Báo cáo khoa học nông nghiệp " Sustainable community-based forest development and management in some high poverty areas in Bac Kan Province - MILESTONE 3 " potx

Filename: CARD-CFM, Milestone 3, Output 1, Baseline Survey, FINAL VERSION, 6 August 07.doc



Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development

Project Report

MILESTONE 3, OUTPUT 1

THE BASELINE SURVEY



Sustainable community-based forest development and management
in some high poverty areas in Bac Kan Province

Project No: 017/06 VIE



Report prepared by
Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry
Department of Forest Protection in Bac Kan Province
and
Ensis – the Joint Forces of CSIRO and SCION

6 August 2007

2

CONTENTS


1. INTRODUCTION

2. THE REQUIRED OUTPUTS AS IN THE TABLE OF MILESTONES AND
OUTPUTS

3. PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BASELINE SURVEY
3.1 Terms of Reference
3.2 Training
3.3 Implementation
3.4 Data Processing
3.5 Draft Reports

4. ANALYSIS OF DATA IN RELATION TO THE REQUIRED OUTPUTS

5. PROJECT RISK ASSESSMENT

6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS



ATTACHMENTS

1. The Terms of Reference for the Surveyors
2. The Survey Report
3. The Detailed Risk Assessment

3

1. INTRODUCTION

The substantive part of the Baseline Report will be found in Attachment 2, which is the full
(Second Draft) Report of the Baseline Survey. This Attachment should be read in conjunction
with Attachment 1 (The Terms of Reference for the Surveyors).

The following notes will amplify some aspects of the Report. In addition, the Project Table of
Milestones and Outputs requires that the Project Risks should be assessed and a Risk
Management Strategy detailed. These are presented in Section 5 below and Attachment 3.


2. THE REQUIRED OUTPUTS AS IN THE TABLE OF MILESTONES AND
OUTPUTS

The Baseline Survey is required to obtain quantitative and qualitative measures to include data
from four pilot villages including, but not limited to:

• Information on knowledge, skills attitudes and practices including areas bio-diversity,
management practices, ownership and access status

• Attitudes and practices of local authorities to allocation of land for Community
Forestry Management (as distinct from household allocation) and areas of forest land
not yet allocated

• Socio-economic and environmental issues identified and opportunities for project
interventions to provide economic, social and environmental benefits detailed

This information and analysis is presented in Section 4 below, and in Attachment 2.

In addition, the Report for Milestone 3, Output 1, is required to present an Assessment of Project
Risks and Risk Management Strategies.


3. PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BASELINE SURVEY

3.1 Terms of Reference

The Terms of Reference for the Baseline Survey were prepared by Thai Nguyen University of
Agriculture and Forestry, and are presented in Attachment 1.

The Objectives of the Baseline Survey were:

1. To assess basic information relating to socio-economic status, community forest
management status, community forestry quality, experiences of local communities on
forest management and potential livelihood interventions of target villages.

2. To develop the indicators that can be used to monitor the progress and impacts of the
project interventions.

The Baseline Survey Questionnaire was prepared by Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and
Forestry, and is to be found as Appendix 1 to Attachment 2.


4

3.2 Training

The Survey Team included four staff members from Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and
Forestry and four from the Department of Forest Protection in Bac Kan Province. Before
proceeding to the field, the Survey Team discussed and modified several successive versions of
the questionnaire, and tested each other in pairs in “play acting” as if one person was the
surveyor and the other the respondent. The final version of the Questionnaire is included as
Appendix 1 to Attachment 2.

The participatory tools used included:
• In-depth discussions with key stakeholders;
• Focus group discussions;
• Cause-and-effect diagrams;
• Venn diagrams; and
• Semi-structured interviews with group members and leaders

3.3 Implementation

The Baseline Survey collected and assessed information from a variety of sources, including: (i)
project participants; (ii) field observations; (iii) project documents and other records, including
secondary data; and (iv) counterparts and other local stakeholders.

Field work to implement the Baseline Survey was undertaken in early April 2007, with several
follow-up visits to check on various matters.

In addition to the four project villages (Na Muc, Khuoi Lieng, To Dooc and Ban Sang), two
more non-target villages (Na Ngoa and Khau La) were selected for study under the Baseline
Survey as control villages for monitoring and evaluation during project implementation.

People within 146 households in six villages were selected for interview. There were 80
households in Van Minh Commune and 66 households in Lang San Commune. Both men and

women, representing the very poor, poor, medium, good and rich households, participated in the
survey (Table 1).

Table 1. Selected villages and households for basic evaluation

Commune Villages Number of interviewees %
Na Ngoa (control) 18 12.3
Na Muc 25 17.1
Van Minh
Khuoi Lieng 37 25.3
Ban Sang 37 25.3
Tu ðoc 18 12.3
Lang San
Khau La (control) 11 7.5
Household economic ranking
No information 11 7.5
Rich 1 0.7
Above average 17 11.6
Average 41 28.1
Poor 68 46.6

Very poor 8 5.5
Total 146


5

Forty four women participated in the Baseline Survey, representing 35.5% of total respondents.

3.4 Data Processing

The voluminous information from 146 questionnaires and other information was compiled into a
comprehensive database. The information was filtered for outliers and then analyzed using
standard social science statistical packages, including the SAS 8.1 software program.

3.5 Draft Reports

The First Draft of the Baseline Report was prepared in April, with some subsequent delays due
to translation problems. A Second Draft, to correct some inconsistencies in the presentations,
was prepared in July and is included here as Attachment 2.


4. ANALYSIS OF DATA IN RELATION TO THE REQUIRED OUTPUTS

The main parts of the Report (Attachment 2) present voluminous data in Sections 4 and 5, and
discuss:
• Section 4.1: The background to the project area;
• Section 4.2: Basic information about households (population and ethnic minority
groups, ethnic minority structure of the respondents, educational backgrounds and
household wealth rankings)
• Section 4.3: Income generation activities (livelihood activities)
• Section 4.4: Forest production (forest areas of households, the difficulties of forest
production, the solutions to overcome difficulties for forest production, people’s
awareness of the politics of forest management and protection and the actualities of
forest use)
• Section 5.1: Household expenditure in 2006
• Section 5.2: General information on income and land ownership

All this information addresses, in various Sections of the Baseline Report, the required topics:

• Information on knowledge, skills attitudes and practices including area biodiversity,
management practices, ownership and access status

• Attitudes and practices of local authorities to allocation of land for Community
Forestry Management (as distinct from household allocation) and areas of forest land
not yet allocated

• Socio-economic and environmental issues identified and opportunities for project
interventions to provide economic, social and environmental benefits detailed

The Baseline Survey employed a range of social survey methods, and a high respondent rate was
reported. Data was collected from six villages, using two (non-project) villages as controls.
Forty four women, or about 35% of respondents, were women. All ethnic groups participated.
The Baseline Report provides a great deal of useful quantitative and qualitative data about most
aspects of village life, and confirms the predominant poverty (poor and very poor) of about 60%
of the villagers, although no household is completely landless. There are virtually no “rich”
villagers. Considerable information was collected about crop production and its difficulties,
animal production and its difficulties, household incomes and expenditures, and possible
methods for improvement of crop and animal production.

6


The areas of household forests are of interest. There about 800 ha of household forests in the six
villages, with average areas per household divided among household divided among good,
medium, poor and very poor wealth categories as 4.4 ha, 2.4 ha, 1.8 ha and 2.3 ha respectively.
Many requirements for overcoming problems with forest protection were stated by respondents:
the main ones being “more capital”, “increased afforestation” and “better forest protection”.
“Boundary definition and demarcation” is a problem. Most respondents stated that they are
aware of village and Government regulations on forest use, and of course most stated that they

have not been violating those regulations. Judging from recent village-based discussions and
from the expressed wishes of villagers to allocate a very high proportion of their (soon to be)
Community Forestry land to “protection forest”, there is a very high awareness of the importance
of well protected forests to maintain the quantity, quality and reliability of both potable and
irrigation water. Villagers will be prepared to develop and enforce their own regulations on the
protection and use of the Community Forests.

The only problems with the Baseline Survey are in the high proportion of respondents who were
not able to give possible solutions to the expressed problems. This was no doubt partly due to
the pressures put upon them to provide immediate answers during the limited time for
administration of the questionnaire – these are important problems and the answers cannot be
extracted under pressure but need to be evolved during village discussions. Secondly, some of
the “no answers” were in fact indicating “not my concern”. This misconception has been
corrected in the Second Draft of the Baseline Report. (Attachment 2). However, the phrase “not
my concern” should be interpreted with care, remembering the difficulties villagers have in
thinking far ahead – they are primarily concerned with their day to day problems rather than the
long term problems and solutions and need time to focus on such problems.


5. PROJECT RISK ASSESSMENT

During the Inception Meeting a Vietnamese translation of a detailed Risk Analysis, originally
prepared by Dr P.R. Stevens, was discussed by all participants. Some adjustments to the main
Risk Items, the Ratings for “Likelihood of Occurrence” and the “Severity of Impact on Project
Success if the Risk does Occur” and the Combined Ratings were made. For those Risk Items
with Combined Ratings of 10 or above (and some other items), some actions to be taken by
nominated stakeholders to mitigate and/or manage the risk, if necessary, and timing of action,
were described.

The Detailed Risk Analysis is presented as Attachment 3.

6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary Points

1. The Baseline Survey employed a range of social survey methods, and had a high
respondent rate among the six villages in two Communes which were the subject of the
Survey. Forty four women, or about 35% of respondents, were women and all ethnic
groups participated.

2. The Baseline Report provides a great deal of useful quantitative and qualitative data
about most aspects of village life, and confirms the predominant poverty (poor and very
poor) of about 60% of the villagers, although no household is completely landless. There
are virtually no “rich” villagers. Considerable information was collected about crop

7

production and its difficulties, animal production and its difficulties, household incomes
and expenditures, and possible methods for improvement of crop and animal production.

3. There about 800 hectares of household forests in the six villages, with average areas per
household divided among good, medium, poor and very poor wealth categories as 4.4 ha,
2.4 ha, 1.8 ha and 2.3 ha respectively. Many requirements for overcoming problems with
forest protection were stated by respondents: the main ones being “more capital”,
“increased afforestation” and “better forest protection”. “Boundary definition and
demarcation” is a problem.

4. Most respondents stated that they are aware of village and Government regulations on
forest use, and of course most stated that they have not been violating those regulations.

5. The villagers in the four project villages wish to allocate a high proportion of their (soon
to be) 560 hectares of Community Forestry land to “Protection Forest”, because there is
clear awareness of the importance of well protected forests to maintain the quantity,
quality and reliability of both drinking and irrigation water. They will certainly be
prepared to develop and enforce their own regulations on the protection and use of the
Community Forests, as they are well aware of the importance of the environmental and
amenity values of the forests.

6. The main sources of household income are from crop and animal production and, while
there are large areas of forest land (both household and Commune, and soon-to-be
Community), these are not currently producing much household income. Off-farm
activities currently contribute little household income.

7. Poor maintenance and operation of the village irrigation systems is the main constraint on
crop production, and should be improved.

8. A detailed Risk Analysis is presented. Mitigation of those Risk Items with Combined
Ratings of 10 or above (and some other items) is discussed, and some actions to be taken
by nominated stakeholders to mitigate and/or manage the risk, if necessary, and the
timing of action, were described.

Recommendations

1. Immediate support is needed (in terms of improved techniques, nurseries and seedling
production) for reforestation, agroforestry systems and enrichment of forests.

2. Villagers and other project partners should develop and implement effective methods of
forest protection in those areas of the Community Forests which are allocated to “Bao
ve” (forest protection).

3. Training on forest protection, Community Forest management and improved techniques
for forestry and agricultural production is needed.

4. The land allocation process – for the new Village Community Forestry areas – should be
completed as soon as possible so that villagers can then confidently proceed with their
programs for improved protection, management, reforestation and income-generating
activities.

5. Village irrigation systems, maintenance and operation need to be upgraded.

8

6. Actions should be taken at certain times by nominated stakeholders to mitigate and/or
manage various Project Risks, as set out in Attachment 3.




ATTACHMENTS

1. The Terms of Reference for the Surveyors

2. The Survey Report

3. The Detailed Risk Assessment


9

ATTACHMENT 1

CARD 017-06 VIE PROJECT

Terms of Reference
Survey Team for the Baseline Survey

1. Introduction

The CARD 017-06 VIE project aims to empower ethnic minority people in four pilot villages in
Van Minh and Lang San communes near Kim Hy Nature Reserve, Na Ri district of Bac Kan
Province of Vietnam to manage forest and forest land. This will be achieved through
strengthening the capacity of local and provincial government authorities in participatory forest
land use planning, land allocation and extension services as part of community based forest
management. It includes capacity building activities at community and government levels, and
provides technical and institutional support. The project will provide support to improve local
livelihoods of disadvantaged men and women, the majority of whom are ethnic minorities to
share equal access to forest land, better manage their resources and benefit from these resources.
Systems will be put in place to support the prevention of forest land degradation and support
forest development and conservation. The development of information systems, experiences and
training methods will be shared with other communes in the district and extended to other
relevant parts of the province and northern mountainous regions through stakeholders and other
information dissemination methods.

The project Goal is
Sustainable improvement in livelihood security of disadvantaged forest-dependent people
in northern mountainous areas, through empowerment of access to forest and forest land,
influence over forest land management, conservation of the natural resources and
development of relevant skills.

It is necessary to conduct the Baseline Survey in order to assess initial information relating to
socioeconomic status, community forest management status, experiences of local communities
on forest management, potential livelihood interventions that can be used to define the
interventions and monitoring of CARD project during project implementation.

2. Objectives

The objectives of the survey are:

1. To assess basic information relating to socioeconomic status, community forest
management status, community forest quality, experiences of local communities on forest
management and potential livelihood interventions of target villages
2. To develop the indicators that can be used to monitor the progress and impacts of the
project interventions.

3. Detailed Scope of Work

In order to achieve these objectives, the survey team should take into account but is not limited
to the following considerations:


10

1. To assess socioeconomic status of target communities (wealth ranking, main income
generations, percentage of income from forest, level of dependency on forest resources)
2. To define the potential livelihood activities that can improve livelihood of local
communities who are depending on forest resources.
3. To review the current community forest management status (local forest management
regulations, forest user groups, local policies, boundaries etc.)
4. To assess the quality of current community forest and allocated land forest (species,

biodiversity, yield, production, land cover etc.)
5. To review the experiences of local community on forest management
6. To identify the training needs of local communities and forest management agencies
7. To review the current forest management organization structure
8. Base on the logframe of the project to develop the indicators that reflect the progress and
impacts of the project

4. Methodologies and tasks

4.1 Methodology

The Baseline Survey will require information from a variety of resources including: (a) Project
participants; (b) Field observations; (c) Project documents and other records including secondary
data; and (d) counterparts and other local stakeholders.

This information should be gathered and reported using methods that provide accurate,
representative and appropriately detailed information. Conclusion and recommendations must
relate clearly and directly to the data and analysis presented in the body of survey report.

The survey report should include both quantitative and qualitative information. Emphasis should
be given to information gathered from field interview and observations. The choice of specific
field methods and sampling procedures will be determined by the Survey Team in conjunction
with the project management team of TUAF and Ensis.

The main tools of the assessments will be participatory tools, including such as:
• In-depth discussion with key stakeholders
• Focus group discussions
• Cause-and-effect diagrams
• Venn diagrams
• Semi-structured interviews with group members and leaders

• Field spotting surveys
• Case studies

4.2 Key tasks

1. The Survey Team will be responsible for the following sequence of tasks
2. Design the Team's working approach, including data gathering procedures, field
schedules and processes in conjunction with the project team.
3. Review all necessary project documents, including the project proposal and secondary
data.
4. Conduct interviews with project counterparts, district and provincial authorities and other
local partners.
5. Conduct field surveys in 4 target field survey and at least 2 other neighbouring villages
6. Draft report

11

7. Facilitating a debriefing workshop to validate finding and to get comments/input from
stakeholders.
8. Finalizing report.

5. Outputs and Format

5.1 Outputs

The following outputs are expected:

The consultant team is expected to deliver a draft Baseline Report with findings, conclusions and
recommendations covering the scope of work in section 3. During the final wrap-up meetings for
the survey with project team and the counterpart, the participants will provide the team

comments and recommendation on the draft report. The Survey Team will then make necessary
modifications prior to submitting the final report in both English and Vietnamese.

5.2 Format

The above reports will be submitted in hard copy as well as in computer diskette containing the
text and tables of the reports in Microsoft Word and other popular software like Microsoft Excel.

6. Survey Team

The Survey Team will consist of 4 members from TUAF, of which one member will act as team
leader. The Team members will have skills in conducting surveys, developing formats or
questionnaires and good capacity in analysing survey inputs. Members should have working
experience in community development, capacity building and forest management, and have to
work in a team including component staff. They can also advise component management board
in selecting more members for carrying out surveys in the field or other tasks as required

7. Preparation and Logistical Support

An information package comprising of the project document and other relevant project materials
will be forwarded to the Team members prior to the start of the assessment/evaluation. The team
members are expected to acquaint themselves with these materials before the evaluation. The
project will arrange local transportation and accommodation in province as required.

8. Schedule
The survey will cover about 40 days per team of 4 members during the period from 1-15 April
2007, including reporting.

12

ATTACHMENT 2


CARD 017-06 VIE PROJECT

The Baseline Survey Report
(Second Draft, 30 July 2007)


Australian Collaboration for Agriculture and Rural Development Program
Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry – Ensis





REPORT
ON

SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE SURVEY
NARI DISTRICT, BAC KAN PROVINCE, VIETNAM

July 2007


13

Table of Contents
Table of Contents 13

2. Objectives of survey 15

3. Methodology 15

3.1. Methodology 15
3.2. Target villages for the survey 16
3.3. Survey team 16
3.4. Data analysis 17
4. Results and discussions 17

4.1. Background of project area 17
4.2. Basic information of households 17
4.2.1. Population and ethnic minority groups 17
4.2.2. Ethnic minority structure of the interviewees 18
4.2.3. Education background of local communities 18
4.2.4. Households wealth ranking in the target villages 18
4.3. Income generation activities 19

4.3.1. Livelihood activities 19
4.4. Actual state of forest production 33
4.4.1. Forest area of households 33
4.4.2. Difficulties of forest production 34
4.4.3. Solutions to overcome difficulties for forest production 35
4.4.4. People’s awareness about policies of forest management and protection 36
4.4.5. Actuality of forest using 36
5. Household expenditure and income in 2006 38

5.1. Household expenditure in 2006 38
5.3. General information on income and land ownership of interviewed households 42
6. Appendices 44

Appendix 1: Questionaire for interview 44


14

List of Tables

Table 1. Selected villages and households for basic evaluation 16
Table 2. Ethnic minority groups interviewed during the survey 18
Table 3. Education background of interviwees in the local communities 18
Table 4. Households wealth ranking for the target villages in 2006 by ethnic groups 19
Table 5. Household information on crop production in 2006 21
Table 6. Household information on income composition from crop production in 2006 23
Table 7. Main difficulties in some main crops production (two of the most difficulties) 25
Table 8. Solutions for agricultural improvement 26
Table 9. Household information on animal husbandry in 2006 27
Table 10. Difficulties in animal husbandry (the most difficulties) 29

Table 11. Solutions for increasing animal production in the project area 29
Table 12. Household income source from off farm activities in 2006 31
Table 13. Solutions of income improvement for non-agriculture activities 33
Table 14. Interviewed household information on forest land and forest production in 2006 34
Table 15. Difficulties for forest production 35
Table 16. Solutions to overcome difficulties for forest production 35
Table 17. Activities for protecting, managing and developing forest 37
Table 18. Household expenditure composition in 2006 38
Table 19. Household income generation sources in 2006 40
Table 20. Household other general socio-economic information in 2006 42

15

1. Introduction

The CARD 017-06 VIE project aims to empower ethnic minority people in four pilot villages in
Van Minh and Lang San communes in Kim Hy Nature Reserve, Na Ri district of Bac Kan
Province of Vietnam to manage forest and forest land. This will be achieved through
strengthening the capacity of local and provincial government authorities in participatory forest
land use planning, land allocation and extension services as part of community based forest
management. It includes capacity building activities at community and government levels, and
provides technical and institutional support. The project will provide support to improve local
livelihood of disadvantaged men and women, the majority of whom are ethnic minorities to
share equal access to forest land, better manage their resources and benefit from these resources.
Systems will be put in place to support the prevention of forest land degradation and support
forest development and conservation. The development of information systems, experiences and
training methods will be shared with other communes in the district and extended to other
relevant parts of the province and northern mountainous regions through stakeholders and other
information dissemination methods.

The project Goal is
Sustainable improvement in livelihood security of disadvantaged forest-dependent people
in northern mountainous areas, through empowerment of access to forest and forest land,
influence over forest land management, conservation of the natural resources and
development of relevant skills.

To identify the appropriate interventions, implementation strategies as well as monitoring system
of CARD project, it is necessary to conduct the baseline survey which provides initial
information relating to socioeconomic status, community forest management status, experiences
of local communities on forest management, potential livelihood interventions.
2. Objectives of survey
The objectives of the survey are followings:
3. To assess basic information relating to socio-economic status, community forest
management status, community forest quality, experiences of local communities on forest
management and potential livelihood interventions of target villages
4. To develop the indicators that can be used to monitor the progress and impacts of the
project interventions.
3. Methodology
3.1. Methodology

The survey was conducted to collect the information from a variety of resources including: (a)
Project participants; (b) Field observations; (c) Project documents and other records including
secondary data; and (d) counterparts and other local stakeholders.

This information was gathered and reported using a statistic method that provide accurate,
representative and appropriately detailed information. Conclusion and recommendations was
developed based on the data and analysis presented in the body of survey report.

The survey report presents both quantitative and qualitative information. Emphasis is given to
information gathered from field interview and observations. The choice of specific field methods

16

and sampling procedures was determined by the team in conjunction with the project
management team of TUAF and ENSIS.

The participatory tools were used as main tools for the assessments including:
• In-depth discussion with key stakeholders;
• Focus group discussions;
• Cause-and-effect diagrams;
• Venn diagrams;
• Semi-structured interviews with group members and leaders; and
• Field spotting surveys

3.2. Target villages for the survey

Beside 4 villages belong to the project area (Na Muc, Khuoi Lieng, To Dooc and Ban Sang) 2
more non-project villages (Na Ngoa and Khau La) were selected for the target villages of the
survey as control villages during project implementation for monitoring and evaluation.

Samples of 146 households in 6 villages were selected to interview in the survey. Of which there
were 80 households in Van Minh commune and 66 households in Lang San commune. Both men
and women, representing for very poor, poor, medium, good and rich households in 6 villages of
2 communes were participated in the survey (Table 01).
Table 1. Selected villages and households for basic evaluation
Commune Villages Number of interviewees %
Na Ngoa (control) 18 12.3
Na Muc 25 17.1
Van Minh
Khuoi Lieng 37 25.3

Ban Sang 37 25.3
Tu ðoc 18 12.3
Lang San
Khau La (control) 11 7.5
Household economic ranking
No information 11 7.5
Rich 1 0.7
Above average 17 11.6
Average 41 28.1
Poor 68 46.6

Very poor 8 5.5
Total 146

There were 44 women participating in the survey accounting for 35.5 percent of total
interviewees. During the survey, some interviewees even did not know or remember their
household economic ranking in year 2006. The reason is that they were not household-
headed or they did not a person of their household participating in household economic
ranking.
3.3. Survey Team

The Survey Team included:
1. Nguyen The Hung, Baseline analysis expert
2. Ho Ngoc Son, Forestry specialist
3. Nguyen Hoang Son, Forestry specialist

17

4. Nguyen ðac Binh Minh, GIS specialist
5. Ha Xuan Linh, Livelihood specialist

6. Ha Van Thuan, Land Management specialist
7. Nguyen Van Nghĩa, Environment conservation specialist

3.4. Data analysis

A comprehensive database was built from information on the 146 questionaires. The data was
then filtered for outliers and analyzed using the SAS 8.1 software program.
4. Results and discussions
4.1. Background of project area

Van Minh and Lang San are among the poorest communes in Na Ri district, Bac Kan province.
These communes are far from district center about 20 to 40 km. Because of high and complex
topography, local people are facing many difficulties in transportation.

The main incomes of local communities come from agricultural activities including: upland
cultivation, lowland cultivation, gardening, animal husbandry and forest products. In which
income from lowland production is the most important source for local people. However, local
people are facing some constraints such as shortage of water at the beginning of the spring crop
every year, and frequent flood from May to August. That is why planting time is usually later
than the crop calendar requires. Those reasons led to low productivity, and unstable crop yield.
In 2006, Van Minh commune consists of 163 households that belong to the poor and very poor
level
1
. That accounts for 61.97% of poverty household rate in Van Minh. Similarly, Lang San
commune has 212 households ranked as very poor and poor level, that accounts for 56.23% of
poverty household rate in Lang San.

Most of land area in two communes is forest land. According to the statistical data in two
communes in 2006, the total area of land in Lang San is 3487.7 hectares, of which forest land is
2317.83 hectares, accounting for 66.46 percent of natural land area. The total area of land in Van

Minh is 3808.61 hectares, in which forest land is 2993.56 hectares, accounting for 78,60.46
percent of total land area. It indicates that natural forest resources play an important role in
household’s income as well as community. However, currently, exploited products from forest
are mostly used for daily household’s consumption only.

4.2. Basic information of households
4.2.1. Population and ethnic minority groups

Due to the complexity of the topography in the project area and the traditional cultivation
systems of ethnic minority groups, the resident areas of the local communities are very scattered
along the pathway, water resources or arable land areas. Some villages are too far from
commune center like Ban Sang village, therefore it is very difficult for local people in accessing
to various public services in the project area like agriculture and forestry extension services.

The population in the target villages is small as other typical size of villages in northern
mountainous region of Vietnam. The largest village has just 65 households (Ban Sang), and the


1
Based on the Poverty line of MOLISA 2005

18

smallest village has 22 households. Tay and Nung are considered as dominant ethnic minority
groups in the project area.
4.2.2. Ethnic minority structure of the interviewees

Ethnic minority structure of the interviewees shows in Table 02. The survey was conducted with
the participation of representatives of various ethnic minority groups living in the project area.
The biggest population interviewed is Tay (60.3%), and then Nung (26.0%).

Table 2. Ethnic minority groups interviewed during the survey
Commune Unit Kinh Tay Dao Nung Total
Van Minh Person 8 60 8 4 80
% 10.0 75.0 10.0 5.0 100.0
Lang San Person 1 28 3 34 66
% 1.5 42.4 4.5 51.5 100.0
Total Person 9 88 11 38 146.0
% 6.2 60.3 7.5 26.0 100.0

4.2.3. Education background of local communities
The data shows that the educational background of the local people is reasonably low and it
varies from village to village (Table 03). Most local people finished secondary school (34.2%),
however only 15.1% of population completed high school. A large proportion of population just
completed primary school (30.1%). The low background education of the local communities in
the project area is considered as a constraint that can hamper the application new technologies of
the communities.
Table 3. Education background of interviewees in the local communities
Education level
Primary school
Secondary
school
High school Others
Villages Total
Num Rate (%) Num

Rate
(%)
Num

Rate

(%)
Num
Rate
(%)
Na Ngoa 18 4 22.2 8 44.4 5 27.8 1 5.6
Na Muc 25 4 16.0 6 24.0 3 12.0 12 48.0
Khuoi Lieng 37 15 40.5 13 35.1 6 16.2 3 8.1
Ban Sang 37 9 24.3 11 29.7 6 16.2 11 29.7
Tu Doc 18 7 38.9 8 44.4 0 0.0 3 16.7
Khau La 11 5 45.5 4 36.4 2 18.2 0 0.0
Total & Aver. 146 44 30.1 50 34.2 22 15.1 30 20.5

4.2.4. Households wealth ranking in the target villages

Household wealth ranking was based on official criteria of MOLISA (Ministry of Labour,
Invalid and Social Affairs) of Vietnam Government
2
. Annual household’s incomes in 2005 and
2006 are used as basic indicators for household wealth ranking. Results of household wealth
ranking in 6 target villages are presented in Table 04 for 2006. The selected households for


2
Poor: Income/capita/month < 200.000 VND/month (12.5 USD/month)

19

interview considered the wealth ranking in 2006. Table 04 indicates that the households with
wealth ranking of the average and poor occupied 28.1 and 46.6%, respectively and the poverty
rate in the target villages is little bit lower than the average poverty rate of the communes.

Table 4. Household wealth ranking for the target villages in 2006 by ethnic groups
Household wealth ranking in 2006
Ethnic
groups Unit
No
information

Rich
Above
average
Average Poor
Very
poor
Total
Kinh Person 4 0 2 3 0 0 9
% 44.4 0.0 22.2 33.3 0.0 0.0 100
Tay Person 7 1 11 24 42 3 88
% 8.0 1.1 12.5 27.3 47.7 3.4 100
Dao Person 0 0 3 0 6 2 11
% 0.0 0.0 27.3 0.0 54.5 18.2 100
Nung Person 0 0 1 14 20 3 38
% 0.0 0.0 2.6 36.8 52.6 7.9 100
Total Person 11 1 17 41 68 8 146
% 7.5 0.7 11.6 28.1 46.6 5.5 100.0

Table 06 also indicates that the poor and very poor were mainly ethnic minority groups (Tay,
Dao, Nung). Therefore, intervention for economic development should be targeted to the ethnic
minority groups.

4.3. Income generation activities

Because of the difficult conditions in remote mountainous regions without industries, most
household incomes rely on agricultural activities and forest resources such as cropping, animal
husbandry and forest products.
4.3.1. Livelihood activities
4.3.1.1. Crop production
* Current status of agriculture land and crop yield
Cropping activities are the main income source for people in all villages. However, crop yields
and output are low because of appearance of some natural calamity (Table 05). It is indicated
that spring rice, summer rice and corn were three main crops and income sources in crop
production of the communities. There are average areas of 1165, 1906, 2348 m
2
/household for
spring rice, summer rice and corn, respectively. These are larger areas compared to land for
households in lowland areas of Vietnam, therefore, improvement of crop productivity will
increase income sources and at the same time reduce exploitation and deforestation of the local
community forests. The other crops such as sweet potatoes and groundnuts had a small area of
303 and 126 m
2
/household but the local community suggested in discussions that these crop area
may be extended on bare upland and rice-based mono-cropping system if new and high-yielding
varieties suitable with local conditions were available.

Data analysis for different groups (commune, village, wealth ranking) shows that Khuoi Lieng
and Khau la had smaller agricultural land areas per household among villages. Similarly, Dao
ethnic group and the very poor usually had smaller agriculture land area compared to other
groups of ethnic and wealth ranking, respectively.


20

* Composition of main income sources from crop production
Table 06 indicates Khuoi Lieng and Khau La (among villages), Dao ethnic group (among four
ethnic groups) and the very poor households have insufficient income from agricultural activities
for living.

* Main difficulties in agriculture production
In all villages, the most difficult factor which limits agricultural production in the project area is
the water shortage at the beginning of the spring season. At present, crop production in the
project area is mainly dependent on irrigation. However only 30% of total land area is irrigated,
therefore, water from irrigation is mainly used for annual crops. In addition, lack of c
apital,
appropriate technologies, suitable crop varieties etc are other
obstacles to increasing crop
production.

Table 5
. Household information on crop production in 2006


Spring rice

Summer rice

Corn Sweet Potatoes

Groundnut
Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield Area Output Area Output

Orde

r

Indicators of clasification



No. of
reviwers

(m
2
) Kg/1000 m
2
(m
2
)
Kg/
1000 m
2

(m
2
)
Kg/
1000
m
2

(m
2

) kg (m
2
) Kg

Total
income
1000 ñ
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

(11)

(12)

(13) (14)
1
Total
146 1488 429 2524 412 3177 420 355 179 151 29 10438
2

Classified by commune and village
3 Van Minh Na Ngoa 18 1556 477 2622 475 2239 480 222 128 328 57 10741
4

Na Muc 25 1452 457 2484 448 3292 515 908 428 63 26 11321
5 Khuoi Lieng 37 1387 358 2430 358 2330 360 62 28 116 17 7833
6

Lang San Ban Sản 37 1389 446 2511 413 3959 422 70 46 86 13 11222
7 Tu Doc 18 1622 472 2744 427 4578 397 1078 559 369 74 13911
8

Khau La 11 1911 399 2455 387 2382 332 82 36 45 6 8377
9 Classified by commune and ethnic groups
10

Van Minh Kinh 8 1238 416 2238 489 1425 359 388 213 338 47 7833
11 Tay 60 1545 425 2772 413 2642 454 413 195 133 29 10332
12

Dao 8 700 340 700 325 2663 367 138 83 13 4 5159
13 Nung 4 1850 390 2350 367 4400 387 0 0 250 36 10578
14

Lang San Kinh 1 1500 400 3000 267 8000 225 1000 600 300 48 12088
15 Tay 28 1469 409 2625 404 3564 379 111 53 107 30 10006
16

Dao 3 833 497 1500 334 2667 567 0 0 0 0 7711
17 Nung 34 1662 470 2597 429 4097 410 553 296 207 28 13011

22

Table 5. Household information on crop production in 2006 (continued)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

(11)

(12) (13)

(14)
18

Classified by ethnic groups and household economic ranking in 2006
19 Kinh No information 4 1075 298 1875 404 1000 330 0 0 0 0 4935
20

Above average 2 1200 600 3500 684 2550 488 1550 850 1250 178 17155
21 Average 3 1567 444 2133 400 3433 221 333 200 167 23 6902
22

Tay No information 7 943 467 2343 472 6286 383 257 100 243 38 14172
23 Rich 1 800 433 1400 414 600 419 0 0 0 0 4121
24

Above average 11 1345 368 3400 309 3255 397 655 309 88 52 9135
25 Average 24 1879 410 2683 430 2733 479 183 125 121 25 10765
27 Very poor 3 767 292 433 357 900 301 0 0 0 0 2139
28

Dao Above average 3 533 250 533 300 5000 353 0 0 0 0 7210
29 Poor 6 1083 439 1417 338 2050 385 183 110 17 5 5979
30

Very poor 2 0 . 0 . 1000 900 0 0 0 0 3450
31 Nung Above average 1 1600 713 1600 750 2000 419 200 120 200 50 11543
32

Average 14 2236 461 3307 402 5107 424 1036 550 339 41 16523
33 Poor 20 1405 450 2280 419 3790 391 205 113 155 24 10982

34

Very poor 3 967 467 1400 457 2533 433 0 0 0 0 7404


23


Table 6. Household information on income composition from crop production in 2006
Spring rice Summer rice Corn Sweat Potatoes Groundnut

Total
incom
e
Order

Indicators of clasification



No.of
responden
ts
1000 ñ % 1000 ñ % 1000 ñ % 1000 ñ % 1000 ñ % 1000 ñ
(1)

(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

(9)

(10) (11) (12)

(13)

(14)

1
Total
146 2170.9 21.1 3547 34.7 4542 42.6 174.7 1.5 129.0 1.2 10438
2

Classified by commune and village
3 Van Minh Na Ngoa 18 2654 24.7 4365 40.6 3426 31.9 128 1.2 344 3.2 10741
4

Na Muc 25 2277 20.1 3690 32.6 5512 48.7 400 3.5 53 0.5 11321
5 Khuoi Lieng 37 1725 22.0 3042 38.8 2937 37.5 28 0.4 101 1.3 7833
6

Lang San Ban Sản 37 2002 17.8 3485 31.1 5615 50.0 46 0.4 75 0.7 11222
7 Tu Doc 18 2645 19.0 3875 27.9 6589 47.4 559 4.0 243 1.7 13911
8

Khau La 11 2431 29.0 3261 38.9 2610 31.2 36 0.4 39 0.5 8377
9 Classified by commune and ethnic groups
10

Van Minh Kinh 8 1753 22.4 4034 51.5 1946 24.8 213 2.7 281 3.6 7833
11 Tay 60 2290 22.2 3880 37.6 4101 39.7 183 1.8 133 1.3 10332
12

Dao 8 831 16.1 757 14.7 3466 67.2 83 1.6 23 0.4 5159
13 Nung 4 2622 24.8 3054 28.9 4690 44.3 0 0.0 213 2.0 10578
14

Lang San Kinh 1 2100 17.4 2800 23.2 6300 52.1 600 5.0 288 2.4 12088
15 Tay 28 1824 18.2 3540 35.4 4535 45.3 53 0.5 54 0.5 10006
16

Dao 3 1411 18.3 1633 21.2 4667 60.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 7711
17 Nung 34 2678 20.6 3757 28.9 6110 47.0 296 2.3 171 1.3 13011

24

Table 6. Household information on income composition from crop production in 2006 (continued)

(1)

(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

(10)

(11) (12) (13)

(14)

(15)

18

Classified by ethnic groups and household economic ranking in 2006
19 Kinh No information 4 1138 23.0 2644 53.6 1154 23.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 4935
20

Above average 2 2240 13.1 8400 49.0 4600 26.8 850 5.0 1065 6.2 17155
21 Average 3 2363 34.2 2567 37.2 2683 38.9 200 2.9 136 2.0 6902
22

Tay No information 7 1560 11.0 3948 27.9 8338 58.8 100 0.7 225 1.6 14172
23 Rich 1 1212 29.4 2029 49.2 880 21.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 4121
24

Above average 11 1783 19.5 4090 44.8 4329 47.4 245 2.7 78 0.9 9135
25 Average 24 2446 22.7 3724 34.6 4323 40.2 125 1.2 148 1.4 10765
27 Very poor 3 758 35.4 525 24.5 856 40.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2139
28

Dao Above average 3 467 6.5 560 7.8 6183 85.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 7210
29 Poor 6 1581 26.4 1546 25.9 2713 45.4 110 1.8 30 0.5 5979
30

Very poor 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 3450 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3450
31 Nung Above average 1 3990 34.6 4200 36.4 2933 25.4 120 1.0 300 2.6 11543
32

Average 14 3533 21.4 4524 27.4 7667 46.4 550 3.3 249 1.5 16523
33 Poor 20 2177 19.8 3307 30.1 5242 47.7 113 1.0 143 1.3 10982
34

Very poor 3 1512 20.4 2089 28.2 3803 51.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 7404

25

Table 7. Main difficulties in some main crops production (two of the most difficulties)

Difficulties
Water Capital Technology Fertilization Breeding Others No concern
Crops
Num.
Rate
(%)
Num.
Rate
(%)
Num.
Rate
(%)
Num
Rate
(%)
Num
Rate
(%)
Num

Rate
(%)
Num
Rate
(%)
1. Spring rice
First selection 66 51.16 10 7.75 5 3.88 13 10.08 5 3.88 13 10.08 17 13.18
Second selection 5 3.88 10 7.75 10 7.75 21 16.28 13 10.08 13 10.08 57 44.19
2. Summer rice
First selection 65 50.39 7 5.43 3 2.33 17 13.18 7 5.43 14 10.85 16 12.40
Second selection 4 3.10 12 9.30 8 6.20 18 13.95 9 6.98 18 13.95 60 46.51
3. Corn
First selection 32 24.81 9 6.98 9 6.98 22 17.05 12 9.30 28 21.71 17 13.18
Second selection 6 4.65 8 6.20 3 2.33 20 15.50 13 10.08 12 9.30 67 51.94