COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION
IN QUANG NAM PROVINCE, VIET NAM
Huynh Van Thuong, Ha Thi Minh Thu & Barney Long
WWF MOSAIC Project
Management Of Strategic Areas for Integrated Conservation

Abstract
The indigenous communities of the mountainous regions of Quang Nam province have
high levels of vulnerability due to their isolation, lack of productive assets, lack of basic
social services, high dependence on natural resources and a lack of defences against
external factors. The WWF MOSAIC project is working to address these issues in terms
of sustainable natural resource management. A series of activities are under
implementation and development that aim to address each of the key conditions required
for effective community based natural resource management. These include forest land
allocation to community groups, the development of community forest management and
protection regulations and ‘Village Protection Teams’.
A pilot initiative was established in Tabhing commune in 2003 and the methods employed
are explained. Through the training of local government agencies, this approach has now
been replicated in 16 additional communes throughout the province’s uplands. Successes
and constraints of the pilot site and the replication sites are outlined as are
recommendations for strengthening of the process and further actions that are required
to convert decreased vulnerability into poverty alleviation results.

Introduction
Quang Nam is a central province of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam located between
14o57’22’’ - 16o04’28’’ north and 107o13’35’’ - 108o42’06’’ east. Quang Nam covers
10,405.14km2 (Department of Land Administration, 2000) and is divided into 17 districts
and two towns. Twelve of these 17 districts have natural forest cover. The population at
the end of 2002 was 1,427,117 at an average density of 137 people per km2 and a
population growth rate of over 2% (Anon, 2002). Human demography correlates to the
province’s topography, with highest human densities along the coast, decreasing to the

west as hills turn to mountains and forest cover increases.
Quang Nam is a poor province with a GDP at current prices of 5,242,401 million Dong.
Of this total, 30.17% comes from the agriculture and forestry sector, 17.36% from
manufacturing and 11.65% from retail (Anon, 2002). Provincial policy is to reduce the
agriculture sector’s proportion of its equity to 21% and 13% in 2010 and 2015
respectively. On the contrary, it hopes to increase the proportion of the industrial and


construction sectors along with other service sectors from 61.7% in 2002 to 87% in 2015,
with the intention to convert Quang Nam into an industrial province by 2015.
In 2001, Quang Nam had 428,850 poor people, based on data from the 135 programme,
2001 UBDTMN, T.5/2001 presented in Nguyen Lam Thanh (2003). This equates to
approximately 30% of the population of Quang Nam living below the official poverty
line.
Six districts are classed as mountainous, four districts as mid-land and seven districts and
the two towns as lowland. Eight ethnic groups are found in Quang Nam although others
are present in small numbers. The Kinh majority inhabit the low and mid-lands, although
are distributed throughout the province with the other groups being focused on the
mountainous districts. The second largest ethnic group is the Ka Tu followed by the Xo
Dang, who are closely related to the Ca Dong; the M’Nong; the Gie-Trieng who are
closely related to the Ta-Rieng and finally the Co (adapted from Nguyen Lam Thanh,
2003).
The Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy of Vietnam focuses on
economic growth as the primary focus for poverty alleviation. Stated economic goals
include a doubling of GDP between the years 2000 and 2010. Additionally, it aims to
reduce the overall vulnerability of the poor through improved local level governance.
A recent macro-economic study of Quang Nam found that agriculture development in the
mountainous areas of Quang Nam would have little impact on poverty alleviation targets
or a decrease in vulnerability of the poor in the province due to a lack of suitable land for
intensive agriculture (Le Van Hung and Tu Van Khanh, 2005). Instead, the authors

suggest that sustainable use of forest resources may represent the best option for the
majority of upland communities to alleviate poverty.
A study of the economic value of forest resources in four communes in the mountainous
Tay Giang district indicated that natural resources are worth $213 per year after costs to
the average household (Dang Thuy Nga and Schuyt, K. 2005). In contrast, agriculture
was worth $278 after costs. Natural resources therefore contribute 43.4% of the average
household’s annual economic gain. Moreover natural resources play a critical role in
many aspects of rural community’s lives such as constriction and handicraft production.
Table 1. Economic value of natural resource harvest per year

Timber
NTFP
Aquaculture
Total (VND)

Per household
Gross value/y
Cost/y
108,400
11,151
2,743,077
0
534,823
31,399
3,386,300
42,550

Total (USD)
215.68
Adapted from Dang Thuy Nga & Schuyt, K. (2005).


2.71


The official definition of a ‘poor household’ in Vietnam is when income does not exceed
80,000VND per month (US $5.1) for mountainous areas. This works out at only US
$61.1 per year. Natural resource harvest provides three and a half times this amount and
is therefore a critical component of rural livelihoods in Quang Nam province and should
not be ignored in any poverty alleviation strategy.
Despite this high dependence on natural resources and government policies to reduce
poverty, rural communities are increasing vulnerable as these resources are being over
exploited. This over exploitation is led predominantly by ‘outsiders’; non-local people,
usually Kinh people from the lowland areas of Quang Nam and other provinces. There is
currently little attention paid to community needs in regards to natural resource
management by the legislature or local administrative bodies in Vietnam. Rural
communities currently have no legal tenure over the land and so have no user rights or
protection rights, making sustainable harvest for community needs impossible.
Moreover, this is leading to the erosion of biodiversity values and so the choice of
communities in resource use (Vermeulen, 2004).
The decline of traditional institutional arrangements and the breakdown of the
community’s collective stake in natural resources management has often led to
degradation of natural resources (Jodha, 2002). This is exactly what has occurred in
Quang Nam where road development has opened up previously remote, culturally distinct
communities to outside economic forces. As forest is currently ‘open access’ in Vietnam,
the influx of outsiders collecting natural resources has led to a more survivalist approach
by households often described to the authors as ‘we need to harvest the resources before
others do’. Culturally these communities still view the forest as belonging to their ‘clan’
which roughly corresponds to the current commune administrative unit in many areas.
Our work was developed around this cultural belief in the hope that it will provide it
strength and a framework for bolstering traditional forest management systems.

It is accepted that environmental degradation hurts the poor (Markandya, 2001). In the
long-term, an over-exploited natural resource base will lead to decreased community
options in poverty alleviation, although in the short to medium term this is not so clear.
A long-term view must be taken however, that provides a win-win situation which is both
pro-poverty alleviation and pro-environment. As such, we focus our work on ensuring the
sustainability of natural resource harvest for the long-term, whilst understanding that in
the short-term some concessions must be made; the prevention of a decrease in
biodiversity is a fundamental principle of the approach.
In this paper we present the results from our work to date on the development of a multitier system that is institutionalised within the provincial government system to promote
sustainability. The pilot site for the work is Tabhing commune where we have worked for
three years. The Tabhing community is 98.6 percent Ka Tu with only a few lowland
Kinh people moving in as road 14D was recently developed so opening up economic
opportunities. The forest of the commune is both in the buffer and core zone of Song
Thanh Nature Reserve. Local threats to livelihoods and bio-diversity include legal and


illegal artisanal gold mining and NTFP harvest for commercial trade by ‘outsiders’ and
illegal hunting and logging .

Methods
The focus of work has been on the relationship between the rural communities’ ability to
co-operate in the management of common resources and the state of those resources. In
dealing with this relationship the key questions are (a) under what conditions are
communities going to effectively manage natural capital and (b) what can governments
do to facilitate the process of co-operation (Markandya, 2001)? An initial ten point list of
components for community-based natural resource management was developed to
address this relationship (Hardcastle, 2002 after McKean, 2000). These have recently
been expanded to a 16 point list of requirements for successful community-based natural
resource management through a project monitoring and review process.
Based on these requirements, a series of seven actions have been identified. Detailed

methods for the first three of these have been developed and are described in this
manuscript. Three of the remaining four steps have their methods in development and
finally require linking to mainstream development action through the facilitation of
commune development plans.
Steps towards legal and sustainable community-based natural resource
management:
1. Forest land allocation
2. Village forest management agreement
3. Village Protection Team establishment
4. Participatory assessment of natural resource abundance
5. Legal community harvest mechanisms
6. Annual monitoring through participatory assessment of natural resource abundance
7. Village and commune development plans
1. Forest land allocation
The first step in ensuring sustainable harvest of natural resources was to ensure forest
becomes ‘closed access’ so that communities have ownership of resources and the legal
rights over natural capital are transferred to the community. This is being done through
forest land allocation which provides the forest user with a 99 year land tenure agreement
with the Government of Vietnam.
Prior to the 2004 Land Law the terms ‘village’ and ‘community’ were not legal units.
The Quang Nam Department of Natural Resources and Environment, therefore designed
a method for forest land allocation to ‘groups of households’. The WWF MOSAIC
project supported this idea and its associated programme and helped the Department of
Natural Resources and Environment to design a strong method that could be implemented
in any commune in the province and result in an appropriate allocation of land based on
the local situation, cultural beliefs and traditional management systems. One constraint


faced, however, was that the province would fund the forest land allocation programme,
but the finances for this programme were limited. A method therefore had to be designed

that could be implemented within the timeframe and budget of the provincial programme.
Forest land allocation is implemented by the district Department of Natural Resources
and Environment. This was expanded through the establishment of District Allocation
Teams which included a range of district level authorities including the Department for
Ethnic Minorities and the Farmer’s and Women’s Unions. Each department has clear
roles and responsibilities outlined in a provincial level document on the method for forest
land allocation (DoNRE, in prep).
The ownership of resources is an essential component of sustainable harvest, and if
resources are correctly allocated to the appropriate community unit of management, it
could lead to effective poverty alleviation as part of sustainable development and use of
natural capital. As such, the key issue of the forest land allocation process is to match the
correct forest area to the correct community unit of management to ensure consensus and
cohesion in natural resource management. If conducted effectively, this process could
lead to the institutionalisation of traditional forest management regimes and the
protection of cultural values of forest areas. This was achieved through a consultation
process involving Participatory Rural Appraisal techniques.
Community consultation was conducted through focus group meetings with the
participants voted for by the whole village. Focus groups consisted of a minimum of tem
people of which a minimum of 40 percent were women. Consultations included:
• The production of a seasonal calendar
• An institutional analysis of current natural resource management systems
• An analysis of cooperation and conflicts between institutions
• A situation analysis of current natural resource use
• Production of sketch maps, and subsequent field ground-truthing, of current land use
and proposed land allocation options.
These steps enabled the matching of land allocation options to the local situation and
ensured community consensus on proposed outputs. Once options were designed, they
were presented back to the community and agreement was reached on the identification,
location and management of allocation plots. These could then be turned into digital
maps that complimented community sketch maps so that allocation contracts could be

provided using both GIS maps and local nomenclature.
2. Village forest management agreement
Critical to successful implementation of sustainable community-based natural resource
harvest is that the whole community understand and accept the aims, objectives and
implementation mechanism. Moreover, clear stakeholder equality, community support
for the implementation framework, consensus on user group identity, clear rights, roles
and responsibilities, explicit use rights and use rules and conflict resolution mechanisms
all require a legislative framework. These have been largely combined into a single


document, although some are also included within land allocation contracts and other
district level policy documents.
The forest management agreements have been developed out of existing village level
policy options which focus on the maintenance of village traditions. These Huong Uoc or
Quy Uocs were adapted within the legal framework to focus on natural resource
management. These are written by the village, signed by the commune and endorsed by
the District People’s Committee.
These agreements are developed by the whole village, being facilitated by commune
rangers of the Forest Protection Department. A template agreement was formulated based
on experience from nine villages in the pilot commune of Tabhing. This template
provides a framework for rangers to facilitate a community consultation process that
ensures key components of the agreement have standard wording, whilst local issues can
be discussed and legislation based on community consensus.
The agreement includes numerous articles, the first of which states which stakeholders it
applies to. The whole village is charged with implementing the agreement with support
from the Commune People’s Committee and the commune ranger of the Forest
Protection Department. Anyone who enters the village forest however is held under the
agreement and must act within the regulations set out in the document. It is the
responsibility of the entire village to identify and report violations to the village
management board, Commune People’s Committee, ‘Village Protection Team’ or

commune ranger.
For the agreement to work it requires an implementation framework. This is outlined in
the regulation and varies according to the local situation. In general, the village
management board is responsible for community adherence to the regulation and the
establishment and management of a village Forest Protection Fund. A ‘Village Protection
Team’ is established under this agreement, which is comprised of four to five villagers
who are in charge of monitoring and enforcing the forest management agreement.
Rewards and compensation for different stakeholders in the implementation of these
agreements are outlined.
Community agreed harvest regulations on timber, non-timber forest products, hunting
and fishing are provided. These include what products can be harvested, where and when.
Regulations have a strong focus on the protection of resources through over exploitation
by people from outside the community. It is the belief among all communities in Quang
Nam that it is the intense pressure by outsiders that has led to recent precipitous declines
in natural resource abundance. Punishments for violations are explicitly outlined
separately for villagers and outsiders, with higher punishment levels provided to
outsiders. Punishments are not always financial, but can be expressed in terms of
community service or donation of livestock to the village fund depending on what the
community perception of the violation is.


Environmental protection is also expressed in an article to ensure water supplies are kept
free of natural and chemical contaminates and that water is not diverted to the detriment
of the whole community.
3. Enforcement of management agreements, protection and monitoring of natural
resources
The largest threat to the depletion of a community’s natural capital in Quang Nam is over
exploitation by people from outside the commune. In order to reduce the vulnerability to
loss of resources Village Protection Teams were formed. Moreover these teams act as the
internal policing mechanism for the forest management agreement.

The objectives of the establishment of Village Protection Teams are:
• To decrease community vulnerability to poverty through empowerment
• To provide an internal policing mechanism for community-based natural resource
management
• To protect the community’s natural resources from outsider harvest
• To monitor community-based natural resource harvest mechanisms
• To improve forest protection through increased enforcement effort.
These teams are formed through community vote and can be changed at any time if the
community don’t feel they are representing their interests sufficiently. The village
management board is responsible for convening meetings to change team membership if
requested by any community member. Village Protection Teams are managed by the
Commune People’s Committee, cooperate with commune police and army and are
technically advised and trained by the commune ranger from the district Forest Protection
Department.
VPTs are formed via a district level instruction drafted by the Commune People’s
Committee. This instruction outlines the responsibilities of VPT members as well as
their rights and benefits. The instruction also states the responsibilities of the Commune
People’s Committee and the commune ranger.
VPTs are expected to conduct a minimum of two days forest patrol per month and are
compensated for this with a stipend of 100,000VND (US $6.4) per month. This payment
is made from the village forest protection fund which is replenished from fines through
the forest management agreement and the sale of confiscated items. The project provides
an initial three months salary to this fund to enable the sustainable financing mechanism
to establish itself.
All the above methods have been implemented by district level government staff to
ensure the processes are institutionalised and are maintained after the life of the project.
This requires a large and sustained capacity building effort for a range of departmental
staff.



Results
1. Forest land allocation
Forest land allocation has occurred in three communes, each with different socioeconomic profiles (table 2). This permitted comparison of the appropriateness of the
developed method to be assessed for varying socio-economic situations.
Table 2. Socio-economic profile of three pilot land allocation communes

Land area (ha)

Ethnicity (%)

Population
Poverty
(% Households)

Total
Forest
Kinh
Ka Tu
Ca Dong
Muong
Xo Dang
Co
M’Nong
Total
Density (km2-)
Poor
Medium
Rich

Tabhing

22,800
20,873
1.59
98.41
23.71
10.40
39.94
49.04
11.02

Commune
Ba
9,000
5,940
54.07
45.93
4,497
49.97
24.90
57.12
17.98

Tra Giac
15,010
5,825
1.33
96.53
0.53
0.53
0.27

0.53
2,024
13.48
46.57
46.77
6.66

The method developed for forest land allocation (DoNRE, in prep) produced different
allocation scenarios for the three communes (tables 3-5). In Tabhing the traditional Ka Tu
systems of forest land management still exist, but are weaker than the government system
of villages. With sedentary villages along a road being upgraded as part of the East-West
Development Corridor, the village was the strongest unit of management, although
village boundaries were not clear and consensus was required to be reached prior to
allocation on exactly where these boundaries are.
Ba commune is bisected by a long-established road and relatively close to the major city
of Danang. Previous land management regimes implemented by a State Forest Enterprise
for protection, reforestation, enrichment and restoration were strong and so were
supported through forest land allocation programme. To date, only four of 13 villages
have been allocated land in Ba commune. In the remaining nine villages an State
Agricultural Enterprise currently manages the land and conflict over land use rights
between the enterprise and the commune and district authorities currently prevent the
completion of data analysis and stakeholder consultation.
Tra Giac commune is remote and comprised of six ethnic groups, but the majority
(96.3%) of the population are Ca Dong. To date, only one wholly Ca Dong village (Hai)
has been allocated forest land. Forest land of other villages is currently managed by a
State Forest Enterprise and will be allocated later this year as part of the State Forest
enterprise reform process. Forest land in Hai village has been allocated to nine groups of
households. This is due to traditional management systems under which these groups of



households have always managed land. Each group of households is led by a dominant
household and are based on geographical proximity not family connections.
Table 3. Forest land allocation in Tabhing commune
Village

Pa Ting
Ca Dang
Pa La
Pa Xua
Pa Rong
Za Ra va Pa Va
Pa Toi
Vinh
Total

Forest land allocated to
Forest land not yet allocated or managed by different
community
stakeholders
Forest land Forest land
Total Household or Commune
Song Thanh
Total
with forest
without
individual
People’s Nature Reserve
forest
Committee
576.0

97.0
673.0
135.0
701.0
836.0
915.0
147.0 1,062.0
150.0
354.0
504.0
589.0
78.0
667.0
156.0
100.0
256.0
360.0
6.0
366.0
217.0
1,900.0
2,117.0
87.0
45.0
132.0
131.0
3,806.0
3,937.0
290.7
950.0 1,240.7

287.3
1,900.0
2,187.3
33.0
109.0
142.0
80.0
80.0
1,523.0
795.0 2,318.0
255.0
1,461
2,639.0
4,355.0
4373.7
2,227.0 6,600.7
1411.3
1,461
11,400.0
14,272.3

Table 4. Forest land allocation in Ba commune
Village

Forest land allocated to
community
Forest land
with forest

Eo Village

Group of Mr. Cu
Group of Mr. Duoi
Group of Mr. Oi
Group of Mr. Buc
Sub-total
Phu Bao village
Group of Mr. Sanh
Group of Mr. Ninh
Group of Mr. Be
Sub-total
Doc Kien village
Group of Mr. In
Group of Mr. Ven
Group of Mr. Voi
Group of Mr. Uoi
Group of Mr. Ngoc
Sub-total
Ban Mai village
Group of Mr. Viet
Other organizations
Total

127.0
78.5
105.1
173.8
484.4
68.0
129.2
117.0

314.2
195.2
93.5
34.5
35.0
83.4
441.6

Forest land
without forest

Total

Household or
individual

0

127.0
78.5
105.1
173.8
484.4

11.7
7.0
5.0
11.0
34.7


0

68.0
129.2
117.0
314.2

10.9
12.1
20.0
43.0

237.0
93.5
96.5
174.0
83.4
684.4

20.6
13.6
30.0
17.4
20.5
102.1

67.7

15


41.8
62.0
139.0
242.8

67.7
1,307.9

Forest land not yet allocated or managed by
different stakeholders

242.8

1,550.7

194.8

Other
organizations

Total

0

11.7
7.0
5.0
11.0
34.7


0

10.9
12.1
20.0
43.0

0

20.6
13.6
30.0
17.4
20.5
102.1

4,194.6
4,194.6

15.0
4,194.6
4,389.4


Table 5. Forest land allocation in Tra Giac commune
Land management unit

Group of households No. 1
Group of households No. 2 and 3
Group of households No. 4

Group of households No. 5
Group of households No. 6
Group of households No. 7
Group of households No. 8
Group of households No. 9

No. of
Households
in group

10
10
10
15
23
40
20
20
148

Forest land allocated to
Forest land not yet allocated
Community
and managed by the commune
Forest land
Forest land
with forest
without forest
Household
170.00

478.00
600.00
30.00
81.90
40.05
70.90
100.00
414.18
50.00
400.00
800.00
70.00
30.00
450.00
150.00
1,742.02
390.90
1,694.13
3,592.02

2. Village forest management agreement
The development of village forest management agreements has created good feeling
between the community and commune ranger and acted as a useful awareness tool for
both. All stakeholders agree that the Quy Uoc is a strong legal document and the
framework prepared covers all required aspects of natural resource management that the
document should. The process has been conducted in 105 villages across 17 communes
(figure 1), with all documents receiving district level approval.
Whilst development of the documents appears to have gone well, their implementation
has been weak to date. Reasons put forward by various stakeholders for this weak
implementation are:

• Lack of distribution of the documents resulting in few community members
remembering the content,
• Lack of commune-level political will to implement the recommendations despite
district and province level support,
• Corruption and apathy,
• Lack of support from commune and district Forest Protection Department rangers.


Figure 1. Communes where management agreements and
Village Protection Teams have been established.

3. Enforcement of management agreements, protection and monitoring of natural
resources
‘Village Protection Teams’ were formed in each village. This name was used to amplify
the message that the teams were to protect village resources and not act as supplementary
forest rangers. Each team consists of 4-5 people who are voted for by a community
forum. Teams are managed by, and cooperate with, commune authorities so as to
provide them more power. Initially they were more separate from the authorities, but the
teams felt they required additional support so this was adapted. Support, training and
monitoring is supposed to come from the commune ranger. Teams are provided with
uniform and basic field equipment such as a torch, boots, hammock and raincoat.
The pilot teams formed in Tabhing commune in September 2003 were financially
supported by the project for 12 months, during which time their implementation was
adapted and a sustainable financing mechanism was developed. The funding mechanism
involves a commune Forest Protection Fund that is kept liquid through Quy Uoc fines,
administrative fines and the sale of confiscated items. This system was based on a
functioning example of the Ca Dy adjacent commune.


18 months into the trial, the nine teams in Tabhing are producing mixed results.

Anecdotal evidence and local opinion strongly suggest that forest crime has dramatically
reduced in the commune due to the presence of the teams (see table 6). However, it is
clear that some teams are working much better than others. Support from the commune
is sporadic and the capacity of the commune ranger is too low to adequately support the
teams. As such, the sustainable financing mechanism is still not fully operational and a
comprehensive monitoring system is taking a long time to be implemented.
Table 6. Results of 18 months of VPT operations in Tabhing commune
Patrols by VPTs only
Number of patrols
Number of man days on patrol
Number of days on patrol
Number of camps destroyed
Number of people ‘arrested’
Confiscations

122
715
358
19
65
3.675 m3 timber
22 saws
1 buffalo

Patrols by VPTs and Song
Thanh rangers
11
195
40
7

0
15.82m3 timber
1 buffalo

Conclusions
One aim of the WWF MOSAIC is to develop a model for sustainable community-based
natural resource management that can be implemented by communities cooperating with
local authorities. Some major steps have been taken towards this aim, but many more
obstacles remain.
A strong method for forest land allocation has been developed that takes into account
local situations and forest management regimes. This will form the underlying building
block of secure land tenure on which sustainable harvest mechanisms can be
implemented. No conflicts with allocation plots have yet been voiced, although legal
allocation has not yet been possible due to current lack of forest type classification which
is required under Decree 178/2001/QDD-TTg dated 12/11/2001 before the legal ‘Red
Book’ certificate can be provided. This represents a hurdle in the development of legal
harvest regulations that requires further work. Allocation plots have yet to be marked on
the ground which is likely to be a major implementation constraint in terms of finances at
least. These constraints aside, simply the process of going through the action of deciding
on the area has empowered communities to protect and manage their resources and all
have expressed appreciation for the process.
Forest management agreements were always seen as a first step in the development of
more compressive harvest regulations and management. The documents are legally
strong and provide a framework for community management and protection of natural
capital according to their traditional systems and cultural beliefs. Implementation of
these documents is currently weak and requires a combination of awareness building and
training of communities and authorities on their power and use in natural capital
management and protection.



Community protection measures have been successful in reducing forest crime by people
from outside the commune. Implementation issues remain and need addressing through
capacity development of identified key stakeholders. During preparatory needs
assessments, protection of natural capital was the highest priority among all communities
interviewed. There is very strong community support for these groups and so with
targeted strengthening of the system it is believed this will become a powerful tool for
community-based natural resource management in Quang Nam.
Possibly the strongest point the development process is that all components have been
institutionalised within local or provincial government systems. This brings sustainability
and longevity to the approach and is ensuring community needs and wishes are integrated
into government work at many levels. Through the co-development of methods with
provincial level departmental staff, their piloting and their subsequent adaptation, the
understanding and awareness of the impact of natural resource use on poverty alleviation
has been raised significantly at the provincial level. However, the implementation of
methods through the district and commune levels throughout the province makes the task
of capacity building, and especially awareness raising, an immense prospect.
With the beginnings of a strong and appropriate framework in place the next steps will
include the refinement of methods and intensive capacity building for all stakeholders,
further work on sustainable financing and the implementation of legal harvest regimes. It
is hoped that these can all be tied together through the formulation of commune
development plans. The need to tie community based natural resource management to
development plans stems from the need to:
• decrease community vulnerability to poverty through the provision of a community
voice in land use and development planning,
• decrease poverty through sustainable and focused development of agriculture and
forest land
• prioritise sustainable development interventions at the local scale.
A suite of monitoring indicators embedded within a simple adaptive management system
to monitor natural resources and the effect of their sustainable use on poverty alleviation
targets needs to, and will be, developed. This will ensure the processes being developed

will contribute to the provincial poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation goals
set out in provincial strategies.

References
Anonymous. 2002. Quang Nam Statistical Yearbook 2002. Quang Nam Statistical
Publishing House. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Dang Thuy Nga & Schuyt, K. 2005. Economic benefits of the A’Vuong watershed in
Vietnam to indigenous Ka Tu people. WWF Vietnam Programme, Tam Ky, Vietnam.
Department of Land Administration. 2000. Quang Nam Land Census [In Vetnamese].
Printing House of Quang Nam Newspaper, Tam Ky, Vietnam.


Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Forest land allocation procedure for
the mountainous districts of Quang Nam province including post allocation
requirements for forest management. In prep.
Hardcastle, J.E. 2002. Opportunities for indigenous community management of forest
resources in the central Troung Son Uplands, Quang Nam. WWF Vietnam
Programme, Tam Ky, Vietnam.
Jodha, N.S. 2002. Natural resource management and poverty alleviation in mountain
areas: approaches and efforts. Conference paper series: International conference on
natural assets. PERI and CSE
Le Van Hung & Tu Van Khanh, 2005. Agricultural Development Policies in Quang Nam
Province, Vietnam; Strategic Vulnerabilities Assessment Case Study. WWF MPO
Office, Washington, USA.
Markandya, A. 2001. Poverty and alleviation and sustainable development; implications
for the management of natural capital. Workshop proceedings: Poverty and
sustainable development. The International Institute for Sustainable Development.
McKean M. A. 2000. Common Property: What is it? What is it good for? What makes it
work? In People and Forests: Communities, Institutions, and Governance. eds
Gibson C.C., McKean M.A., & Ostrom E. Massachussets Institute of Technology,

Boston.
Nguyen Lam Thanh. 2003. Socio-economic Issues in the Central Truong Son Landscape.
Central Truong Son Initiative Report No. 2. WWF Indochina. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Vermeulen, S. 2004. Biodiversity planning: why and how should local opinions matter.
Gatekeeper Series: 115. iied.

Acknowledgements
The work presented in this paper represents a collaborative effort between many people
and departments. The staff of the provincial Forest Protection Department, especially
Diep Thanh Phong, Thai Truyen, Dang Dinh Nguyen and Thu Van Khanh have been
instrumental in method development and implementation support. Similarly the staff of
the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, especially Duong Chi Cong, Vo
Nhu Toan and Bui Van Ba. The staff of Song Thanh Nature Reserve assisted in the
piloting of methods in Tabhing commune and have added enthusiasm to the replication of
the approach; Le Nho Nam, Tran Van Thu, Ngo Dinh Khoi and Ngo Hoang Hai Son.
The work of three people was critical in method development and much of this paper is
based on their invaluable inputs: James Hardcastle, Nguyen Quoc Dung and Nguyen Huu
Tho. The people of Tabhing deserve special mention for their patience during repetitive
consultations and slow implementation; we hope the hard work is worth it.
This work was made possible by the generous support from USAID, WWF-US, the Ford
Foundation, Swiss-Re and the John, D. and Catherine, T. MacArthur Foundation; for this
we are very grateful.