The study area, Huong Son, is located in the eastern end of the Annamite Mountains in central Vietnam, between Pu Mat and Vu Quang nature reserves. Huong Son forests were once considered to have high bio-diversity, but collectivization of forest land in the 1960s and resultant over-exploitation by the state forest enterprise (SFE) led to severe damage. At the end of the 1990s various efforts were made to elevate Huong Son’s forests’ protection status, and reports as late as 1999 showed forests at higher elevations in good condition with signs of regeneration at lower levels. Nevertheless, just over a decade later only a few traces of what was once rich and diverse forest remain. What’s left is mainly poor forest, bare land, roads and plantations.

This study asks how this devastating loss occurred, seeking in particular to identify the causes of deforestation since 2005. It also asks how the legal framework, designed to protect important forest, proved ineffective.

The specific objective of this study is to understand the actors and mechanisms in forest governance, planning, protection and management, to understand the gaps in local regulations, their implementation and how different actors can make use of these gaps to by-pass regulations. Based on findings we draw conclusions and make specific recommendations to strengthen the governance of natural resources and particularly forest lands.

The geographical focus in this study is on four upland communes in Huong Son district, Ha Tinh province. We interviewed formally and informally local communities, staff of the SFE and commune and district officials. We made field visits to observe and map forest condition. We have collected and reviewed a wide variety of data from different sources, both official and unofficial. Many documents were simply unavailable, or hidden, and there were many contradictions in data and mapping. We attempted to counter these factors by triangulation. At times, contradictions in maps and figures offered clues or were a source of information in itself and brought us to raise questions we did not foresee, but which were certainly helpful to bring us a step further in understanding local relations and planning and classification mechanisms. The conclusions we have drawn are ones in which we have confidence.

Since collectivization the SFE has had the sole authority to exploit and control almost all natural forests in the district and four studied communes. We found that despite reforms and policies since 1993 to reallocate forests, the enterprise continues to control almost all forests. The logging ban of 1992 appeared to make little difference to the SFE which closed only a 1/3 of forest whilst continuing to exploit the rest. After reopening forests in 2005 SFE had a yearly target to exploit between 3,000 and 7,000m³ in production forests. Our findings suggest that actual logging far exceeded set limits and happened indiscriminately in both production and protection forests.

The SFE has not been acting in the environment or local people’s best interests, as it has only allocated bare and exhausted forests to local households, not natural forest they could utilize sustainably for non timber forest products (NTFPs) and protect. The enterprise also refused for long time to return over 9,000ha in Vu Quang Nature Reserve area to the local authorities for allocation to a Protection Management Board. It is reported that during the years of conflict and unclear protection responsibilities, these forests suffered from a lot of illegal logging. The Ngan Pho Forest Management Board (FMB) recently formed by a merger of two smaller Management Boards, also seems unable to prevent illegal exploitation of its forest.

Our exploration of the causes of the inability of these bodies to properly carry out their duties to sustainably harvest timber whilst protecting forest threw up many inter-connecting reasons. Respondents repeatedly mentioned the lack of resources, with these bodies being starved of central funding since the reforms of the 1980s and privatization of the SFE in 1998. It seems that a small number of poorly paid de-motivated staff is unable or unwilling to monitor forests and prevent their illegal exploitation.

Another reason underlying to impoverishing of  forests is the centralized nature of the system and  flaws in  forest inventory mechanisms, resulting in unrealistic targets for exploitation from above. Targets are unrealistic because they are based on false data, on a picture of rich forest that has not existed for years. Forests are now poor, but are not reported as such. Consequently, if SFE tries to meet production targets, it will enter the last few remaining areas of rich forest. Grand initiatives to involve locals in forest protection  fail as they are not accompanied by the necessary resources to carry them out.

Agencies are commonly hired to map and evaluate forests, yet a common criticism is that they paint an unrealistic picture of the forest situation. Huong Son forests have continuously been subject to over-exploitation for several decades, with a particular visibility and speed after 2005, yet officially approved inventories show virtually no change at all. Two reasons are suggested. First, mapping agencies spend a very limited time in the field, with a tiny sample and do not involve locals in the inventory. In addition they use unreliable old maps and general poor detail satellite images. The second suggestion is that the SFE is in fact the problem – that mapping is based onrequests of forest owners such as SFE, rather than reality – that they lobby mapping agencies to deliberately over report so they are awarded higher exploitation targets. Likewise negotiation takes place with mapping agencies so that reports allow re-classification of areas for desired land use change or exploitation.

For example, our study found that large areas of natural forests (both production and protection areas) were planned for rubber plantations by the SFE and the Huong Khe Rubber Company. Yet, it is clear that these plans bypass legal provisions, as natural forests can only be converted into other purposes if they are bare land or in a very poor condition. It must be proven that there is no potential to regenerate, clearly not the case in these areas.

All the time, local people and commune authorities are kept in the dark, given no information about classification of forests or intended exploitation plans. Our study looks in some detail at the Nuoc Sot hydro-power scheme and shows how a large area of primary forest was destroyed and feeder roads constructed without proper assessments, and in contradiction to central government planning requirements. An environmental impact assessment (EIA) report was approved by the province in 2007, three years after construction started, and without the knowledge of local authorities. In fact communal authorities were officially informed about plans and reports much later after decisions were already taken and construction had already started. When officially informed local authorities and people reacted strongly and sent rejection letters to the province. Most interestingly it is apparent that the dam does not serve its stated purpose. Local officials pointed out that the rivers supplying the dam’s reservoir don’t have enough water. This was confirmed by our visit to the hydro-dam site as we observed that both the reservoir and river downstream were nearly dry, despite it being the rainy season.  A local informant suggested that the only possible reason for the dam was forest exploitation.

We conclude that the collectivization of forest away from its household owners to poorly managed state bodies is a driving force for deforestation. Forest living people were deprived of their land and livelihoods, and little land has been returned to them for their survival. Without ownership they have no control over or benefit of their forests. This makes people spectators and participants to legal and illegal destruction. At the same time decisions that change forests and landscape irreversibly are taken behind closed doors without considering people’s needs and the impacts of these decisions. Yet forest people are dependent on the forest and need to find ways to derive benefits from it. Decisions taken at high level without local participation and approval will inevitably cause conflict. We touch on a couple examples of sustainable management of forests by local people that prove that with local ownership comes responsibility and sustainable planning.

Many questions remain for us at the end of our research. In our study areas illegal logging is ongoing, largely facilitated by several newly constructed roads. One can ask why, how and who took the decision to build a road that cuts right through these strictly protected areas? Or why was it decided to turn Son Hong natural forests into rubber plantations? Who was involved in this decision, which has far reaching consequences for people’s present and future? How could the Nuoc Sot hydro-power scheme be approved and construction start, without any local involvement and despite local protests? How come there is such a gap between the proposed project and the actual operations of the hydropower?

It is striking that since 2006 over 20,000ha of forests have changed function from protection into production forests, a relatively significant amount. The findings show that reclassification takes place regularly and without a clear set of objective criteria and guidelines. This is worrying, because it leads to arbitrary changes in the functions of forests and makes the  division between classifications confusing.

The study recommends the allocation of production forest lands to households and ongoing support to them in viable land use techniques. A morotorium on mono-plantations in these areas should be declared until their effectiveness and environmental suitability is properly assessed. Allocation of  natural forests to households for protection should be recognized as part of their livelihood strategy and as an effective solution both for forest protection and regeneration. To regenerate important forests all watershed protection areas need to be closed for all kind of activity immediately.

We also recommend an overhaul of current mechanisms for land inventory, forest classification and development and socio economic planning at local level. Mapping, land inventories and assessments need to be performed by properly funded independent agencies. To ensure this independence, they need to be carried out in a participatory way with local communities and officials. Local committees could oversee and approve the exercises. Specific attention should go out to coordination and exchange information around mapping, land inventories and forest classification. Different departments should use the same information and maps as baseline for their planning. Once formulated and officially approved, development plans and forest classification should be taken as the starting  point to assess whether investments and other interventions are in line with plans (rather than the present habit of continously changing plans and forest classification to make them fit proposed investments).

Investments like hydro-dam or rubber plans should be subject to thorough environmental, social and economic impact assessments and to meaningful local consultations before approval. These assessments should be conducted by independent agencies through clear and transparent mechanisms. 

Forest classification needs to be based on natural functions and watershed vulnerability rather than a status which changes over time, particularly by human activity. This also means that classification should be fixed and only change under exceptional circumstances. Secondly, there is need for better monitoring so that decisions comply with legal provisions and safeguards for people and nature.