 Quang Thinh Security team Detail High Unchanged Cua Rao Security team Detail TB Unchanged Significantly increase Increase 3.80 2.06 The aforementioned research outcomes correspond to a number of published works by Ostrom (1999), Do Anh Tuan (2012, 2017), and Ayako Ido (2019) The essence of CFM activities is collective action (management of shared community resources (communal forest)) Research on CFM conventions/regulations in some models indicates that implementation of the conventions is more convenient and transparent in (communities) with clear, detailed rules/regulations 3.6 Suggestions Based on the research findings presented in the preceding sections, the following recommendations are proposed to promote sustainable community forest management at the village level for the study area in particular and in the country in general: i Theoretical and empirical research models demonstrate that local communities can sustainably manage their forest resources under communal ownership Consequently, it is essential to recognize fully the use rights of communities to both forest and communal forest land ii Currently, the Forestry Law only recognizes the local community (the entire village) as the forest owner, but has not yet recognized the group of households as the forest owner, thus failing to adequately reflect the diverse realities of organizational and community forest management system In relevant legal documents, it is necessary to consider recognizing and directing the allocation of community forests to groups of households iii The research indicates that there is no optimal organizational structure model for community forest management (whole community or household groups) As a result, the establishment of community forest management models during the implementation of community forestry projects/programs should not rigidly impose a community-wide organizational model, as the majority of projects It should be decided by residents to apply a suitable management model based on historical circumstances, inheriting the traditional structural foundation and characteristics of the community's forest management iv The development of community forest management regulations should avoid stereotypes and instead rely on and respect local forest management's traditional regulations (based on current laws) Regulations, regulations/conventions must reflect the particulars of local resource management in order to ensure resource enforcement and sustainability v There is a clear and close relationship between the level of regulation enforcement and the efficiency of community forest management; therefore, to ensure long-term community forest resource management, it is crucial to develop and implement mechanisms that "ensure good enforcement of the management and punishment of violators" and "quick and effective conflict resolution mechanisms" vi It is essential to establish an efficient coordination mechanism between the community, the FPD, and local authorities in order to ensure the enforcement of regulations and the resolution of conflicts vii To improve the effectiveness of CFM, there should be an effective and proactive monitoring mechanism for stakeholders and management activities viii In forest management, stakeholders must identify, respect, and promote the social capital elements of communities as valuable resources ix Traditionally, the institutional factors and social capital of the community are associated with the community Therefore, it is necessary to consider and promote these factors based on culturally and behaviorally appropriate approaches for each community CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusion i) Models of community forest management in the study are long-lived, some of which have existed for aproximately two centuries, demonstrating that communities can manage their shared resources based on traditional principles over the long term ii) For many generations, numerous local communities in the North Central region have managed a substantial forest area In the region, there are two types of organizational community forest management structures, based on the entire village and on household groups, demonstrating the diversity of management structures, reflecting natural conditions and the history of forest management in local communities, and demonstrating adaptive management iii) This study indicates the multidimensionality of social capital (from network to shared values and perspectives) as well as differences in the value of social capital among studied communities The value of social capital was greatest in Uyen Phong and Quang Thinh villages, and lowest in Doi and Cua Rao villages iv) The results of quantitative statistical analysis illustrate that local social capital has a strong positive correlation with CFM efficiency The greater the social capital is, the more effective the community forest management gains In which, the social capital components indicators, such as trust and reciprocity, are the clearest and most influential indicators of the effectiveness of CFM v) In the study, the institutional system in community forest management is basically similar in structure, including (i) operational regulations and (ii) collective regulations based on state forest management regulations and community customary regulations vi) The majority of communities have environmental protection as their primary objective and driving force in management and protection activities Although the economic and cultural objectives are recognized by the people in CFM, there are differences in the degree to which each community evaluates these goals vii) Local institutions (expressed in regulations, detailed levels, and enforcement levels) are a significant factor that has a direct impact on collective actions and the effectiveness of CFM Limitations and Recommendations Research on institutions and social capital in community forest management is a new, in-depth field that is unpopular worldwide, particularly in Vietnam Therefore, there are some limitations not mentioned in the dissertation The following are the recommendations for future research: i) The dissertation has only carried out in-depth research in 06 community forest models in the North Central region Although we try to choose representativeness, it is difficult to cover the diversity of hundreds of CFM models in the North Central region ii) This dissertation has not studied the factors affecting social capital, the relationship between social capital and individual behavioral characteristics in community forest management, the influence of social capital on transaction costs in CFM, or the relationship between sociocultural characteristics of the community and institutional factors and social capital iii) It is recommended that extensive research on social capital and institutional CFM in various regions continue to be conducted in order to fill in the aforementioned social capital research gaps