Đang tải... (xem toàn văn)
Tình hình sử dụng nguồn tài nguyên số hộ gia đình nông nghiệp nông thôn gần khu bảo tồn ở Việt Nam: Chi phí xã hội của bảo tồn và tác động đối với thực thi)This article examines the use of forests in a protected area by nearby agriculturalists in central Vietnam. Research indicates that the majority of rural farmers interviewed who lived neara state designated protected area were receiving both subsistence and cash incomes from forestbased activities, primarily from the collection of forest products. However, much of the collection of forest produce was officially illegal, as it occurred in state protected forests, and interdiction efforts were on the increase. Yet, little attention has been paid in Vietnam to the need for income substitutionforhouseholdswholoseaccesstoforestproduce as a result of conservation enforcement, particularly in the case of farmers who live near, but not in, protected areas; their resources use has been ‘invisible’ due to a lack of attentionandresearchonthetopic.Thismisunderstandingof the importance of forests to rural farmers has the potential to result in households facing adverse welfare and livelihood outcomes as protected areas boundaries are tightened, and local communities face increased opportunity costs due to stricter conservation enforcement. The article concludes that substitution for loss of income due to conservation activities would best be achieved through carefully targeted interventions to specific high-impact and high-dependency households. Additionally, investments in new sources of wage labor and other low capital-input activities, rather than in agriculture, would likely be of most benefit
RESEARCH Resource Use Among Rural Agricultural Households Near Protected Areas in Vietnam: The Social Costs of Conservation and Implications for Enforcement Pamela D. McElwee Received: 20 May 2008 / Accepted: 7 October 2009 / Published online: 19 November 2009 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009 Abstract This article examines the use of forests in a protected area by nearby agriculturalists in central Vietnam. Research indicates that the majority of rural farmers inter- viewed who lived near a state designated protected area were receiving both subsistence and cash incomes from forest- based activities, primarily from the collection of forest products. However, much of the collection of forest produce was officially illegal, as it occurred in state protected forests, and interdiction efforts were on the increase. Yet, little attention has been paid in Vietnam to the need for income substitution for households who lose access to forest produce as a result of conservation enforcement, particularly in the case of farmers who live near, but not in, protected areas; their resources use has been ‘invisible’ due to a lack of attention and research on the topic. This misunderstanding of the importance of forests to rural farmers has the potential to result in households facing adverse welfare and livelihood outcomes as protected areas boundaries are tightened, and local communities face increased opportunity costs due to stricter conservation enforcement. The article concludes that substitution for loss of income due to conservation activities would best be achieved through carefully targeted inter- ventions to specific high-impact and high-dependency households. Additionally, investments in new sources of wage labor and other low capital-input activities, rather than in agriculture, would likely be of most benefit. Keywords Non-timber forest products Á Rural livelihoods Á Protected areas Á Poverty Á Vietnam Á Conservation Á ICDPs Introduction Forests are an essential component of livelihoods for much of the rural peasantry around the world, and research in recent years has focused on understanding and quantifying the economic contributions that forest goods, whether they be non-timber forest products (NTFPs), ‘environmental ser- vices,’ or other forms of environmental income, make to the millions of rural households who live near forests (Byron and Arnold 1999; Cavendish 2000; Arnold and Ruiz-Pe ´ rez 2001; Takasaki and others 2001; Coomes and others 2004; Belcher 2005; Sunderlin and others 2005; Vedeld and others 2007). One important area of research has been to identify and classify the types of people who harvest forest produce into distinct categories by determining what they collect, how much they collect, and how dependent they are on collecting for their livelihoods, in order to help design appropriate forest management strategies (Byron and Arnold 1999; Wunder 2001; Sunderlin and others 2005). This identifica- tion is particularly needed when forest users may be in conflict with protected areas and conservation plans (Salaf- sky and Wollenberg 2000; Naughton-Treves and others 2005; Mulder and Coppolillo 2005). Several typologies of ‘forest users’ have been developed through case study analysis. For example, Byron and Arnold (1999) compare those households for whom forest income is a choice, and those for whom it is a necessity of last resort; they distinguish between forest-dwelling peo- ples, such as hunter-gatherers, and those populations that are predominantly agricultural but who may also extract forest goods. In Belcher and others (2005), the authors conclude, based on a meta-analysis of 61 case studies of NTFP harvesting from around the world, that there are five main types of users: low-income subsistence producers, supplementary NTFP users, integrated NTFP collection P. D. McElwee (&) School of Politics and Global Studies, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 873902, Tempe, AZ 85287-3902, USA e-mail: pamela.mcelwee@asu.edu 123 Environmental Management (2010) 45:113–131 DOI 10.1007/s00267-009-9394-5 with farming, specialized natural NTFP collectors, and specialized NTFP cultivators with high incomes from valuable specialty products (Belcher and others 2005). However, these typologies, while useful, have not yet been linked in the literature with analysis of how different types of forest users may come into conflict with conservation planning (such as in protected areas development), how the different typologies of forest users might be differentially impacted by loss of access to resources, and how these outcomes may influence future forest use and livelihood strategies (Adams and others 2004; Roe and Elliott 2004; Adams and Hutton 2007). This article aims to fill this gap in the literature and achieve two goals: first, it seeks to determine how useful these typologies of NTFP users are, with a focus in par- ticular on agricultural households who use wild collected forest products to supplement farming income [these forest extractors are classified as ‘supplementary strategy’ pro- ducers in the Belcher and others (2005) typology and ‘sedentary agriculture at the forest frontier’ in Sunderlin and others (2005)]. These links between rural farmers and forest use are explored through a case study in Vietnam. Secondly, the article tries to determine how conservation enforcement might impact these types of farmers/supple- mentary NTFP users if forest use were to be restricted, such as from creation of protected areas, and in so doing, attempts to link the literature on NTFP use and poverty with that of protected areas development and the social costs of conservation (Brockington and others 2006; Igoe 2006; West and others 2006; Adams and Hutton 2007). For example, while farmers are usually assumed to pose a threat to forest protected areas because they seek land for agricultural expansion, this is not always the case (Pichon 1996, 1997; Angelsen 1999a; Caviglia-Harris 2004; Perz 2004). Rather, in the study at hand, land expansion was of minor importance, due to the poor quality of land under forests and the enforcement of protected forest boundaries, while the extraction (though illegal) of forest products was significant. This forest extraction income is often of great significance to the household portfolio for agriculturalists, and can be in excess of income from agriculture even if households self-identify as solely farmers. Similar results have been reported for Zimbabwe (Cavendish 2000), South Africa (Shackleton and others 2002) and India (Mahapatra and others 2005; Straede and Treue 2006). This is in contrast to the typology of forest farmers as people who usually have low forest product income and dependency (Sunderlin and others 2005). This study will show that farmers often use a diverse variety of forest products; despite being farmers, they often may know a number of forest species and extract goods from a variety of catego- ries, from timber to fuelwood to fruits to medicines. Nearly 90% of farmers surveyed for this research harvested some type of wild forest product, and the types of products harvested were diverse, as no one product dominated forest use patterns. This calls into question the methodology of some of the forest user typologies noted above that focus on only one or two kinds of NTFPs used by farmers. The article provides an assessment that if forest envi- ronmental income is lost, such as by restricting access to protected areas, it may have significant livelihood impacts on farmers. While much of the literature on the links between parks and people has focused on impoverishment that can be caused by resettlement and relocation from protected areas (Geisler 2003; Schmidt-Soltau 2003; Broc- kington and Igoe 2006; Brockington and others 2006), the evidence from Vietnam suggests that even when people do not live in a protected area and are not resettled, they may lose access to income if borders are more rigorously enforced. This study highlights the fact that this problem is particularly acute for people identified as farmers; they may have forest income that is more ‘invisible’ to conservation managers, because these farmers do not live directly in protected areas and may not be seen as ‘forest-dependent’ people (i.e., they are not indigenous forest dwellers). Additional attention needs to be paid to the differential costs of conservation for these different forest users; not all households in a community may be similarly affected. Detailed analysis of the subsistence and cash income needs of forest dependent households can help make estimates of the total costs of conservation explicit from the start of funding and projects, including the opportunity costs to local communities (James and others 2001; Balmford and others 2000). Those who are affected may have particular needs that should be met through livelihood interventions, if possible. As an example, the analysis presented here concludes that when farmers’ forest income is lost, such as through con- servation enforcement, increased income from agriculture is not always a practicable substitution. This is because agri- culture often has high capital and labor requirements and is therefore not equivalent to forest income, which usually has very low capital costs. This has implications for the types of interventions that might be pursued in integrated conserva- tion and development projects (ICDPs) in rural areas (Hughes and Flintan 2001; McShane and Newby 2004). These points are illustrated through a case study of farmers living around a biologically significant protected area in Vietnam. The protected areas system there has expanded significantly in recent years, doubling in area since the early 1990s (McElwee 2002). Yet there has been surprisingly little research on how conservation policies might have an impact on local livelihoods; a recent review bemoaned the lack of detailed studies on forest use in households (Sunderlin and Ba 2005). Most studies on forestry in Vietnam confine themselves to discussing on- going devolution of some low-value forests to households 114 Environmental Management (2010) 45:113–131 123 in the form of permanent land tenure rights (Nguyen 2006, 2008; Sikor and Nguyen 2007). However, very little has been published about forest use where households do not possess legal land tenure, as is the case with regard to land held by the state in national parks and nature reserves. This present study tries to correct the inattention to the impor- tance of forests under protected areas status to rural farmers by looking at a case in lowland north central Vietnam. Research undertaken in Ha Tinh province in 2000–2001 indicates that the majority of rural rice farmers interviewed who lived near a state-managed nature reserve were receiving cash incomes from forest-based activities. Many households did not identify themselves as ‘forest-depen- dent’ households when asked directly, yet analysis of their income streams revealed that a portion of the farming community had high levels of income dependency on forests. Stricter enforcement of forest laws has meant that the collection of most forest produce is increasingly pre- carious for these families, and many households could face significant and negative welfare outcomes without access to this forest income due to a lack of equivalent substitu- tions. These dynamics need to be understood more clearly in order to balance the competing demands for conserva- tion and for local livelihoods. Methods Study Area and Background This study on the impact of a protected area on local live- lihoods was conducted in rural areas of Ha Tinh province, approximately 300 km south of the national capital Hanoi (Fig. 1). Ha Tinh had an estimated population of 1.29 mil- lion people at the time of the last census in 1999 (DPI Ha Tinh 2003). Ha Tinh is bounded by the South China Sea to the east and the Annamite mountain range to the west, which reaches heights of 2,200 m. Two major nature reserves, the Vu Quang Nature Reserve and the Ke Go Nature Reserve (KGNR), were demarcated in the past 15 years to protect high levels of biodiversity in the province, particularly for mammals and birds (Dung and others 1994; Eames and others 2001; Eames 1996). The KGNR was established in 1996 to protect an endemic bird area, home to two endan- gered species of pheasant (Trai and others 1999). Much of the natural forest estate in the 35,000 ha reserve was degraded to some degree, as prior to protected area desig- nation the KGNR was the site of logging by four different state owned logging companies, until the area was declared a Watershed Protection Forest in 1990. Limited logging still occurred up to 1996 when the area was converted to a Nature Reserve, one of nearly 100 strictly protected areas that have been proclaimed in Vietnam to date under a classification known as the ‘special-use forest’ system. There are currently more than 2.3 million ha of these special use forests (ICEM 2003). According to the national Forest Resources Protection and Development Act of 1991, special-use forests under law are to have no exploitative activities within them, nor in most cases any households resident there, and into this category fall all National Parks and Nature Reserves. The strictly protected nature of special use forests was reiter- ated in a 2001 Decision of the Prime Minister, which states the activities that are to be prohibited in special use forests: ‘any activities that change the natural environment; any activities that impact the natural habitat of wild plants or animals; introduction of any animal or plant not previously present in the area; exploitation of any biological organism or other natural resource; grazing animals; causing pollu- tion of any kind; or bringing hazardous substances or set- ting fire in the area’ (Article 13) (SRV 2001). Although these stringent laws have been only loosely enforced in the past, many priority parks are now receiving increased amounts of funding for management and enforcement (MARD 2004). As has been the case with most other protected areas, when the KGNR was demarcated the boundaries were deliberately drawn to exclude human settlements, so no households were resident within the reserve at the time of the study. Approximately 40,000 people lived around the park boundaries; this area was not administrated by the KGNR and primarily existed as a buffer zone in name only. The only conservation and development project in the buffer zone was a Non-Timber Forest Products Project (NTFPP) funded and sponsored by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); otherwise, the park had no direct income benefit for households, as there were no tourism or revenue-sharing arrangements. Unlike other parks in Vietnam, encroachment on the KGNR for agricultural land was rare due to a fairly large area of unused land in each village in the buffer zone. The land in the KGNR was also considered poor for agriculture, as the reserve was mostly sloping and not able to be irri- gated, a necessity for wet rice, the most important agri- cultural crop in the area. It was also not possible to receive a land tenure certificate for any land that was considered to be within the boundaries of the KGNR, so there was less incentive to encroach than to improve already existing land outside the reserve. The primary uses of the KGNR forests were for the extraction of forest products like timber and NTFPs through day trips into the reserve by people in surrounding communities. Around 75 rangers patrolled the KGNR’s boundaries, but at any one time less than 10 rangers would usually be stationed in one the main checkpoints into the forests, and their movements were often fairly predictable. Environmental Management (2010) 45:113–131 115 123 It used to be relatively easy for most people to extract forest goods with little fear of getting caught if they avoided one of the known checkpoints or worked after dark, although at the time of the survey enforcement was increasing due to better funding for the rangers. Survey and Qualitative Research Methods Research took place in Cam Xuyen district of the KGNR buffer zone from November 2000 to October 2001. Two standardized surveys were carried out; one on fuelwood use that interviewed 200 randomly chosen households (10 per village in 20 randomly chosen villages in the buffer zone), and a longer survey on income and forest product depen- dency that interviewed 104 households, all ethnically Vietnamese, a random sample of 20% of the households from five primary study villages geographically located on the border of the reserve. Villages were chosen on the basis of discussions with officials that these villages had high levels of resource use in the KGNR; among the five chosen three villages had better access to the KGNR and two had poorer access (nearer the ranger checkpoints or located in an area with steep access). In the income survey, households were interviewed over the course of several hours up to several days. In most cases, both husband (traditionally the household head) and wives were interviewed together to provide the most comprehensive recall on answers. Household level infor- mation included household size, income, migration status and history, educational levels and landholdings. House- holds were asked to estimate in both quantity and income their total forest products extraction in the previous twelve months, along with questions about the seasons and labor needed. Income figures were derived from informant recall on all sources of cash income and agricultural production for the household for the previous year; this is a common survey technique used in the World Bank Living Standards Surveys regularly administered in many countries. Because information was collected on all agricultural production and all forest products used for the previous twelve months, a comprehensive picture of livelihoods could be developed (for more details on the survey parameters see McElwee 2008). While recall surveys have difficulties, and do not necessarily capture trends in resource use over periods longer than a year, these are the standard by which most forest use research is conducted. This quantitative study was supplemented by qualitative interviews which were also held with village headmen and key informants, and focus groups were conducted with forest product collectors to learn more about techniques for harvesting, land use types for various forest products, changes in harvesting over time, and restrictions on har- vesting as a result of park enforcement. A market survey was conducted at the main commune and one district market to assess prices of NTFPs throughout the year, and interviews were conducted both with local traders and in provincial markets dealing with forest based products. Policy interviews were conducted with interviews with KGNR rangers and management board staff, as well as interviews with the head of a nearby SFE and other pro- vincial and district policymakers in the agriculture and forestry divisions. Fig. 1 Map of study area 116 Environmental Management (2010) 45:113–131 123 Additionally, during the research period several trips were made into the KGNR forest to look at forest product collection in situ. Harvesters were accompanied into the forest as they sought out forest products to understand the physical processes involved in forest harvesting, how products were selected for harvest, and where and how harvesters might encounter park enforcement personnel. Over 300 plant voucher specimens were taken to identify the economically valuable flora of the KGNR as well. Results Forest Use Among Farming Households A near total (97%) of households surveyed identified themselves primarily as rice farmers (101 households), and half of households raised other non-rice agricultural crops like sesame, potatoes and cassava. (Household character- istics from the survey are reported in Table 1. 1 ) At the same time, many households used nearby forests for sub- sistence and for income. The survey identified a number of forest products (lam san or san pham rung) used by households, and these products were collected from dif- ferent types of land, but primarily from the KGNR. Only 6% of households surveyed reported holding land tenure rights to privately managed forestland, and these lands were not a major source of forest income. Households reported relatively low landholdings overall, with most households using less than half a hectare of agricultural land. Cash incomes reported were also relatively low, at only $325 US per household per year; this area of Vietnam has long been identified as one of the poorer provinces of the country. Primary Categories of Forest Products Collected and Conservation Impact of Harvesting Overall, forests played an important livelihood role for many families in Cam Xuyen, as 92 of 104 households (88%) harvested some sort of wild plant product in the previous year. Households on average collected 5.47 different wild species. They collected from ten different categories of forest goods (timber, charcoal, fuelwood, rattans/bamboos, fruits, leaves, resins/aromatics, medicinals, edible plants, and animal products). On average, households collected goods from 2.62 different categories of forest products (Table 2 lists the major categories and species collected). The characteristics of collection and conservation impact of these activities are outlined by category below. Timber About a quarter of households (23) surveyed cut timber for sale from the KGNR. Only 11% of households reported being able to meet all their household timber needs through home gardens and privately owned forests; others were forced to rely on freely collected wood in the KGNR or village lands, or else purchased wood, either legally or on the black market from illegal loggers. On average, the daily income from logging was reported to be around 25,000– 40,000 VND 2 per man ($1.75–2.75 US). Timber was not more lucrative due to the small numbers of logs that households could collect on their own; local households had no means to transport large numbers of logs out of the reserve (no surveyed household owned or had access to a car or truck), and all local logging was done by handsaws, in contrast to nearby countries like Indonesia where even small scale logging is done with chainsaws (McCarthy 2002). However, despite the low amount of timber har- vested per household, the conservation impact of logging is likely to be high, as whole stems of valuable hardwoods were the main targets. However, logging was reported by informants to be declining in importance in recent years, as timber was the primary forest product that forest rangers from the KGNR had begun to crack down on (McElwee 2004). Households could be fined up to 500,000 VND (US$ 30) and lose any timber they had cut if discovered. Most logging households reported having been caught by rangers at least once in the past, although not all had been fined. Charcoal Charcoal-making was a lucrative forest-based income activity in Cam Xuyen, one that 18% of interviewed households participated in. Charcoal was made with pit kilns (known as lo), dug into the earth.; once a pit was prepared, up to 500 kg of fresh roundwood were cut per firing (equivalent to around 1–2 cubic meters), which would produce around 35–50 kg of charcoal, a less than one to ten ratio for charcoal to wood. [This use of open pits and freshly cut wood is inefficient when compared with 1 Households, rather than per capita, figures are used throughout this article. Statistical analysis in regressions on various socio-economic variables showed no significant relationship between number of household members and quantity of forest products collected or income from forests, indicating that households are an appropriate unit of measurement for this study. All major income surveys in Vietnam (such as the Vietnam Living Standards Survey, the Agricultural Census, the Multi-purpose Household Survey, and the Population Census) used by both the General Statistical Office and by donors such as the World Bank use households as the unit of analysis, which is followed here, as economic decision-making is usually collective within the household. 2 In 2001, the exchange rate was 14,500 VND to 1 USD. Environmental Management (2010) 45:113–131 117 123 other techniques for making charcoal (Bhattarai 1998)]. Survey results revealed that individual households made on average 1 metric ton of charcoal a year, and if multiplied by the average number of charcoal making households surrounding the KGNR, approximately 1,000 tons of charcoal were being produced per year from the reserve. Households either transported their charcoal themselves to the district market or sold it to traders who came to vil- lages. These traders sold the charcoal at markets closer to the sea coast, where charcoal was in demand to smoke fish. Charcoal was the only forest product for which there was no subsistence demand. The conservation impact of charcoal making is high, because of the large numbers of species used, the use of stems, and the relatively low efficiency of charcoal making. There were few conservation measures taken to limit the species used or type of forests exploited by charcoal makers, with the exception of species that were small in diameter but made heavy charcoal; species that fired badly and left unburnt heartwood; or species that fired too well and produced only crumbly small diameter charcoal. Charcoal makers relied on the sporadic monitoring of the KGNR to enable them to use the forests there freely; no household reported making charcoal from trees on their private lands or gardens. Rangers from the KGNR had recently begun to confiscate charcoal found coming out of the KGNR as well as at nearby markets during the research period in 2001. However, punishment for making charcoal was not as severe as that for timber, usually only the confiscation of the charcoal and tools used to make it, and occasionally a fine of around 20–30,000 VND ($1.50–2 US). Fuelwood Fuelwood was the primary forest product in Cam Xuyen for which there was both a high subsistence demand and a high commercial demand. Nearly 100% of rural house- holds in the study area used fuelwood as their main energy source (less than one percent of households had electricity or kerosene for cooking). Survey results indicate that the average fuelwood use was around 850 kg per capita per year. While fuelwood harvesting was technically illegal in the KGNR, in fact removal of dry wood and branches was openly tolerated by rangers. The conservation impact of fuelwood use is likely to be moderate; households were asked to identify how much of their fuelwood budget was provided by leaves, branches or cut stems and results indicated that nearly 80% of the total fuelwood use was leaves and branches only. A majority of families collected some of their fuelwood from wild sources (75%), while 35% sold fuelwood at least occasionally. Selling fuelwood was one of the only occupations for women in this area, requiring neither capital outlay nor any special equipment. Rattans and Bamboos Around a quarter of the households surveyed collected forest rattans. A few households also grew rattans in their gardens, and this number was on the increase due to a non- timber forest products project in the buffer zone (Quang 2004). Like most activities in the KGNR, rattan collection was illegal, but still occurred rather openly and there were no reports of conflicts with rangers. The conservation impact of rattan and bamboo harvesting was likely low as both products were harvested from plants with relatively high reproduction rates and in ways not destructive to plant growth (i.e. removal of one or two stems from large clumps). Forest Fruits Wild fruits were collected from a variety of species in both open and closed forest in the villages and KGNR by 35% of families in the survey. Sixteen families reported that their children were the primary collectors. Of the total number of fruit-collecting households, only eight sold collected fruit, primarily species harvested by men deeper Table 1 Household characteristics of survey sample Variable (n = 104) Average SD Household size 4.8 people 1.5 people Annual cash income 4,710,031 VND ($325 US) 2,945,940 VND ($203 US) Annual income including subsistence activities 6,408,938 VND ($442 US) 3,024,969 VND ($209 US) Annual reported household expenses 5,670,318 VND ($391 US) 2,722,477 VND ($188 US) Annual cash income from forest product collection 660,125 VND ($46 US) 1,022,325 VND ($71 US) Total household landholdings 0.77 ha 0.83 ha Household agricultural holdings 0.48 ha 0.22 ha Number of forest species collected 5.47 species 7.02 species Number of forest categories collected 2.62 categories 2.08 categories 118 Environmental Management (2010) 45:113–131 123 Table 2 Major commercial forest products categories and species collected by farmers in study site, and conservation impact of harvesting Latin name Local name Relative conservation impact of harvest Timber High Erythrophleum fordii Oliver Lim Sindora tonkinensis A. Chev Go Aglaia spectabilis (Miq.) Jain & Bennet Goi Vatica odorata (Griff.) Symington Tau Michelia mediocris Dandy Gioi Castanopsis indica Roxburgh ex Lindley Ca Oi Manglietia fordiana Oliv. Vang Tam Canarium tonkinensis Engl. Tram Charcoal High Erythrofloeum fordii Oliv. Lim Sindora tonkinensis A. Chev Go Madhuca pasquieri (Dubard) H. J. Lam, Sen Vatica odorata (Griff.) Symington Tau Aglaia spectabilis (Miq.) Jain & Bennet Goi Cinnamomum spp. De Diospyros spp. Long do Fuelwood Low Mallotus apelta Muell-Argent Ben bet Litsea spp. Boi loi Cryptocarya impressa Miq. Bai lai Litsea spp. Bac la Symplocos lucida (Thunb.) Sieb. et Zucc. Dung Castanopsis indica Roxb. Gie Macaranga balansae Gagnep. Hon tro Psychotria rubra Poit. Lau Melastoma candidum D. Don Mua Memecylon edule Roxb. Moc Eurya cuneata Kobuski Nen tre Cratoxylon formosum (Jack.) Dyer Nganh Rhododamnia dumetorum (Poir.) Merr. Sim Syzygium balsamineum (Wight) Walp. Tram Rattans and bamboos Low Calamus dioicus Lour. Mat tat Calamus spp. May nuoc Calamus tetradactylus Hance May dang Calamus rudentum Lour. Song Areca laosensis Becc. Heo Calamus dioicus Lour. Mat tat Dendrocalamus strictus (Roxb) Nees May Dendrocalamus patellani Gamble Giang Bambusa spinosa Roxb Tre Bambusa tuldoides Munro Hop Fruits Moderate Rhododamnia dumetorum (Poir.) Merr Sim Ardisia incrassata Pit. Nang Nephelium lappaceum L. Vai rung Mangifera spp. Muong Cryptocarya spp. Nhoi Gnetum montanum Markyr Gam Environmental Management (2010) 45:113–131 119 123 Table 2 continued Latin name Local name Relative conservation impact of harvest Knema spp. No Mangifera indica L. Xoai rung Musa coccinea Andr Chuoi rung Artocarpus styracifolius Pierre Chay Averrhoa carambola L. Khe Melastoma candidum D. Don Mua Memecylon edule Roxb. Moc Syzygium balsamineum (Wight) Walp. Tram Leaves Low Imperata cylindrica (L.) P. Beauv. Tranh Thysanolaena maxima (Roxb.) Kuntze La dot Phrynium parviflorum Roxb. La dong Licuala spp. (likely L. spinosa) La non Aromatics/oils/resins High Dianella ensifolia (L.) DC Huong bai Pinus merkusii Jungh. et De Vriese Nhua thong Cinnamomum parthenoxylon Meissn. De Vernicia montana Lour Dau Medicinals Moderate Lindera myrtle (Lour.) Merr. O duoc Acorus gramineus Soland Thach xuong bo Drynaria bonii Christ Cu lan or bo cot toai Edible plants Moderate Musa coccinea Andr. Chuoi rung Homalomena occulta (Lou.) Schott Mon rung Animals High Apis spp. (wild honeybees) Ong rung Manis spp. (pangolin) Trut Macaca assamensis McClelland (Assamese macaque) Khi duoi ngan Mustela spp. (weasel) Tay Martes flavigula Boddaert (yellow-throated marten) Chon vang Arctonyx collaris Cuvier (badger) Chon den Melogale personata Geoffroy (large toothed ferret-badger) Chon bac ma nam Paradoxurus hermaphroditus Pallas (common palm civet) Chon voi Sus scrofa Linn. (wild boar) Lon rung Cervus nippon Temminck (sika deer) Huou sao Ratufa bicolor Sparrman (black giant squirrel) Soc den Callosciurus erythraeus Pallas (brown squirrel) Soc nau Hystrix brachyura Linn. (Malayan porcupine) Nhim duoi ngan Gallus gallus Linn. (Red junglefowl) Ga rung Centropus bengalensis Gmelin (lesser coucal) Bim bip Streptopelia spp. (dove) Cu Sturnus spp. (starling) Chim sao Garrulax spp. (laughingthrush) Khuou den Dicrurus spp. (drongo) Cheo beo Physignathus cocincinus Cuvier (Indochinese water dragon) Ky nhong Cuora spp. (turtle) Rua may Gekko gecko Linn. (tokay) Tac ke Python reticulatus Schneider (python) Tran 120 Environmental Management (2010) 45:113–131 123 in the forest of the KGNR, like wild litchi and wild mango. The conservation impact of this activity is low to moderate. Some households that harvested fruits said that they cut down fruit trees in around 10% of cases to get the fruit if it was too high up, particularly fruits like wild mango. Other respondents stated that it was foolhardy to cut trees down just for their fruits, as the fruit often got damaged as the trunk fell, so they used nearby vines to fashion climbing harnesses. Leaves In addition to leaves that were collected as fuelwood, leaves were collected for making thatching, for making brooms, for wrapping foods, and for making craft items like conical hats. Women dominated the collection of all these leaves, as they were light and easy to carry, required no special equipment, and were generally found in forest closer to villages. A majority of households (54) collected grasses and leaves and 36 households sold them commercially. One product that had only recently become economically important were leaves used to make conical hats (Licuala spp.) (known as la non), found primarily in the understory of secondary forest in the KGNR. The light weight of leaves meant that women and children could readily be collectors and little equipment or specialized knowledge were needed. A local woman paid a harvester 30,000 VND (approximately $2 USD) for 1,000 leaves, an above-average wage for a day’s labor at the time. Although leaf collection was technically illegal, the leaf buyer stated that her business had not come to the attention of the Nature Reserve authorities. The leaf trader estimated that about 5 million leaves of la non were harvested each year from this area and sold to hat-making villages in the north of Vietnam. The conservation impact of leaf har- vesting is likely to be low as leaf reproduction replaces those harvested. Aromatics and Oils In the past there was a significant trade in essential oils from two forest tree species, de oil (Cinnamomum par- thenoxylon Meissn.), and dau oil (Vernicia montana Lour.) However, due to a lack of buyers, these oils were no longer important economically at the time of the survey. These activities had once had a high conservation impact, similar to charcoal, as many stems would be cut for small amounts of essential oils, but no households were doing this at the time of the survey. Medicinal Plants Less than 15% of the families surveyed collected medicinal plants, and only 7 households sold medicinal plants. The low incomes were attributed to the small number of eco- nomically valuable species and a lack of knowledge among collectors about where medicinal plants could be found. The conservation impact is likely to be moderate for medicinal plant harvesting; some medicines were made from leaves and bark that could be harvested sustainably, while for some medicines the whole plant or roots were needed. Edible Plants Edible plants were a small category of subsistence forest goods. Eight families in the survey reported having col- lected foods for themselves or for their livestock from forests within the past 12 months. Additionally, a majority of households let their large animals graze freely for fodder in KGNR lands for several months out of the year, although it was not possible to accurately estimate the amount of fodder consumed. Grazing likely had a moderate to high conservation impact, as animals left to graze can alter forest composition and hinder new growth, but grazing did not take place year round and was confined to areas of the KGNR close to villages, as households did not want to risk losing animals if they were left to graze farther afield. Forest Animals Despite many news reports about high levels of poaching in Vietnam, only 3 out of 104 families admitted to hunting. It is likely this figure was underreported, however, as punishment for hunting was increasingly severe, and could include jail time (unlike most other forest collection activities that warranted only a modest monetary fine). The few local people who continued to hunt usually did so only in conjunction with another activity, such as cutting timber, as respondents said there was rarely enough wildlife available to make hunting worthwhile on its own. Role of Protected Areas Resources in Local Livelihoods Around the KGNR, all sources of forest-based cash income added up to on average 660,125 VND ($46 US) a year per household averaged across the sample (see McElwee 2008 for a breakdown of this data). Forest income contributed on average 22% of household cash income for the sample, and more than half the households surveyed (57%) obtained some sort of forest income. However, the mean gross or net forest income is not however always the best indication of how important forests are to overall household livelihoods. In some cases, households may have a low total forest income, but if that income is their only source of liveli- hood, they can be considered highly dependent on forests Environmental Management (2010) 45:113–131 121 123 and would face considerable deprivation if this income stream were to be cut off (Mamo and others 2007). The survey revealed that 43% of households in Cam Xuyen were not income dependent on forests, as they received no cash income from this sector (although some received subsistence contributions). A quarter of households had low dependency (1–25% of their cash income came from the forest sector) and 16% of households had moderate dependency (26–49% of income came from forests). An additional 15% of surveyed households could be consid- ered highly dependent (over 50% of their income from forests). This group of households with high dependency accounted for some, though not all, of the households with the greatest conservation impact. For example, of the 16 high dependency households, 11 were charcoal makers and 8 were timber harvesters. While this accounts for 58% of charcoal-producing households, it is only 35% of the tim- bering households, indicating high dependency households are not necessarily the best or only targets for conservation enforcement. What is particularly interesting is that these highly dependent households were not the poorest households overall; absolute levels of income were not significant in identifying who used forest products and who did not (see Table 3, line 1), nor were household expenses (line 2). But close analysis suggests that the high dependency house- holds were in fact different than the households with no to low dependency on the forest. This is because the highly dependent households used their forest income to smooth gaps in income from other sectors. These dependent households tended to be doing worse in terms of on and off-farm income; they had significantly lower levels of both total agricultural income as well as relative agricultural income (the percentage of total household income from agriculture), as well as total livestock income (Table 3, lines 3–6). A lack of access to off-farm employment income was also very significantly correlated to forest dependency, as those with no dependency on forests had on average more than 30 times the income from wage labor as high dependency households. Those households with sources of wage or business income (n = 50) had on average only 284,890 VND ($20 US) in income from forest produce, while those households with no alterative employment (n = 54) had income from forests averaging 1,007,565 VND ($69 US) (P = 0.000). The differences in the means between the two groups’ total household cash income was also highly significant: 6,102,530 VND/year ($421 US) for those with wage income, and 3,420,681 VND ($236 US)/ year for those without (P = 0.000). Forests as Seasonal Safety-Nets Additionally, forests were not only important in terms of supplementing overall income to households, they were also important in terms of when that income was supplied, a finding noted elsewhere (Pattanayak and Sills 2001;de Merode and others 2004). In Cam Xuyen, households had excess labor in September and October before the winter rice was planted, in January and February before harvest, and in mid-summer between the two rice seasons. Thus these were the times when most households were free to collect forest products (see Table 4). Forest products were usually not collected by households that had labor con- straints during the agricultural season, implying that agri- cultural production may serve as a natural check on forest product collection for farmers. Table 3 Comparison of households at varying dependency levels on forest income Household socioeconomic characteristics Not dependent HH (n = 45) Low–mid dependency HH (n = 43) High dependency HH (n = 16) v 2 P Total household cash income 5,432,578 4,473,687 3,313,044 5.048 .080 Total HH expenses 5,977,639 5,477,916 5,323,056 .255 .880 Absolute agricultural cash income 1,350,800 1,296,897 424,856 11.665 .003** Relative agricultural income .29 .25 .12 11.273 .004** Absolute livestock cash income 1,441,111 1,082,558 609,375 9.812 .007** Relative livestock income .31 .31 .19 4.444 .108 Absolute wage income 2,353,333 953,721 75,000 21.769 .000** Relative wage income .36 .19 .01 21.520 .000** Total household landholdings, in sao 14.29 18.72 9.84 8.766 .012* Total HH agricultural landholdings, in sao 8.67 10.96 8.15 7.752 .021* 1 sao = 500 m 2 * Significant at P \0.05; ** highly significant at P \0.01 122 Environmental Management (2010) 45:113–131 123 [...]... poverty, including in the assessment the province of Ha Tinh There was virtually no mention of forests contributing to livelihoods in this report, despite the fact that more than half of the province’s land is classified as mountainous and non-agricultural (Action Aid Vietnam and others 1999) In another example, a report by an international NGO on livelihoods in a neighboring district of Ha Tinh noted that... DPI Ha Tinh (2003) Planning atlas of Ha Tinh Department of Planning and Investment Ha Tinh Province, Ha Tinh Dung VV, Giao PM, Chinh NN, Tuoc D, Mackinnon J (1994) Discovery and conservation of the Vu Quang Ox in Vietnam Oryx 28:16–21 Eames J (1996) Ke Go Nature Reserve World Birdwatch 18:6–8 Eames J, Eve R, Tordoff A (2001) The importance of Vu Quang Nature Reserve, Vietnam, for bird conservation, in. .. residents, as households near the KGNR that had non-forest related employment (doing wage labor, receiving government salaries or 127 pensions, or service or business income) had significantly lower forest exploitation incomes than those who did not have wage income This finding is similar to reports from elsewhere in Asia, where increased opportunities for wage labor have been shown to reduce forest use (Shively... any special use forest, it is likely that there will be increasing pressure on households living near protected areas in Vietnam in the future, both in the form of relocation as well as in restricted access (McElwee 2006) This may have serious livelihood impacts which have been overlooked to date in Vietnam, and which this article has sought to emphasize Few of the country’s protected areas have sufficient... expand in response to the market (Angelsen 1999b) In Cam Xuyen, the fact that more forest dependent households had less land available (about a third less than non-dependent households; see Table 3) was likely to affect their ability to benefit from agricultural interventions This is confirmed by work in India, where certain types of non-farm income were shown to even out income inequality in communities in. .. economic hardship if they had to divert 40% of their income to the purchase of fuelwood Other important subsistence goods included rattan for house construction (used by 26% of households) and wild medicinal plants (used by 13% of households), both of which would have to be purchased should KGNR resources be restricted Impact of Conservation Restrictions on Income Discussion A number of households... boards are increasingly trying to stop all exploitation activities rather than letting it go as they had in the past, and increasing numbers of rangers were being hired and trained as more and more international development aid was directed at enforcement (Hanh and others 2002) Because according to law there is to be no collection of forest products at all—no matter the relative conservation impact in any... those households that had no other options to access cash income (such as low levels of livestock or no access to wage labor) were more dependent on this forest use To what degree are these findings comparable across other sites in Vietnam? Unfortunately, there are few other studies that have quantified income from all forest products in a single study site (see the review of studies in Sunderlin and... stronger and imposed in new areas, simply because these farmers’ forest use has been ‘invisible’ Even donors and NGOs in Vietnam focused on poverty are also often unaware of the possible contributions of protected forests to farming households because so few assessment exercises have been carried out that have tried to quantify this forest income As an example, the World Bank funded in 1999 a ‘participatory... conservation impact households (i.e., charcoal makers, hunters and timber traders) Conclusions This article has argued that paying more attention to the interactions between farming households and forests and protected areas is needed in Vietnam, mirroring concern with poverty and conservation linkages elsewhere This article has shown that by numerous measures, the majority of farming households surveyed . Eco- nomics 12:235–249 DPI Ha Tinh (2003) Planning atlas of Ha Tinh. Department of Planning and Investment Ha Tinh Province, Ha Tinh Dung VV, Giao PM, Chinh NN, Tuoc D, Mackinnon J (1994) Discovery. poverty, including in the assessment the province of Ha Tinh. There was virtually no mention of forests contributing to livelihoods in this report, despite the fact that more than half of the province’s. Vietnam. Research undertaken in Ha Tinh province in 2000–2001 indicates that the majority of rural rice farmers interviewed who lived near a state-managed nature reserve were receiving cash incomes from forest-based