Forest based poverty alleviation in north eastern vietnam

Forest-Based Poverty Alleviation in North-Eastern Vietnam This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor or Philosophy Student’s name Giang Huu Nguyen Edith Cowan University School of Science Year: 2019 Forest-Based Poverty Alleviation in North-Eastern Vietnam Giang Huu Nguyen Submitted in fulfilment for the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Edith Cowan University (October, 2019) i) Declaration I certify that this thesis does not, to the best of my knowledge and belief: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) incorporate without acknowledgement any material previously submitted for a degree or diploma in any institution of higher education; contain any material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the text; or contain any defamatory material I also grant permission for the Library at Edith Cowan University to make duplicate copies of my thesis as required Giang Huu Nguyen Date 10th March 2019 Statement of Authority of access This thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 i ii) Abstract The relationship between poverty and forest in developing countries like Vietnam is important because the poor rely on forest resources and poverty is often seen as a major cause of environmental degradation The overall aim of the thesis is to examine the way national policy has influenced household livelihood strategies for poor people in situations where access to forests is important to supplement income, and to examine the role of forest management in this process To deal with the aim, we compared six villages in two provinces (Bac Kan and Thai Nguyen; three villages in each province) where conditions such as national policy, forest areas, forest type categories, socio-economic conditions, lifestyle, ethnicity, culture and livelihood strategies were similar Only location and form of forest management, were different Three instruments (village survey, annual household survey, and quarterly household survey), modelled and adapted on the Poverty Environment Network (PEN) prototype household questionnaires, were used in 184 households In addition, 57 people working directly in forest-related fields from different level of government (province, district, commune, village, National Park, Natural Reserve) were invited to participate in in-depth interviews, and 60 villagers living in the six villages were involved in group discussions The mechanism used for the decentralization of forest management known as forest land allocation (FLA) was examined by considering the experiences of administrators and users from the village to the province level and benchmarking them against Ostrom’s eight design principles Areas were identified where policy and practice can be improved, including clarifying the rights between forest owners (communities, households, and individuals) and three forest-use categories (special-use forests, production forests and protection forests) Forest management practices differed between the two provinces: sponsored Forest Protection Groups (FPGs) existed in Bac Kan, while forest protection by households’ responsibility was used in Thai Nguyen FPGs can be shown to play a role in reducing the amount of forest products being collected and curtailing illegal activities Collective action in the form of FPG activities in Bac Kan include internal elements (forest patrols, village/FPG meetings, leader capacity building, cooperation, trust and honesty between villagers, and household characteristics) and external elements (the technical and funding support from international projects, and village recognition from a government agency administering a National Park) Together these elements can be held responsible for improved forest condition ii For both provinces, about 15.2% of total household income was derived from forests, a consistent and significant contribution to livelihoods Principal Component Analysis of quarterly household income revealed seasonal increases mainly based on crop (maize, rice, root) and forest protection for Bac Kan, and seasonal increases for particular forest products (firewood, timber/poles) and crop (maize, rice) for Thai Nguyen Poor people in both provinces have less diverse income sources By using poverty indices with and without forest income, and comparing with and without PES income between the two provinces, we can demonstrate that the poverty rate would double if different forms of forest income were to be excluded Incentives in the PES scheme, encouraging forest dwellers to become involved in forest management, and voluntary payment schemes for tourism services can be shown to add a stable and sustainable financial source that contributes to better forest protection and improved income for people who directly rely on forests Overall, we built a novel forest-based poverty alleviation framework to apply wherever forest types, socio-economic conditions, livelihoods, culture, and livelihood strategies, are similar By using this framework, policymakers can develop appropriate plans/policies to target forest management and poverty alleviation iii iii) Acknowledgements First and foremost my lovely family, my wife and three beautiful princesses, have encouraged me to undertake this Ph.D My wife, also my colleague, has accompanied me on this project journey, as well as other rural development projects in Vietnam I hope I can give you as much support as you have given me, when time comes for you to your PhD Our children Mai, Moon, and Mary Lou have always been my inspiration for my research In the most stressful times, they have always been the motivation for me to go on So, this thesis is for all of you I also would like to express my special thanks to my principal supervisor, Professor Pierre Horwitz from the School of Science, for his kindness, constant support and advice throughout the course of the research program During times of difficulty in both life and research, he was always there, giving me valuable advice The research presented significant challenges in data collection, data processing, data analysis, and writing, and the debates we had to find a common direction for the research project; to have come this far must be some measure of success Professor Pierre Horwitz, you are not only a great supervisor, but a second father Again, I would like to thank you especially I would like to thank two other supervisory committee members for my thesis, Assoc Prof Dr Tran Quoc Hung (Faculty of Forestry, Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry, Vietnam) who helped me to organize field work in Vietnam, while Dr Aiden Fisher (School of Science, ECU) advised me in data analysis and gave me feedback for Chapters and I would like to thank: the enumerators (Miss Ma Thi Ngan, Mr Nong Van Tu, Mr Nong Van Su, and Mr Nguyen Van Duong) for helping me collect field data; the leaders of Province People’s Committee of Thai Nguyen and Bac Kan province who agreed to allow me to carry out this research; and all interviewees, village heads, 104 households in Thai Nguyen, and 80 households in Bac Kan who agreed to participate directly in the study Without these contributions the thesis would not have been possible In addition, I would like to take this opportunity to show my greatest appreciation to an academic writing consultant, Dr Helen Renwick, a helpful proof-reader for her help in editing Chapters 3, 4, and of my thesis I also would like to show my greatest appreciation to Dr Saiyidi Mat Roni, lecturer in accounting at School of Business and Law, ECU, for his comments and advice on my income chapter (Chapter 5) Finally, I wish to express a deep sense of gratitude and love to my friends and parents for their mental support and help, and their encouragement for me to complete this study and thesis iv Table of Contents i) Declaration i ii) Abstract ii iii) Acknowledgements iv Table of Contents v List of Tables ix List of Figures x List of Acronyms xi Chapter 1: General introduction 1.1 Poverty and Natural Resources in Developing Countries 1.2 Forestry and poverty alleviation 1.3 Sustainable rural livelihood (SL) 1.4 Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) and Policies 1.5 Total economic forest value (TEV) 10 1.6 Aim 14 1.7 Thesis structure 15 Chapter 2: Methodology 16 2.1 Research context 16 2.2 Research design 21 2.3 Data collection 22 2.3.1 Secondary data collection 22 2.3.2 Primary data collection 23 2.3.2.1 In-depth interviews 23 2.3.2.2 Questionnaires 23 2.3.2.3 Participatory observation and photos 25 2.4 Database management and statistical method 29 2.5 Ethics 31 Chapter 3: Forest management decentralization in NE, Vietnam: theory, policy, and practice 32 Abstract 32 3.1 Introduction 32 3.2 Methods 36 3.2.1 Research design 36 3.2.2 Data collection and analysis 37 v 3.3 Results and Discussions 39 3.3.1 Main policy context related to FLA in Vietnam 39 3.3.2 FLA since the two provinces separated 42 3.3.3 Common understandings of inadequacies and problems 47 3.3.3.1 Penalties 47 3.3.3.2 Rights 50 3.2.4 Conclusion 56 Chapter 4: The influence of Forest Protection Groups on the collection of forest products in public forest in North-Eastern Vietnam 58 Abstract 58 4.1 Introduction 59 4.2 Methods 61 4.2.1 Research design 61 4.2.2 Data collection 62 4.2.3 Data analysis 64 4.3 Results and Discussions 67 4.3.1 Form of forest protection 67 4.3.2 Baseline characteristics 71 4.3.3 Household use of forests 79 4.3.4 Social capital and community capacity 88 4.4 Conclusion and recommendations 91 Chapter 5: Rural subsistence incomes in forested region, NE Vietnam 94 Abstract 94 5.1 Introduction 95 5.2 Methods 97 5.2.1 Research design 97 5.2.2 Data collection 98 5.2.3 Data analysis 100 5.3 Results and discussions 101 5.3.1 Household socioeconomic characteristics 101 5.3.2 Income characteristics of the sample population 103 5.3.2.1 Annual income 103 5.3.2.2 Annual household income by wealth group 106 5.3.2.3 Household income by quarter 109 vi 5.3.2.4 The influence of income sources to total quarterly household income 113 5.4 Conclusions and recommendations 121 Chapter 6: Payment for Forest Environmental Services in NE Vietnam: a case study in Bac Kan province 122 Abstract 122 6.1 Introduction 122 6.2 Research context and data analysis 123 6.2.1 Research design 123 6.2.2 Data collection and analysis 124 6.3 Results 125 6.3.1 PES context in Bac Kan 125 6.3.2 The steps to conduct PES in Bac Kan 130 6.4 Discussion 132 6.5 Conclusions 138 Chapter 7: Summary and linkages: Decentralization, forest management, household income, and poverty alleviation 140 7.1 Introduction 140 7.2 Decentralization, forest management, and household income 143 7.3 Forest-based poverty alleviation 148 7.4 Data validity and reliability, limitations, alternative explanations and further research 160 7.4.1 Data reliability and validity 161 7.4.1.1 Literature review 161 7.4.1.2 Field enumerator recruitment and training, and piloting the study 162 7.4.1.3 Data collection 163 7.4.1.4 Data analysis 166 7.4.2 Limitations, alternative explanations, and further research 166 7.4.2.1 Considerations of limitations in study design 166 7.4.2.2 Considerations of limitations in collection of data 169 References 172 Appendices 205 Appendix 1: Number of people were involved in this project 205 Appendix 2: Ethical Documents 206 Appendix 3: Questionnaires and checklist for the fieldwork 223 Village Survey 223 Annual Household Survey 232 vii Quarterly household surveys (Q1-Q4) 245 Attrition (drop out) and temporary absence survey (ATA) 250 Checklist for in-depth interview 252 viii 4=satisfied; 5=very satisfied Has the household’s food production and income over the past 12 months been sufficient to cover the what you consider to be the needs of the household? Codes: 1=no; 2=reasonable (just about sufficient); 3=yes Compared with other households in the village (or community), how well-off is your household? Codes: 1=worse-off; 2=about average; 3=better-off How well-off is your household today compared with the situation years ago? Codes: 1=less well-off now; 2=about the same; 3=better off now If or 3, go to If 2, go to If worseor betteroff: what is the main reason for the change? Reason: Change in … off farm employment land holding (e.g., bought/sold land, eviction) forest resources output prices (forest, agric,…) outside support (govt., NGO, ) remittances cost of living (e.g., high inflation) war, civil strife, unrest conflicts in village (non-violent) Strongly disagree 10 change in family situation (e.g loss of family member/a major bread-winner 11 illness 12 access (e.g new road,…) 13 increased/reduced land area for agric production 14 religious awakening (i.e., found religion, converted to a new religion, born again or saved) 15 started a new business/lost or less business 16 livestock (gain or loss) 17 material assets, incl house (gain or loss) 18 increased regulations 20 education / increased knowledge 21 more engaged in marketing/trade 22 political stability 23 crop failure/raiding 24 changed drinking habits (started/stopped drinking alcohol) 25 changes in natural resources 240 Disagree Neutral Agree Strongl y agree Don't know (fish, etc.) 26 working for themselves (no longer under a patron) 27 more time to work 28 Joined cooperative 29 Forced to travel for family matters 30 Fire destroyed everything 31 Change in job 19 other (specify): Do you consider your village (community) to be a good place to live? Codes: 1=no; 2=partly; 3=yes Do you in general trust people in the village (community)? Codes: 1=no; 2=partly, trust some and not others; 3=yes Can you get help from other people in the village (community) if you are in need, for example, if you need extra money because someone in your family is sick? Codes: 1=no; 2= can sometimes get help, but not always; 3=yes K Income of household Can you estimate total income of your household in the last 12 months? Income from Unit Quantity Selling agricultural products (list name of product) Selling pig Selling other animal (list name of animal) Selling NTFPs (list name of product) Selling wood (list name of product) Other forest products (list name of product) PES Wage Farm 10 Employee 11 Business 12 Fishing and aquaculture 13 Leased land /forest/house/facilities 14 Selling land/facilities 15 Handicraft (list name of 241 Price per unit Total Note product) 16 Other Can you estimate your household expenditur e in the last 12 months? Household expenditure Unit Quantity Price per unit Note Total Seeds, fertilizers and other inputs for cropping production All forms of expenditure for animal husbandry Costs of education for children Daily household expenses Expenses related to weddings, mourning and other social obligations Expenses for maintaining family health Expenditure on other non-agricultural activities House maintenance Furniture 10 Costs of building a new house 11 Any other types of expenses? L Social capital and community capacity Don’t know Strongly agree Agree Neutral Statements Disagree Strongly disagree In this section, I will ask you about your opinions about the building capacity of community and your personal experience of living in a village I will read you a statement and could you please select a suitable answer in each 24 statement relating to your opinion such as Strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, Strongly disagree and don’t know (Please, show and point at the answer card to a participant while explaining it) Community Capacity You know most people in this community Most people not know each other in this community Most people in this community can be trusted Most people in this community honestly share points of view with each other Some say that by helping others you help yourself in the long run Do you agree? 24 Community capacity attitude scale adapted from Zwicker, G., & Marlin, A (2009) Understanding and building community capacity in New Brunswick”s forestry communities: The Rural and Small Town Programme, Mount Allison University, Canada, p 31-32 242 If someone’s bike/motobike breaks down outside your house, you help them to find the technician to check? Can you get help from friends when you need it? If you were caring for a child and needed to go out for a while, would you ask a neighbour or help? You believe the community can manage most problems by itself 10 You feel welcome new residents in this community 11 All sectors in your community work together 12 You usually go to other villages to visit friends 13 People with different incomes work together to make the community a better place 14 The community demonstrates a willingness to seek help from the external community 15 You always support the village through donation of money 16 You haven’t participated in activities to improve your village such as meeting, planting and cleaning 17 You always support the village through donation of goods 18 You not tolerate others with different perspectives in your community when discussing a matter at a meeting 19 All ages participate in events in your community 20 You have no chance to participate in decision-making about development projects in your village 21 Women are not accepted when they work as leaders in the community 22 This community has never encouraged a younger generation in leadership positions 23 Community leaders are interested in solving every problem in a community 24 The local government carefully uses funds to develop new projects 25 Your village has a lot of members with skills to work for a community 26 If you work in a group, you welcome questions or alternatives from members in a group 27 In the past years, the conditions of roads in the village have improved The following questions ask direct questions about you and your experiences in the village Statements Yes 28 Do you volunteer to help out any local group or community activities? 29 Does your village feel like home? 25 Don’t know Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Statements 25 No Don’t know Community capacity attitude scale adapted from Bullen, P & Onyx, J (2005) Measuring Social Capital in Five Communities in NSW: New South Wales, p 88-92 243 30 Do you feel safe walking down on the street after dark? 31 Have you ever picked up other people’s rubbish in a public place? 32 Have you attended a local community event such as community festival in the past 12 months? 33 Are you an active member of a group or organisation in the village? 34 Have you ever attended training programs to develop your environment in the past 12 months 35 Do you agree it is important to improve leadership skills for members in your village such as organising the meeting or conflict management? 36 In the past week, how many phone conversations have you had with friends? None Many (at least 6) 37 How many people did you talk to yesterday? None at all Many (at least 10) 38 Over the weekend you have lunch/dinner with other people outside your household? No, not much Yes, nearly always 39 Do you go outside your local community to visit your family? No, not much Yes, nearly always 40 Do you think that multi-ethnicity makes life in your area better? No, not at all Yes, definitely L Enumerator/researcher assessment of the household Note: This section is filled out by the enumerator, and should not be asked or discussed with the respondent During the last interview, did the respondent smile or laugh? Codes: (1) neither laughed nor smiled (somber); (2) only smiled; (3) smiled and laughed; (4) laughed openly and frequently Based on your impression and what you have seen (house, assets, etc.), how well-off you consider this household to be compared with other households in the village? Codes: 1=worse-off; 2=about average; 3=better-off How reliable is the information generally provided by this household? Codes: 1=poor; 2=reasonably reliable; 3=very reliable How reliable is the information on forest collection/use provided by this household? Codes: =poor; 2=reasonably reliable; 3=very reliable If the forest information is not so reliable (code above), you think the information provided overestimate or underestimate the actual forest use? Codes: 1=underestimate; 2=overestimate; 3= no systematic over- or underestimation; 4=don’t know 244 Quarterly household surveys (Q1-Q4)   Note: All incomes are asked for the past month (past 30 days), except for the last sections on crops, livestock and other income sources where the recall period is months Note: The researcher should list the most common products in the various tables, based on RRAs and pre-testing of the questionnaire After asking about these pre-listed products, the enumerator should ask if there are any other products not mentioned that the household has harvested/collected over the past (3) month(s) Control information Task Date(s) Status OK? If not, give comments By who? Interview Checking questionnaire Coding questionnaire Entering data Checking & approving data entry A Identification Identification of household Household name and code *(name) (HID) Village name and code *(name) (VID) District name and code *(name) (DID) Name of primary respondent *(name) (PID) Name of secondary respondent *(name) (PID) B Direct forest income What are the quantities and values of forest products the members of your household collected for both own use and sale over the past month?  Note: Income from plantations is defined as forest income, while agroforestry income is categorized as agricultural income Collected where? Forest product (name) Collected by whom?1) Land type2 ) 1) Owner ship3) Unit Quantity collected (7+8) Own use (incl gifts) Sold (incl barter) Price per unit 10 costs 11 Gross value 14 Net income (6*9) (11-10) Codes: 1=only/mainly by wife and adult female household members; 2=both adult males and adult females participate about equally; 3=only/mainly by the husband and adult male household members; 4=only/mainly by girls (