Rethinking Livelihoods, Forest Governance and Socioecological Systems: The State of REDD+ in Vietnam

Rethinking Livelihoods, Forest
Governance and Socio-ecological
Systems: The State of REDD+ in
Vietnam

BAYRAK, Mucahid Mustafa

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Geography and Resource Management

The Chinese University of Hong Kong
July 2015


ProQuest Number: 10037080

All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest 10037080
Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346



Thesis Assessment Committee

Professor FUNG Tung (Chair)
Professor Lawal Mohammed MARAFA (Thesis Supervisor)
Professor NG Sai Leung (Thesis Co-supervisor)
Professor XU Yuan (Committee Member)
Professor LIU Jinlong (External Examiner)



Abstract of the thesis entitled:
Rethinking Livelihoods, Forest Governance and Socio-ecological Systems: The State of
REDD+ in Vietnam
Submitted by Bayrak, Mucahid Mustafa
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography and Resource Management
at The Chinese University of Hong Kong in July 2015

The Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+)
programme is offering developing countries financial incentives by creating financial
values for the carbon stored in forests. The main aim of this initiative is to combat
climate change, deforestation and forest degradation. It also includes forest
conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon
stocks. However, in a decade in which community forest management initiatives are

rising, the REDD+ programme could reverse this process in putting forest governance
on national level again. This could have severe consequences for local forest-dependent
communities. Many local forest communities are indigenous peoples. They have often
created complex forest management systems, which are deeply intertwined with their
social, cultural and religious lives. Many of those systems have already been changed or
altered by the state or other conservation agencies, but community-based forest
management (CBFM) and benefit sharing mechanisms (BSM) seemed to have revised
indigenous forest management systems.
Vietnam has implemented various REDD+ programmes, including that of the
United Nations (UN-REDD), the World Bank and various non-governmental
organizations (NGOs). Besides that, the country is home to many forest-dependent
indigenous peoples. Since the late 1980s, forest governance has been devolving in
Vietnam, and local governments, communities and local households have more
involvement and rights in the forest management of the country. BSM and CBFM have
been introduced, and communities and local households were entitled to financial and
in-kind rewards for forest conservation. The question which arises is in what way will
REDD+ be implemented in the forest-governance arrangements of Vietnam, as well as
the socio-ecological systems of the affected communities. Therefore, the central
question of this study is: In what way does REDD+ integrate into the local forest
governance context, and what will be its outcomes on livelihoods and socioI


ecological systems?
This research will focus on four communes in Vietnam: Huong Hiep, Thuong
Nhat, Hieu and Bao Thuan. Huong Hiep has pre-REDD+ and pre-BSM arrangements,
Thuong Nhat has BSM arrangements, Hieu is involved in a REDD+ programme of a
NGO, and Bao Thuan is involved in the UN-REDD programme. First, Huong Hiep
and Thuong Nhat commune are analyzed to explore the potential livelihood impacts of
REDD+. Then, Hieu and Bao Thuan are analyzed to explore the integration of
REDD+ in the socio-ecological systems of the affected communities. Finally, the last

part of this thesis will deal with the role of CBFM in REDD+ and BSM. Could CBFM
mitigate the negative impacts of REDD+ and BSM?

II


摘要
再思社區生計、森林管治和社會及生態系統：越南 REDD+項目的狀況

通 過 減 少 砍 伐 森 林 和減 緩 森 林 退 化 而 降 低溫 室 氣 體 排 放 的 專 案（ 簡 稱 為
REDD+），將森林碳匯轉換為了財政價值，極大激勵了發展中國家的發展。
這個項目主要是為了應對氣候變化、森林砍伐以及森林退化而提出。它同時也
包括森林保護、森林可持續管理以及增強森林碳儲藏等方面的內容。然而，近
十年來，隨著社區森林管理專案的興起，REDD+專案可以借此機會將森林管
制重新提升到國家層面。這可能會嚴重影響當地一些依賴森林發展的社區。許
多當地的森林社區住著土著居民。他們經常創建複雜的森林管理系統，並與他
們的社會文化及宗教生活交織在一起。許多管理系統已經被政府或者其他保護
機構改變，但是以社區為基礎的森林管理（簡稱為 CBFM）以及利益導向機制
（簡稱為 BSM）似乎已經修訂了本土的森林管理體系。

越南已經貫徹實施了各種 REDD+專案，包括聯合國（UN-REDD）、世界銀
行以及不同非政府機構（NGOs）發起的專案。除此之外，越南還居住著許多
依賴森林的土著居民。自 20 世紀 80 年代以來，越南的森林管制權利已逐漸下
放，當地政府、社區以及本地居民擁有更多的權利，並參與到國家的森林管理
中。隨著 BSM 和 CBFM 這兩種方式的逐漸推廣，社區和本地居民有權分享到
森林保護帶來的各種金錢和實物回報。同時，也會引發一些問題，例如，
REDD+如何結合越南當下的森林管制系統以及社會生態系統進行具體的貫徹
實施。因此，這項研究的中心問題是：REDD+將以哪種方式融入到本地森林
管制背景中，它將對生計和社會生態系統造成什麼樣的效果？

本研究將以越南的四個社區為例，即 Huong Hiep, Thuong Nhat, Hieu and Bao
Thuan。Huong Hiep 社區沒有 REDD+和 BSM 方式，Thuong Nhat 有 BSM 方式，
Hieu 參與了一個 NGO 的 REDD+專案，Bao Thuan 參與了一個聯合國的 REDD
專案。首先，對比分析 Huong Hiep 社區和 Thuong Nhat 社區，探討 REDD+專
案對於生計的潛在影響；其次，對比分析 Hieu 社區和 Bao Thuan 社區，探討
REDD+專案與本地社會生態系統的整合；最後，論文分析了 REDD+項目中
CBFM 和 BSM 分別發揮的作用，以及 CBFM 是否能減少 REDD+和 BSM 方式
帶來的負面效應。

III


PUBLISHED PAPERS DURING PHD STUDY
Refereed Journals
1) Bayrak, M.M., Tran, T.N. and L.M. Marafa. 2014. Creating Social Safeguards for
REDD+: Lessons Learned from Benefit Sharing Mechanisms in Vietnam. Land 3(3),
1037-1058.
2) Bayrak, M.M., Tran, T.N. and P. Burgers. 2013. Restructuring space in the name of
development: the socio-cultural impact of the Forest Land Allocation Program on
the indigenous Co Tu people in Central Vietnam. Journal of Political Ecology 20, 37-52.
Refereed Book Chapters
3) Bayrak, M.M. and L.M. Marafa. 2015. The Role of and for Sacred Forests and
Traditional Livelihoods in REDD+: Two Case Studies in Vietnam's Central
Highlands. In: M. Cairns (ed.) Shifting Cultivation Policy: Trying to Get it Right.
Oxon and New York: Earthscan, Routledge (forthcoming).
4) Bayrak, M.M., Tran, T.N. and P. Burgers. 2015. Formal and Indigenous Forest
Management Systems in Central Vietnam: Implications and Challenges for REDD+.
In: M. Cairns (ed.) Shifting Cultivation and Environmental Change: Indigenous
People, Agriculture and Forest Conservation. Oxon and New York: Earthscan,
Routledge, pp.319-334.

5) Tran, T.N. and M.M. Bayrak. 2014. Integrating REDD+ and customary forest
management in Vietnam In: Broekhoven, G. and Wit, M. (eds.). Linking FLEGT
and REDD+ to Improve Forest Governance. Wageningen, the Netherlands:
European Tropical Forest Research Network and Tropenbos International, pp. 109
- 117.
6) Bayrak, M.M., Ha, V.T. and L. M. Marafa. 2013. Making REDD+ Local in Vietnam
– The Dynamics and Challenges of a Pre-REDD+ Commune in Quang Tri,
Vietnam. In: Marios, S., Chris, G., Le, T.T., and Nguyen, V.T. (eds.) Sustainable
Built Environment: For Now and the Future. Hanoi: Construction Publishing
House, pp. 597 – 604.
Policy Briefs
7) Liem, D.T., Bayrak, M.M. and V.D. Tran. 2015. FPIC-Based Community
Consultation in Developing REDD+ Projects: Lessons Learnt from Kon Tum
Province and Other Sites. Fauna & Flora International REDD+ Policy Brief #002,
January 2015.
8) Liem, D.T. and M.M. Bayrak. 2015. Lessons Learned From Forestland Allocation
and Land Tenure Arrangements. Fauna & Flora International REDD+ Policy Brief
#001, January 2015.
Conference Proceedings
9) Bayrak, M.M. and L. M. Marafa. 2014. Changing the indigenous landscape of the Co
Tu people in Vietnam. Proceedings of the International Conference on
“Transforming Societies: Contestations and Convergences in Asia and the Pacific”,
Chiang Mai University and the Asia Pacific Sociological Association, Thailand.
IV


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis has been supported by the Worldwide Universities Network (WUN)
Research Development Fund (Titled: Adopting REDD+ for Conservation, Sustainable
Community Livelihood and Climate Change Mitigation), Zhongjian Dongfang Gao's

Scholarship for Resource Management Study, and Lion Dr. Francis K. Pan Scholarship.
This thesis has been institutionally supported by the Department of Geography and
Resource Management of the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), CUHK
Graduate School, Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry (HUAF), Hue University
(Hue Uni.), and North-Central Vietnam Forestry Science and Production Center
(NCFSPC). I have also worked on my thesis at the School of Geosciences of the
University of Sydney as Visiting Scholar, which was sponsored by the CUHK Global
Scholarship Programme. All opinions expressed in this thesis are mine and do not
necessarily represent the opinions of the individuals and organizations mentioned here,
and any errors that remain are my sole responsibility.
I would like to offer my sincere gratitude to everyone who helped me in writing
this thesis. Without the support of you all, I would have never been able to write this
thesis. I am grateful to all, and this thesis is an ode to everyone who has supported me
for the last four years. First of all, my sincere thanks go to Prof. Lawal M. Marafa. He
was not only my academic supervisor, but also mentor, friend, and life coach. I have
disturbed him so many times with my questions, but he was always there and always
helpful. He introduced me to his wonderful family. He also took the time to travel with
me to Vietnam for a research visit. I couldn’t have wished for a better supervisor than
Prof. Marafa. Thank you Professor Lawal Marafa.
My sincere thanks also go to my co-supervisor Prof. Ng Sai Leung, my
committee chair Prof. Fung Tung and committee member Prof. Xu Yuan, Head of
Department Prof. Shen Jianfa, Head of the Graduate programme Prof. Xu Jiang, Prof.
David Chen, Prof. K.C. Chau, Prof. Leung Yee, Prof. Edward Yiu, and all the members
of the Department of Geography and Resource Management, my family for the last
four years. Sincere thanks also to Prof. Liu Jinlong (Renmin Uni.) and Prof. Mervyn R.
Peart (HKU) for examining my long thesis.
My special thanks are also reserved for my wonderful colleagues. I am very sad
to leave you guys, but I thank you for the friendship, collegiality, and support during
V

happy and sad times. Thank you so much He Sanwei for all of your support. Thank you
Guo Meiyu, Zhang Hankui, Wang Lei, Song Chunqiao, Zhang Wenting, Nathan Tseng,
Lin Lu, Liu Lu, Frankie Fan, Mandy Leung Ka Man, Li Jianfeng, Ifeanyi Nduka, Cui
Yuanzheng, Sally Duan, Lin Lijie, Sunil KC, Pan Jian, Yang Minxing, Xu Jiaxing, Xue Jie,
Liu Ye, Wu Dan, Si Fung Hoi, Danica Chan, Chen Yanyan, Cai Jixuan, Johnny Lau,
Johnson Chan, Hyley Chiu, Augusta Lui, Cheung Ka Ling, Wendy Cao, Calvin Lam,
Wang Juan, and all of my other wonderful colleagues. Special thanks to Michelle Law
Man Suet and Leung Chiu Yin for writing my thesis title in Chinese.
In Vietnam I received great support from Dr. Tran Nam Tu, who worked hard
for getting me all the permits, offering his valuable advice on my thesis, and his
friendship. Thank you very much Mr. Tu. Special thanks also go to Prof. Nguyen Quang
Linh (Hue Uni.), Prof. Le Van An (HUAF), Prof. Huynh Van Chuong (HUAF), Prof.
Le Duc Ngoan (HUAF), Prof. Duong Viet Tinh (HUAF), Dr. Ho Thanh Ha (HUAF),
Dr. Pham Huu Ty (HUAF), Director Le Xuan Tien (NCFSPC), Ha Van Thien
(NCFSPC), Le Xuan Toan (NCFSPC), Pham Huu Minh (HUAF), Ngo Van Dung
(HUAF), and all the staff of HUAF, Hue Uni. and NCFSPC. Thank you Tran Huu
Nghi (Tropenbos International), Thanh Liem Dang (FFI International), Tore Langhelle
(UNDP), Soojin Kim (FAO), Inoguchi Akiko (FAO), Dr. To Xuan Phuc (Forest
Trends; ANU), Hoang Dai Quang (Forestry Officer), Nguyen Truong Thi (CRD), and
very special thanks to Phan Thi Kim Tu, for transcribing so many documents for me.
In Australia, I would like to thank my host-supervisor Dr. Jeffrey Neilson
(Sydney Uni.), Prof. Philip Hirsch (Sydney Uni.), Dr. Thushara Dibley (Sydney Uni.),
and my colleagues at Sydney Uni: Danny Marks, Tim Frewer, Sopheak Chann, Lada
Phadungkiati, Soimart Rung, Chetan Choithani, Zoe Wang, Maria Elena Indelicato,
Abbas Miri and many others.
In the Netherlands, many thanks go to my former supervisor Dr. Paul Burgers
(Wageningen Uni.), Prof. Gery Nijenhuis (Utrecht Uni), and Prof Annelies Zoomers
(Utrecht Uni.).
Also, thank you Miles Kenny-Lazar (Clark Uni.), Jeroen van Bekhoven (National

Taiwan Uni.), Prof. Chusak Wittayapak (Chiang Mai Uni.), Prof. Steffanie Scott
(Waterloo Uni.), Prof. Jenny Cameron (Newcastle Uni.), Leon Hauser (VAST, Hanoi),
Alistair Monument (FSC), Dr. Saroja Dorairajoo (NUS), Prof. Bill Goggins (CUHK),
Alex Hochner, Oskar Kulik, Choukri Abourida, Dr. Ozan Dogan, Serdar Aydin

VI


(CUHK), Dr. Malcolm Cairns, Prof. Kim Doo-Chul (Okayama Uni.), Prof. Rupert
Hodder (HITSZ), and Martijn Hendrikx (CityUni HK).
This thesis is also dedicated to the local communities of Bao Thuan, Hieu,
Thuong Nhat, and Huong Hiep, local government officials, and all of my other
interviewees. I only had positive experiences. My student-helpers from HUAF were also
wonderful. Thank you Phan Trung Thong, Hoang Kim Tay, Nguyen Ba Luong, Tran
Thi Hong Suong, Phan Thanh Bang, and Hoang Phan Bich Ngoc. You guys did an
awesome job!
Final thanks go to my parents, Ibrahim and Ayse Bayrak, my brothers Ridvan,
Rayyaan and Naim Bayrak, my sisters Munise and Birgul Bayrak, and all other family
members for their unconditional love and support. Special thanks to my lovely nephew
Yunus (1.5 years old) and our little princess Enise (just born). Uncle Mucahid loves the
two of you the most (our little secret).
May God bless you all, and thank you all from the bottom of my heart. I am
forever grateful, also to the ones I failed to mention here.

VII


TABLE OF CONTENT
Abstract in English

I

Abstract in Chinese

III

Published papers during PhD study

IV

Acknowledgements

V

List of Figures, Tables, Boxes and Plates

XV

Abbreviations and currency

XXI

Chapter 1: Introduction

1

1.1 Background to the study

2

1.1.1 Global climate change and human responses

2

1.1.2 Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation 3
1.1.3 Changing narratives in forest governance

4

1.1.4 Changing theoretical approaches

5

1.1.5 Forests, indigenous peoples, and REDD+ in Vietnam

6

1.2 Problem statement

7

1.3 Conceptual framework and goal of the study

8

1.4 Justification and research objectives

9

1.3.1 Scientific

9

1.3.2 Societal

10

1.3.3 Geographic

10

1.5 Outline study

11

Chapter 2: Forests, livelihoods and governance

13

2.1 Introduction

14

2.2 Concepts of space and the relevance of geography

15

2.3 Forests and livelihoods

18

2.3.1 Sustainable livelihoods framework

18

2.3.2 Natural capital

21
VIII


2.3.3 Physical capital

24

2.3.4 Financial capital

24

2.3.5 Human, social and cultural capital

25

2.3.6 Livelihood goals and strategies

31

2.3.7 Vulnerability and opportunity context

32

2.3.8 Integrating the types of capital

35

2.4 Forest governance and local communities

36

2.4.1 Governing the common-property resources

36

2.4.2 Community-based forest management

41

2.4.3 Benefit sharing mechanisms

43

2.5 Socio-ecological systems and climate change mitigation

46

2.5.1 The resilience approach

46

2.5.2 Adaptive governance and local communities

52

2.5.3 Socio-ecological systems framework

58

2.6 Conclusion

62

Chapter 3: Local communities in REDD+

66

3.1 Introduction

67

3.2 The UN-REDD programme

68

3.3 Institutional impact

70

3.3.1 Restructuring of forest governance

70

3.3.2 Exclusion of local people

72

3.3.3 Emergency of private stakeholders

74

3.4 Livelihood impact

74

3.4.1 Income distribution and equity

75

3.4.2 Forestland and carbon tenure and rights

77

3.4.3 Food insecurity

79

3.4.4 Co-benefits

79

3.4.5 Social safeguards

80

3.5 Socio-cultural impact

80
IX


3.5.1 Loss of traditional knowledge and practices

81

3.5.2 Cultural and social deterioration

82

3.5.3 Indigenous peoples’ critique on REDD+

82

3.6 Environmental impact

84

3.6.1 Less biodiversity

84

3.7 Conclusion

85

Chapter 4: Forests, livelihoods, governance and REDD+ in Vietnam

88

4.1 Introduction

89

4.2 Rural livelihoods in Vietnam

91

4.2.1 Doi Moi reforms

91

4.2.2 Central highlanders in Vietnam

91

4.3 Forests in Vietnam

98

4.3.1 The ecology of Vietnam

98

4.3.2 Forest governance and administration in Vietnam

100

4.3.3 Trends in forest governance

105

4.4 REDD+ in Vietnam

111

4.4.1UN-REDD in Vietnam

112

4.4.2 Asia-Pacific Community Carbon Pools
and REDD+ programme

117

4.5 Conclusion

119

Chapter 5: Methodology and operationalization

121

5.1 Introduction

122

5.2 Research framework

123

5.3 Sites for study, selection requirements and time frame

125

5.3.1 Sites for study

125

5.3.2 Main requirements of site selection

126

5.3.3 Time frame

127

5.4 Methodology and data collection

127
X

5.4.1 Qualitative methods (Q1)

128

5.4.2 Participatory methods

130

5.4.3 Quantitative methods (Q2)

131

5.4.4 A mixed approach: Q-squared Methods

132

5.5 Operationalization and data analysis

133

5.5.1 Indicators I: Livelihood impacts of
Benefit Sharing Mechanisms (BSM)

133

5.5.2 Indicators II: REDD+ and
the Socio-Ecological Systems Framework

134

5.5.3 Indicators III: Community-Based Forest Management,
governance, REDD+ and BSM

136

5.6 Conclusion

136

Chapter 6: Livelihoods and benefit sharing mechanisms

137

6.1 Introduction

138

6.2 Research context and benefit sharing mechanisms

139

6.2.1 Co Tu and Bru – Van Kieu society

140

6.2.2 Research sites

142

6.2.3 Benefit sharing mechanisms

145

6.3 Livelihood activities, strategies and financial capital

150

6.3.1 Income and livelihood activities

151

6.3.2 Livelihood changes

154

6.3.3 Livelihood capabilities

155

6.4 Natural and physical capital

158

6.4.1 Landscape and village level

158

6.4.2 Household level

160

6.4.3 Physical capital

163

6.4.4 Customary and formal forest classifications

164

6.5 Human, social and cultural capital

166

6.5.1 Human capital

167
XI


6.5.2 Social capital

169

6.5.3 Cultural capital

171

6.5.4 BSM stakeholders

172

6.6 Drivers of BSM and vulnerability

173

6.6.1 Free prior and informed consent

173

6.6.2 BSM benefits

175

6.6.3 BSM attitudes

175

6.6.4 Vulnerability and coping mechanisms

177

6.7 Conclusion

182

6.7.1 Lesson learned from BSM for REDD+

182

6.7.2 Livelihood impacts and drivers of BSM

186

Chapter 7: Socio-ecological systems and REDD+

188

7.1 Introduction

189

7.2 Research context

189

7.2.1 Hieu context

190

7.2.2 Bao Thuan context

194

7.3 Drivers of change: REDD+

197

7.3.1 REDD+ in Hieu

197

7.3.2 REDD+ in Bao Thuan

201

7.4 Livelihoods in Hieu and Bao Thuan

203

7.4.1 Livelihood strategies and activities

203

7.4.2 Land tenure

207

7.4.3 Livelihood changes

209

7.5 Resource systems and units

210

7.5.1 Resource system, units and physical capital characteristics

210

7.5.2 Locations, boundaries and sizes

214

7.5.3 Changes in the forests and resource units

217

7.5.4 Customary and formal forest management

218

7.6 Governance systems and actors

221
XII


7.6.1 Governance overview

221

7.6.2 Institutions in the village

224

7.6.3 Property rights, rulemaking, sanctioning
and monitoring processes

224

7.6.4 Social, cultural and human capital

228

7.7 Focal action situations

232

7.7.1 Harvesting levels, information sharing
and deliberation processes

233

7.7.2 Social and ecological performance

235

7.7.3 Drivers of success of REDD+

237

7.7.4 Key differences in REDD+ implementation
in both communes

239

7.8 Conclusion

241

Chapter 8: Communities, smallholders and
community-based forest management

245

8.1 Introduction

246

8.2 Community-based forest management, BSM and REDD+

246

8.2.1 Structures

246

8.2.2 Participation

249

8.2.3 Processes

250

8.2.4 CBFM, BSM and REDD+

252

8.2.5 Challenges for CBFM and REDD+

253

8.3 Factors influencing the success of CBFM

255

8.3.1 Swiddeners

256

8.3.2 Smallholders

257

8.3.3 Land-workers

264

8.4 Conclusion

265

8.4.1 Four main forms of CBFM

266

8.4.2 Heterogeneous communities, CBFM, and REDD+

267

XIII


Chapter 9: Discussion and conclusion

269

9.1 Will REDD+ work?

270

9.2 How are livelihood affected?

271

9.2.1 Mixed livelihood impacts of BSM and CBFM

272

9.2.2 Diminishing roles for customary institutions
and classifications in BSM and CBFM

273

9.2.3 A typology of forest-dependent households in Vietnam

274

9.3 How did REDD+ shape socio-ecological systems?

276

9.3.1 REDD+ and the coffee smallholders of Bao Thuan

278

9.3.2 REDD+ and the swiddeners of Hieu

279

9.3.3 Implications for REDD+

281

9.4 What roles do local communities have?
9.4.1 Communities and the mitigating effects of CFM

282
282

9.4.2 Contextual factors for the success or failure of CBFM,
REDD+ and BSM

283

9.5 Limitations of the study

284

9.6 Recommendations for further studies

284

9.7 Epilogue

285

Appendix A: FPIC in UN-REDD

288

Appendix B: Topic lists for interviews and observation

289

Appendix C: Livelihood Questionnaire

291

Appendix D: SES questionnaire

302

Appendix E: FPIC material about climate change

313

Appendix F: Community forest contract

314

Bibliography

315

XIV


LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, BOXES AND PLATES
Figures
Figure 1.1: Increase in average global temperature (1850-2020)

3

Figure 1.2: Conceptual framework of the study

8

Figure 1.3: Locations of the research communes in Vietnam

11

Figure 2.1: The production of space

15

Figure 2.2: Sustainable livelihoods framework

20

Figure 2.3: Human – Environmental relations

28

Figure 2.4: Socio-ecological systems

52

Figure 2.5: General principles and requirements of adaptive governance

55

Figure 2.6: First-tier components of the SES Framework

59

Figure 2.7: Applied SES Framework

64

Figure 3.1: The scopes of REDD+

85

Figure 4.1: Map of Vietnam and its provinces

90

Figure 4.2: Poverty distribution in Vietnam on provincial level

97

Figure 4.3: The governance structure of the UN-REDD programme Phase II
117
Figure 4.4: Concise history of forest governance and livelihoods in Vietnam 119
Figure 5.1: Research framework of the study

124

Figure 5.2: Comparing and analyzing the four selected communes

125

Figure 6.1: Location and land cover of Huong Hiep Commune

143

Figure 6.2: Location and land cover of Thuong Nhat Commune

144

Figure 6.3: On-Farm, Off-Farm, and Non-Farm Livelihood Activities (%)

149

Figure 6.4: Livelihood changes in the communities in the last 20 years (%)

155

Figure 6.5: Landscapes of Huong Hiep

158

Figure 6.6: Participatory mapping in Thuong Nhat

159

Figure 6.7: Access to the natural forest in the past as opposed today (%)

162

Figure 6.8: Customary and formal forest classifications (%)

164

Figure 6.9: Land cover and land-use classifications in Huong Hiep

166

XV


Figure 6.10: Activities done/allowed in the ghost forest (%)

171

Figure 6.11: Venn-Diagram on community forestry and BSM in Thuong Nhat (I = very
important and V = not important at all)

172

Figure 6.12: Major natural hazards in Thuong Nhat

180

Figure 6.13: Reasons to protect the forest (%)

181

Figure 7.1: Location and land cover of Hieu Commune

192

Figure 7.2: Location and land cover of Bao Thuan Commune

196

Figure 7.3: On-Farm, Off-Farm, and Non-Farm Livelihood Activities (%)

204

Figure 7.4: Yearly Income (VND) form Livelihood Activities

205

Figure 7.5: Livelihood changes in the last 20 years

209

Figure 7.6: Forest categories, mean estimated sizes (ha), and amount of households
knowing its locations and boundaries (%)

213

Figure 7.7: Benefits derived from the natural forests as opposed to ten years ago
216
Figure 7.8: Forest governance and administration in the research sites

222

Figure 7.9: Forest use and information sharing after REDD+

232

Figure 7.10: Deliberation processes diagrams

235

Figure 8.1: CFMB structures in BSM communes

247

Figure 8.2: CFMB structures in REDD+ communes

248

Figure 8.3: Gender and forest monitoring

249

Figure 8.4: Age and forest monitoring

250

Figure 8.5: Livelihoods and participation in forest monitoring

255

Figure 8.6: Robusta Coffee in Vietnam

258

Figure 8.7: Wood-based Commodity and Woodchip Export in Vietnam

261

Figure 8.8: Rubber area (ha) and production (Ton) in Vietnam

262

Figure 8.9: Rubber area (ha) by smallholding and state companies

262

Figure 9.1: Adapted conceptual framework of REDD+ implementation

286

Tables

Table 2.1: Different Types of Capital

18
XVI


Table 2.2: Enhancing resilience and sustainability in indigenous and forest management
57
Table 2.3: Second-tier attributes of the SES framework

60

Table 2.4: Similarities between the SES framework and the framework on socialecological practices

61

Table 2.5: Conceptualizing space in the forests, livelihoods and governance debate
63
Table 3.1: REDD+ and forest-dependent communities

87

Table 4.1: Forest cover in Vietnam

100

Table 4.2: Forest classifications in Vietnam in 2012

102

Table 4.3: Forest management area per user group in Vietnam in 2012

104

Table 4.4: Formal forest administration of Vietnam

105

Table 4.5: Differences between PES and REDD+

111

Table 4.6: Productions of space by the main stakeholders in Vietnam

120

Table 5.1 Methodologies of REDD+ studies

126

Table 5.2: Data collection for the study

128

Table 5.3: Sequencing Methods (in chronological order)

132

Table 5.4: Indicators I

133

Table 5.5: Indicators II

134

Table 6.1: Main Characteristics of the Study Sites

139

Table 6.2: BSM in Huong Hiep

146

Table 6.3: BSM in Thuong Nhat

148

Table 6.4: Monthly income (VND) for the research communities

151

Table 6.5: Monthly income (VND) and shifting cultivation

152

Table 6.6: Livelihood activities and its annual benefits

153

Table 6.7: Reasons for not conducting livelihood activities

156

Table 6.8: Differences between the community forest and BMNP

160

Table 6.9: Land tenure in Huong Hiep and Thuong Nhat

161

Table 6.10: Who taught you about the following livelihood activities? (% of households)
167

XVII


Table 6.11: Ranking of institutions in the village (1= most important, 4 = least
important)

170

Table 6.12: Involvement and benefits of BSM

174

Table 6.13: Households’ statements on BSM in Thuong Nhat (%)

176

Table 6.14: Problems in the communes now, before BSM and 20 years ago (%)
178
Table 6.15: Occurrence and financial damage of natural hazards in both communes in
last 10 years

179

Table 6.16: How much land (m2) was affected by extreme weather/hazards in the past
10 years?

181

Table 6.17: Applied sustainable livelihoods framework

184

Table 6.18: Drivers of success and failure for BSM and REDD+

187

Table 7.1: Main Characteristics of the Study Sites

190

Table 7.2: Research villages and forest management arrangements in Hieu

193

Table 7.3: REDD+ Arrangements in Hieu

200

Table 7.4: REDD+ and FPIC in Bao Thuan

202

Table 7.5: Monthly income (VND) for the research communities

205

Table 7.6: Reasons for not conducting livelihood activities

206

Table 7.7: Land tenure in Hieu and Bao Thuan

208

Table 7.8: Why is forest protection important?

210

Table 7.9: Changes in resource systems and units in the past 20 years

215

Table 7.10: Use of different types of in last 20 years (%)

219

Table 7.11: Most important stakeholders in the village

223

Table 7.12: Households’ statements on property rights

224

Table 7.13: Households’ statements on rulemaking

225

Table 7.14: Households’ statements on sanctioning

227

Table 7.15: Households’ statements on monitoring

228

Table 7.16: Who taught you about the livelihood activities?

229

Table 7.17: Households’ statements on social and cultural capital

230

Table 7.18: Households’ statements on dependence and technology

231

XVIII


Table 7.19: Households’ statements on deliberation processes

233

Table 7.20: Vulnerability context

236

Table 7.21: Households’ statements on social and ecological performance

237

Table 7.22: Drivers of success of REDD+

238

Table 7.23: Differences between communes

239

Table 7.24: Applied SES-Framework

242

Table 7.25: Applied SES-Framework Bao Thuan

243

Table 7.26: Applied SES-Framework Hieu

244

Table 8.1: Benefits of CFM

252

Table 8.2: Differences in farm and off-farm livelihoods among (non-)swiddeners
257
Table 8.3: Socio-economic characteristics of land-workers

265

Table 8.4: Diverse communities, CFM and REDD+

266

Table 9.1: Proposed SES-framework adapted to BSM/REDD+ context

276

Boxes
Box 4.1: The administrative units in Vietnam

95

Box 7.1: The Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard (CCB) and the Verified
Carbon Standard (VCS)

197

Plates
Plate 1: Thuong Nhat commune, Thua Thien-Hue province

1

Plate 2: Integrated livelihoods in Hieu commune, Kon Tum province

13

Plate 3: REDD+ sign/propaganda in Bao Thuan commune, Lam Dong province
66
Plate 4: Benefit Sharing instructions in Thuong Nhat commune, Thua Thien-Hue
province

88

Plate 5: PRA methods in Huong Hiep commune, Quang Tri province

121

Plate 6: A ‘stakeholder’ in forest management in Hieu commune, Kon Tum province
137
Plate 7: Coffee smallholder in Bao Thuan commune, Lam Dong province
XIX

188


Plate 8: A lady carrying firewood in Hieu commune, Kon Tun province

245

Plate 9: Natural and plantation forests in Hieu commune, Kon Tun province 269

XX