Branching out : values and perceptions of forest fragments and their contribution to rural livelihoods in multifunctional landscapes in Nam Dong District, Central Viet Nam

(1)

BRANCHING OUT:

Values and perceptions of forest fragments and their contribution to

rural livelihoods in multifunctional landscapes in Nam Dong

District, Central Viet Nam

Lucy Elizabeth Oates

MSc International Development Studies

University of Amsterdam

(2)

(3)

International Development Studies (MSc)

Department of Geography, Planning and International Development Studies Graduate School of Social Sciences

In collaboration with:

BRANCHING OUT: Values and perceptions of forest fragments and their

contribution to rural livelihoods in multifunctional landscapes in Nam

Dong District, Central Viet Nam

Name: Lucy Elizabeth Oates (lucy_oates@msn.com) Student number: 10918914

Supervisor: Dr. Mirjam Ros-Tonen (M.A.F.Ros-Tonen@uva.nl)

Second reader: Dr. Enrique Gomez Llata Cazares (E.G.GomezllataCazares@uva.nl) Word count: 27,656

(4)

(5)

Abstract

Forests have been assumed to have enormous potential to play a role in future poverty alleviation strategies, contributing both to environmental sustainability and human well-being objectives. The widespread removal and destruction of large tracts of contiguous primary forest means that other forms, such as fragmented or secondary forests, are now the principal source of forest-based income for those dependent on the services they provide. Such fragments tend to exist as part of multifunctional landscapes alongside other land uses such as agriculture and plantation forestry. However the livelihood potential of forest fragments has hardly received attention in existing literature.

Using 80 household surveys supported by information from key respondent interviews and a selection of participatory rural appraisal methods (including participatory mapping, seasonal calendars and discussion groups), this research explores the social and economic values of forest fragments in two Katu villages in Nam Dong District in rural Central Viet Nam. Specifically, it seeks to highlight whether attitudes towards and perceptions of forest fragments amongst villagers, as well as the overall contribution of forest land to their livelihoods, differ based on variables including gender, socio-economic status, land tenure arrangements and the availability of alternative employment opportunities. It also aims to examine governance structures that have evolved to manage the forest fragments in this multifunctional landscape, with a particular focus on community-based forest management (CBFM) organisations.

It is found that forest fragments, whilst largely disregarded in current Vietnamese environmental policy, are in fact of both social and economic value in the communes studied in Nam Dong District. They contribute by providing products for extraction, in particular for household sustenance. On a less tangible level, villagers also value the forest both for the environmental services it provides and for its intrinsic worth. Yet CBFM has failed to govern these landscapes in a manner appropriate for both ecological and societal needs, prohibiting forest use completely and leaving the most vulnerable sections of the population with few alternative means of making a living. It is thus recommended that a multitier governance structure is put in place to ensure that sustainability goals are met whilst concurrently addressing the needs of local and marginalised populations in an equitable and just manner. Key words: forest fragments; multifunctional landscapes; rural livelihoods; Katu; Viet Nam

(6)

(7)

Acknowledgements

This thesis would never have been finished – nor even begun, perhaps – without the help and support of some people to whom I am forever indebted.

First and foremost, endless thanks to the staff of Tropenbos International: in Wageningen, Professor Rene Boot, for setting the wheels of the project in motion, and, for her support and interest, Ellen Top; and in Viet Nam, my Tropenbos family – Ha Thi Tu Anh, Nguyen Thi Quynh Thu, Phan Thi Thuy Nhi and of course, Mr Tran Hu Nghi – who helped with matters both practical and personal, and joined me daily for the most delicious coffee I have ever tasted.

I would like to extend my gratitude to my translators, friends and tour guides Pham Huu Minh and Nguyen Hoang Tuan, as well as to Mr Quang and Ms Li for their help completing surveys and their cheery companionship.

Thanks also to my parents – Sue and Ted – who, despite numerous attempts at explanations, possibly still don’t know exactly what this document is about, yet are immeasurably proud of me nonetheless.

And last but by no means least, my wonderful supervisor, Professor Mirjam Ros-Tonen, who has worked tirelessly to provide me with the best guidance I could ever have hoped for. Mirjam has taught me countless things throughout this process – including many about my native language – but above all, she has instilled in me a desire to carry on writing. For this and for much more, I cannot thank her enough.

(8)

(9)

List of figures

Figure 2.1 Linkages between ecosystem services and human well-being (Source: MEA 2005 )

p.21

Figure 3.1 Conceptual scheme p.31

Figure 4.1 Percentage of people living in poverty in Viet Nam as of 2009 (Source: World Bank 2012)

p.40

Figure 4.2 Incidence of poverty in Viet Nam (left) and remaining areas of natural forest cover (right) (Source: Sunderlin & Thu Ba 2005)

p.41

Figure 4.3 Map of the research location (Source: Soeung et al., 2004) p.47 Figure 5.1 Distribution of respondents across wealth categories p.50 Figure 5.2 Actual number of respondents in each wealth category by village p.51

Figure 5.3 Education levels (in years) by gender p.52

Figure 5.4 Distribution of household size by village (total number of residents per household)

p.53

Figure 5.5 Primary forms of income in Huong Son and Thuong Quang p.54

Figure 5.6 Participatory map – Huong Son Commune p.55

Figure 5.7 Participatory map – Thuong Quang Commune p.56

Figure 5.8 Thuong Quang seasonal calendar produced as part of PRA exercises p.61 Figure 5.9 Huong Son seasonal calendar produced as part of PRA exercises p.62 Figure 6.1 Percentage of respondents rating forest services as “most important” p.75 Figure 6.2 Primary, secondary and tertiary means of generating income and

subsiding

p.80

Figure 7.1 The hierarchy of forest governance in Viet Nam p.86 Figure 7.2 Directional relationships between power structures, forestry

knowledge and decision-making capabilities

p.87

(14)

List of tables

Table 2.1 Direct roles of forests in poverty alleviation and household livelihoods

p.16

Table 5.1 Survey respondents by wealth category p.50

Table 5.2 Income source by income earner p.58

Table 5.3 Income diversification (number of income sources) by wealth p.59 Table 6.1 Respondents choosing “most important” when asked to rate forest

services (from 1 – 5)

p.71

Table 6.2 NTFPs and their importance (Huong Son PRA) p.72

Table 6.3 NTFPs and their importance (Thuong Quang PRA) p.73 Table 6.4 Respondents rating various forest services as “most important” by

wealth category

p.74

Table 6.5 Forest land owners and understood by survey respondents p.77

Table 6.6 Perceived access rights to the forest p.78

Table 6.7 Rights to perform certain actions in the forest p.78 Table 7.1 Membership of the CBFM organisations by gender p.88 Table 7.2 Respondents having received training in plantation work p.91

List of boxes

Box 4.1 Production, protection and special-use forests in Viet Nam p.40

Box 4.2 Doi moi and Red Books p.43

(15)

List of abbreviations

5MHRP 5 million hectares reforestation programme AIP

CBFM

Asia Indigenous Peoples

Community-based forest management CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research

CPC Commune People’s Committee

DARD Department for Agricultural and Rural Development (Viet Nam)

DPC District People’s Committee

EPA US Environmental Protection Agency

FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations

FLA Forest Land Allocation

HS Huong Son

MARD Ministry for Agricultural and Rural Development (Viet Nam)

MDG Millennium Development Goal

MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

NGO Non-governmental organisation

NTFP Non-timber forest product

PEN Poverty and Environment Network

PRA Participatory rural appraisal

PROFOR Program on Forests

SDG Sustainable Development Goal

TBI Tropenbos International

TQ Thuong Quang

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

(16)

(17)

1. Introduction

Viet Nam is a country with a long history of forest dependence. Yet this precious resource and the traditional livelihoods it supports are increasingly being threatened by various forces in contemporary times – deforestation, degradation and conversion to plantations have resulted in the country experiencing the most rapid decline in forest cover in all of Southeast Asia (Sunderlin & Thu Ba 2005). Remaining pockets of natural forest – which increasingly occur in small patches surrounded by agricultural land, known as forest fragments – coincide with remote and rural areas of persistent poverty in the country (Thuan 2005). This presents an opportunity to simultaneously tackle poverty alleviation and forest protection initiatives.

This thesis is concerned with the socio-economic value of forest fragments to rural dwelling populations in Nam Dong District, Thùa Thien-Hue Province, in Northern Central Viet Nam. Departing from the argument that fragmented forest is a key resource for many due to the decline in area of primary natural forest and the proximity of such land to local communities, the central hypothesis in this research is that other types of forest (specifically forest fragments) – which have typically been considered degraded or secondary – are now a major source of income generation for those who dwell nearby. Furthermore, it is suggested that these patches of forest serve more than purely economic purposes; in fact it is posited that they are valued by local communities for the environmental services they provide and for their intrinsic worth.

Recent years have seen devolution of power over forest governance from central state authorities to private enterprises and local actors at the individual, household and community level. The decentralisation of decision-making has been both much-acclaimed and heavily criticised – the former for uniting conservation and development aims, and the latter for falling short of achieving such sustainability potential. Current governance arrangements will also be examined as part of this study.

These above assumptions were tested using a mixed methods approach. Interviews were conducted with key respondents (see Appendix A) including farmers, policy makers and NGO workers; local villagers were invited to contribute to participatory rural appraisal (PRA) exercises. Information from these discussions was then used to design household surveys of

(18)

which 80 were carried out in two communes of Huong Son and Thuong Quang in Nam Dong District, Thùa Thien-Hue Province, Viet Nam (see Chapter 3 for more details on the methodology and Figure 4.2 for a map of the study area). This area was selected in consultation with Tropenbos International (TBI) and TBI-Viet Nam, since this research was carried out within the framework of their programme in Viet Nam (see http://www.tropenbos.org/country_programmes/viet+nam).

Secondary evidence was also collected and a thorough literature review was conducted. The findings from this were used to develop a theoretical framework upon which the research was built – this follows in the succeeding chapter. The methodology comes next, introducing the primary research questions and the methods used to collect data which answers these. Following that is the geographical context which highlights why Viet Nam makes a relevant and interesting case study for this work.

The subsequent three chapters present the data analysis and main findings. Firstly, profiles are created of the study sites based on socio-economic characteristics such as wealth and education, before a closer look is taken at the primary means villagers use to generate both cash and non-cash income. The focus then moves specifically to forest-based aspects of rural livelihoods and the way these are perceived and valued by different sectors of the community. The last empirical chapter presents findings relating to forest governance, with an emphasis on community-based forest management (CBFM). Finally, this thesis concludes with a short discussion, some conceptual and methodological reflections, and some recommendations for policy.

It is ultimately found that forest fragments, whilst largely disregarded in current Vietnamese environmental policy, are in fact of both social and economic value, contributing by providing products (especially for household sustenance) and valued less tangibly for environmental services and intrinsic worth. Community-level governance has thus far failed to optimise these landscapes for both ecological and societal needs however; it is therefore recommended that a multitier governance structure is put in place to ensure that sustainability goals are met whilst concurrently addressing the needs of local and marginalised populations in an equitable and just manner.

(19)

2. Theoretical framework

This chapter presents some key debates from the existing literature with regard to multifunctional landscapes, forest fragments, rural livelihoods and the potential role that forests may play in poverty alleviation strategies. By reviewing key academic and policy-based publications it seeks to provide answers – policy-based on current opinion – to some of the following questions: what is a (multifunctional) landscape and how do forest fragments fit into these? What are the fundamental (forest-based) aspects of rural livelihoods? What does existing literature say regarding which groups depend most on the forest and its resources? This chapter seeks to highlight the importance of and the links between these key concepts.

2.1 Landscapes, multifunctionality and the landscape approach

A landscape can be defined as a “dynamic socio-ecological system”, and as “[a] place-based system that result[s] from interactions between people, land, institutions and values” (Minang et al., 2015). In fact, defining the term “landscape” is itself worthy of a thesis. It is an evocative phrase that has been used with vastly differing classifications in the fields of anthropology, art, biology, geography, history and philosophy, to name but a few. Sunderland (2014) suggests that the need to define the term is a reflection of the very “silo mentality” that must be overcome in order to address the trans-border social, political and environmental challenges that exist in land-use management today. This pervasive view, one which is holistic and multidisciplinary in its application, is represented in the so-called “landscape approach” (Sayer et al., 2013).

The landscape approach is increasingly set forth as a solution to addressing competing and often conflicting views on land-use management and governance, seeking to reconcile environmental and development objectives. It challenges the “one-place-one-function” principle that positions different land uses in separate silos of, for example, forest, agriculture and urban spaces. Instead, the landscape approach places emphasis on the opportunity for synergies and interactions to exist between different spheres (Minang et al., 2015). This can be described as “functional heterogeneity” or “multifunctionality”– concepts which advocate that different objectives which may have traditionally been seen as competing can in fact be addressed through positive linkages which can be established in an optimal arrangement of different land units (Torquebiau 2015).

(20)

The landscape approach seeks to reduce trade-offs which have conventionally been made when prioritising one land use over another, maximising the benefits of multifunctionality rather than reducing the advantages of homogeneity and contiguity. Rather than adopting the view that a fragmented landscape represents several sections of degraded, sub-optimal land units, instead the premise of the multifunctionality debate is that locally managed units can exist together to form one optimal whole (Sayer et al., 2013). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment has developed a possible future for ecosystem management which somewhat resembles this assumption – this is known as the “adapting mosaic” scenario (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005) and is consistent with the view that conservation and development goals must be aligned in an integrative manner (Sayer et al., 2008). In this future, there is a strengthening of local institutions and enormous variation in management techniques between regions and land types. The ecological unit is at the centre of the structure and land uses are eventually organised in a way which optimises this.

Perhaps the most obvious combination of land uses is that of (agricultural) production and (environmental) protection. This seemingly dichotomous conflict has given rise to what is known as the land sparing versus land sharing debate (Grau et al., 2013). On the one hand, those who advocate land sparing claim that the intensification of agricultural practices on existing agricultural land will allow the remaining areas to be spared for protection purposes. The reality of this is seen to be quite the opposite, whereby agricultural intensification results not only in increasing efficiency, but also in increased consumption and thus increased encroachment into natural areas – this phenomenon is known as the Jevons Paradox (Alcott, 2005; Polimeni et al., 2008). The counter-argument that has emerged is that production and protection can be optimised where they co-exist, primarily because a multifunctional landscape can be seen to provide a wide array of environmental services. One example used by proponents of this, the land sharing argument, is the benefit of having tree belts near crop lands, which serve to anchor soil and regulate water (Torquebiau 2015).

Previous theoretical and empirical contributions to this ongoing debate centred on landscape heterogeneity have concentrated primarily on the biophysical sphere (Grau et al., 2013). Yet landscapes are undeniably social constructs and develop in a dynamic manner as a result of a set of complex interactions between the natural environment and people, institutions and values (Minang et al., 2015). It is therefore necessary to expand the existing knowledge base

(21)

by incorporating socio-economic matters into the discussion, looking for societal functions served by heterogeneity. This thesis contributes by eliciting information about social, economic and cultural values of forest fragments which exist adjacent to agricultural activities, thus in a multifunctional landscape.

2.2 Forests fragments

A key land unit in a landscape is that of forest. In line with the landscape debate outlined in Section 2.1, forests are increasingly occurring in patches rather than as a contiguous whole. Forest fragmentation is the process that results in “the conversion of formerly continuous forest into patches of forest separated by non-forested land” (FAO 2002). It occurs when contiguous forests are broken up into smaller areas of woodland and the surrounding land may be agricultural or pastoral, open land or urbanised (EPA 2003). Given their often enhanced accessibility due to proximity to human settlements, much human utilisation of forests takes place in landscapes such as these, where forest-based activities can be combined with other forms of production such as agroforestry and crop yielding.

Much of the forest cover that is used by humans today is either low cover density secondary or fragmented forest (Wright 2005) yet human use of forest fragments in particular are still largely overlooked in terms of research and development and policy implementation. A search in Google Scholar reveals that scientific literature on forest fragments focuses on their role for conservation or specific animals such as primates, bees or birds, but not on their role for humans. The emphasis in forest policies is either on protecting and maintaining the diminished areas of primary contiguous forest or on reforestation of degraded forest areas. This is also very much the case in Viet Nam, as will be elaborated upon in Chapter 4 (see specifically Section 4.4). While national conservation and reforestation programmes are reasonably advanced, the government is allowing the conversion of small areas of forest to rubber plantation (MARD 2009; Phuc & Nghi 2014).

While the protection of contiguous forest and the reforestation of degraded areas are undeniably important goals, the implementation of a sustainable management strategy for a greater range of forest types could contribute to a greater provision of not only ecological, but also social and economic benefits. Resource potentials are increasingly being assessed

(22)

from a broader landscape approach (see Section 2.1), which views competing land uses and livelihood conditions as compatible rather than antagonistic (Sayer et al., 2008).

The term “secondary forest”, used by the FAO as a synonym to “fragmented forest” immediately evokes notions of inferiority. Yet though non-contiguous forest forms are often considered degraded and a threat to the preservation of ecosystems and provision of ecosystem services, the incorporation of such forest types into conservation strategies is today being endorsed by academics and NGOs (Emrich et al., 2000). Widespread deforestation in past decades means that much of the world’s remaining forest now exists in patches and not only serves as a refuge for many endangered species but also acts as a vital resource for millions of people and provides invaluable environmental services. Rather than being viewed as degraded remnants of contiguous forest, such fragments should be seen as contributing to meeting multiple objectives in increasingly heterogeneous landscapes (Minang et al., 2015). Such fragments, however, likely require even greater human intervention than primary forest which, if protected, is largely able to self-sustain (Bryant et

al., 1997). On the contrary, the need to implement sustainable management for fragmented

forest is imperative since their detachment from the greater ecosystem of which they were once part means their ability to regenerate is compromised.

The government of Viet Nam has already acknowledged that national forestry objectives are inherently intertwined with meeting the needs of the rural populations that live and depend upon the forests (Tu & Burgers 2012) and forest fragments themselves are increasingly being recognised as important for both biodiversity conservation and the wellbeing of rural inhabitants, particularly in landscapes where people would have to travel long distances to large tracts of contiguous forest (Urech et al., 2012). Currently, there is a deficit of knowledge on the extent to which forest fragments provide benefits for humans, and to further complicate matters, the user and tenure rights to the resources tend to be unclear (Emrich et al., 2000). The importance of assessing these areas of forest from the perspective of those inhabitants who specifically use them is stressed as a way to meet both sustainability and livelihoods objectives, the latter of which will be discussed in the next section.

(23)

2.3 Forests-poverty linkages

Poverty is one of the greatest global challenges facing humankind today and in many rural areas, there is a spatial correlation between those living in conditions of impoverishment and remaining areas of natural forests (Sunderlin et al., 2005). This suggests that gaining a better understanding of the intricacies and linkages between forested ecosystems and forest-based rural livelihoods could help to enhance the role that forests play in poverty alleviation.

Sunderlin et al. (2005) differentiate between poverty mitigation and poverty eradication with regard to the potential of forests to contribute to poverty reduction objectives. Poverty mitigation, or avoidance, occurs when forest resources help prevent households from falling into, or deeper into, poverty by acting as a safety net or a gap filler in times of hardship. Poverty elimination describes a situation where forest resources actually help to lift a household out of poverty, for example by enabling the accumulation of savings. Some more examples of this are indicated in Table 2.1.

In terms of poverty eradication, forests have arguably not lived up to their potential (Sunderlin et al., 2003; Wunder, Angelsen et al., 2014). Positive outcomes in terms of both livelihoods and conservation connected solely with forest resources remain at best “elusive” (Krishnakumar et al., 2012). Further, concerns remain about whether household dependence on forest income is sustainable (Meilby et al., 2014); where positive outcomes in forest-based poverty alleviation have been achieved, they tend to be part of a wider process linked with other land uses, particularly agriculture or mixed crop systems (Sunderlin et al., 2003). This serves to exacerbate the importance of finding a socially and environmentally sound way to align the management of multifunctional landscapes with conservation and human well-being objectives.

2.4 Rural livelihoods

The term “livelihood”, and its widely used basic definition of “a means of securing a living”, conceals a complex and intricate reality (Chambers & Conway 1991), one which is dynamic, multifaceted and diverse. It comprises people, their capabilities and assets (both tangible and intangible), and how these forces interact to produce their means of living. The intensification and sustenance of rural livelihoods is considered vital not only to improve

(24)

wellbeing for rural dwellers, but also in order to mitigate the extensive rural-urban migration that is placing evermore pressure on urban areas (Chambers & Conway 1991). In order to do this, a more holistic approach must be taken in which non-cash contributions to livelihoods are recognised; currently, the non-economic utilisation of environmental products is undervalued since quantifying such changeable and immeasurable assets is problematic (Angelsen et al., 2014).

Forest-based livelihoods in particular are often part of a wider survival strategy that also encompasses agricultural productivity, wage labour and other such methods of generating an income. Many rural poor pursue diversified livelihood strategies both to lessen risk and because often they cannot obtain sufficient income from just one strategy (Sunderlin, Angelsen et al., 2005). This research is concerned primarily with the forest-based aspects of a rural livelihood, though it recognises the importance of other contributions and will use these as points of reference through which the significance of the forest-based aspects of rural livelihoods will be more evident. It would be impossible to address one aspect of livelihoods without recognising the synergies with other strategies (Sunderlin, Angelsen et

al., 2005).

A central contribution forests make to household survival strategies is through subsistence use. Though in many instances they also provide cash income, the non-cash uses are often of far greater significance particularly performing safety net functions or acting as seasonal gap fillers (Shackleton, et al., 2011). Though forests also perform many other functions to support livelihoods, such as by providing environmental services like water regulation and climate control, on a more tangible level people extract products from the forests for human utilisation. These products will be discussed further in the following section. Table 2.1 summarises the direct roles that forest play in household livelihood strategies.

Table 2.1 Direct roles of forests in poverty alleviation and household livelihoods.

Poverty aspects

Function Description

Safety Net Insurance Food and cash income in periods of unexpected food and income shortfall

(25)

Support current consumption

Gap filling Regular (seasonal, for example) shortfall of food and income

Regular subsistence uses

Fuelwood, wild meat, medicinal plants and so on Low-return cash

activities

A wide range of extractive or “soft management” activities, normally in economies with low market integration

Poverty reduction

Diversified forest strategies

Forest activities that are maintained in economies with high market integration

Specialised forest strategies

Forest activities that form the majority of the cash income in local economies with high market integration

Payment for environmental services

Direct transfers to local communities from off-site beneficiaries

Source: Veldeld et al., 2004: 13.

2.5 Forest products

Estimates of the number of people in the world who utilise benefits from forests, either directly or indirectly, vary from between 1 billion to 1.6 billion (Agrawal et al., 2013, Shackleton et al., 2011). A vast proportion of these people rely on non-timber forest products (NTFPs). In their seminal work, DeBeer and McDermott (cited in Shackleton et al., 2011) defined these as “all biological materials other than timber which are extracted from forests for human use” and this has since been adapted to encompass all plant and animal products extracted from forested landscapes, including human-modified ones (Ros-Tonen and Wiersum 2005). In fact, it has since emerged that ecosystems that are more anthropogenic are particularly important sites for NTFP collection and cultivation since often they are managed for that very purpose (ibid.).

Perceptions of the role that NTFPs could play in poverty alleviation have evolved over time. Initially, in the 1980s when it became widely accepted that tackling poverty and environmental issues should go hand in hand, forests and particularly the extraction of NTFPs were expected to offer a socially and ecologically sustainable alternative to timber

(26)

(Ros-Tonen & Wiersum 2005). Yet later it seemed that “win-win synergies” between forest conservation and poverty reduction were indeed illusory (Pfund 2010) and disillusionment set in.

Today it is acknowledged that forests and forest resources play a part in livelihood strategies (Sunderlin et al., 2005), but there is much less expectation that forests could actually lift people out of poverty (Wunder, Angelsen et al., 2014). There is still a long way to go before their exact role is understood. Beyond the overt economic value of forests to livelihoods, there are vast data gaps and an absence of information regarding the informal and non-cash contributions that forests make to livelihoods (Nunes & van den Bergh 2001). It has been suggested that the unrecognised contributions of forests to household and national economies is up to five times that which is registered in formal channels, with up to 60 million employed in informal jobs in the sector (Agrawal et al., 2013). Such a phenomenon has been referred to as “the hidden harvest” (Angelsen et al., 2014). This dearth of legitimate information with regard to NTFPs has meant that they are frequently overlooked in governance systems and consequently, pro-poor forest management is often aimed solely at capturing benefits that are based on monetary exchange. A key component of a debate that has been ongoing in previous decades is regarding the income contributions of NTFPs, and about the contribution of forest resources to rural livelihoods overall, and has centred around two conflicting sides of a dichotomy: do they act as a safety net or a poverty trap? The following sections further describe each aspect.

2.5.1 Forest resources as a safety net or seasonal gap filler

While forest products seldom make people rich, they do often play some role in enhancing and maintaining peoples’ quality of life and reducing vulnerability. This is known as the safety net function, in which NTFPs in particular are utilised as a minor supplementary form of income in times of emergency or hardship – for example, if adverse weather conditions destroy a harvest or if a productive household member falls ill or dies. Also they may be used as gap fillers, for example seasonally, if a particular crop is less abundant at certain times of the year. This argument posits that NTFPs prevent households falling deeper into poverty, existing as natural capital that can be accessed in times of need (Shackleton et al.,

(27)

2011). Many such products may be used infrequently but are critically important in emergency situations (Sunderlin et al., 2005).

Often NTFPs are not the principal source of income and though it varies, the global average contribution they make to livelihoods is estimated at between one-fifth and one-third (Shackleton et al., 2011). The contribution of NTFPs to household consumption is frequently recorded to be far greater than their role in commercial sales (Emrich et al., 2000), particularly for poor households who depend on NTFPs for much of their nutritional, medicinal and material needs. For most poor rural households in the world, forests are the primary source of fuelwood, medicinal products and building supplies, products without which many would be significantly worse off (Agrawal et al., 2013; Ros-Tonen & Wiersum 2005).

Subscribers of this argument also recognise the important cultural element of NTFPs, which are frequently grounded in tradition, traded in local markets and are people’s connection to an existence that has persisted through time (Sills et al., 2011). It is for this reason that many NTFPs can now be found in urban centres as rural-urban migrants still purchase them to make up a staple component of their diet; in some cases artisans have also transformed NTFPs into marketable luxuries (Shackleton et al., 2011). In some ways, such people involved in the trade of NTFPs in urban areas can still be considered forest-dependent (Sunderlin, Angelsen et al., 2005).

It is important to recognise that recent data has in fact indicated that forests do not act as safety nets or gap fillers as frequently as earlier literature suggested (Wunder, Börner et al., 2014). It is suggested this is due to a focus on absolute rather than relative contributions (Foss 2014) and that in fact other coping strategies such as temporary wage labour are favoured.

2.5.2 Forest resources as a poverty trap

Despite the proven dependence of many poor households on forest resources, or perhaps because of it, some scholars have questioned whether NTFP collection is a rational economic choice or an activity people engage in simply because of a lack of alternatives (Shackleton,

(28)

poorest of the poor are those most involved in NTFP collection and this has led to the imagining of NTFPs as a poverty trap, in a circular reinforcing paradigm wherein poor people rely on forests but people are poor because they rely on forests (Sunderlin et al., 2003).

This argument suggests that the inferior characteristics of forest products prevent households from escaping poverty (Angelsen et al., 2014); in many cases, these characteristics are the same as those which make them attractive to the rural poor in the first place, such as their de

facto availability in open access systems. In fact, it is claimed that the very nature of the

NTFP economy makes it difficult for households who engage in their collection to rise out of poverty (Sunderlin et al., 2003) – traditionally they are most prominent in situations where there is a lack of transport and infrastructure, little access to markets and, where NTFPs do have a high value, the poor are often excluded from accessing them.

This argument is further exacerbated by the very fact that households with a greater income rely less and less on forest resources (see Section 3.4.2). As households grow wealthier, NTFP-based livelihoods tend to disappear, with the notable exception of some NTFPs which have been commercialised and are sold in consistent markets, collectors of NTFPs favour alternative livelihood strategies if the opportunity arises (Ros-Tonen and Wiersum 2005). Thus it is suggested that NTFPs can only support rural livelihoods when a lack of alternatives or the absence of basic infrastructure such as roads or access to markets are unavailable (Krishnakumar et al., 2012).

Yet as aforementioned, much of the revenue from NTFP collection is not formally recognised and thus to make generalisations can be misleading. Though the larger role NTFPs play in poverty alleviation itself may remain unclear, more often than not they serve at the very least to diversify livelihoods and reduce vulnerability. Forest-based poverty alleviation is not considered a standalone process (Sunderlin et al., 2003), and can rarely exist separately from other practices such as agriculture or wage labour (Ros-Tonen and Wiersum 2005). Like these components, NTFP collection is just one part of a greater whole. They may only infrequently provide a pathway out of poverty but without their contribution, millions of people worldwide would be worse-off (Shackleton et al., 2011).

(29)

2.6 Ecosystem services

Human well-being greatly benefits from an enormous variety of facilities provided by the environment which are commonly collectively known as ecosystem services (see Figure 2.1). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) defines four categories into which ecosystem services fit: provisioning services include all material products such as food, water, timber and game; regulating services have to do with climate, flooding and water quality; cultural services include non-material benefits such as recreational, aesthetic and spiritual values; and supporting services refer to soil formation and biodiversity (MEA 2005). Forests are vastly important sites for the provision of such services, being a significant component of terrestrial biodiversity in themselves as well as habitats for other species, protecting against soil erosion, regulating water regimes and of course supplying a whole host of products including – but not limited to – those mentioned in Section 2.5.

(30)

Though a point of contention, ecosystem services are increasingly being assigned economic values in order to help decision-makers, referred to as valuation (De Groot et al., 2002). However, in many countries throughout the world the market value of ecosystem services from forests is in fact estimated to be less than a third of the total economic value, if non-marketable values such as watershed protection and carbon sequestration are also considered (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). However, not everything can be given an economic value and many suggest that monetary representations can at best offer a very incomplete estimate of the lower bounds to the true value of ecosystem services (Nunes & van den Bergh 2001). Furthermore, valuation neglects the value of the forest irrespective of its utilitarian value to humans – referred to as its intrinsic value (Justus et al., 2009). This debate has led to the necessity for less tangible values that are difficult to quantify, as discussed in the following section, to be incorporated into forest management strategy.

2.7 Forest values and perceptions

“Many people value the environment in ways that cannot be expressed in dollars and cents”

(Bengston 1993: 523).

In recent decades, the dominant way in which people view the environment has evolved; no longer is the natural world seen purely as a commodity for human consumption but rather we are gradually entering into a new era, variously referred to as the “ecological paradigm” (Capra 1982), the “environmental paradigm” (Bengston 1993), or the “sustainability revolution” (Edwards 2005). Though conventional consumptive beliefs were first questioned in the early 1980s, the dominant social paradigm has not yet been fully replaced and more contemporary views which place more emphasis on the intrinsic value of the environment are still evolving. They have been particularly dominant in industrialised countries thus far and now are increasingly permeating less-developed societies too. The hope is that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted in September 2015 will effectively recognise the need to integrate social, economic and environmental factors. The “post-2015 moment”, so-termed as 2015 is the year the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) come to an end and new global goals – the SDGs – are agreed, calls for the new development paradigm to recognise these desired trajectories of socio-economic and socio-ecological change (Gore 2015).

(31)

The perceptions and values of local communities with regard to forest management are frequently underrepresented in management policies (Guthiga 2008). However, a growing body of research (see, for example, Agrawal 2005; Yang et al., 2015) suggests that it is becoming more widely accepted that a better understanding of how local people perceive the forest lands in or near which they live is necessary in order to successfully implement sustainable management strategies that benefit both the communities and the environment.

Understanding local people’s perceptions of their immediate environment can be helpful in various ways. For decision-makers and those in the policy arena, the results of value analyses can be used to better inform management strategies in a way that addresses local needs in a socially, politically and environmentally sound manner (Guthiga 2008; Bengston 1993). It also helps to empower groups that have traditionally been marginalised in decision-making; a resulting heightened guardianship by those who feel a sense of stewardship towards their resources may then contribute to sustainability objectives (Charnley & Poe 2007). Such focus on the local, and specifically the community, as loci for innovative sustainable conservation measures has given rise to the increasingly popular concept of community-based forest management, as detailed in the following section.

2.8 Community-based forest management: a new paradigm

Despite various attempts to develop a universal forest management strategy, these have proven difficult to implement in practice since different contexts tend to call for locally tailored governance (Sayer & Collins 2012). A key component of the “new environmental paradigm” (see Section 2.1) is a renewed focus on the community as a space for management and protection; thus many academics now see the community as integral in simultaneously achieving successful decentralisation, promoting meaningful participation, and achieving conservation objectives (Agrawal & Gibson 1999) – this is known as community-based forest management (hereafter CBFM).

Though laudable in its intentions, the reality of CBFM has sometimes not been so positive (Charnley & Poe 2007), due in part to the difficulty of addressing issues locally when they in fact transcend such boundaries. Further, many characteristics of the community which are often portrayed as constructive in conservation terms can in fact impede the perceived

(32)

benefits of collective action. For example, strongly held community norms are often cited as being positive for conservation outcomes but where such norms support or encourage exploitative forest-use, this custom may supersede other communally imposed regulations (Agrawal & Gibson 1999). Furthermore, communities are often assigned features which are in reality fictitious – though they may be portrayed as integrated groups, in fact conflict and structural power differences are likely still to exist. This is evident in the multitude of cases where local people are found to still engage in small-scale illegal logging even though community organisations prohibit it (e.g. Yang et al., 2015). Different characteristics of community members at the household or individual level can be critical in determining not only the extent to which people rely on forest resources but also the success (or otherwise) of community management initiatives, as discussed in the following section.

The most recent paradigm shift with regard to CBFM in the literature indicates attempts to address some of the concerns surrounding co-management, which evolved first from “co-management” to “adaptive co-“co-management” (thus accounting for greater socio-ecological complexity), and then to “adaptive landscape governance” (Ros-Tonen et al., 2014). The latter of these recognises the importance of taking a scale, functional and multi-stakeholder approach in order to contend with both local and global challenges in a socially and environmentally sustainable manner.

2.9 Differential utilisation and perceptions of forests

Though it was established in Section 2.4 that forests may play an integral role in rural livelihoods, not all people may utilise forest resources in the same manner. Several studies have shown that various socio-economic factors influence how often and in what ways households use forest products, as well as affecting how people value and perceive the forest (McFarlane & Boxall 2000). Variables at the household level include, among others, gender, level of education, overall household income and land tenure arrangements (Mcelwee 2008). Perceptions may also be affected by membership in a community-based management or environmental organisation; through such institutions individuals may be subjected to particular social norms (McFarlane & Boxall 2000; Agrawal & Gibson 1999). The following subsections briefly describe how certain aspects can contribute to differences in use; these

(33)

variables have been selected based on existing literature (for example, Sunderland et al., 2014; Jagger et al., 2014).

2.9.1 Gender

Evidence has shown that more marginalised groups of society are frequently more dependent on forest resources. For example, it has been found that women are often more frequently involved in NTFP collection activities as the labour is less intensive and can be performed whilst also conducting other duties such as child care (Schreckenberg & Marshall 2006); certainly forestry has been found to reinforce specific male and female “roles” (Sunderland

et al., 2014). The involvement of women in NTFP collection and production has also been

shown to improve intra-household equity (Kusters et al., 2006). Some studies have also depicted women as generally holding stronger intrinsic or biocentric values (McFarlane & Boxall 2000). However, the role of women in NTFP collection cannot be generalised to situations involving larger distances or where harvesting requires greater physical exertion (Ros-Tonen, pers. comm.), as will also become clear in Chapter 6.

2.9.2 Wealth

Wealth and household status have often been shown to impact on how much people rely on forest resources. It is commonly acknowledged that poorer households rely on NTFPs more than do their wealthier neighbours (Angelsen et al., 2014). However, although a greater overall proportion of household income may come from NTFPs in poorer homes, another frequent finding is that often wealthier households in fact extract a greater overall volume of products (PROFOR 2012). Another theory is that wealthier or socially superior households may desist from engaging in forest activities as in some cases it is perceived as an activity of last resort with which they do not wish to be associated (Stoian 2003).

2.9.3 Land tenure and access rights

Various characteristics of tenure systems are considered to be factors in both conservation and development strategies, such as de jure ownership, de facto usage, the degree of overlap between these two aspects, and the enforcement of rules (Jagger et al., 2014). Much of the literature has focused on how tenure reforms can assist in pursuing conservation rather than livelihoods objectives, but one study conducted as part of the Poverty and Environment

(34)

Network (PEN) programme found that legal rights to the forests also had a significant impact on how much income rural people were procuring from forests. For example, they found that overlapping tenure systems and low levels of enforcement were important for the rural poor where they were not the de facto land owners (Jagger et al., 2014). This corresponds with the findings of Kusters et al. (2007) who found that de facto tenure rights among agroforesters in Sumatra mattered more in providing a sense of ownership and security than de jure tenure rights.

This is also product-specific. Timber, for example, by far the greatest source of wealth from forests, requires secure land tenure (and is also characterised by other features which make it anti-poor, such as being labour- and technology-intensive, and being a high-risk, long-term investment) (Sunderlin et al., 2003). Though trickle-down effects of land use for timber (and other high-value forest production modes) are frequently asserted to bring benefits to those dwelling in the forests from which it is being extracted, it is evident that – due to ambiguous land tenure arrangements and the relative powerlessness of the rural poor – the wealth generated from such activities rarely reaches those most in need (Sunderlin et al., 2005).

2.9.4 Alternative employment opportunities

Some academics and policymakers theorise that extensive forest use, and in particular NTFP collection, is an activity in which people engage only when there is a lack of other opportunities (Angelsen et al., 2014). In this way, as aforementioned, it is considered an employment of last resort. Indeed, the very nature of NTFP-based livelihoods is that they seem to disappear as other opportunities arise. Byron and Arnold (1999), among others, classify forest users into different groups based on degree of forest dependence and proximity to the forest: populations living in forests (e.g. hunters and gatherers); poor farmers and landless families; and a final group of forest beneficiaries such as employees in forest industries and small entrepreneurs living of the processing and trade of forest products who can be seen as urban dwellers. Those living in multifunctional landscapes are primarily from the second group – agricultural populations living at forest frontiers who use forest resources to complement farming productivity or as part of diversification strategies (Arnold 2001). Here a combination of wealth (as discussed in Section 2.9.2) and the availability of alternative employment opportunities combine to dictate how much farmers rely on forest resources.

(35)

Unsurprisingly, the level of dependency on the forest for extraction is a factor which is often said to affect how people perceive the forest (Guthiga 2008) – one can assume that as the availability of alternative employment opportunities increases, the level of dependency on forest resources might decrease. With regard to forest perceptions and attitudes, it has also been suggested that those who are less dependent on timber and non-timber products for their income and sustenance tend to place stronger bio-centric values on the forest (McFarlane & Boxhall 2000). Likely this is because the ability to survive independently of the forest allows them to appreciate the intrinsic value.

2.10 Conclusion

Though recent insights suggest the role may be less fundamental than was hypothesised in the past, forests nevertheless have the potential to play a part in aligning conservation objectives and improving human well-being, particularly as part of a multifunctional landscape which can foster positive environmental linkages between different land units and promote livelihood diversification strategies for households. The benefits of multifunctional landscapes have been recognised and endorsed internationally such as in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in their “adapting mosaic” scenario and more recently in debates on the landscape approach.

Traditionally, management decisions regarding natural forest have been made on the basis of tangible, direct benefits that humans can reap from the land; in the past this has led to environmental degradation and poorly designed policy. There is growing support, however, for the “new environmental paradigm” and this body of research advocates the inclusion of people’s perceptions, views and attitudes towards natural resources when devising management strategies for them. In particular this paradigm shift has brought about a change from top-down centralised governance to bottom-up community-based management of forests and the multi-stakeholder ‘negotiated’ landscape approaches that have been advocated more recently.

In recognising ethical considerations it is further important to understand that, as has already been proven in the case of contiguous forest, different groups of people may utilise or value the forest differently based on certain socio-economic characteristics such as those detailed in Section 7 of this chapter. It is essential for decision-makers to consider these intricacies, as

(36)

well as moral matters and socio-economic data when designing appropriate policy to effectively and holistically manage multifunctional landscapes.

(37)

3. Methodology

3.1 Introduction

This chapter introduces the rationale behind this research project and how this has led to the formulation of the central research questions. Following this, the worldview from which this research departed is discussed; this helped to select the methods which were used to gather suitable data to answer the research questions. This chapter will conclude with a brief personal reflection on the methodology, touching upon limitations, challenges and reliability.

3.2 Research rationale

There is a clear and undeniable link between forests and poverty that persists globally (Sunderlin et al., 2004) and this is particularly evident in Viet Nam, where poverty is fundamentally a rural problem; in the country there is a clear correlation between remaining areas of forest and people living in harsh conditions (Sunderlin & Thu Ba 2005). It therefore seems sensible to assume that there is a clear opportunity to harmonise development and conservation objectives. What is less clear is exactly how these forests are valued as part of landscapes which are becoming increasingly fragmented, as transformations in land-use change have created patterns where patches of natural forest exist adjacent to plantation forest and agricultural land. Some scientists argue that landscape fragmentation can have negative ecological impacts, for example on biodiversity or on crop productivity, resulting in the incurrence of unnecessary financial expenses on those who access the land (Van Hung 2007). Such opinions have resulted in a reluctance to pursue conservation initiatives for small areas (UNEP 2003). However, a recent PhD study found that fragmentation of forests actually produces biodiversity benefits through an enhanced edge effect (Ha Van 2015). Assuming the environmental worth of such ecosystems, this research thus seeks to address whether rural people who pursue livelihood strategies in multifunctional landscapes also receive socio-economic benefits, looking at what each different element has to offer.

(38)

3.3 Research questions

The theoretical framework and research rationale previously discussed have led to the formulation of the following questions which will guide the research:

Main question

What role do forest fragments play in the livelihood strategies of people living in multifunctional landscapes in Nam Dong District, Thùa Thien-Hue Province, Viet Nam? Sub-questions

1. How do the villages of Huong Son and Thuong Quang differ according to household characteristics such as wealth, education, household composition and primary income components? (Chapter 5)

2. How do livelihood strategies differ based on wealth, gender, land tenure, and alternative employment opportunities? (Chapter 5)

3. How do people value forest fragments in terms of their contribution to rural livelihoods and less tangible benefits and how do forest use and perceptions differ according to socio-economic characteristics? (Chapter 6)

4. What forms of governance are employed in landscape management and to what extent can these be considered successful in terms of achieving policy objectives? (Chapter 7)

5. What are the implications for policy and multifunctional landscape management of the research findings regarding livelihoods from and perceptions of forest fragments? (Chapter 8)

3.4 Selection of the study area

Nam Dong District in Thùa Thien-Hue Province (see also Section 4.5) has been selected as the study location since has it has in the past relied to some extent on forest products. In one village, for example, 15% of households collect NTFPs in high quantities and spend 18-21

(39)

days per month in the forest. Of the remaining households, a further 48% spend between 6 and 15 days collecting NTFPs (Wetterwald et al., 2004). Also, the district is also one of the poorest in the country and as such would benefit enormously from any policy to protect those resources which they most value.

Within the district, the villages selected for the research were taken from those which utilise forest fragments that were analysed as part of the aforementioned PhD study that was recently conducted on the ecological value of fragmented landscapes (Ha Van 2015; see also Section 3.2), so that a comprehensive review of the value of fragmented landscapes can ultimately be compiled. The PhD research focussed on seven fragments but since this research is much smaller in scope, two villages were studied. The first of these is Huong Son, a relatively wealthy village located close to the district centre of Khe Tre. The second village was Thuong Quang, a more remote and poorer village located around 8 km from the district centre.

3.5 Conceptual scheme

The main concepts from the research questions in Section 5.3 are all interlinked and together form a broad outline for the project scope. This is depicted in Figure 3.1, the conceptual scheme.

(40)

Multifunctional landscapes are the setting and the starting point for this research. Within these landscapes in the research setting, the primary land-uses are plantations, agricultural land and natural forest and differential use of products from these lands make up the rural livelihoods of local people. As far as livelihoods are concerned, this research was interested not only in the cash value of products generated in multifunctional landscapes but also in the value of products used in the household for subsistence purposes. These can be considered provisioning services (MEA 2005). Further, this research was interested in any values placed on the different land uses which were less tangible – these intrinsic values can be considered cultural services. These concepts relate to sub-question one.

A key component of the research was to decipher whether livelihood strategies differed based on household and individual attributes such as gender, socio-economic status, land tenure and the availability of alternative employment opportunities. These concepts, and how they are influenced by the concepts of sub-question one, relate to sub-question two.

The research also aimed to explore the different forms and levels of governance (both formal and informal) that were employed in managing fragmented landscapes and in influencing the livelihood strategies in which people engaged (related to sub-question three). It was expected that information on these institutions in particular would be necessary to inform future policy regarding the future of Viet Nam’s poverty alleviation and conservation strategies (sub-question four).

3.6 Methods

The information sought and the worldview outlined below indicated the most appropriate approach in this line of inquiry was to use mixed methods, relying both on qualitative and quantitative data to fully and comprehensively understand the research problem. The selected mixed methods were employed in a sequential format (Cresswell 2003) comprising two stages: the first stage was exploratory, qualitatively elucidating “snapshot” data of how the households use different elements of the landscape and to what extent they are dependent on them (PROFOR 2012). The second stage aimed to elaborate further on these aspects, quantifying their economic contribution to livelihoods, looking at how strategies differ by gender, socio-economic status, land tenure rights and alternative employment opportunities,

(41)

and seeking information on the opinions and motivations of the respondents. The second stage of this mixed methods approach could be considered somewhat concurrent in its strategy of inquiry in that it sought to integrate both qualitative and quantitative data to help provide a clear and detailed explanation for the studied phenomenon.

The methods employed in this research have been in part inspired by the Program for Forests (PROFOR) Poverty-Forests Linkages Toolkit (PROFOR 2012). This toolkit was designed to provide a universal methodology to gather information on how forest products are important for rural livelihoods, in a format that is replicable and can be persuasively presented to national and international stakeholders. It consists of two parts – the first being an outline of how the toolkit can be used to inform policy decisions, and the second describing the methods – or tools – that can be utilised. It is important to note that a key feature of the toolkit is that researchers are not required to have any pre-existing specialised skills, and though training is recommended the methods can be employed without experience.

3.6.1 Epistemological stance

This research departed from a pragmatic worldview (Burke et al., 2004) in that it recognised the merits from different schools of thought and sought to draw on these to provide an optimal outcome for this study. From socially constructed knowledge claims, this research recognised that the cultural context within which the research participants are embedded is important for the definition of the research problem and thus an initially inductive line of inquiry was taken to interpret their particular social perspective. From there, the research took a post-positivist turn in seeking empirical, objective and generalizable findings regarding the different land uses, whilst of course simultaneously acknowledging that the product of this will not be a universal truth but rather is shaped by the specific context in which the research took place.