FOREST GOVERNANCE - Việt Nam Forestry · Forest governance monitoring in Viet Nam Forest...
Transcript of FOREST GOVERNANCE - Việt Nam Forestry · Forest governance monitoring in Viet Nam Forest...
FOREST GOVERNANCE
Vol. 32 - 33, January 2012
Forest governance monitoring in Viet Nam
Forest governance and forest governancemonitoring - Some international views
Law enforcement contributes toenhance forest governance
Participation innatural resource governance
Transparency in forest governancein terms of information sharing
Forest governance and the interrelationbetween FLEGT and REDD+
Forest resource investigation and monitoringand forest governance monitoring in Viet Nam
Legal documents on forestry issuedbetween 1 July 2011 and 31 December 2011
2
4
8
10
13
15
18
20
20Major upcoming FSSP&TFF activitiesin the first half of 2012
INSIDEPageArticle
FOREST GOVERNANCE
02
Arend Jan van Bodegom,Wageningen UR,
Centre for Development Innovation,Wageningen, The Netherlands
is ageneral term for describingthe way in which people and
organizations rule and regulateforests. Important aspects include:
(1) a coherent set of laws andregulations, both within the forestsector and in other sectors thatinfluence forest management;
(2) the coherent implemen-tation of these laws; this includesmulti-annual and annual plans,budget allocation;
(3) the decision making pro-cesses about rules, laws andregulations;
(4) clear mandates of, andarrangements between differentstakeholders (various units andlevels of the government, NGO,community organisations, businesssector, etc.); and
(5) staff capable of executingthe tasks that have been assigned tothem.The term Forest Governance alsoemerged in response to a changingvision of the roles and responsibilities of the government towardsother stakeholders: from the 'old'style of governance the government is steering to a new situationin which several actors are co-steering. In this vision thegovernment does not bear soleresponsibility for the governancesituation, but every actor is meantto play a role and assume specificresponsibilities. Important aspect isthe recognition that differents takeholders may embracedifferent values, interests andworld views .
isfollowing a different approach: it isnormative and it is about quality.Important principles often mentioned in relation to 'GoodGovernance' include: participation
(stakeholder engagement), fair-ness, accountability, transparency,efficiency, and effectiveness. Theyare supposed to be universallyapplicable. However, there isalways debate on what principleshave to be included and whatexactly is meant by them. Differentstakeholders may have differentperspect ives , interes ts andinterpretations of what good forestgovernance means to them and howit should be operationalized.A joint initiative between UN-REDD/Chatham House and theWorld Bank is underway toformulate indicators for (Good)Forest Governance, applying thesix earlier mentioned principles.The resulting indicators aregrouped into three pillars: (1)policy, legal, institutional andregulatory frameworks, (2)decision-making processes ; and(3) implementation, enforcementand compliance (see figure 1). Thisleads to the following categoriesunder each of the pillars.
- Forest related policies andlaws
- Legal framework to supportand protect land tenure, ownershipand use rights
- Concordance of broaderdevelopment policies with forestpolicies
- Institutional frameworks- F i n a n c i a l i n c e n t i v e s ,
economic instruments and benefitsharing
- Stakeholder participation- T r a n s p a r e n c y a n d
accountability- Stakeholder capacity and
action
- Administration of forestresources
- Forest law enforcement- Administration of land tenure
and property rights- Cooperation and coordination- Measures to address corrup-
tionWhy should we enhance forestgovernance? The promotion offorest governance can bring aboutmany or fruits. Goodforest governance makes it possibleto optimize the production of goodsand services from the forest (seeFigure 2). Important fruits of forestgovernance may include profitfrom new opportunities created byREDD+ and FLEGT. These maygenerate additional forest revenuesthrough penetration to internationaltimber markets (in the case ofFLEGT) or international paymentsfor forest carbon capture, storageand avoided emissions (in the caseof REDD+). For these processesdurable results at a national levellike 'legally produced timber' and'decreased deforestation' will beimportant selling points andrequirements.Promoting forest governance maybe good, but why should oneengage in monitoring governance?Would it not be better to only spendfunds on the actual improvement ofgovernance? To these questionsseveral answers are possible:
Monitoring helps to check whetherpolicies are on the right track, byproviding crucial information overtime on status and progress aboutgoals, objectives, strategies andoutcomes. Governance monitoringcan help to clarify and improve theroles and performance of variousstakeholders in the sector and thusimprove coordination and diminishoverlap in actions. Monitoring canhelp answer vital questions like:does the governance in the sectoradvance in the direction that wasoriginally envisaged? Monitoringalso helps where changes need to be
Forest governance
Good Forest Governance
-
benefits
-
-
1
2
Pillar 1: Policy, legal institutionaland regulatory frameworks
Pillar 2: Planning and decision-making processes
Pillar 3: Implementation, enforce-ment and compliance
- Strategic management:
1
2
See Van Bodegom, A.J., D. Klaver, F van Schoubroeck and O. van der Valk, 2008. FLEGT beyond T: exploring the meaning of'Governance' concepts for the FLEGT process. Wageningen UR, The Netherlands
Capistrano, D., 2010. Forest Governance Indicator Development: Early Lessons and Proposed Indicators for Country Assessments.FAO, 34 pp.
http://www.cdi.wur.nl/UK/resources/Publications/
Vol.32 - 33, 1/2012FSSP Newsletter
FOREST GOVERNANCEAND FOREST GOVERNANCE MONITORINGSOME INTERNATIONALVIEWS
03
made to meet new demands/priorities, new weaknesses/vulnerabilities need to be address-ed, and emerging new strengthscould be built on.
Monitoring helpsto improve operations. It providesinformation needed for coordinating human, financial andphysical resources committed todifferent programmes and projects,and for improving coordination.
Monitoring provides a basis fordemonstrating to taxpayers,beneficiaries and partners thatexpenditure, actions and results areas agreed or could reasonably beexpected in the situation. Thistransparency helps to buildlegitimacy, or the “social license tooperate”, which in turn reducesinvestment risks. Reduced riskimproves the investment climate.For international processes (e.g.REDD+ and FLEGT) monitoringof forest governance is a tool forcreating evidence that forestgovernance is indeed improvingtowards an acceptable level.
A governancemonitoring system helps to buildtrust between stakeholders in thesector and improves the image ofthe sector. It can also demonstratethat the forest sector is important inthe country and contributes to itssustainable development.The six principles of ForestGovernance are also applicable toforest governance .Below we list the six principles andexamples of their effectiveapplication in forest governancemonitoring :
: this principleimplies transparency about dataThere is a need to be as open aspossible about disclosure of data.However, a balance is necessary, asit is unproductive to disclose alldetailed data, but aggregated datashould be disclosed as much aspossible. Transparency also meansa well - organised communication
- Operational management/Implementation:
-
- Reputation and credibility:
- M o n i t o r i n g i m p r o v e svisibility to other departmentswithin government and othereconomic sectors:
1. Transparency.
monitoring
3
Figure 1: Pillars and Principles of Forest Governance.
Figure 2: The Roots and fruits of forest governance
(adapted from: World Bank, 2009)3Partially based on the national forest programme principles and on Saunders & Reeve. 2010
. Chatham HouseMonitoring Governance for Implementation
of REDD+
Vol.32 - 33, 1/2012FSSP Newsletter
04
towards stakeholders about theprocess of strengthening forestgovernance monitoring to stake-holders from the start.
implies thatthere should be credibility of themonitoring process and data.Monitoring is only of use if the dataquality is adequate. There needs tobe a mechanism for quality controland quality assurance of the datathat is collected and reported andfor adapting data collection andanalysis methods. Big steps are notto be expected overnight; it isimportant to take a realistic viewon the situation of 'here and today'and what would be attainable goalsand pathways in a process ofgradual improvements. Capacitybuilding at all levels will beneeded, and may need to be built,for all stakeholders engaged in thedesign and implementation ofsystems.
: the monitoringshould fit within goals set by thecountry. Aspects include: (a)Country leadership and nationalownership, (b) Consistency withnational policies, strategies.
partnership andinclusive multi-actor participation
are key for success, as areinvolvement of all relevantstakeholders, decentralisation andempowerment, coordination andconflict-resolution. The monitor-ing system should be developedand implemented jointly by majorstakeholders and take intoconsideration various relevantgeographic and administrativelevels in the country. Multi-stakeholder participation in theidentification of indicators as wellas in the design and implement-ation of the tools and institutionalarrangements will result in morecredible and useful informationand thus promote trust betweenstakeholders.
implies the importanceto secure meaningful participationof disadvantaged stakeholders inthe country: remote and resourcedependent communities, un-organized actors, and women maylack the possibilities and oppor-tunities to effectively participate inthe forest governance monitoringprocess. It may also be important toinvolve groups that at first sight donot see the importance of forestmonitoring for them, for examplethe private sector.
implies the need tobuild on existing data sets, datacollection routines, IT infras-tructure and organisationalframeworks as much as possible. Italso implies the need to prioritizethe aspects/issues on whichmonitoring should concentrate inthe beginning. There is also a needto use as much as possible existingdata. Data needs at domestic andinternational levels should beharmonised and collected andreported ideally through a co-ordinated national and inter-national institutional architecturewith appropr ia te overs ightmechanisms involving verificationat both national and internationallevel. Lastly, the forest monitoringsystem must be implementable andcost effect ive. I t must becompatible with the country'slonger term institutional andorganizational capacities andresources for forest relatedmonitoring.So forest governance monitoringfaces many challenges, but it is alsoa very promising possibility toenhance the sustainable use offorests for the benefit of thecountry and all its inhabitants.
2.Accountability
3. Effectiveness
4. Participation:
5. Fairness
Efficiency
Dr. Lê Khắc Côi
1. BACKGROUNDDue to the increasing recognition oft h e i m p o r t a n c e o f f o r e s tgovernance quality on progresstowards sus ta ina lbe fores tmanagement (SFM), Forest LawEnforcement, Governance andTrade (FLEGT) and the reductionof deforestation and forestdegradation (REDD+), increasing-ly many efforts are taken to monitorand report forest governance andgovernance quality. Severalinitiatives and different method-ologies exist for monitoring andreporting forest governance,including those related to ForestLaw Enforcement and Governance(FLEG), reporting based on SFMcriteria and indicators and oninternational agreements, as well asthose of the World Bank. Recently,the REDD negotiations under theUN Framework Convention on
Climate Change have agreed onsafeguards, initiative of EU FLEGTVPA (voluntary partnershipagreement), and timber supplyc h a i n p o l i c y o f d i f f e r e n tgovernments that relate to forestgovernance, further increasing theneed for monitoring. However,perhaps most importantly, forestgovernance monitoring systems atthe country level need to meetnational monitoring needs in orderto be relevant. This means thatmonitoring of forest governanceshould be most of all useful to betterfulfill national and local prioritiesfor forest management. Any forestgovernance monitoring that shouldbe established by countries needs tobe feasible, cost-effective, reliable(verif iable) , al low rel iablemeasurement of change over time,and fulfill international reportingrequirements.2 .FOREST GOVERNANCEMONITORING IN VIET NAM
MAIN FINDINGS
Relation between forest gover-nance and forest/SFM is describedin figure 1. Forest governance, bynature, is to make influence in orderto achieve expected results on (i)extent of forest resources; (ii) forestbiological diversity; (iii) foresthealth and vitality, (iv) productivefunctions of forest resources; (v)protective functions of forestresources, (vi) socio-economicfunctions of forest resourcesthrough action programs and legal,policy and institutional arrange-ments (vii).Forest governance monitoring isone of the components of forest-related monitoring system includ-ing (i) forest bio-physical monitor-ing, (ii) forest socio-economicmonitoring, and (iii) forestgovernance monitoring.
2.1. Forest governance monitor-ing and sustainable forestmanagement
FOREST GOVERNANCE MONITORING IN VIET NAM
Vol.32 - 33, 1/2012FSSP Newsletter
05
2.2. International initiative onforest governance monitoring
2.3. Forest governance monitor-ing cycle
As stated in the previous article byMr Bodegom, a joint initiativebetween UNREDD/ChathamHouse and the World Bank isunderway to formulate togetherwi th in te rna t iona l exper t sindicators for (Good) ForestGovernance. The resul t ingindicators are grouped into threep i l l a r s : (1 ) po l i cy, l ega l ,institutional and regulatory frame-works, (2) decision-makingprocesses; and (3) implementation,enforcement and compliance. Ineach of these pillars the followingprinciples have to be applied:transparency, accountability, effect-iveness, participation, fairness andefficiency. We will take the threepillars and six principles as astarting point for discussions onwhat (good) forest governance in acountry could mean.
Figure 2 roughly describes forestgovernance monitoring cycle, fromthree-pillar-relationship point ofview, including planning anddecision making process (step 4)producing policy, legal, institu-tional and regulatory framework(step 3). Implementation of policy,legal, institutional and regulatoryframework in practice (step 6)brings results and impact of forestgovernance (step 1) leading tosustainably managed forest andforestry (step 2).Besides of that demand fromsustainable forest management andsustainable development of forestrygenerates needs for new or revisionof current policy, legal, institutionaland regulatory framework. In factthe demand generates inputs forplanning and decision makingprocess (step 4). Apart from thatmonitoring implementation of thepolicy, legal, institutional andregulatory framework (step 5) canbring two kinds of results. If theresult is good then current policy,legal, institutional and regulatoryframework can continue. If theresult is bad which means that theimplementation of the policy, legal,institutional and regulatory
1:Figure Relation between FGM and SFM
FGM:FBM:FSEM:SFM:
Forest Governance monitoringForest bio-physical monitoringForest socio-economic monitoring
Sustainable Forest Management
Vol.32 - 33, 1/2012FSSP Newsletter
Figure 2: Forest governance monitoring cycle
06
framework creates bad or negativeimpacts, then the framework mustbe revised or a new one needs to beissued, which generates inputs forstep 4 of the process.
Figure 3 reflects result of FGMassessment, by interviewedstakeholders, and by 6 principles.According to that principle“Transparency” is rated at 56%(56/100 mark) which is the lowest,from lowest to highest, then followby “Accountability” and “Part-icipation” both at 60% (60/100mark), “Fair/Equity” and “Effec-tiveness” at 63% (63/100 mark),and finally and highest is“Efficiency” at 67% (67/100 mark).Data on the figure 3 advise us that ifViet Nam wants to improve itsFGM the prioritized focus shouldbe more on
andthan other
principles.The Table 1 is the overall
assessment by scoring whole FGMand each pillar, by interviewedstakeholders, and by the 6principles. The data clearly showthat the first attention in streng-thening FGM should be paid to
,, and
3. FOREST GOVERNANCEMONITORING IN VIET NAMNEXT STEPSIn case, Viet Nam would like tostrengthen FGM systematically,what will be mention below can be areference.Figure 4 presents a generic designoverview for FGM. The overviewdistinguishes between a number ofbuilding blocks that need to beaddressed in the process ofpreparing for design, actual design,and sustaining the designed FGM.
establishing shared understanding of what isinvolved in forest governance andits monitoring. In a kind of matrix,under each pillar and principlespecific forest governance issues
can be identified.
establishing a sharedunderstanding of the key reasonsfor engaging in FGM. Such anunderstanding needs to beconsistent with national policies,strategies document and fit withinthe country's sustainable develop-ment strategies, inter-sectoralapproaches. It would be consistentwith the country's legal frame-works, recognition and respect forcustomary and traditional rightsand secure land tenure arrange-ments.
establishing sharedunderstanding of what informationis needed to answer forestgovernance performance questions,taking into consideration the needto prioritize amongst the manyinformation needs.
esta-blishing shared understanding ofthe ways in which necessaryinformation will be gathered fromwhich sources of information; useof primary and secondary data;clarification of IT part of themethods and methodologies(storage, retrieval etc.).
establishingclear processes for turning data intoinformation and the way in which itwill flow to/be accessed byintended audiences.
establishing sharedunderstanding of who will beexpected to do what to makefunctional forest governancemonitoring happen;
establishing a shared understandingof what will be required in terms ofcapacities and conditions to sustainefforts.
establishing forestgovernance monitoring in existingorganizational and institutionalarrangements.
2.4. Assessment of forestgovernance monitoring in VietNam
(i) “Transparency”,(ii) “Accountability” (iii)“Participation”
(i)“Transparency” (ii) “Account-ability” (iii) “Participation”.
1. Creating a forest governancereference framework -
2. Agreeing on a defined purpose& vision
3. Making information needsexplicit -
4. Selecting methods & methodo-logies for data collection
5. Creating an outline of theorganization (flow) & intendeduse of information
6. Agreeing on roles & respon-sibilities
7. Activating a plan for putting inplace operational capacities &conditions for functional FGM
8. Providing an institutionalembedding -
Vol.32 - 33, 1/2012FSSP Newsletter
Table 1: Overall assessment by 6 principles
Figure 3: Forest Governance Monitoring - Assessed y 6 Principles
07Vol.32 - 33, 1/2012
FSSP Newsletter
Figure 4: A framework for forest governance monitoring design
08
Nguyễn Hữu Dũng,Director of Forest Protection
Department, Administrationof Forestry, MARD
Law enforcement is anintentional activity processto ensure that the provisions
of the law come into life. Lawenforcement is a fundamentalcondit ion to ensure forestgovernance. Therefore, in order tohave good forest governancesystem, it is necessary to focus oncapacity building for effective andefficient law enforcement.
The basis for forest law enforcementin Viet Nam is a system for legaldocuments relating to forestprotection and development,including some key legislations asfollows:
- Land Law;- Forest Protect ion and
Development Law;- Some articiles related to
forestry in the Criminal Code;- The Decree No. 99/2009/ND-
CP dated 2nd November 2009 onhandling administrative violationsin forest management, protectionand forest product management;
- Other relevant supportinglegislations.Basically, the forestry legislationframework in Viet Nam is quiteadequate to address the issuesoccurred in the process of forestmanagement, protection and forestproduct management. However, thelegal framework is still overlapped,inconsistent, asynchronous, includ-ing some infeasible provisions.These has lessened the efficiencyand effectiveness of law enforce-ment.
According to local statistics, in thelast 5 years (2007-2011) a numberof 180,115 cases violating theregulations on forest protection anddevelopment have been detectednationwide. Annual average is36,023 cases (Figure 1), mainly aret r a d i n g t r a n s a c t i o n s a n dtransportation of forest products(52%), followed by acts of
deforestation (13%), illegallylogging (8%), other behaviors( 1 8 % ) , v i o l a t i o n s a g a i n s tregulations on fire prevention andforest fires, violations of protectionand management of wildlife andforest product processing account-ing less (Figure 2). This suggeststhat in the future to promote site-based forest protection activities, inorder to timely detect cases ofviolations of deforestation, illegallyforest product harvesting; streng-then inspection and control of theforest product processing facilities,activities related to wildlife (breed-ing, transportation, trading, usage
...), together with further improve-ment of the legal basis in the field ofmanagement and protection ofwildlife.Most of the above violations havebeen handled by local forest rangersaccording to legislation provisionson handling of administrativeviolations of forest management,forest protection and forest productmanagement. Practical settlementsof administrative violations showssome issues: sanctions are some-what not appropriate, not strongenough for deterrent purpose; manyprovisions are unclear or inadequateso that violators can take advantage1. Basis for law enforcement
2. Status of violations against legalregulations and handling actions
LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRIBUTES TO ENHANCE FOREST GOVERNANCE
Figure 1. Number of cases of violation of forest protection andmanagement, forest product management, 2007 - 2011
Figure 2. Percentage of violation cases of regulations on forestprotection, management, forest product management
Vol.32 - 33, 1/2012FSSP Newsletter
09
by misusing them or creating fakedocuments, etc ....Some violations with criminalindications have been transferred byforest rangers to competentauthorities to address in accordancewith legal regulations. However, therate of the violations in forestprotection and management regula-tions prosecuted, handled by law isvery low. The objective reason forsuch situation is the complexity ofthe violations cases in the forestrysector. Additionally, this alsoillustrates the limitations in thesystematic comprehensiveness andconsistency of some legal provi-sions related to forestry sector andrequires an improved capacity forlaw enforcement agencies as well astheir collaboration in fulfilling theirtasks.
Forest protection is the responsi-bility of all agencies, organizations,households, individuals. Amongthem, forest rangers are the full-timeState forces to protect forests, assistMinister of Agriculture and Ruraldevelopment and Chairpersons ofPeople's Committee at all levels tocarry out their State administrationresponsibilities over forest protec-tion, ensure the compliance withlegal regulations on forest protec-tion and development.Besides ensuring the law enforce-ment, forest rangers also carry outother tasks related to forest govern-ance (formulate legislation; develop
master plan and plan on forestprotection and management;disseminate to local people, ect). Asa result, strengthening andenhancing capacity for forestrangers will contribute considerablyto improved forest governance.Currently, there are nearly 11,000forest rangers nationwide, over 40%of which are appointed to work atcommune levels (commune forestrangers) to execute the Stateadministration responsibilities overforest. However, the number is notadequate to meet the demand offorest protection and development.As a result, the Prime Minister hasagreed in principle to supplement3,000 full-time forest rangers until2015. Together with increasing thenumber, strengthening theirbehaviors, professional capacityshould be also emphasized.In order to ensure legal compliance,forest rangers have closelycooperated with polices and armyforces in accordance with theCircular No. 44/2002/TTLT/BNNPTNT-BCA-BQP dated 13Dec 2002 on guid ing thecollaboration between forestrangers, police, army forces in forestprotection; directions by PrimeMinister, Minister of Agricultureand Rural development, Ministry ofPublic Security, Ministry ofNational Defense as well as in thelight of other inter-agencycollaboration regulations.
a) Law enforcement contributes topromote forest governance. A goodforest governance system shalldepend on an efficient and effectivelaw enforcement system. Therefore,enhancing capacity for lawenforcement agencies is an urgentrequirement to ensure forestprotection, contributing to realizethe objective of forest governancewhich is sustainable forestmanagement. Besides that, wellimplementing the elements of aforest governance, including legalframework, transparency, stake-holders' participation, etc aslofacilitate the law enforcement.b) Enhancing forestry-related lawenforcement capacity should focuson the following points:
- Further review, finalize thelegal system to increase thesystematic comprehensiveness,coherence and consistency amongthe legal provisions; avoid over-lapping and conflicts; supplementnew provisions to be appropriatewith the practical situation follow-ing the direction of administrativereform.
- Enhance capacity for forestrylaw enforcement agencies, particu-larly forest rangers and polices at alllevels by increasing number of staff,organizing more training courses onprofessional skills, strengtheninginfrastructure facilities, professionalequipment, etc.c) Forest rangers are the key forcefor forest protection and ensures thelaw enforcement in terms of forestprotection, management and forestproduct management. Besides this,forest rangers are also assigned withmany other tasks which are directlyrelated to forest governance. As aresult, it is urgent to strengthenforest rangers to establish aneffective forest governance systemin Viet Nam.d) The last time has witnessed aclose cooperation among forestrangers, police and army forces inforest protection and forestry lawenforcement. In the future, it isnecessary to further promote theachieved results, supplementspecific regulations, mechanisms toincrease the active role andresponsibility of each agency.
3. Forestry law enforcementagencies
4. Conclusions and recommen-dations
Vol.32 - 33, 1/2012FSSP Newsletter
Dr. Nguyễn Quang Tân, RECOFTC1
In the context of natural resource
governance, participation means
the effective involvement in mak-
ing and implementing decisions
either directly or via a legal
representative.
Participation of different sectors in
formulating and implementing the
polices on natural resource
management is supported by
international legal framework and
legally - recognized by a number of
countries. In Viet Nam, stakeholder
participation, particularly of local
people, is clearly stipulated in the
Grassroots Democratic Ordinance
(came into effect since 1 July
2007), which regulates the specific
issues for which local people shall
be informed, discussed with for
making decisions, consulted with
and jointly monitoring.
In general, there has been an
improved awareness of the benefits
brought by the participation.
Countries in the world started
realizing that participation is not a
threat, as a result, they has started
open ing the door fo r the
participatory processes.
By encouraging stakeholders from
different sectors to involve in
making decisions and implement-
ing the activities related to natural
resource management , the
following can be expected:
- Various knowledge, points of
view, skills and resources are more
effectively used in the decision
making and implementing process.
- Decisions as well as their
enforcement shall be more
effective, more practical and more
sustainable.
- Everyone jointly shares and
reinforces their points of view,
awareness of issues, resources and
opportunities for better choices.
- Everyone shares and widens
their knowledge and sharpens their
skills.
More importantly, natural resource
governance shall be more efficient
and effective, contributing to
ensure the social equity when
participation, transparency, legal
compliance and accountability are
in place. When the participation-
based outcomes are recognized,
this shall create driving - forces for
relevant stakeholders to increase
their investments in terms of time
and resources to work together and
learn how to facilitate the
participatory process.
Limited participation does not
always mean the lack of willing-
ness from a part of Government
officials and stakeholders. The
barriers to the participation often
are:
- Benefits brought by power and
influence in case of non-participa-
tion.
- Limited institutional capacity
to facilitate the participatory
process.
- Lack of a mechanism to
facilitate the participation.
- Lack of transparency and
openness. This means information
and information flows are not
adequate.
- “Theoretical representation”
means in many cases, the
representatives for relevant stake-
holders don't share the consultation
outcomes to other people in their
groups.
- Difficulties in terms of logistic
arrangement in organizing consul-
1. Overview
2.Participation-based expect-ations
3. Barriers to and challenges ofparticipation
st
Barriers
10
1According to the training material on natural resource governance published by IUCN, RECOFTC and SNV (Patti Moore,Xuemei Zhang, and Ronnakorn Triraganon (2011) IUCN, RECOFTC,SNV, Bangkok, Thailand. xii + 278 pages) and experience from the Forest Governance Learning Group (FGLG)coordinated by RECOFTC.
Natural Resource Governance Trainers' Manual
Local people involve in removing teredos to protect mangrovesSource: www.tinthanhhoa.vn
PARTICIPATION IN
NATURAL RESOURCE GOVERNANCE
Vol.32 - 33, 1/2012FSSP Newsletter
tations with rural people or in
identifying reliable representatives
from communities.
- Restrained capacity at the local
level to involve in making and
implementing decisions. Natural
resources-based benefit sharing
mechanism can drive them to more
actively participate in.
- Lack of transparency or
information can considerably
reduce the local communities'
participation in the decision
making and implementing process.
Meanwhile participation can bring
a number of benefits to the society
in general and for some particular
stakeholders, some challenges
should be overcome to get more
effective participation:
- Participation is not an
obviously familiar concept in many
cultures.
- Some Governments are not
favour of participation, particularly
in case the participation can impact
their power.
- Some participatory processes
require a cer ta in level of
investment in terms of time,
resources and finance.
- Participatory processes require
an effective facilitation.
- An effective participation
requires a commitment in terms of
time and it also takes time to
provide obvious outcomes.
- Relevant stakeholders need to
come to compromises to avoid
conflicts and ensure an effective
participation in the decision
making and implementing process.
- An effective participation
requires clear objectives.
Participation can be in many
formalities and at different levels
which are similar to the steps of a
ladder. It is not important to know
exactly the term of each step, but it
is crucial to distinguish the
difference among such steps as
each step requires a specific
method.
Decisions are just made by a
limited number of stakeholders.
Other sectors don't participate in
making the decisions but are just
informed about what happened or
will be happening.
Relevant stake
holders participate by answering
questions provided by others who
are decision makers. The relevant
stakeholders have no opportunities
to influence the decision making
process and the decision makers
don't share their own answers to the
questions.
Decision makers
consult with relevant stakeholders
and take their knowledge and
concerns into consideration. The
decision makers define issues and
solutions but they can also amend
them in accordance with the
reactions/feedbacks from the
relevant stakeholders. The process-
es do not recognize any decision-
making rights to the consulted
stakeholders and the decision
makers are not supposed to follow
the opinions of the consulted
stakeholders.
Stakeholders participate by creat-
ing groups or unofficial institutions
to meet with the objectives set by
the decision makers. Such par-
ticipation is not targeted at the
planning phase but after important
decisions have been made. Such
unofficial institutions sometimes
are dependent on external initiators
but can become independent.
Stakeholders
jointly analyse the issues to come to
actions by establishing new groups
or strengthen the existing groups.
Stakeholders control the decisions,
which motivates them to maintain
the institutions and processes.
Stakeholder participate by taking
an active and independent role with
decision makers to change
legislations, institutions and/or
processes. Decision makers and
other people can act as a catalyst or
facilitator.
The Forest Protect ion and
Development Law passed in the
December 2004 remarks the ever-
f i r s t l ega l r ecogn i t i on o f
community-based forest in Viet
Nam. However, it is still not clear
how such a legal recognition can
attract local participation in forest
protection and management. The
last part of the article summaries
some findings from the Forest
Governance Learning Group
(FGLG) in Viet Nam in perspective
of the article.
FGLG project collected infor-
mation on community-based
Challenges
4. Participatory hierarchy
Step 1: Non-participation:
Step 2: Participating by provid-ing information: -
Step 3: Consultation-basedparticipation:
Step 4: Practical participation:
Step 5: Interactions:
Step 6: Self-mobilization:
5. People's participation inc o m m u n i t y - b a s e d f o r e s tmanagement in Viet Nam
11
Factors influencing participa-tionIn reality, we are unable and notrequired to get to the highest stepof participation. An appropriateparticipation step in eachspecific circumstance dependson the following factors:
- Participatory objectives.- Participatory timeframe.- Mechanisms supporting
participatory processes are inplace or not.
- A legal environment andlegislation supporting participa-tion in place or not.
- An institutional environ-ment supporting participation inplace or not.
- Adequate human and finan-cial resources for participation inplace or not.
Vol.32 - 33, 1/2012FSSP Newsletter
12
forestry enforcement in 25 locali-
ties through a number of study tours
from January to November 2008.
Up to 24 of the 25 communities
were allocated forests with land use
right certificates or forest alloca-
tion decisions through pilot
programs or projects. In the
remaining village, rights of local
people over forests have not been
recognized legally (land use right
certificates are still absent) and
local people managed forests by
their traditional regulations.
A field-based finding shows that
the interaction between having
legal rights and their actual
participation in effective forest
management is still not clear. Out
of the 24 communities being
re conized legal rights over forests,
only 9 communities actively
participated in forest protection
(preventing illegal harvesting,
encroachment and conversion of
land use purpose). In seven other
communities, parcipation in
managing the allocated forests was
just at the medium level while in the
eight remaining ones local people
hardly involved in forest manage
ment since being allocated with
forests. In the first group, local
people formulated their forest
protection regulations at village
level and followed the regulations
to protect forests. In the second
group, local people also formulated
their forest protection regulations,
but the enforcement was not good
enough. Illegal logging still
occur ed in some cases. Forest
management by the third group was
quite weak. These are the villages
being allocated with forests but
failing to develop appropriate
institutions to protect ,
resulting in deforestation and forest
deterioration
In the village without legal rights
over forests, people has jointly
protected forest resources from
generations to generations.
However, in 2006, a part of forest
area managed by local people were
acquired and allocated to a sand-
collecting company. The company
compensated local people for the
trees and assets attached to the
acquired land. However, the
amount was just equal to a small
porportion of the total compen-
sation in case local people got use
right certificate over such land
area.
The aforementioned findings show
that authorizing legal rights over
forests does not automatically
involve local people in forest
protection and management in an
effective manner. Meanwhile the
lack of legal rights over forests can
hinder local participation in forest
protection, the findings from such
villages also indicate that other
factors such as an equal and pro-
poor benefit-sharing mechanism,
status of allocated forests (rich-
poor-medium), importance of
forests to life and (other) liveli-
hoods of the localities as well as
other resources of the communities
also play an important role. This
means besides allocating forests to
local people, it is necessary to
enhance their capacity and provide
other supporting institutions.
Furthermore, allocated forests
should be economically beneficial
to local people.
g
-
r
those
since allocation.
RECOFTC The Center for People and Forests is a not-for-profit international organization with its
headquarters in Bangkok, Thailand. It specializes in capacity building for community forestry i.e. supporting
local people to gain rights over forest resources and manage them. RECOFTC engages in strategic networks
and effective partnerships with governments, nongovernment organizations, civil society, the private sector,
local people, and research and educational institutes throughout the Asia-Pacific region and beyond. With 25
years of international experience and a rights-based approach to capacity building involving research and
analysis, demonstration sites, and training products RECOFTC delivers innovative solutions for people and
forests
In recent years, the organization has opened country offices in Viet Nam, Cambodia, and Indonesia, with its
headquarters in Thailand. The Center's work focuses on the four thematic areas of people, forests and climate
change; conflict management over natural resources; livelihood and access to markets for forest dependent
communities; and building capacities for community forestry at all levels.
-
.
Vol.32 - 33, 1/2012FSSP Newsletter
13
Tapio Leppanen,Chief Technical Adviser,
FORMIS Project (Developmentof Management Information System
for Forestry Sector in VietNam)
Information is an essential parto f g o v e r n a n c e a n dmanagement. It cuts across the
different elements that constitutean operating system in anyorganisation including forestrya g e n c i e s a n d c o m p a n i e s :leadership, strategy, processes,human resources, results andenvironmental and social impacts.Each of the elements requiresinformation related to the regula-tions that govern the organisation,the operating environment, and theperformance of the organisation.Atthe same time organisations havelegal obligation to provide thecitizens information that may affecttheir lives. In forestry suchobligations are related to forinstance forest certification, carbontrade, and the regulations upon thelegality of the origin of timber:Lacey Act in the USA and EU-FLEGT in Europe (Forest LawEnforcement, Governance andTrade).
With regards to the legal context inViet Nam, the Law on ForestProtection and Development, fromDecember 3, 2004, contains article32 that provides for the publishingof annual forest statistics 'foreststatistical work shall be conductedannually and publicized in the firstquarter of the subsequent year'.
This article studies transparencyand information sharing in forestrywith focus on information manage-ment. Once the necessary policyand regulations, that enableinformation sharing, are in placethere is still a long way to go inorder to make information sharableand actually transfer data from oneplace to another. Transparencymeans that the stakeholders areable to access meaningful and fact-
based information that will help inmaking decisions on the futurecourse of action.
The first obstacle in sharing forestinformation in Viet Nam is itsfragmented nature. Information isnot comparable across organisa-tions, administrative areas andtimeand thus it is difficult to getmeaningful, aggregated informa-tion for directing and steering theforest sector in accordance to thestrategic goals. Districts, provincesand government agencies areapplying different indicators whencollecting information and whenreporting on forestry resources and-activities. This makes it difficult toaggregate information at nationallevel, compare the forestryperformance in different provincesand capture the trend of develop-ment over a longer period of time.This situation can be corrected byagreeing on standards with regardsto the definitions, concepts,terminology and indicators relatedto forest resources, forestryactivities and incidents. Informa-tion standards are the foundation ofinformation sharing.
Transparency requires the capabi-lity to combine data and informa-tion from different governmentagencies and other sources. Forinstance in Viet Nam we regularlyneed to combine cadastral datafrom Ministry of Natural Resour-ces and Environment (MONRE)with the forest resource data fromMinistry of Agriculture and RuralDevelopment (MARD). At locallevel Sub-FPD (Forest ProtectionDepartment) and Sub-DOF(Department of Forestry), and therespective district level organisa-tion, collect and store informationon forest resources, for instance,Sub-DoF is responsible formonitoring the establishment ofplantations while Sub-FPD isresponsible in monitoring changesin forest cover, including thechanges caused by establishing
new plantations. Both organisa-tions would benefit from sharingdata.
Exchanging information betweenagencies requires that the organisa-tions agree on a sharing mechanismand on their respective roles inmanaging the informat ion:collecting, storing, updating anddistributing data. Currently in VietNam we have a situation where thesame data is collected and stored bydifferent organisations resulting intwo or more sets of figures for thesame thing. In such situation theuser cannot determine, which datais correct and reliable. Our aimshould be an information sharingmechanism that clarifies the rolesin managing forest information.For instance, the forest cadastralboundary data can be maintainedby one entity, MONRE, and sharedwith other agencies that need dataon forest ownership boundaries.
Agreeing on data- and informationsharing mechanism is not enough toactually share and transfer data in asecure manner. Informationmanagement today is based oncomputerised systems. Data isstored in servers and shared throughnetworks and internet. Currently inViet Nam electronic data on forestsis stored in individual personalcomputers and transferred primarilyby memory sticks and other portablemedia. This situation is far fromideal and raises concerns oversecuri ty and rel iabi l i ty ofinformation. In Viet Nam there areseveral major organisations thatcollect, store, and maintain forestdata and distribute information onforests. This kind of situation callsfor an IT architecture that canprovide the necessary means fori n f o r m a t i o n s e c u r i t y a n dinformation transfer to the entirecluster of organisations assumingthat data is stored in separatephysical locations and using varioushardware and soft-ware solutions.FORMIS project is currently
TRANSPARENCY IN FOREST GOVERNANCEIN TERMS OF INFORMATION SHARING
Vol.32 - 33, 1/2012FSSP Newsletter
14
building such an informationsystem, which is based on cloudcomputing architecture.
Transparency in forest governancerequires also that the forest ownersand other stakeholders and users areable to access the system to obtaininformation and also to updateinformation by entering data into thesystem. For instance forest ownercould be able to submit theobligatory notifications related toforestry activities and incidents byentering the data directly into thesystem. The idea of eGovernment isbased on the citizens being able totake use of government servicesover a computerised system. It canbe assumed that the eGovernmentservices could reach remote areaseasier and with fewer costs than theconventional way of physically
travelling to the nearest office. Inthis way computer based servicescan directly contribute to povertyalleviation and to the involvement ofethnic minorities that often inhabitthe forested parts of the country.
Transparency in forest governancerefers to the possibility of citizens toobtain information on forestresources and forestry activities inthe vicinity of their households andvillages. However, it does not meanthat all the forest related informationmust be public. In fact individualforest owners and households wouldprobably be reluctant to providedata for the computerised systemunless the confidentiality ofinformation pertaining to theirindividual situation is guaranteed.This situation requires a regulationthat would ensure security of
information and would provide theforest owners the right to approvesharing of information related totheir individual forest asset.
Good forest governance depends onthe reliability and accuracy ofinformation. Conventional paperbased reporting systems are hard tocontrol and validate because theinformation is not auditable. In otherwords it is not possible to trace howthe data has been entered, modifieda n d a g g r e g a t e d f r o m o n eadministrative level to the next.Computerised reporting systemsprovide technological means fortracking data entry and the updatingof information. Furthermore dataaggregation and analysis are visiblein computer applications andanalysis tools. Thus moderntechnologies will provide costeffective means to control thereliability of data for instance inconnection to carbon trade and incontrol of the legality of the origin oftimber. Chain-of-custody systemsand timber tracking systems areessentially information systems.
Finally with regards to thetransparency of forest informationthere is a wide realisation around theworld that information is an assetthat can generate businessopportunities, employment andthereby also tax income to thegovernment. As a result certainbasic 'information infrastructure',collected by government agencies,is provided and shared free ofcharge to be used by a multitude oforganisations. Such informationincludes also information on thelocation and status of forests.
Forest status map field check, PhuLoc District, ThuaThien Hue,June 2011. FORMIS has carried out forest status mapping in connectionto developing a forest resource database system
FORMIS (Development of Management Information System for Forestry Sector) is developing a modernforestry sector information system to provide accurate information for decision making at all levels. FORMISPlatform addresses issues related to integration of existing resources and new systems, while FORMIS Portalprovides a single access point to the resources. The focus is currently on development of Forest ResourceDatabase System and Reporting System, while other new applications can be integrated into the platform. Theproject also provides IT infrastructure and builds capacity for use and maintenance of the system. FORMISproject is piloting the system in three target provinces (Thanh Hoa, Thua Thien Hue and Quang Ninh).FORMIS is implemented by the Vietnam Administration of Forestry (VNFOREST) under the Ministry ofAgriculture and rural Development (MARD). The project is financed by the Government of Finland, the TrustFund for Forests (TFF) and the Government of Vietnam. Niras Finland Oy (www.niras.com) as a leadconsultant, in collaboration with GFA and Green Field consulting, provides technical assistance for theProject.
Vol.32 - 33, 1/2012FSSP Newsletter
15
Christophe Van Orshoven,
Tim Dawson, Iola Leal,
Alessandro Trevisan and
Melissa Othman,
European Forest Institute
In recent decades, mounting
pressure to combat pervasive
consequences of illegal
logging and deforestation has
initiated sectoral change and
intensified concern for improving
gover-nance of the world's forests.
Increasing awareness of the
importance of land-use change,
and particularly deforestation, to
climate change, offers a fresh
opportunity to address the drivers
of forest destruction. This article
introduce show forest-related
processes such as REDD+ and
FLEGT can, if properly designed,
s u p p o r t i m p r o v e d f o r e s t
governance.
As part of the worldwide push to
address illegal logging and its
negative consequences, the
European Commission (EC)
enacted the Forest Law Enforce-
ment, Governance and Trade
(FLEGT) Action Plan in 2003,
setting out a range of measures to
tackle illegal logging and promote
stronger forest governance. The
Action Plan recognises the role of
both timber consumer and
producing countries to address
sectoral problems whose major
underlying causes include govern-
ance failures and defines a set of
actions to tackle them. Voluntary
Partnership Agreements (VPAs)
are one of the instruments
proposed in the Plan as a means for
the European Union (EU) and its
trade partners to jointly address
governance weaknesses that
undermine the management of
forests and the legal production,
transformation and trade in timber.
VPAs are negotiated between a
timber exporting country (the
FLEGT partner country) and the
EC and, once operational, would
ensure that timber destined for the
EU market is produced in
accordance with the existing
legislation of the FLEGT partner
country.
Formal VPA negotiations with
Viet Nam started in May 2010, and
should concludeby the end of
2012. To date work has concen-
trated on deciding which laws and
regulations will be checked to
ensure legal compliance before a
FLEGT license can be issued, with
more detailed design of other
elements such as wood tracking
and verification procedures now
commencing. A National Consul-
tation workshop was held in 2011
to promote broad stakeholder
participation amongst NGOs,
government agencies and the
private sector. Thus far mostly
g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c i e s a n d
enterprises are providing inputs.
Both Viet Nam and EU recognise
the importance to conduct open
and continuous broad stakeholder
consultation during the year ahead
and are working to support other
stakeholder participation.
Increased understanding of the
impacts of forest loss to climate
change, led the United Nation
Framework Convent ion on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) to
launch negotiations on ”Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and
Forest Degradation in developing
countries” (REDD+) in 2005.
R E D D + a i m s t o p r o v i d e
incentives to forest owners in
tropical countries for maintaining
forests, thereby reducing the
carbon emissions that would
otherwise arise. It is widely
understood that for any REDD+
s t r a t e g y t o w o r k , f o r e s t
governance will have to improve.
By tackling wider governance
issues linked to natural resources
and land use, it is hoped that a
successful REDD+ mechan-ism
will not only deliver signi-ficant
c l imate change mi t iga t ion
benefits, but will also contribute to
poverty reduction, improved
livelihoods, protection of bio-
diversity, food security, and better
governance in the sector and
beyond.
Preparations for REDD+ are
FLEGT
REDD+
FOREST GOVERNANCE ANDTHE INTERRELATION BETWEEN
FLEGT AND REDD+
FOREST GOVERNANCE ANDTHE INTERRELATION BETWEEN
FLEGT AND REDD+
Vol.32 - 33, 1/2012FSSP Newsletter
16
advancing in Viet Nam, in
particular through site-based pilot
projects, work on how carbon and
non-carbon benefits will be
monitoredreportedand verified
(MRV), and development of a
National REDD+ Programme.
Realisation of REDD+ benefits on
a national scale will however
require the development and
implementation of a comprehen-
sive REDD+ strategy integrated
within broader development and
land-use strategies expanding the
future governance challenges.
Arange of tropical forest countries
are now engaging in REDD+ and
FLEGT VPA processes. When
designing a REDD+ strategy or a
system to ensure the legality of
forest products (the basis for a
VPA), people involved face
common challenges: unclear legal
and regulatory frameworks -
particularly regarding land use
and access to resources, difficulty
in engag ing some fores t -
dependent stakeholders, poorly
developed information systems
and trans-parency mechanisms,
corrupt ion , and weak law
enforcement and judicial systems.
To maximise opportunities at
national level to tackle these
challenges, it is important to draw
synergies between existing policy
processes - making them mutually
supportive. For example, the
FLEGT process can support other
national forest processes through
clarifying the legal framework of
the sector, improving law
enforcement, and providing new
mechanisms for transparency,
accountability and control. Exper-
ience from the FLEGT process in
ensuring effective stakeholder
participation could further be used
in REDD+ as a basis for
strengthening multi-stakeholder
engagement. In turn, the REDD+
process is providing increased
momentum to support forest
sector reform, access to finance
and increased political attention
on forests. Its international
dimension and broader scope
provides stakeholders with the
possibility to address aspects of
forest gover-nance that fall
outside the scope of VPAs.
Reflecting on areas of overlap in
design and implemen-tation of
sectoral processes, such as
REDD+ and FLEGT, could
increase their effectiveness to
bring about forest governance
reforms.
While processes a imed at
improving the forest governance
reform, such as REDD+ and
FLEGT, offer opportunities for
synergies and coordination, it is
also important to be aware of
differences. FLEGT is a bilateral
negotiation process focusing
mainly on the forestry sector; and
although its bilateral nature and
restricted focus makes it easy to
come up with stricter commit-
ments, addressing governance
issues that extend beyond the
forest sector is more difficult. The
mul t i l a t e r a l d imens ion of
REDD+, involving a complex
range of stakeholders at local,
national and international levels,
makes it harder to reach strict
consensual commitments; but the
fact that it requires strong
coordination with a number of
other economic sectors (such as
the agriculture and mining
sectors) allows other areas, which
processes such as FLEGT cannot
reach, to be tackled. In addition,
while the FLEGT framework is
relatively clear and predictable for
stakeholders to engage with and
mainly driven by timber trade,
REDD+ still involves a substantial
degree of uncertainty as multi-
lateral negotiations are still
ongoing and institutional and
policy preparations at country
level are developing. Forest
carbon and ecosystem services are
also relatively new concepts for
many stakeholders.
In order to provide substantial
technical and analytical support to
tropical forest countries involved
in FLEGT and/or REDD+, the EU
REDD Facility and EU - FLEGT
Facility, both hosted and managed
by the European Forest Institute
(EFI), have been established with
EC and Member State support.
The EU - FLEGT Facility,
established in 2007, supports the
EU, Member States and partner
countries in implementing the EU
FLEGT Action Plan. The EU
REDD Facility, created in 2010,
suppor ts governments and
stakeholders in the development
and implementation of their
Joining forces to promote forest
sector reform
An EU response
Vol.32 - 33, 1/2012FSSP Newsletter
17
REDD+ policies, with a
s p e c i f i c f o c u s o n t h e
interaction with FLEGT. Both
Facilities mainly conduct
activities in Africa, Asia, and
Central & SouthAmerica.
The FLEGT/VPA negotiation
process is proving to be a
powerful tool to enhance
stakeholder participation and
thus works to strengthen forest
governance. Also multilateral
REDD+ negotiat ions have
refocused political attention and
thinking around forests. Multi-
s takeholder, part icipa-tory
processes are fundamental to
good forest sector governance and are a
prerequisite for the credibility of the
V PA a n d s u c c e s s f u l R E D D +
implemen-tation - and the development
a n d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f n e w
institutional structures and legal
systems that will be necessary to
demonstrate that the worlds forest still
have a bright future.
Conclusion
Exploring forest governance challenges in relation to REDD+ and FLEGTShared underlying causes of forest loss:
Defining steps to address governance challenges:
*
*
*
There is broad recognition that improving governance is key
to successful REDD+ implementation. There is also global recognition that poor governance is an
underlying cause of illegal logging.
The FLEGT VPA process provides the
opportunity to clarify the legal framework underpinning forest management and a strong foundation
for improving law enforcement. The process offers a powerful tool for governments and stakeholders
to increase dialogue, awareness and transparency of the forest sector's legal framework. Equally,
REDD+ will have to be based on a strong legal framework. For effective REDD+ development and
implementation it is a pre-condition to ensure similar buy-in from the different forest sector
stakeholders.
* Key components of a FLEGT VPA, such as a
system to ensure the legality of the timber, independent audit, publication of documents or the
increased role for stakeholder oversight are tools that help strengthen transparency, clarity and
accountability in forest sector institutions and policies. REDD+ preparatory work includes detailed
analysis on institutional and legal reform, including tenure and design of a benefit distribution system
that meets expectations of the international community in terms of transparency, accountability and
equity of performance based payments.
Asound MRV system is a necessary component of any compliance based processes.
To date, the REDD+ process has focused extensively on the design and development of systems to
measure and verify carbon. The process has recently also started to focus on the design of systems to
control non-carbon benefits such as biodiversity, respect of rights of indigenous peoples and local
communities, and compliance with relevant national and international obligations. In addition to a
system to verify legal compliance, each FLEGT/ VPA will include a mechanism to oversee and make
the necessary decisions related to implementation, monitoring of impacts and problem solving, in
order to provide a platform for the wider public to turn to for dialogue and information.
Preparing for the implementation of REDD+ and
FLEGT processes will require, at least in the short to medium term, significant efforts to increase the
capacity of institutions, systems and civil society. Coordination between all national initiatives in the
forest sector can help maximise efficiency and avoid duplication of efforts.
Building the legal framework to ensure law enforcement:
Tackling lack of transparency and accountability.
Designing and implementing robust and effective mechanisms for monitoring, reporting and
verifying (MRV):
Promoting harmonised policy implementation:
Vol.32 - 33, 1/2012FSSP Newsletter
18
MA. Hồ Mạnh TườngNFA Project National Coordinator
Forest Inventory and PlanningInstitute is the leadingagency in forest resource
assessment and monitoring in VietNam. For over 20 years, theGovernment has paid adequateattention to assessment andmonitoring of forest resources.Since 1990, the Government hasapproved the implementation ofNational Forest Inventory,Monitoring and AssessmentProgram (NFIMAP). The overallobjective of the program is toco l l ec t and prov ide da t a ,information and development offorest resources through periodswhich will serve as the basis ofdecision making at all levels inforestry and socio-economic deve-lopment. With above objective, asystem of Permanent sampling plotsystem with more than 2,000primary plots has been establishedon national forest areas based on8x8 km square grids. TheGovernment has approved toimplement the program in the cycleof every 5-year . So far, 4 Cycleswere conducted: 1991-1995; 1996-2000; 2001-2005 and 2006-2010.The program has been carried outthrough field survey on system ofprimary plots and national forestmapping based on interpretation ofsatellite images. The plots arelocated in tracts of one kilometresquare. The sub-plots (measure-ment plots) were installed in twoperpendicular strips of 25 m x 20mstarting in the centre of the tract forcollecting physical variables andparameters of the stand.
The using of satellite images andaerial photographs in forestmapping has been early applied bythe Forest Inventory and PlanningInstitute. In the NFIMAP, mappingmethods has increasingly beenimproved and modernized. InCycle I (1991-1995) forest was
mapped based on field delineatingmethod. In Cycle II (1996-200)Forest by visualinterpretation hard copies of spot 4and Landsat TM images. In CycleIII (2001 -2005), forest
by digital classification ofLandsat7-ETM+ images withoutgroundtruthing and in Cycle IVforest by visualinterpreting Spot 5 imagesresolution 2.5 x 2.5 m withgroundtruthing
Data and information on socio-economic development, forestproduction activities in the fieldwere collected, and simultaneouslythe data collection of forestresources on permanent sampleplots. These data together withother jobs such as assessing thedynamic of forest animals, forestinsects, and non-timber forestproducts will allow performing theassessment of forest resourcedevelopment comprehensively andtaking into account the interactionof socio-economic factors andforest governance and manage-ment.
However, there are no existingspecific researches, surveys toassess the rationality, scientificallyand economically, of location andnumber of these sample plots. Onthe other hand, scattered trees havenot been evaluated and monitoredin the program.
The national forest inventoryassessment and monitoring in VietNam will potentially become areliable information source on aseries of full benefits (in terms ofgoods and services) of all forest treeand scattered tree types and fordecision making process at nationallevel. This can be achieved if forestresource monitoring is modern-ized, in terms of concept,technology and objective, as wellas knowledge scope and quality areimproved and broadened in order toidentify the needs of information
users. It will even become asuccessful example to introduce toregional countries. In addition tomentioned biological and socio-economic variables, the programshould focus on monitoring thechanging of land use system(including REDD monitoring), treeresources beyond forests andimproving capacity for projectimplementing agency the ForestInventory and Planning Institute.
Within framework of FAO/FinlandForestry Cooperation Programme,Government of Finland has fundedfor implementing the project
aiming at improving definition andobjectives of forest assessment andmonitoring program as well asinformation quality, in whichfocusing on evaluating thechanging of land use system,reducing emissions from deforest-ation and forest degradation(REDD+) and providing infor-mation for greenhouse gas (GHG)report. The objectives of the projectare also to enhance capacity andintroduce the application ofadvanced technology for agenciescarrying out forest inventory.
NFA project will be closelyconnected with Development ofManagement Information Systemfor Forestry Sector (FORMIS)project and national forestinventory project (2011 2015).NFA project will also be imple-mented in close relation with forestinventory, initiatives related toforest governance monitoring; theUnited Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change(UNFCCC); IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC);Forests for Livelihood Improve-ment in the Central Highlands(FLITCH) project; United Nationscollaborative programme on reduc-ing emissions from deforestationand forest degradation in develop-
was mapped
wasmapped
was mapped-
.
Support to national assessment andlong-term monitoring of forest andtree resources in Viet Nam (NFA)
FOREST RESOURCE INVESTIGATION AND MONITORINGAND FOREST GOVERNANCE MONITORING IN VIET NAMFOREST RESOURCE INVESTIGATION AND MONITORINGAND FOREST GOVERNANCE MONITORING IN VIET NAM
Vol.32 - 33, 1/2012FSSP Newsletter
19
ing countries (UN-REDD); ForestCarbon Partnership Facility(FCPF); bilateral donors, non-governmental organizations, …
Forest governance is one offundamentals of sustainable forestmanagement , including relevantareas such as law, policy andregulation issuance; plan develop-ment and implementation; moni-toring to improve system of laws,policies and regulations. Theincreasingly widespread recog-nition of forest governance qualitytowards sustainable forest manage-ment and REDD has stronglypromoted monitoring and report-ing forest governance and itsquality. At present, there areinitiatives and methods of forestgovernance monitoring andreporting, including methods ofstrengthening forest law enforce-ment and governance (FLEG);report based on criteria andindicators of sustainable forestmanagement; and initiatives,methods of World Bank. Recently,
discussions on REDD within theUnited Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Changewith agreements relating to thecontrol of forest governance haveincreased the need for monitoring.However, the most important thingfor the system of forest governancemonitoring at national level is tomeet the country's monitoring needappropriately. This means thatforest governance monitoring mustbe useful for priority implement-ation in forest management atnational and provincial level.Forest governance monitoring,which is established by countries,has to be feasible, effective, areliable measure of time changes,and meet reporting requirements ofinternational community.
To achieve this goal, the Govern-ment of Viet Nam has requestedFAO to support technical activitiesand methodology for integratingforest governance monitoring toforest resources assessment andmonitoring system in Viet Nam.
Accordingly, FAO will supportViet Nam through consultationservices provided by national andinternational consultants. Theconsultants will coordinate withViet Nam Government and rele-vant agencies to describe currentstatus of forest governancemonitoring and propose severalimmediate steps to improve forestgovernance monitoring. On 12 - 13January, 2012, under the chair-manship of Viet Nam Adminis-tration of Forestry, Representativeo f FA O / F i n l a n d F o r e s t r yCooperation Programme, FAORepresentative in Viet Nam, NFAProject organized the workshop on“Forest Governance Monitoring inViet Nam”. At the workshop,principles, definition and status onforest governance and forestgovernance monitoring wereintroduced and discussed. Inaddition, roadmap and next steps topromote forest governancemonitoring were also proposed anddiscussed.
Forest governance monitoringactivities will be implementedwithin the framework of nationalforest assessment and monitoring(NFA) project with support fromFAO/Finland. In the meantime,they are also based on efforts andachieved results from Forest SectorInformation and MonitoringSystem (FOMIS) and FORMISProject, which is funded byGovernments of the Netherlands,Finland and Switzerland throughthe Trust Fund for Forests (TFF).Therefore, it needs to focus on fieldlevel, on the basis of existingsystem and regulations, and closelycoordinate with other initiatives,including FLEGT and REDD+.
© FSSP© FSSP
Chief Editor: , Deputy Director General, Administration of Forestry, MARD
Director of FSSP Coordination Office
Editor: - Communications Officer, FSSP Coordination Office
Publication permit No.
3 floor, A8 Building, No. 10 Nguyen Cong Hoan str., Hanoi, Viet Nam /Tel: 84-4-37629412; Fax: 84-4-37711431
Email: / Website:
Mr. Nguyễn Bá Ngãi
Ms.Nguyễn Bích Hằng
107-2012/CXB/27/08-02/H
Comments are welcome at FSSP Coordination Office:
Đ
rd
[email protected] www.vietnamforestry.org.vn
Vol.32 - 33, 1/2012FSSP Newsletter
20
1. Decision No. 30/2011/Q UBND, dated 29 September, 2011, issued by People's Committee of Ha Tinh
Province regulating standing tree bidding in timber harvesting in Ha Tinh Province;
2. Circular No. 69/2011/TT-BNNPTNT, dated 21 October, 2011, issued by MARD guiding the
implementation of some issues of the regulations on investment management of sivilculture construction
projects attached wi 0 of the Prime Minister;
3. Circular No. 70/2011/TT-BNNPTNT, dated 24 October, 2011, issued by MARD on amending,
supplementing the Circular No. 35/2011/TT-BNNPTNT, dated 20 May, 2011 on guiding the
implementation of timber and non-timber forest product harvesting and salvaging; the Circular No.
87/2009/TT-BNNPTNT, dated 31 December, 2009 issued by MARD on guiding natural timber harvesting
design;
4. Circular No. 78/2011/TT-BNNPTNT, dated 11 November, 2011, issued by MARD on implementin
, dated 24 December, 2010 of the Government on organization and
management of special-used forest system;
5. Circular No. 80/2011/TT-BNNPTNT, dated 23 November, 2011, issued by MARD on guiding methods of
identification of payment for forest environmental services.
Đ-
th the Decision No. 73/2010/QĐ-TTg dated 16 November, 201
g the
Decree No. 117/2010/NĐ-CP
LEGAL DOCUMENTS ON FORESTRY ISSUEDBETWEEN 1 JULY 2011 AND 31 DECEMBER 2011
1. FSSPactivities:
2. TFFactivities:
- FSSPCO Trust fundAudit 2011;
- Develop FDI database in forest sector;
- Develop proposal for the next phase of NFPFacility;
- Develop proposal for FSSPin the period of 2013 - 2015;
- Organize FSSPSteering Committee meeting # 3;
- Organize FSSPPolicyAdvisory Board meeting quarter 1 and 2;
- Set up a database of the results of the projects and researches in the forest sector;
- Prepare FSSPThematic Newsletter, Volume 34-35.
- PrepareAnnual Progress Report 2011 for MARD and donors;
- TFFAudit 2011;
- Organize BOD # 14;
- Coordinate with projects to revise budget plan for the second half of 2012;
- Organize training workshops for TFF projects;
- Recruit consultant and coordinate with him/her to finalize Community Forest Project Phase 2 and State
Forest Enterprise Project;
- Support Forest Protection Department to develop project proposal “Developing a pilot policy con benefit
sharing mechanism for households, individuals, communities who are contracted to manage forest protection”
and submit to MARD and donors for approval;
- Support Forest Utilization Department to develop project proposal “Developing policies on sustainable
forest management and promoting forest certification in Viet Nam” and submit to MARD and donors for
approval;
- Develop Commune Development Fund Manual;
- Fulfill roadmap to merge TFF to VNFF and submit to VNFOREST Leaders for approval;
- Support VNFF to develop Operational Handbooks;
- Meet with WB and Management Board for Forestry Projects to sign new grant agreement for FSDPProject;
- Meet with project evaluation mission team periodically.
MAJOR UPCOMING FSSP&TFF ACTIVITIESIN THE FIRST HALF OF 2012:
Vol.32 - 33, 1/2012FSSP Newsletter