INTRODUCTION

Starting in 2010, the Vietnamese Government had been in the negotiation process for VPA-FLEGT. The Agreement was officially signed in 2018, ratified and came into effect in 2019. By 2021, Vietnam will expectedly be exporting only FLEGT-licensed timber materials and products to the EU.

According to FLEGT, legal timber is the timber harvested or imported in accordance with Vietnamese law, including the legal status of forest land. In Vietnam, the “forests” allocated to local people are mainly planted forests, also commonly known as “production forests”. Although Land Use Right Certificates have been widely extended to most people, there are still areas where communities have not yet been granted forest land-use certificates due to disputes and overlaps between maps and reality. Timber harvested from these areas, whether planted or natural forests, is considered to be illegal under the provisions of the VPA/FLEGT.

In REDD+, payment is made based on evidence of forest land tenure. In a disputed site, a facility for payment cannot be established. Therefore, the issue of forest land use rights is a big concern for REDD + and FLEGT. In many places, lands are allocated to the people by forestry companies and forest’s management boards through short-term contracts. In this type of contract, local people face the possibility of not having long-term benefits from REDD+, especially when forestry companies or the management boards change contracts and allocates forest land to other units.

In addition, REDD + and safeguarding measurements require fairness for forest-dependent entities and social groups involved in forest management, etc. Therefore, it is necessary to consider whether existing benefit-sharing mechanisms are fair enough for the long-term interests of the forest-managing communities to be taken into account, for the transparency to be ensured throughout, and for REDD+ regulations to be complied or not.

Results of interviews with 126 people came from two different groups of people, who are forestry staff and afforestation persons, and secondary surveyed data in three provinces of Son La, Quang Tri, and Ca Mau in Vietnam were processed with statistics software Excel and SPSS. The main benefit-sharing mechanisms in the study sites are Payments for Forest Environmental Services (PFES), land and forest allocation mechanism as well as forest protection by the contracted mechanism. Depending on specific forest types in each study area (special use, protection, or production), the research team actively focused on the main research subjects and examined the relationship between forest types and sharing benefit mechanisms in each site. The statistical results of some quantitative and qualitative indicators collected at the study sites illustrate that there are still some shortcomings in the management of forests and forest land. These shortcomings have a significant impact on the implementation of REDD + and VPA/FLEGT in Vietnam.

SOME KEY FINDINGS

The management mechanism of natural forests and forest land (especially for protection and production forests) was not consistent among the study sites.

The management mechanism of forest and forest land in the study sites is mainly conducted through the form of forest allocation and contracting, which is shown in Figure 6.1. At the first level, the State allocates and contracts forests to forest owners such as National parks, protected areas as well as protection and special-use forest management boards, forestry companies, communities and households, and land use rights holders. After that, the forest owners contracted to protect the forests to the households under signed contracts.

Figure 1. Forest and forest land management mechanism at study sites

Short-term contracts often last only 1 year

Currently, in the three provinces of Ca Mau, Quang Tri, and Son La, most forests have been allocated to the Protection Forest Management Board (PFMB)s, the National Park, the forest companies (FCs), and the Commune People's Committee (CPC)s for management. These forest management entities contract forest management and protection to the people under a signed forest contract. The current contract term is usually 1 year. 100% of forest contracts in Son La have a term of 1 year, while those in Ca Mau and Quang Tri are 79% and 68%, respectively. The contracts in which the term is longer than 1 year or more than 5 years, as usual, are often conducted between the FCs and the households.

Figure 2: Percentage of the forest contract term in the study sites

Recently, most of the households and communities allocated forest and forest land have not been granted Land Use Right Certificates (LURC) yet.

For the forest areas managed by the CPCs, the commune still develops annual plans in order to allocate forests to communities and households, but the issuance of LURCs is very slow. In particular, at researched sites in Quang Tri province, the ratio of the area granted a LURC to the allocated forest only ranges from 10 to 50% or from 10 to 20% commonly.

Figure 3: Ratio of LURC issuance at researched sites

There are overlaps on boundaries among households. Many plots of the land plot in the household red book are not consistent with the actual area.

In practice, land and forest allocation working groups often ignore a number of steps in the regulations to save time and money. Specifically, some meetings in villages and communes are not being conducted as requested but may be shortened or omitted. In many places, these meetings are often held without the presence of full stakeholders. The land is allocated without maps attached or the maps are not up-to-date on the current status of land and forest land. There are some field investigations skipped in the allocation process. Therefore, households do not clearly define their own forest plot boundaries or whether the forest plot area on the red book does match the actual forest plot they manage or not. Figure 4 is the image of an unclear percentage of LURCs in Ba Nang commune, Dakrong district, Quang Tri province.

Figure 4: Current status of LURC in Ba Nang commune - Quang Tri

In some research sites, Payments for Forest Environmental Services are currently only piloted through investment projects and have not met sustainably as long as long-term requirements yet.

In the study sites in Ca Mau, payments for forest environmental services are paid by organic shrimp farming companies under the framework of a pilot organic shrimp farming project. Initially, a benefit-sharing mechanism has been established from community forests and households with squares of shrimp under the canopy of the forest. However, this source of money will no longer be available at the end of the project, resulting in many disadvantages for all forest owners, communities, and contracted households, especially in case people neglect to protect the forests and put pressure on the forest’s managers.

Payments for forest environmental services are low and uneven across regions and local communities

PFES rates for households depend on location and average income. Households in some areas are paid 150,000-200,000 VND/ha/year, which is from 350,000-500,000 VND/ha/year in other locations. Significantly, in some areas, the number is only 50.000VND/ha/year. This results in rivalry among communities and households in the forest protection by contract process, which partly put pressure on forest management boards.

CONCLUSIONS AND SOME RECOMMENDATIONS

In the process of implementing the VPA, for timber legality, it is necessary to fully and strictly comply with the standards in the management and use of forests as well as forest land. In other words, this is to comply with the current legal regulations on land use rights, forest use rights, forest management and protection and harvesting regulations under the Forestry Law.

Addressing to the challenges of forest land using management is key to the successful implementation of both the REDD + initiative and the EU FLEGT Action Plan. This will contribute to reduce deforestation and address climate change. Benefit-sharing is important for creating the momentum needed to change behavior that causes deforestation or forest degradation, and in turn reduces carbon emissions. However, the implementation should also take into account the interests of communities who play an important role in the implementation of the VPA/FLEGT Agreement in line with the REDD+ safeguarding policy. In particular, the right of the community and the full participation of all parties in decision-making processes should also be enhanced.

From the perspective of a social organization engaged in forests, forest land and forest-related mechanisms in the context of preparing for the implementation of the VPA/FLEGT Agreement and towards REDD+ payments, the research team proposes some recommendations to harmonize current forest and forest land allocation with REDD+ as long as the VPA/FLEGT policy to create long-term, sustainable benefits for both communities and people. Specifications are described as below:

1.         The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment should urge localities to accelerate the process of issuing LURCs of entire forests and forest land areas for the people;

2.         The General Department of Forestry should lead the development of an M&E framework in the REDD+ payment implementation process, which should focus on the consultation with stakeholders;

3.         The General Department of Forestry should advise MARD to develop a general benefit-sharing mechanism for forest allocation and protection, including payments for PFES, REDD+, forest protection, and development contracts;

4.         The General Department of Forestry should consult in developing a separate payment policy for mangrove forest environmental services;

5.         The General Department of Forestry should consult the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development to develop a mechanism for social organizations/non-state units to contribute opinions and monitor throughout the process from policy formulation to implementation in the community;

6.         The role of social organizations/non-state agencies in monitoring and critical policy related to land, forests, and benefit-sharing should be promoted and encouraged.

7.         The State should assign CSOs to raise the public’s awareness about mechanisms for benefits from forests such as forest allocation, contracting, payment for forest environmental services through training, handouts, and direct sharing.

8.         Local FPDs need to strengthen community consultation on forest management, protection and development.