Bao Huy 2008: Solution to setting benefit sharing mechanism in community forest management

Solution to setting benefit sharing mechanism in
community forest management

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Bảo Huy
*
Tây Nguyên University

Abstract
Community forest management has been legally recognized and is being experimented.
However, there is a lack of technical approaches, mechanism and policy to support communities
with sustainable forest planning and benefit sharing from forests. This article presents a solution
involving various participatory approaches for forest resources assessment and benefit right and
benefit sharing settings in community forest management through stable forest models.


The necessity of and proposed principle for setting benefit sharing mechanism in
community forest management
Community forest management was recognized in the Law on Forest Protection and
Development of 2004 and guided implementation according to the Decree No. 23/2006/NĐ-CP;
however, the matter of how to support the communities to elaborate sustainable forest
management plans and to establish clear, transparent, fair and simple benefit sharing mechanism
is an issue that needs to be solved with concern.

This presentation is based on the findings of the thematic research into “Building models of
community-based forest and forestland management with the ethnic minorities of Jrai and
Bahnar in Gia Lai province" from 2002 to 2005, and the results of the development of the
methodology and approach tools supportive to CFM planning of the projects RDDL and ETSP,
implemented in the 3 provinces of Hòa Bình, Thừa Thiên – Huế and Dăk Nông, that this author
and the international consultant, Mr. Phillips Roth from GFA/GTZ had developed in 2005 and
2006.

With regard to the benefit sharing mechanism in allocation and contractual assignments of
forests, the government has issued the Decision 178/2001/QĐ-TTG. This decision is applicable
for individuals, households who are eligible for allocation, lease, contract of forests and
forestlands, but it did not address the interests of the forest managers who are village
communities. Yet, just for the interests for individuals and households, the Decision 178 is still
inadequate. In reality, after 5 years, nearly no forest allocatees have benefited from this decision.
The basic reason was that most allocated forests had not met the standards for exploitation based
on current regulations, thus the forest managers had to wait. But they did not know when their
forests meet the standards for exploitation, and what the criteria are, and how they could identify
them? This has constrained the villagers’ interest in managing natural forests; also how much
could they exploit and how much they benefit from the exploitation. In addition, the benefit
proportion, which is in accordance to the Decision 178, is based on the state of forests at time of
allocation. This also created difficulty to the communities in identifying the state of forests.
Meanwhile, the communities have a permanent demand for timber, firewood for domestic use;
If the criteria of the allocated forests have not been met, they are not allow to impact. In reality,
the living demand forces them to fell down trees for use, which makes it difficult to manage and
supervise the forests.


*
Address: Bảo Huy, Tay Nguyen University, Buôn Ma Thuột, Dăk Lăk. Tel/Fax: 050 825553; Email:
Huy, B. 2008. Soution to setting benefit sharing mechanism in community forest management.
National Forum on Land Allocation. Tropenbos. Hanoi 2008
In the Central Highlands in particular, the Prime Minister has issued the Decree No.
304/2005/QĐ-TTG on piloting forest allocation, contractual assignments of forests for protection
to households and village communities who are native ethnic minorities, indicating the allocatees
“enjoying the entire harvested products on their allocated forest areas” (Article 5, Item 1);
however, when, how and how much they benefit from forests have not been specifically
instructed.
An analysis of the benefit sharing mechanism in accordance to the Decision 178 from Figure 1

below shows:
Phân tích cơ chế hưởng lợi theo Quyết đinh 178
Rừng đạt tiêu chuẩn khai
thác (theo trữ lượng)
Rừng trung bình (IIIA
2
)
Rừng nghèo, non (IIIA
1
, IIB)
Tổng thu nhập từ bán gỗ
Thuế tài nguyên
UBND xã
Ban lâm nghiệp xã
Chủ rừng
(Người nhận rừng)
85%
15%
5 năm
10%
90%
20 năm
20% 80%

Fig 1: Benefit sharing based on the Decision 178
Source: Bảo Hiuy, Phillips Roth (RDDL/GFA/GTZ, 2006)
- As for medium forests
(IIIA
2
): Suppose a forest

owner had already reared
his forest for 5 years, when
exploiting he has to pay
15% natural resource tax;
the remaining part is
divided as follow: the
forest owner enjoys 2% of
the exploited timber
products per year,
equivalent to 10% of
timber products,
meanwhile he has to pay
for all the felling, transport
expenses for the exploited
volume of timber. Reality
has proven that with such proportion, the forest owner’s income is very low, even negative.

- As for young, poor forests (II
AB
, IIIA
1
): These states of forests, if followed the standards of
exploitation forests, must be 20 - 30 years to reach. In this case, after paying 15% natural
resource tax, the forest owner enjoys 80% of the remaining timber products (and he has to
pay for the exploitation expenses), hands over 20% to the commune. This is the common
state of forests allocated to households, household groups; like this the time is too long based
on current criteria for exploitation forests. This has reduced the interest of forest owners,
especially with poor people because the forests have neither created an immediate income
nor met their regular demand for forest products; additionally, appropriate rearing measures
have not been impacted on the forests because of the too long “waiting”.

The confines of current benefit sharing policy toward community forest management and some
recommended key principles for setting a benefit sharing mechanism are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: current benefit sharing policy some recommended key principles for setting a
benefit sharing mechanism in community forest management

Main contents Confines of current benefit sharing policy
in community forest management
Principle for defining benefits in
community forest management
Benefit sharing in community
forest management
Not yet specifically defined for community
forest management
Necessary to elaborate a benefit sharing
policy for household groups, communities.
Standards of exploitation
forests:
- Forest state
- Difficult for the people to define the state
in accordance to technical norms.
- Classification should be based on local
criteria.
- alternation, intensity - long with high intensity, normally 20 – 35 - short with low intensity

2
Main contents Confines of current benefit sharing policy Principle for defining benefits in
in community forest management community forest management
without exploitation

- based on the norm of
growing stock

- Difficult for the people to define the
growing stock
- Number of trees by diameter can be seen
as a tool that the communities can
approach favourably
- Based on forest function:
production, protection
- Difficult to define the exploitation of
protective forests
- Combine 2 functions of production and
protection in community forest
management
% share is based on:
- Forest state at time of
allocation
- Time of forest protection
- Exploitation stock

- Difficult for the people to define the status
and standards of forests to be exploited.
- Too long, no immediate benefits while
waiting for exploitation; no solutions to
encourage forest rearing, development.
- Difficult to calculate benefits based on
stock or growing stock. The percentage
(%) of eligible benefit based on exploited
stock does not ensure clearness and

fairness in defining benefits. It is not the
growth of forests.
The model of stable forests for different types
of forests and purposes of management differ
from each other; therefore they should be
used as the foundation to calculate benefits
for forest owners and for the state
management and supervision.
- Using forests at various states with
different sizes of products serving the
daily life of the communities.
- Regular impact to improve forests.
- Calculate the number of trees growth
once every 5 years.

A fair way to define the interests of the forest owners is based on the post-allocation growth, in
which the managers enjoy the grown part of the forests as a result of their rearing and labour
correspondingly. However, the stock-based growth is something that is difficult to define and in
reality, Vietnam lacks this norm for different types of forests, soil conditions, climate and forest
states. As a result, approaching the growth to define benefits is a principle that needs to be
applied. However, it is necessary to have a simpler way of defining so that the communities can
make use of and approach.

The stable forest model as a tool to define the growth of trees, and as the basis to
define the benefit sharing right, to plan and supervise community forest
management.
An important choice in this case is planning and implementing firewood exploitation based on
the stable forest model.
The building of stable forest models aims at balancing the furnishing capacity of local forests
with the demand for forest products of the communities in a 5-year period plan, as the basis for

defining exploitation solutions, rearing natural forests in the direction of directing forests to their
stable form and calculating their timber, firewood providing capacity to serve the daily life of the
communities.

Characteristics of stable forest models:
- Based on the structure of diameter of trees: Simple so that the community can approach
when comparing the demand and supply, calculate the amount to fell, and at the same time
ensure the silvicultural aspect that is to maintain the stability of forests for development in
the long run.
- The model having decreasing form of distribution with the size of diameter suitable with the
growth of diameter in order to create the stability of forests during a 5-year plan.
- The forest structure reaching levels of capacity and stability in each biological area, each
type of forest and soil is not the optimum model in term of capacity because the actual
reserves of natural forests after many years of exploitation remains low. Through the stable
forest model, forests are step-by-step reared for higher capacity to ensure the bio-diversity as
well as protection.

3
- The structure of trees by diameters and species components is suitable with the communities’
forest management objectives.

With regard to the silvicultural science, the structure model of number of trees by diameter
(N/D) for different types of forests in Vietnam has been studied by many forestry scientists who
has brought forward various models of simulation math, developed the “standard, sample”
structure. This technical advance needs to be practically applied, especially in community
forest management for its simplicity that is only “counting number of trees by diameter” to
choose pruning, exploiting, rearing, enriching, regenerating solutions for forests; however, it is
necessary to make the application more simpler.

0

50
10 0
15 0
200
250
300
350
10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 > 50
C
ỡ
kí nh ( cm)
A
0
50
10 0
15 0
200
250
300
350
10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 > 50
C
ỡ
kí nh ( cm)
B
0
50
10 0
15 0
200

250
300
10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 > 50
C
ỡ
kí nh ( cm)
C
0
50
10 0
15 0
200
250
300
350
10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 > 50
C
ỡ
kính (cm)
D


Comparing the actual number of trees of each forest plot with the model of stable forest helps
define number of trees that can be exploited, they are the trees that surpass the model; and the
trees that need to be protected, maintained, and reared are the ones with different diameters of
the model of stable forests. With the 5-year periodic forest inventory to compare with the stable
forest model will permit the annual and 5-year exploitation plan. Such solution complies with
the Law on forest protection and development, through which the forests allocated to
communities need to have a 5-year management plan; the planning should be simple so that the
people can do, and define the benefits from forests as well as other solutions to forest

development on a regular
basis.

Fig. 2: Comparing the actual number of trees with the stable forest model in an interval of
5 years.
Source: Bảo Huy, Phillips Roth, RDDL, 2006
Fig. 2: i) Part A is the
comparison of the actual
number of trees of the forest
plot (in gray) with the stable
forest model by diameter (in
red); ii) Part B demonstrates
the number of trees by
diameter that are allowed for
exploitation within 5 years.
These are the surpassed ones
compared to those of the
number of trees of the model
(in yellow); this is the benefit
part of the community during
the first phase, not the growth
part as a result of the
community’s rearing, which
is considered as an advance
so that the people can have
some income right in the
initiate phase; iii) Part C
demonstrates the forest after the first exploitation; iv) 5 years after, another inventory is done
with the same forest and compare with the stable forest model plot as in Part D, the surpassed
number of trees from various diameters are the growth part of trees in 5 years, and it is the

benefit part that the community should enjoy.

This allows easier calculation for the amount of timber exploitation through the number of trees
and can be done regularly through the adjustment of structure; not like the use of the

4
standardized forests for exploitation, with which the waiting time is too long without any
solutions to forest development after allocation.

The tool of stable forest model will support:
- Determination of community’s benefits and elaboration of timber exploitation plans: The
benefit of the forest allocatees is the growth of number of trees in diameters within 5 years.
Basing on this the community elaborates a sustainable 5-year exploitation plan; such
determination of benefits ensures the equitableness, simplicity, low cost for it only uses
comparison of the number of trees of the forest plot with the model.
- Forest supervision and management: The stable forest model is also the tool for forestry
agencies to supervise the management of the allocated forests. The satisfactory forest
management is that the minimum number of trees by diameters must be always equal to that
of the model of stable forest. To put it simpler, it is the supervision of number of trees by
diameters, which is convenient and understandable for both the supervisor and the villagers.
- Exploiting for use and rearing forests at different states of forests: According to the current
regulations, forest plots can only be exploited when they reach the standardized reserves.
This is a constraint because of the too long waiting time and the people find it difficult to
recognize the standards of exploitation forests. Meanwhile, if comparing the number of trees
by diameters of the present forest state with the model of stable forest, it is still possible to
fell certain number of trees at different diameters even in young and poor forests to satisfy
the diverse demand of communities, at the same time, it is possible to adjust the forest
structure step by step for higher yield.
- Awareness building for communities on forest management: When using the model of stable
forest to compare with the state of present forest plot, the community can have an

opportunity to enhance their knowledge about their forest plot, from which they could not
only define the quantity of trees that can be exploited but also discuss to find suitable
measures for forest management based on their available resources.

Method of building a model of stable forest
The model of stable forest is
built for each type of forest
(evergreen, dry open forest of
Dipterocarps, semi-deciduous
broad-leave forest, wood and
bamboo mixed forest, …
following the steps as illustrated
in Fig. 3:

Fi
g
. 3: Ste
p
s in establishin
g
stable forest model.
i) Defining managerial
objectives of forest plots: The
forest managerial objectives
decide the structure of the stable
forest model. Participatory
approach is used to assess the
need and learn about the
experience of communities in
order to set up managerial

objectives of different forest
plots. Normally, as for
community forest management,
the production objectives
(timber, firewood, non-timber

5
products) are linked to protection and other cultural and moral values.
Zd = -0.0049D
2
+ 0.1995D + 2.04
R
2
= 0.3521
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
5 1015202530354045
Cỡ kính (cm)
Zd 5 năm (cm)
ii) Defining the diameter so that forests remain stable within 5 years: The model of stable
forest N/D needs to have changes in diameters to ensure all the trees having small diameters shift
to bigger ones within a period of 5 years. Collecting the growth data of diameters by slantwise
slicing of trees (50 is enough) from different types of trees in a typical forest. Establish the
model of relation Zd/D to define Zd by D (An example of the Dipterocarp forest in the Central
Highlands is illustrated in Fig. 4). From this relation, replace any D

1.3
value inferring Zd, which
is the diameter at that D
1.3
value. So, if the sample model N/D following the changed interval
diameters, the present forest adjustment already ensures the forest stability in the next period.
However, in practice, if several different diameters are used in the stable forest model N/D, the
people will get confused when using them. To make it simpler, an average Dg can be defined
and put in the place of the averaged Zd in 5 years. This average growth value can be accepted to
define the size of diameter. For example: in the Dipterocarp forest of Dak Lak province, the
value of 3 cm is accepted as the size of
diameter in the stable forest model N/D.
R = 0.594
Fi
g
. 4: Model of relation Zd/5
y
ears b
y
D
1.
nô = 0.75g
3
- 8.3214g
2
+ 26.929g - 18
R
2
= 0.8283
0

2
4
6
8
10
12
13 18 23 28 33
Cấp g (m2/ha)
Số ô 400m2
Fig. 5: Model of distributing squares by level g/ha of Dipterocarp forests in
Dăk Lăk
Source: B
ảoHuy Hồ ViếtSắc
RDDL/GFA/GTZ 2006
3

(
Di
p
terocar
p
Dak Lak
)
iii) Defining the value of basic forest
capital to ensure stability: Stable forests
need to ensure a minimum capital in
order to recover and develop. Taking
the value of total horizontal section (G
(m
2

/ha) as the basis to define the basic
forest capital. Select local representing
forest stands that have stable structure
and are suitable with the objectives of
forest management, survey G/ha about
30 sample squares (400 - 1000m
2
),
establish the distributive relation
according to G level, from here define
the basic G which is the most commonly
concentrated value (mode). Fig. 5
introduces the relation of squares by G
and the defined G is 18m
2
/ha for
Dipterocarp forests in Dak Lak with the
objective of producing medium and
small timber. In reality, the basic G is
not the optimum G with the highest
productivity, because the community
forest management with quite poor
forest states; for this reason, the basic
G can only ensure forest stability, but it
can be gradually enhanced for higher
yield. Therefore, a suitable basic G can
be assigned depending on different forest state to establish a model of stable N/D within the
scope of that G.
iv) Building model of stable N/D: Having the form of decreasing distribution, with the total
G corresponding to the basic G and the size suitable with the diameter growth in 5 years. Collect

the data on stable forests with G about the basic G following the method of typical squares (15 –
20 sample squares 500 – 1000m
2
); simulate N/D (with the diameter of Zd 5 years) following a
suitable function, the Mayer function should be selected for its simplicity and popularity, then
adjust the N/D to obtain the already defined value G. This is the stable forest model for each
type of forest, and managerial objective. For example, as for the Dipterocarp forest in Dak Lak,

6
with its objective of producing medium and small timber, the stable N/D model has a diameter
size of 3 cm as defined through the 5 year Zd, the Mayer function is used to simulate the
reducing distribution of the number of stable trees and the basic G is 18m
2
/ha is applied to
establish the stable forest model within the diameter range of 30 cm as maximum (because the
managerial objective is medium and small timber; if the objective is big timber then the
maximum diameter can be 40, 50, 60cm). (Results are shown in Table 2). With various models
established with this method, the number of diameter sizes are quite many (7 – 12 diameter
sizes), which also creates complexity for communities in inventory as well as in comparison.
For this reason, after establishing the model, 2 - 3 contiguous diameter sizes can be combined to
make it simpler in the range of 4 to 5 diameter sizes.
Table 2: Calculation of the stable Dipterocarp forest model based on the managerial business
objective of medium and small timber
Average
diameter
size (cm)
Range of diameter
sizes (cm)
N/ha N/ha
Mayer

G m
2
/ha
Mayer
G m
2
/ha
stable
model
N/ha
stable
forest
10.5 9 - 11.9 174 207 1.79 2.23 257
13.5 12 - 14.9 219 148 2.12 2.64 185
16.5 15 - 17.9 113 106 2.28 2.83 132
19.5 18 - 20.9 106 76 2.28 2.84 95
22.5 21 - 23.9 40 55 2.18 2.71 68
25.5 24 - 26.9 26 39 2.01 2.50 49
28.5 27 - 29.9 17 28 1.80 2.24 35
31.5 30 - 32.9 31 20 1.58
34.5 33 - 35.9 9 15 1.36
37.5 36 - 38.9 9 10 1.15
40.5 39 - 41.9 10 8 0.97
43.5 42 - 44.9 8 5 0.80
Total 762 719 20.33 18.00 822
Source: Bảo Huy, Hồ Viết Sắc – RDDL/GFA/GTZ, 2006

257
185
132

95
68
49
35
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
9 - 11.9 12 - 14.9 15 - 17.9 18 - 20.9 21 - 23.9 24 - 26.9 >27
Cỡ kính (cm)
Số cây / ha

Model of stable Dipterocarp forest based on the objective of medium
and small timber
(Source: Bảo Huy, Hồ Viết Sắc – RDDL/GFA/GTZ, 2006)


Model of stable Dipterocarp forest
(Source: Philipps Roth (2005), RDDL Project, Daklak )

7

Model of semi-deciduous broad leave forest
(Source: Philipps Roth (2005), RDDL project Daklak )
Mô hình rừng ổn định cự ly cỡ kính 10cm
Rừng thường xanh, tỉnh Dăk Nông
1299

326
148
67
48
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
10 20 30 40 > 40
Cỡ kính tối đa (cự ly 10cm)
Số cây trên ha

Model of stable evergreen forest
(Source: Bảo Huy (2005). ETSP Dăk Nông)
Fig 6: Models of stable forests for different types of forests, managerial objectives



Applying the proposed mechanism to elaborate forest management plan and
defining the benefit right, benefit sharing among communities
Principles for planning and defining benefit right for communities managing forests:
- In order for community forest management can be done by communes and villages without
external financial support or from the government, the benefit right has to be clear, fair and
transparent toward the forest users, villages and communes.
- Community forest management is considered as “subsistence forestry” (being carried out in
the poorest uplands of the country), the income generated from selling timber of the

community forests can be used for common interests and compensate for various
communities of this region.
Số cây của lô
rừng trên Ao
Số cây của mô hình
trên giấy kính trong


Fig. 7: Column diagram supports the people to compare the
number of trees of the forest plot with the stable forest model to
discuss exploitation, forest regeneration,
- Basing on the growth data of the forest trees in 5 years to calculate the part that communities
should benefit in each stage of the 5 year CFM plan. Compare the actual number of trees of
each forest plot with the stable forest model, the surpassed trees are the grown ones by
diameters in 5 years; these are the trees
that the communities can exploit and
benefit. It means the use of the stable
forest as control to define the growth and
benefit-right-defining index simplified by
the number of trees by diameters. A 5-
year periodic inventory to define the
growth quantity of trees which are the
ones the communities can cut to collect
benefit.
- Basing on the forest capital to be kept in
term of number of trees, the communities
have the right to fell at any time they feel
appropriate with labour and market.
- In the first 5 years when comparing the
actual number of trees with the stable

forest, the communities can cut down the
surpassed trees compared to those of the
stable forest model. Though these trees
are not the forest growth they can be
considered the advance part. Five years

8
later, when comparing again, they will enjoy the grown part with the number of trees
surpassed by each diameter size.

In order to apply the discussing mechanism and method, the following steps need to be carried
out:

i) Establishing stable forest models for different types of forests, managerial objectives:
The stable forest models presented above had been experimented in the provinces of Hòa Bình,
Thừa Thiên Huế, Dak Lak, Dăk Nông and Gia Lai but still in the initial steps and need to be
adjusted and approved in the future. In the National workshop on Community Forest
Management in 2004, the approved setting up of stable forest models for 7 bio-agricultural areas
was an important achievement for the community forest management in the near future. There
are two proposed options for the establishment of stable forest models: i) Under the
management, establishment and guidance of the national level based on which the localities
apply; ii) Establish, instruct the method and provide to various province forestry agencies,
districts to develop themselves for their own localities.
ii) Participatory forest inventory in a period of 5 years and defining timber providing
capacity of various forest plots: The simple, low-cost and easily accessible method is the
systematic sample squares in the form of strips of small size 10x30m, in which species,
diameters are defined by coloured tapes; the sample rate taken is about 1% of the area. From
here they people can total up the trees by diameter for each forest plot and compare with the
stable forest model and determine the timber, firewood providing capacity within 5 years. Basing
on this comparison, the communities will discuss silvicultural solutions applicable for the forest

plot. As for the surpassed trees at different diameter sizes they can be cut for use or for sale; as
for the forest plots that are still short of trees at different diameter sizes, the solution of rearing,
protecting and additional planting for forest enrichment is necessary. However, this depends on
the resources of the communities and needs to be defined and approved by the latter for
implementation.

0
50
10 0
15 0
200
250
300
Cỡ kí nh ( cm)
Số cây có thể chặt / ha
34 11 49
N/ha rừng ổn định
2571851329568 4935
9 - 11.9 12 - 14.9 15 - 17.9 18 - 20.9 21 - 23.9
24 -
26.9
>2 7
So sánh số cây của lô rừng với mô hình rừng ổn định
Lô Đăng Ta RLăng, diện tích 41 ha - Buôn Bu Nơr, X. Dak R'Tih, H. Dăk RLắp,
T. Dăk Nông
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000

10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
Cấp kính (cm)
Số cây/lô
Số cây rừng ổn định
13,366 6,060 2,748 1,964
Số cây của lô rừng
18,382 7,004 6,552 1,638
10 - 20 cm 20 - 30 cm 30 - 40 cm > 40 cm

Fig 8: Comparison of trees by diameter sizes of forest plots with the stable forest model


iii) Elaborating 5-year and annual CFM plans: Comprising the definition of a
community’s demand for forest products within 5 years, balancing this demand with the
capacity of various forest plots to define different solutions such as selective felling for
use or for sale; enriching, regenerating forests, management of non-timber products, fire
prevention, forest protection A 5-year plan is prepared for each forest plot, including:
Silvicultural solution, quantity, location, time, responsible people. From this divide it to
have annual plans.

9
iv) Implementing and supervising the plan: The implementation of the plan and the
supervision of the impact on forests need to go through a simple silvicultural guidance.
However, the difference between the traditional silviculture technique and that applied
for community forests should be noted. The silvicultural technique used in community

forest management directs toward exploitation of forest products with low column in
order to satisfy the permanent and long-term demand (some for commercial purpose) of
the community; handicraft exploitation tools are suitable with the resources of the
community. Therefore, the forest exploitation in community forest management is also
called “low impact exploitation".
Table 3: The difference between traditional silvicultural technique and community forest
management
Comparative norm

Traditional forestry Community forestry
Volume of timber
exploited per time
Big (Based on the economic effect of
exploitation)
Small (Mainly for the demand of households and some for
commercial purpose)
Silvicultural solutions
applied
Selective exploitation with high intensity
per time (Exploiting all the grown volume of
more than 20 – 30 years of forests)
Selective cutting based on diameter sizes, species, with
small volume (Based on stable forest model in 5 years,
selection criteria for trees to be cut, to be left untouched)
Frequency, alternation
of exploitation
Not permanent ("Cut" and "Wait"), over 20
– 30 years
On a yearly basis at different locations and return to
exploit in an alternation of 5 years.

Technology used
Chain of exploitation, export, transport
mainly by mechanical machines.
Use simple local tools; export mainly by animal draft, or by
hands.
Environmental impact
Great impact on soil, regenerated trees
and other forest trees as a result of
machinery and big exploited volume.
Impact of exploitation on soil, on plant regeneration, and
forests is low because of the use of simple tools with low
cutting intensity.
The demand for forest
rearing after
exploitation
Very high (Because of great impact on
forest resources)
Low (But depends on the techniques of selecting and
felling trees)

v) Benefit right and benefit sharing from forests in communities
Benefit right in community forest management
Based on the stable forest model, define the number of trees to be exploited sustainably in 5
years and divided annually. Only exploit for use forest plots having the surpassed trees in
diameter sizes. It is the firewood interests of the communities.

Fig. 9: Interests and benefit sharing from timber for domestic
demand
The benefit sharing part of the communities is divided into 2 types: i) Forest exploitation for use
in households, communities and ii)

Forest exploitation for commercial
purposes.
The direction of benefit division has
been discussed with various technical
staff, forestry management and
allocated communities in many
localities throughout the country,
resulted in an agreed option as follow:
Benefit sharing mechanism from timber
for domestic demand toward forests
allocated to communities
Based on the trees allowed to exploit
per year, the village self-govern board,
and CFM board will organize village
meeting to decide:

10
- Select the households that are permitted to exploit timber annually for household use
(housing, breeding facilities, fences )
- The permitted households may have to pay part of the fees to the village, as agreed upon in
the village convention on forest protection and development. This money will be deposited
in the village funds for expenses in forest management.


- In addition, the permitted trees
in excess (if any) can be sold
after balancing the demand in
the village to put into village
fund to serve forest
management.

Benefit sharing mechanism
from timber for commercial
purposes toward forests
allocated to communities
The annually exploited trees
can be sold to market and the
benefit sharing is calculated as
follow:
Fig. 10: Interests and benefit sharing from timber for commercial purposes
- Pay natural resources tax
about 15% (the actual amount
will be based on timber
category and current
regulations). This tax can be
regulated back to the village for developmental investment in poor forests, barren lands.
- 10% is distributed back to the commune PCs for managerial expenses of forests and
allowances for the commune foresters’ board.
- The remaining 75% is the interests of the communities managing and protecting forests.
This part will be divided for the village forest management board, for the village forest
development fund, and for households participating in forest management and protection.
The division is based on the agreed and approved village convention on forest protection and
development.

The above addressed the benefit right and way of dividing benefits from timber, firewood for
communities managing natural forests; in addition, the allocated communities also benefit from
non-timber products and preferential policies on aforestation on forestry barren lands,
enrichment of young, impoverished forests.


Conclusion

In the reality of post-forest/forestland allocation, we do not have enough concrete guidance in
connection with mechanism, policies, organization and techniques for implementing community
forest management. The challenging issue here covers the post-allocation sustainable forest
management, how the poor people in the uplands could benefit from forests and its contribution
to long-term livelihood of the communities managing forests? The management of the use and
business of natural forests differ completely from the use of agricultural lands: As for
agricultural lands, the harvest time is shorter, the farming techniques are quite popular, the
farmers can sell their products immediately to the market and have quick income; while forest
products are not only products but also other environmental, cultural and social values.
Therefore, their use has to be considered harmoniously, and dealing in forest business requires
very long time to harvest, while the silvicultural techniques are still quite strange for the farmers

11
(the tradition and experience of the community focuses on upland farming, management of
village forest borderline, collection from forests), especially forest products are delicate issue
which requires legal confirmation before they are circulated or purchased. This explains why the
people do not benefit much from forests after allocation, forests has not yet become an economic
component in the uplands, and because of this, it requires suitable mechanism, policies,
approaches, appropriate technical support in order to make the community management a benefit
for the local farmers and the forests managed sustainably.

The discussed and proposed solution for planning and establishing benefit sharing mechanism
toward community forest management is in the direction of creating the conformity with both
parties: the forest managing community and the state forest managing agency; the benefit right
needs to be transparent, clear and simple for application and can be assessed and supervised.
Specifically as under:

As for the communities, people (especially the ethnic minorities):
- The benefit sharing mechanism based on the confirmed growth ensures the fairness,
transparency; also the approach of comparing the trees by diameter sizes of each forest plot

with the stable forest model simplifies the assessment of forest growth to define the benefit
right; the people only need to measure and count the number of trees by colour diameter
sizes, which are about 3 to 5 levels so that the communities and assess their forests easily.
From there, they can discuss about the silvicultural solution of the forest plot they are
managing, plan and define number of trees exploitable annually and in 5 years. Besides,
such simple approach still ensures the scientific basis of silviculture in sustainable forest
management.
- This approach also brings the people the initiative in planning and implementing regular
forest management and collecting interests, diverse products from different states of forests,
at the same time, still maintain the forest stability; if the current process is followed the
communities in the uplands are difficult to approach to organize forest management for the
alternation period is too long, huge exploitation intensity that goes beyond the investment
capacity of the communities, and does not meet their permanent demand for forest products
and immediate income.
- This method, through experiment in many localities across the country, proclaims low lost,
simple and suitable with the capacity of the ethnic minority communities in the uplands.
Through its implementation, the communities can participate in assessing forests and
elaborate their long term forest management plans. The assessment of forests only needs to
be done every 5 years, based on which the communities elaborate their annual plans for
organizing protection, development and enjoy benefits from forests.

As for state forestry managing agencies, this solution is also convenient in the joint
supervision of forest resources with the people after allocation; using the stable forest model
with trees ranging from 3-5 different sizes in diameter for supervision, a good forest plot is the
one that always maintains the trees having the diameter sizes not lower than the requirement of
the model; or in case of young or impoverished forest plots, the model would help orientate
necessary silvicultural solutions and technical support for the communities in order to bring the
forests to long-term stability and profitability. Simultaneously, national interests would also be
obtained, that is the protection of forests for environmental, biological, protective, cultural and
social purposes.

Recommendations
In order to carry out the proposed benefit sharing mechanism, the following solutions are
needed:

12
- Recognize the stable forest model as a simple technical solution applicable in community
forest management. The model needs to be established by professional agencies, schools,
research institutes and must be approved by authorities as basis for application.
- Put forward a benefit sharing policy for community forest management based on the grown
trees when comparing them to those of the stable forest model.
- It is necessary to have guidance on suitable forestry administrative procedures toward
community forest management, because the traditional procedures are very complicated with
several steps, lots of approvals of many agencies such as exploitation designing, marking
standing trees, issuing exploitation license, hammering lying trees, selling firewood and
permits for circulation of forest products…. which are very difficult for the communities to
approach. That means they cannot organize any forest using activity. We recommend
decentralization of management down to district, commune levels and streamline of
procedures, using community-based forest supervision and exploitation.
- It is necessary to develop simple silvicultural techniques and organize training so that the
involved communities can implement their annual forest management plan.
- It is necessary to train forestry extensionists in technologies, participatory approach in CFM
planning and to provide support for implementation, especially focusing on the
communicative attitude in order to really support the communities in seeking for effective
solutions for forest management.
- From the products exploited from forests, to develop rural livelihood, it is necessary to have
plans for preliminary treatment/processing developed locally in order to rise up the added
value of goods, thus creating more jobs and linking to a stable market.

********************

References
1. Bảo Huy (2005): Building a forest & forestland management model based on the ethnic
minority communities Jrai and Bahnar of Gia Lai province. Department of Science and
Technology, PPC Gia Lai province.
2. Bảo Huy (2005): Technical guidelines for community forest management, Simple
silvicultural techniques. ETSP/Helvetas, MARD.
3. Chandra Bahadur Rai and other (2000): Simple participatory forest inventory and data
analysis – Guidelines for the preparation of the forest management plan. Nepal Swiss
Community Forestry Project.
4. GFA, GTZ (2002): Community Forest Management. Social Forestry Development
Project, MARD.
5. RDDL (2006): Workshop document on benefit sharing mechanism in community forest
management in Dak Lak province.


13