Case study: Community-based natural resource management: Case of Thai ethnic group in Hanh Dich commune, Que Phong district, Nghe An province, Vietnam

  • 1,139 views
Uploaded on

This research paper will discuss the role of the community in natural resource management, particularly land and forest management and protection in Vietnam. The paper offers a discussion of …

This research paper will discuss the role of the community in natural resource management, particularly land and forest management and protection in Vietnam. The paper offers a discussion of environmental discourses that are related to the impacts of state land and forest management policies. Though ethnic communities in Vietnam have developed their knowledge and institutional systems in community natural resource management for a long time, communities were not recognized formally as one of the land users until 2003. Even then, though communities were identified as land users, few communities could attain land title. Those policies have had consequences with communities and their members facing shortages of land and forest. Nevertheless, those resources are essential for sustaining local people’s livelihoods, protecting forest, and keeping their cultural values.

The paper is organized in three main parts. The first summaries some key environmental discourses, especially ‘sustainable development’, and introduces concepts of culture, customary laws and community-based natural resource management. The second part deals with resource management and related legal framework in Vietnam. The third part illustrates the role of community in land and forest use and protection through a discussion of a Thai ethnic community in Vietnam

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,139
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. POL 537-11A ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS AND PUBLIC POLICY Research paper Community-based natural resource management:Case of Thai ethnic group in Hanh Dich commune, Que Phong district, Nghe An province, Vietnam Submitted by: Pham Van Dung ID: 1165976 Submit date: June 24th, 2011
  • 2. IntroductionThis research paper will discuss the role of the community in natural resourcemanagement, particularly land and forest management and protection in Vietnam. Thepaper offers a discussion of environmental discourses that are related to the impacts ofstate land and forest management policies. Though ethnic communities in Vietnam havedeveloped their knowledge and institutional systems in community natural resourcemanagement for a long time, communities were not recognized formally as one of theland users until 2003. Even then, though communities were identified as land users, fewcommunities could attain land title. Those policies have had consequences withcommunities and their members facing shortages of land and forest. Nevertheless, thoseresources are essential for sustaining local people’s livelihoods, protecting forest, andkeeping their cultural values.The paper is organized in three main parts. The first summaries some key environmentaldiscourses, especially ‘sustainable development’, and introduces concepts of culture,customary laws and community-based natural resource management. The second partdeals with resource management and related legal framework in Vietnam. The third partillustrates the role of community in land and forest use and protection through adiscussion of a Thai ethnic community in Vietnam 1.1 As a senior staff and a researcher of SPERI, I have involved in studying and supporting the Thaicommunity, which is illustrated in the case study of this research paper. Information in the case study iseither derived from SPERI profiles or my own observation and experiences. 1
  • 3. Part 1: Literature review1.1. Sustainable development and other environmental discoursesVarious environmental ideas, debates and discourses have emerged during previousdecades. ‘Prometheans’ consider nature as resources, just for exploitation, so they cannotsoundly respond to the environmental constraints (Dryzek, 2005, pp. 51-52).‘Administrative rationalists’ could not deal with environmental problems well because oftheir emphasis on expertise and failure of inclusion (ibid, pp. 93-95). Nowadays‘sustainable development’ becomes a dominant discourse in the environmental debate(Carruthers, 2001, p. 285). According to Wright and Kurian (2010, p. 402), this discourseassumes that “economic and environmental benefits can be simultaneously generated”. Itencourages wise resources use, and urges environmental protection, equity, andcooperation, so as to ensure sustainable development to meet the needs of present andfuture generations (ibid, p. 402).To achieve sustainable development, community and collective action are importantenvironmental factors, but misunderstanding of common property may undermine effortsto strengthen community-based resource management. Agrawal (1999) argues that GarrettHardin and his followers’ judgement on resource degradation “served to (mis)guidepolicy” (p. 631). In fact social bonds and community institutions are significant factors forminimizing individualism and its consequences of the overuse and exhaustion ofresources. Therefore, it is better to understand the contemporary community and its role inmanaging common property than to base policy on Hardin’s (1968) notion of “the tragedyof the commons”. 2
  • 4. 1.2. Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM)CBNRM is “a way of increasing community participation in natural resource managementat the local level” (Vandergeest, 2006, p. 344). Land rights, land and forest tenure areessential factors in CBNRM. The weakening of communal land rights and emergence offragile individual land rights dilute traditional resource management (Colchester, 1995,pp. 73-74). Lynch and Alcorn (1994) argue that local people may practically decide onresources even if the state ownership is claimed (p. 377), although government claimsmay damage the incentive to practise sustainable community resource management (p.379). Therefore, it is necessary to secure community property rights (p. 380). Colchester(1995, p. 80) emphasizes that effects of community-based management are positive forbiodiversity. Many scholars support customary land rights and land reform to servesustainable forest management (Lynch and Alcorn, 1994, p. 384; Colchester, 1995, pp.65-70; Plant, 1995, p. 35; Vandergeest, 2006, p. 323). That is reasonable, because landand forest rights offer good incentives to a community to preserve their resources andensure their livelihoods in a sustainable way.1.3. Cultural values, customary law in resource management and protectionCulture, customary law and their relation have been defined and explained by manyscholars. Over a long period of time indigenous people have developed and attainedprofound awareness of the ecology and human-nature relationship (Lynch and Alcorn,1994, p. 382), and culture become ‘ecologically attuned’ (Flannery, 1994, p.389). Localland owners “had the political, spiritual and moral authority to engage with theenvironment” (Ross et al, 2011, p. 59). Cultural perception of ownership embeds rights,responsibilities, and legal concepts (Franz and Benda-Beckmann, 1999, p. 30). That is afoundation for not only internal, but also external interactions and norms. Merry (1998, p. 3
  • 5. 880) and Franz and Benda-Beckmann (1999, p. 30) affirm the existence of legalpluralism, of which customary law is fundamental. Merry defines “customary law as acultural construct with political implications, a set of ideas embedded in relationships thatare historically shifting” (p. 880). People set up communal norms and institutions forcollective decision and resource management (Agrawal, 1999, p. 635; Taylor, 1998, p.252; Vandergeest, 2006, p. 325).Promotion of local knowledge, traditional institutions, and customary law contributefundamentally to resource management and protection. In order to deal well withdecision-makers and outsiders, it is essential to strengthen community leadership andallow people’s voice to be heard (Tyler and Mallee, 2006, p. 368). Tree ordination inNorthern Thailand is a good example of the promotion of local cultural values, religiouspractice, and customary rights for the sake of forest protection (Darlington, 2003, p. 347;Ross et al, 2011, p. 228). Many governments have recognized and translated the notion ofcommunity-based forest into law (Sikor, 2006, p. 339) thanks to successes and effects oftraditional institutions.1.4. Interaction between statutory law and customary law in resource managementThere exist the gap and overlapping between statutory and customary systems because theformal system tends to homogenize the legal framework for resource management(Peluso, 1995, p. 208). While scientific elites and modern sciences became a hegemonicbelief system (Ross et al, 2011, p. 66), “[i]ndigenous land was transformed intogovernment and settler title” (ibid, p. 71). The management arena thus fails to includeindigenous voices (ibid, p. 72). Formal legislation and paternalistic attitudes oftenoverlook the diversity of local institutions, knowledge and ownership (Tyler and Mallee, 4
  • 6. 2006, p. 355; Tyler, 2006, p. 383). The alienation of the community from their inherentresources for the sake of economic business results in a loss of interest and concern forcommunity, resource management constraints, and even political conflicts (Colchester,1995, pp. 75-78; Ross et al, 2011, p. 182). Arguments about community rights(Vandergeest, 2006, p. 322; Tyler, 2006, p. 24) should be raised to respond to theadaptable knowledge, values, and strength of community, so as to ensure local people’ssustainable livelihoods. Community rights and customary tenure systems should berecognized (Wright, 1994, p. 527) and encouraged for the improvement of sustainableresource management.Though CBNRM has revealed successes and been recognized, interaction and challengesto CBNRM remain critical. To clarify the role of CBNRM in a more specific dimension,the following part will analyse forest management and related legal frameworks inVietnam.Part 2: Forest management and related legal framework in Vietnam2.1. Historical review of land and forest management in Vietnam 2.1.1. Pre-colonial and colonial periods (before 1945)According to Poffenberger (1990, p. 8), people had probably located and had beenpracticing swidden cultivation, hunting and gathering in Southeast Asia since the firstmillennium A.D. Early Vietnamese kingdoms establish administrative systems since thefirst centuries A.D. Though indigenous communities have founded their own concepts of 5
  • 7. land tenure, national laws do not favourably recognize their tenure (ibid, p. 9). Howeverfeudal state and outside force had not pushed strong impacts on traditional communityforest management until the emergence of colonial rule in the mid-nineteenth century.Since then state management and extraction of forests have been accelerating hastily(ibid, p. 19). 2.1.2. Independent and collective timeThough the government successfully claimed large forest areas under national ownership,displacing local communities, they could not introduce sustainable alternatives for usingthe forest (Poffenberger, 1990, p. 8). With the rhetoric of “land reform” and radicalmeasures, the government launched collectivization programmes during the 1960s afterthe expropriation of lands from owners of large land (Plant, 1995, p. 37). Almost all land,forest and other production tools were transferred to state and cooperative control.Centralization, bureaucracy and coercion resulted in the failure of the state programmes(p. 38). Forest cover in Vietnam dropped from 43% in 1943 to 29% in 1975 because “400state forest companies and 150 state wood processing enterprises” were the main actors offorest exploitation (Eccleston and Potter, 1996, p. 51). 2.1.3. Renovation (Doi moi) and post-cooperative (since 1986)Though decollectivization was launched in mid-1980s, state control of resources remainsheavily persistent. Traditional land use for subsistence (An, 2006, p. 85), such as swidden,rotational shifting cultivation, herbal areas were claimed as “barren” land and convertedto state control. As a result, many poor households lost rights to access (Rambo andJamieson, 2003, p. 161). Individual land leases were accepted, and individual land userrights were introduced after the decollectivization. But the impacts from top-down control 6
  • 8. and free market weakened institutions of community forest management and alsoaccelerated shortage of community land and forest tenure. These are the acute remainingissues in “the development of community-based forest management in Vietnam”(Sunderlin, 2006, pp. 392-293). Many projects relying on foreign expertise,misunderstood shifting cultivation as a cause of deforestation, and did not takecommercial logging or large-scale projects into account. Local initiatives were ignored,and that undermined success of the development plan (Bryant and Parnwell, 1996, p. 17;Rambo and Jamieson, 2003, p. 162). Vietnam is still facing deforestation, which isconsidered the most ecologically severe issue, as primary forest cover has dropped downbelow 10% of the national area (Lang, 1996, p. 225). Poor operation of State ForestEnterprises pushes pressures to millions of hectares of forest land under their control,which ought to be transferred to other users (Sunderlin, 2006, p. 392). Among the futureexpected users, traditional community institutions are potentially crucial foundation forcommunity forestry development (ibid, p. 393).2.2. Legal framework in land and forest management in Vietnam 2.2.1. Laws on landThe most recent Land Law of 2003 aims at accelerating industrialization andurbanization, so individuals or enterprises, who are considered as “more (economically)effective” land users are given priority to get land rights (NAV, 2003). Community isrecognized as a land user for the first time under this law (Article 9, Section 3). However,community land rights have been obstructed and poorly implemented so far because ofcomplicated procedures and the underestimation of the social and cultural values of thecommunity. Community is defined by the law as “village-level residential community, 7
  • 9. which share common traditional customs or lineage” (NAV, 2003), and the representativeof the community should be the village head. That is not suited to reality of culturaldiversity, where a wide range and various types of linkages which constitute a certaincommunity exist. Circular 38/2007/TT-BNN requires not only consent, application, andplan of forest management from community, but also forest inventory procedure andprofessional assessment of the forest situation (MARD, 2007). That imposes considerableexpenditure, which an ordinary community cannot afford. 2.2.2. Law on environmental protectionThe Law on Environmental Protection provides main principles for environmentalrelations (NAV, 2005). Practically, Vietnam’s Agenda 21 issued by the Prime Minister in2004 is aligned with United Nations Agenda 21 and international sustainabledevelopment. Though the Agenda rhetorically considers environmental protection asindispensable, it insists “economic development as the central task in the coming stage ofdevelopment” (PMV, 2004). 2.2.3. Law on forest protection and developmentLaw on forest protection and development stipulates managing mechanisms, rights andobligations of forest users in management, protection, development, and use of forest(NAV, 2004) . Vietnam’s Agenda 21 seeks to “[s]trengthen the State management systemof equitable use and protection of forest resources, involving active participation ofcommunity”. Though participation is mentioned in Agenda 21, it is not consistentlyimplemented in reality. Conventional top-down approaches by state agencies couldinclude little local consultation and, in many cases, local people gain poorly from thatprocess (Lang, 1996, p. 226; An, 2006, p. 86). 8
  • 10. 2.3. Impacts of state enterprises and private companies on land and forest managementImpacts on forest management and exploitation caused by state and private sector is acritical issue. Technocratic governments accelerate forest destruction to serve the elitesinstead of ensuring benefits for an increasing mass population (Lohmann, 1995, p. 23).State and private businesses prefer to convert forest land to monoculture cash crops(Colchester, 1995, p. 11). When resources are commercialized, income disparity, socialgaps, and environmental problems emerge, and cultural diversity is negatively impacted(Wright, 1994, p. 525; Lohmann, 1995, p. 33; Colchester, 1995, p. 315; Beck and Fajber,2006, pp. 300-302).Modern administration and market mechanisms have stressed considerable impacts ontraditional communities and their natural resources. Part 3 will discuss a particular casestudy, which reflects local response to solve problems caused by such impacts.Part 3: Case study of customary law and forest management of a Thai ethniccommunity in Central Vietnam3.1. Natural and socio-economic setting of the communityHanh Dich is a mountainous remote commune of Que Phong district, Nghe An province,north-central Vietnam (SPERI, 2011). The commune shares borders with Laos to the west(see map in Annex 1). There are 11 villages and 3,128 people living in the commune, mostof whom are indigenous Thai ethnic group. Currently, Hanh Dich commune has relativelylow population density, high forest area per capita (see Annex 2). Therefore the localpopulation is not yet facing highly constraints of land and forest shortage as those in other 9
  • 11. localities do. However, local people are increasingly facing a lack of cultivating land andforest due to the land right claims to large forest areas by the state protection board, stateforest enterprises, and private companies. Other factors, such as population growth andforest exploitation by outsiders, are also considerable. The rapid forest degradation isalarming, especially for forest areas under state and private companies (ibid).3.2. History, cultural values, and customary lawThe Thai ethnic group migrated from northern Thanh Hoa province and Laos, and firstsettled in Que Phong and surrounding districts in 15th century (ELM, 2008). Some clanssettled in Hanh Dich commune 200 years ago (TEW, 2003). Thai ethnic people have astrong sense of community spirit (ELM, 2008). Traditionally each village should havecommon sacred spaces, such as Lak Sua, San, and Dong. Lak Sua is a holy tree belongingto San sacred area. This tree is a symbolic spot, on which the first Thai settlers hadattached their clothes to worship local spirits and apply for the community settlement.Once every year, community members should contribute offerings, select an owner of theworshipping ceremony, then gather and enjoy a community event at San area. Dong is atraditional cemetery of the village, that should be placed in western area of the village.Local people believe that Lak Sua and other trees at San and Dong areas should be strictlyprotected for sacred reason. Therefore each traditional community had been keepingcertain forest areas very well before the recent impacts from outsiders (ibid).Thai people maintain a traditional universal vision, which describes three layers ofworlds: Muong Then (paradise), Muong Din (secular world), and Muong Boc Dai (beingsunder earth) (ELM, 2008). The community has a saying: ‘Hit khong song chan’, whichmeans a community member is supposed to abide by both systems: law and customs. The 10
  • 12. spirit of a dead person can reach Muong Then whenever that person has completed humanduties, and the children of that person accomplish funeral procedures required by thecommunity customary law. Otherwise the spirit is believed to hang about as a nomad.That forces everyone to try to become a good member of the community, with acooperative sense and mutual assistance (ibid).3.3. Traditional cultivation and local wisdomsThai people traditionally combine slope dry rice and wet rice terrace agriculture. A recentfield study released that local Thai people preserve 17 different rice varieties (SPERI,2008). Thai people are experts in using water flow effectively for fish raising, ricehusking, and recently generating small-scale electricity (ibid). They have plentifulknowledge of using forest non-timber products, especially herbs. Herbal healers (bothmen and women) are not only knowledgeable in herbal medicine, but also respected bylocal people. They constitute the village elders and the traditional leadership (TEW,2003). On the basis of belief system, customary law, and abundant knowledge ofresources and cultivation, Thai people have been harmoniously co-existing with nature formany generations. Therefore, resources, especially forest and water are protected well in atraditional way (ibid).3.4. NGOs approach to forest management and protection 3.4.1. Cultural learning and adapting, bottom-up approachStarting from learning cultural values of the local community, Towards Ethnic Women(TEW), a Vietnamese non-governmental organization (NGO) and its successororganization – Social Political Ecology Research Institute (SPERI) have obtained 11
  • 13. understanding and shown respect towards community values (see Section 3.2 and 3.3).The objectives and strategies of every supporting project are based on bottom-upapproach, and the understanding of the needs and suggestions from local people (TEW,2003). Through research, TEW staff found that a large forest area was under statemanagement, for instance, 11,050.3 ha of the communal forest land was managed by astate enterprise. Base on local people’s needs, TEW supported land allocation programme,which can offer them long-term rights with forest land certificates. Land allocationsupport was carried out in 2003. It began with learning and adapting to the people’s needsand initiatives, then solving conflicts within and between community and outside actors.The communal leaders and people made an effort to lobby, so as to take back 100 ha offorest from Phu Phuong state forest enterprise to local control. That resulted inconfirmation by land certificates of long-term use of a total 3,360 ha of forest land, whichwere allocated to 360 households and 16 local mass organizations in Hanh Dich commune(TEW, 2003).Participatory land allocation, study tours, sharing local knowledge, and integratedcultivation were also supported (SPERI, 2009). People got knowledge of their forest andland areas, rights and obligations toward land because of their active participation inforest exploration and demarcation, and various discussions on customary and statutorylaws on land. Local people’s knowledge, successes, failures, and lessons drawn are notmerely shared within community, but also with other communities. Study tours,knowledge exchanges are good opportunities for people to initiate common actions thatprovide the foundations for various networks (ibid). 3.4.2. Lessons from community herbal forest management and protection 12
  • 14. As well as other interest groups, the group of herbal medicine have set up regulations toclarify members’ rights and responsibilities, operation mechanism, and relations withother actors (SPERI, 2009). Base on the suggestions and the needs of herbalist groupmembers for protection and use of some forest areas under communal management,which contain numerous species of herbs, the group leaders made and sent an applicationto communal authorities. Communal authorities understood that they could rely on thegroup strength and herbalists’ reputation to protect forest and fulfill their responsibilities.Upon the forest allocation decision made by the communal authority, the herbalist groupdemarcated the area, carried out inventory of herbs, and attached regulations and signboards, even scripts on stones, which claimed their forest land rights. So far communityherbal forests are protected well though surrounding areas are under pressure ofexploitation and degradation (HDHMG, 2009).3.5. Obstacles and possibilities of cooperation between customary law and statutory lawin land and forest management and protection.Poor cultural sensitivity and prevalent ethnocentrism among the mainstream imposes biasabout ethnic people and an intention to introduce majority Kinh values and technologiesto ‘modernize’ ethnic groups (Rambo and Jamieson, 2003, p. 166). Cultural sensitivityheavily influences vision, momentum, and behaviour of outsiders, especiallyadministrative top-down approach to ethnic development. That also causes a criticalobstacle to decentralization and CBNRM. Even when certain decentralization andreallocation of resources happens, it tends to serve economic elites rather than peripheries(ibid, p. 169). Nationally, state forest protected boards and national parks remain largeareas of forest (see Annex 2). Coping with this trend by way of community and localpeople’s land rights, forest tenure, and practice of customary laws remain a critical 13
  • 15. challenge. However, the state requirement and new trend of decentralization andpromotion of ethnic culture are introduced at national and local level. That encouragesdifferent agencies to be interested in learning and combining customary law with formalsystem.ConclusionThis paper has explored the scholarship on environmental discourses and provided anoverview of policies and laws on forest management. It has also reviewed the importantrole of ethnic communities in natural resource management and protection. Without localpeople’s involvement, it is hard to obtain a win-win situation in dealing withenvironmental (particularly forest) protection and poverty reduction. Therefore, for thesake of environmental protection (explicitly land and forest in this case) and localpeople’s livelihoods, it is critical to challenge the authority and the role of environmentalbureaucrats. There is a clear need for decentralization and reallocation of land and forestto local people’s direct management.Lessons and success of Thai ethnic community herbal forest in Hanh Dich communebecome a model and a potential alternative to administrative and economic rationality. Inorder to replicate this pilot model, the government should apply forest allocation processin a flexible way. The procedure should involve results from community-based forestinventory rather than purely from expertise, so as to reduce administrative cost and makeforest allocation to community feasible. 14
  • 16. For the improvement of ethnic development programmes, learning and respecting culturaldiversity are required. The increase of research groups working with indigenous peoplesis promising for learning and building up suitable models of upland development (Ramboand Jamieson, 2003, p. 170). In this process, the emphasis of merely one direction – eitherstatutory or customary law – is not sufficient. Based on improvement of understanding,respect and willingness to cooperate, opportunities will arise to enable actors from the twosystems to ensure sound resource management and so assure both state interests andcommunity rights. 15
  • 17. ReferenceAgrawal, Arun (1999), ‘Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation’, World Development 27 (4): 629-649.An, Le Van (2006), “Towards upland sustainable development: livelihood gains and resource management in central Vietnam”, in Tyler, Stephen R. (ed.), Communities, Livelihoods and Natural Resources: Action Research and Policy Change in Asia, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2006, Chapter 5, pp. 85-105.Beck, Tony and Fajber, Liz (2006), “Exclusive, moi? Natural resource management, poverty, inequality and gender in Asia”, in Tyler, Stephen R. (ed.), Communities, Livelihoods and Natural Resources: Action Research and Policy Change in Asia, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2006, Chapter 15, pp. 297-320.Benda-Beckmann, Franz von and Meijl, Toon van (1999), ‘Introduction: Property rights and Economic Development: Land and natural resources in Southeast Asia and Oceania’, in Meijl, Toon van and Benda-Beckmann Franz von eds. Property Rights and Economic Development: Land and natural resources in Southeast Asia and Oceania, Kegan Paul International, London, 1999, pp. 1-14.Bryant and Parnwell (1996), ‘Introduction’, in Michael J.G. Parnwell and Raymond L. Bryant (eds) Environmental Change in South-east Asia: People, politics and sustainable development, Routledge, London., 1996, pp. 1-20.Carruthers, David (2001), From Opposition to Orthodoxy: The Remaking of Sustainable Development, in Debating the Earth: The Environmental Politics Reader, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 285-300.Colchester (1995), M. Sustaining the Forests: The Community-based Approach in South and South-east Asia, Development and Change 25 (1): 69-100.Darlington, Susan M. (2003), “Practical Spirituality and Community Forests: Monks, ritual and radical conservatism in Thailand”, in Greenough, Paul and Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing (eds) Nature in the Global South: Environmental projects in South and Southeast Asia, Duke University Press, London, 2003, pp. 347-366.Dryzek, J.S., (2005), The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses, Oxford University Press.Eccleston, Bernard and Potter, David (1996), ‘Environmental NGOs and different political contexts in South-East Asia: Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam’ in Parnwell, Michael J.G. and Bryant, Raymond L. (eds) Environmental Change in South-east Asia: People, politics and sustainable development, Routledge, London, 1996, Chapter 3, pp. 49 - 66.ELM (Ethnic Literature magazine) (2008), Social quality and interaction between belief, customary law and Phuong, Hoi actions, of Thai people in Hanh Dich commune, Volume 155, July 2008.Flannery, Tim (1994), “Adapting Culture to Biological Reality”, The Future Eaters, Sydney: Reed New Holland, pp. 389-406.Franz and Keebet von Benda-Beckmann (1999), “A functional analysis of property rights with special reference to Indonesia”, in Meijl, Toon van and Benda-Beckmann Franz von eds. Property Rights and Economic Development: Land and natural resources in Southeast Asia and Oceania, Kegan Paul International, London, 1999, Chapter 1, pp. 15-56.HDHMG (Hanh Dich communal herbal medicine group) (2009), Report of the group (in Vietnamese, unpublished)Hardin, Garrett (1968), “The Tragedy of the Commons”, in Debating the Earth: The Environmental Politics Reader (ed. Dryzek, J.S., Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 25-36.Lang, Chris R.(1996), ‘Problems in the making: A critique of Vietnam’s tropical forestry action plan’, in Parnwell, Michael J.G. and Bryant, Raymond L. (eds), Environmental Change in South-east Asia: People, politics and sustainable development, Routledge, London, 1996, Chapter 10, pp. 225-234.Lohmann, Larry (1995), “Against the Myths”, in Colchester, Marcus and Larry Lohmann (eds.), The Struggle for Land and the Fate of the Forest, World Rainforest Movement, Penang, Malaysia, 1995, pp. 16-34. 16
  • 18. Lynch, Owen J. and Janis B. Alcorn (1994), “Tenurial Rights and Community-based Conservation”, in Western, David and R. Michael Wright (eds.), Natural Connections: Perspectives in community- based conservation, Island Press, Washington, D.C, 1994, Chap. 16, pp. 373-392.MARD (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Vietnam) (2007), Circular 38/2007/TT-BNN dated April 25, 2007, providing the guidance on procedures of allocating, leasing and revoking of forest to organizations, individuals, households and residential communities.Merry, S.E. (1998), ‘Legal pluralism’, Law and Society Review 22: 869-96.NAV (National Assembly of Vietnam) (2003), Land Law dated November 26, 2003.NAV (National Assembly of Vietnam) (2004), Law on Forest Protection and Development dated December 3, 2004.NAV (National Assembly of Vietnam) (2005), Law on Environmental Protection dated November 29, 2005.Peluso, N.L., Vandergeest, P. and Potter, L. (1995) ‘Social aspects of forestry in Southeast Asia’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies (special anniversary issue), 26 (1), pp. 196-216.Plant, Roger (1995), “Background to Land Reform: Latin America, Asia and Africa”, in Colchester, Marcus and Larry Lohmann (eds.), The Struggle for Land and the Fate of the Forest, World Rainforest Movement, Penang, Malaysia, 1995, pp. 35-60.PMV (The Prime Minister of Vietnam) (2004), Decision No. 153/2004/QD-TTg dated August 17, 2004, Promulgating the strategic orientation for sustainable development in Vietnam (Vietnam’s Agenda 21), http://lawfirm.vn/?a=doc&id=1664Poffenberger, Mark (1990) Keepers of the Forest: Land management alternatives in Southeast Asia, Kumarian Press, West Hartford, CT.Rambo, A. Terry and Neil L. Jamieson (2003) “Upland Areas, Ethnic Minorities, and Development”, in Luong, Hy V. (eds) Post War Vietnam: Dynamics of a transforming society, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Maryland, 2003, Chap 5, pp. 139-170.Ross, Anne, Kathleen Pickering Sherman, Jeffrey G. Snodgrass, Henry D. Delcore, Richard Sherman (2011), Indigenous Peoples and the Collaborative Stewardship of Nature: Knowledge binds and institutional conflicts, Left Coast Press, Inc, Walnut Creek, CA.Sikor, Thomas (2006), ‘Analyzing Community-based Forestry: Local, political and agrarian perspectives’, Forest Policy and Economics, 8 (2006), pp. 339-349.SPERI (2008), Study on ‘indigenous knowledge of water using for wet rice cultivation of Thai ethnic group in Na Sai village, Hanh Dich commune, Que Phong district, Nghe An province’.SPERI (2009), Yearly narrative report on Network for Traditional Herbal Medicine, http://www.speri.org/upload/images/PART%203.%20speri.yearly%20report.jul07-jun08.pdfSPERI (2011), Research on ‘Role of Customary Law in Ethnic Minority Community Development’ (not yet published).Sunderlin, W. (2006), “Poverty Alleviation through Community Forestry in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam: An Assessment of the Potential.” Forest Policy and Economics 8(4): 386-396.Taylor, Michael (1998), ‘Governing Natural Resources’, Society & Natural Resources, Apr/May98, Vol. 11, Issue 3, pp. 251-258.TEW (2003), Case study on forest land allocation in Hanh Dich commune (Vietnamese version, unpublished).Tyler, S. (1995), ‘The state, local government and resource management in Southeast Asia: recent trends in the Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand’, Journal of Business Administration, 22/23, pp. 51-68.Tyler, Stephen R. (ed.), Communities, Livelihoods and Natural Resources: Action Research and Policy Change in Asia, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2006, Chap. 1 (pp. 3-12), Chap. 18 (pp. 373-390).Tyler, Stephen R. and Mallee, Hein (2006), “Shaping policy from the field”, in Tyler, Stephen R. (ed.), Communities, Livelihoods and Natural Resources: Action Research and Policy Change in Asia, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2006, Chapter 17, pp. 347 – 372.United Nations (1992), Agenda 21: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/index.shtml 17
  • 19. Vandergeest, Peter (2006), “CBNRM communities in action”, in Tyler, Stephen R. (ed.), Communities, Livelihoods and Natural Resources: Action Research and Policy Change in Asia, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2006, Chapter 16, pp. 321-346.Wright, Jeanette and Priya Kurian (2010), “Ecological Modernization Versus Sustainable Development: the case of genetic modification regulation in New Zealand”, Sustainable Development, No. 18, pp. 398– 412.Wright, R. Michael (1994), “Recommendation”, in Western, David and R.Michael Wright (eds.), Natural Connections: Perspectives in community-based conservation, Island Press, Washington, D.C, 1994, Chap. 24, pp. 524-535. 18
  • 20. AnnexesAnnex 1: Map of the research area Nghe An province 19
  • 21. Annex 2: Data (population, land, and forest of different levels) Hanh Dich Que Phong Nghe An Vietnam commune (*) district (**) province (****) (***)Population (persons) 3,128 63,489 3,123,084 86,024,600Natural area (ha) 18,019.27 189,543 1,649,850 33,105,100Forest area (ha) 15,719.38 158,506 911,808 14,757,800Land area per capita 5.76 2.98 0.53 0.38(ha/person)Forest area per capita 5.02 2.49 0.29 0.17(ha/person)Forest area allocated to 20,017.57 3,425,500individual, households(ha)Forest area allocated to 6,833.31 na 2,792,946communitiesProtected area by 3,728.4 49,880.5 375,118.4 2,054,700(basically managed stateprotection boards (ha)Special use forest na 9,955.59 200,211.3 6,124,900(basically managed bynational parks) (ha)Forest area managed by na 13,288.3 83.174,66state enterprises (ha)Forest area managed by na 24,943private companies (ha)Notes:(*) Data from report of Hanh Dich communal herbal medicine group (2009) and SPERI (2011).(**) Data from website of Programme 135: http://chuongtrinh135.vn/Default.aspx?tabid=134&News=1430&CatID=13(2010); SPERI (2011).(***) Data from website of Nghe An province: http://www.nghean.gov.vn/infm/default.asp?m=2&s=33&p=1 ,http://www.nghean.gov.vn/infm/default.asp?m=2&s=34&p=1 , andhttp://www.monre.gov.vn/v35/default.aspx?tabid=428&cateID=4&id=4340&code=PUKSAV4340(****) Data from websites of the General Statistics Office, the Government, Wikkipedia:http://www.gso.gov.vn/default.aspx?tabid=386&idmid=3&ItemID=9834 ,http://www.gso.gov.vn/default.aspx?tabid=386&idmid=3&ItemID=9835 ,http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Dn_qu%E1%BB%91c_gia_%E1%BB%9F_Vi%E1%BB%87t_Nam ,http://enviroscope.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/upload/370/attach/p69-73_Vietnam.PDF ,http://www.chinhphu.vn/cttdtcp/en/about_vietnam08.html , and http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/6_11_ky_yeu_hoi_thao__1_.pdf 20
  • 22. Annex 3: Some pictures of the research community activities and forest Landscape of the research area Traditional house on stilts of Thai people A Thai women and handicraft work Women from different ethnic groups, different localities are sharing color dying knowledge A ceremony for granting of land right Herbalists in front of a sign board on a rock at certificate the gate of the community herbal forest 21