Sustainable livelihoods and forest reserves acase study of the cotu people in bhalee commune, tay giang district, quang nam province

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS, HO CHI MINH CITY
FULBRIGHT ECONOMICS TEACHING PROGRAM

-------------

HOANG THI PHUONG TRINH

SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND FOREST RESERVES:
A CASE STUDY OF THE COTU PEOPLE IN BHALEE
COMMUNE, TAY GIANG DISTRICT,
QUANG NAM PROVINCE

MASTER OF PUBLIC POLICY THESIS

HO CHI MINH CITY - 2015


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS, HO CHI MINH CITY
FULBRIGHT ECONOMICS TEACHING PROGRAM

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

HOANG THI PHUONG TRINH

SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS AND FOREST RESERVES:
A CASE STUDY OF THE COTU PEOPLE IN BHALEE
COMMUNE, TAY GIANG DISTRICT,
QUANG NAM PROVINCE

Major: Public Policy
Code: 60340402
MASTER OF PUBLIC POLICY THESIS

SUPERVISOR

Dr. RAINER ASSÉ

HO CHI MINH CITY - 2015


-i-

CERTIFICATION
I certify that the substance of the thesis that not already been submitted for any degree and is
not being currently submitted for any other degrees.
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and help received in preparing the thesis, I have
acknowledged all sources of information and support.
The study does not necessarily reflect the views of Economics University of Ho Chi Minh
City or the Fulbright Economics Teaching Program.

Author

Hoang Thi Phuong Trinh


-ii-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Firstly, I would like to express my cordial gratitude to all people in three villages of Bhalee

Commune, Tay Giang District, Quang Nam Province. This study would not have its final
shape without them. This study is dedicated to all those highlanders, especially Mr. Bling Con,
Mr. Alang Man, and Mrs. Bling Thị Buoi, all management and administrative officials of
Bhalee kindergarten, whose affectionate hospitality supported me throughout my three weeks
of field research at very critical situations.
I am also thankful to the management board and staff of Sao Nature Reserve, especially Mr.
Ha Phuoc Phu, and Mr. Dang Ba Loc for their valuable information, support and comments
throughout the study.
I give my special thanks to Mrs. Tran Thi Hong Thu, who facilitated all relationships with
every person at the research site and supported my accommodation during my stay. She is also
the person on whom I relied for whatever issue and question that I had. I am deeply grateful to
her valuable help.
I am always grateful to my study supervisor Dr. Rainer Assé whose continuous guidance,
valuable suggestions, and diligent encouragement from beginning to end of my study are main
reasons behind its successful completion.
I would like to thank all teachers and faculties in Fulbright Economics Teaching Program,
who helped a lot in knowledge and experience as well as smoothing the conditions for my
accomplishment of my study.
My family members, especially my father, deserve my acknowledgement, at most, for their
incessant support and encouragement.
Finally yet importantly, I express my gratitude to everyone who supported me directly and
indirectly throughout my study.
Hoang Thi Phuong Trinh


-iii-

ABSTRACT
This study, based on the DFID sustainable livelihoods framework, analyzes vulnerability
contexts, identifies strengths and weaknesses of livelihood assets, and advantages and

disadvantages in the access to livelihood capitals of the Cotu people in Bhalee, Tay Giang,
Quang Nam upon the establishment of Saola Nature Reserve (SNR). The study finds that four
out of five capitals including human, natural, physical, financial capital are remarkably poor
among the Cotu while they have rather good social capital. However, access to only one
capital is not enough to cover for lack of the other four capitals. That is why people there are
still very poor. Besides, since SNR establishment, almost all activities relating to forest are
prohibited. Local people are no longer allowed to farm on some lands that they used to farm
before. There are a number of policies, programs, and projects supporting livelihoods of local
people. However, it seems that such support cannot cover for all their losses and are not
appropriate with their cultural practices. Besides, jobs are not readily available at the research
sites as this is a remote area with low productivity. Furthermore, activities of improving
livelihoods for local people have not been focused. Low education with no other skills than
simple and non-modern agricultural skills leaves local people no alternatives. As a result, the
vulnerability contexts together with current policies make people’s lives more difficult and
they have few choices other than doing illegal jobs relating to the forest. Therefore, in addition
to suggestions including diversification of crops and livestock, transforming the structure of
crop selections and livestock, increasing the support of cows, and pigs, the study also
recommends continuing current favorable policies, programs, and projects and relaxing the
strict conversation policies so that these policies are more suitable for current cultural features.
Besides, in order to combine using nature resources together with protecting forest products, it
is suggested that a model of forest co-management between local and conservation authorities
with local people be created in the buffer areas of SNR.
Key words: livelihoods, ethnic minority, forest protection


-iv-

CONTENTS
CERTIFICATION ..................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................................................... ii

ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................................. iii
CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. iv
ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF CHARTS ................................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1 . INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
1.1.

Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 1

1.2.

Purposes and questions of the study............................................................................. 2

1.3.

Subject and scope of the study ..................................................................................... 3

1.4.

The structure of the study ............................................................................................. 3

CHAPTER 2 . LITERATURE REVIEW AND IMPERICAL STUDIES........................... 5
2.1.

Framework of the study ............................................................................................... 5

2.2.

Empirical studies .......................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER 3 . OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH LOCATION.............................................. 10
3.1.

Natural conditions ...................................................................................................... 10

3.2.

Demographic characteristics ...................................................................................... 11

3.3.

Social-economic status ............................................................................................... 11

CHAPTER 4 . DESIGN OF THE STUDY ........................................................................... 13
4.1.

Research process ........................................................................................................ 13

4.2.

Data Collection Techniques ....................................................................................... 14

4.2.1.

Primary data and sample selection ...................................................................... 14

4.2.2.

Secondary data .................................................................................................... 15

4.3.

Data processing tools ................................................................................................. 15


-v-

4.4.

Interpretation of findings............................................................................................ 15

CHAPTER 5 . RESEARCH RESULTS ............................................................................... 17
5.1.

HHs livelihoods assets ............................................................................................... 17

5.1.1.

Human capital ..................................................................................................... 17

5.1.2.

Natural capital ..................................................................................................... 24

5.1.3.

Physical capital ................................................................................................... 25

5.1.4.

Financial capital .................................................................................................. 27

5.1.5.

Social capital ....................................................................................................... 30

5.2.

Some findings of semi-structured interviews ............................................................. 32

CHAPTER 6 . DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 35
6.1.

Discussion on livelihood assets .................................................................................. 35

6.2.

Current policies and impacts ...................................................................................... 36

6.2.1.

Current policies ................................................................................................... 36

6.2.2.

Impacts of SNR’s policy ..................................................................................... 38

6.3.

Vulnerability Context ................................................................................................. 42

6.4.

Response to vulnerability context .............................................................................. 44

6.5.

Households’ expectation of policy support ................................................................ 44

CHAPTER 7 . CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 46
7.1.

Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 46

7.2.

Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 47

7.3.

Limitation ................................................................................................................... 48


-vi-

ABBREVIATIONS
ADB

Asian Development Bank

DFID

Department for International Development

FPD

Forest Protection Department

FPU

Forest Protection Unit

G1

Group 1

G2

Group 2

HHs

Households

NGO

Non-government organization

No.

Number

NTFPs

Non-timber forest products

Ord.

Order

SLF

Sustainable livelihoods framework

SNR

Saola Nature Reserve

SUF

Special Use Forest

VBFSP

Vietnam Bank for Social Policies

VND

Vietnam Dong

WWF

World Wildlife Fund


-vii-

LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 5.1. Average household headcount and main labor ....................................................... 18
Chart 5.2. Job groups ............................................................................................................... 21
Chart 5.3. Annual income and expense of both groups (Unit: VND) ..................................... 28
Chart 5.4. Income proportion of poor and near-poor household group................................... 29
Chart 5.5. Credit purposes ....................................................................................................... 30
Chart 5.6. Sociopolitical participation ..................................................................................... 31
Chart 6.1. Households’ expectation for livelihood support ..................................................... 45

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Sustainable livelihoods framework of DFID, 1999 ................................................. 6
Figure 4.1. Research process ................................................................................................... 13

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1. Demographic characteristics at 3 villages of the study ........................................... 11
Table 3.2. Impact groups on forest........................................................................................... 12
Table 4.1. Sample selection ..................................................................................................... 14
Table 5.1. Indicators of household size and labor .................................................................... 17
Table 5.2. Education status of household members ................................................................. 19
Table 5.3. Regular sick rate...................................................................................................... 20

Table 5.4. Seasonal calendar .................................................................................................... 22
Table 5.5. Frequency of forest-related product exploitation .................................................... 23
Table 5.6. Average land (hectares) .......................................................................................... 25
Table 5.7. Possession percentage of living facilities................................................................ 26
Table 5.8. Credit sources .......................................................................................................... 30
Table 6.1. All programs, projects supports developing buffer areas at SNR ........................... 40


-viii-

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Map of Tay Giang District with location of Bhalee Commune .......................... 52
Appendix 2. Buffer areas of Bhalee Commune with SNR ...................................................... 53
Appendix 3. Map of SNR Quang Nam .................................................................................... 54
Appendix 4. Legal basis of SNR’s establishment .................................................................... 54
Appendix 5. Current management decentralization at SNR Quang Nam ............................... 56
Appendix 6. New rural program of Tay Giang with scheme “9 yes, 5 no” ............................. 61
Appendix 7. HHs survey .......................................................................................................... 63


-1-

CHAPTER 1 . INTRODUCTION
1.1.

Policy Context

Tay Giang, a high-mountainous district of Quang Nam Province, was established based on the
separation of Hien district into Dong Giang district (The Eastern River) and Tay Giang district
(The Western River) under Decree No. 73/2003/NĐ-CP of the Vietnam Government dated

20.06.2003. Tay Giang lies in the northwest of Quang Nam Province, 190 kilometers from
Tam Ky city in the northwest and 125 kilometers from Da Nang city on the west. The total
area of the district is 902.97 km2, with population of 17,541 people, 3,884 households (HHs)
with the percentage of poverty and near poverty up to 58.26%, per capita income of about 12.2
million dong. Tay Giang, the district with the crucial importance of political, security and
defense of the province and also of the nation, is the homeland of eight ethnic minorities with
long cultural and historical tradition, especially the cultural specialties of the Cotu with 16,052
people, accounting for 92% of Tay Giang population and about 35% of Cotu population in
Quang Nam (Statistical Department of Tay Giang, 2014).
Bhalee commune, one of 10 communes in Tay Giang, is located next to the Saola Nature
Reserve (SNR). The total area of Bhalee is 7,111.8 ha. There are 556 HHs living there with a
total population of 2,603 people. Among them, poor and near-poor HHs account for nearly
57%. The Cotu there live mostly dependent on natural resources relating to the forest
(Statistical Department of Tay Giang, 2014).
Since the establishment of SNR in July 2012 under Decree 2265/QĐ-UBND of the People’s
Committee of Quang Nam, the Cotu people’s livelihoods have changed, especially those who
live in the buffer zone of the reserve. The new regulations of SNR, which are based on
Decision 186/2006/QĐ-TTg of the Prime Minister dated 14.08.2006, prohibit local people
from clearing forestlands for cultivation, trapping, snaring, and exploiting forest-related
products. Only shrunken forests, young forests (protection forests) and production forests are
available for local people to manage. Moreover, they are allowed to cultivate in production


-2-

forest but the exploitation of forest products in young forests is limited. These new rules, more
or less, affect the livelihoods of local people and the traditional spirit of co-forest living of
local people. The Cotu plant rice, maize, and cassava - just enough for daily necessities; while
collection of forest-related products help them cover other expenses. Forest-related policy
does not only have influence on the Cotu’s livelihoods but also makes a large number of male

workers redundant as their main role of forest-related activities has changed.
Therefore, long-term and stable life as well as sustainable livelihoods combining forest
protection for the local Cotu are urgent and are the main objectives of local government as
well as conservation authorities. Once people’s livelihoods improve and change in a
sustainable manner, together with enhanced awareness of forest protection, the task of
development and conservation will not be an issue. Hence, upon SNR’s existence, there have
been many policies such as policy of payment for forest environmental service under Decree
99/2011/NĐ-CP, policy of investment and development for Special Use Forest (SUF) under
Decision 24/2012/QĐ-TTg, policy of SUF management under Decree 117/2010/NĐ-CP,
Decision 186/2006/QĐ-TTg, Circular 20/2012/TT-UBND, etc., which target protecting SNR
together with improving the targeted-area’s livelihoods. Nevertheless, the facts are that
poverty, new employment, and the local people exploiting forest-related products are still
main challenges for local and conservation authorities. Therefore, it is necessary to have an
overall assessment of the buffer livelihoods, their vulnerability situations and impacts of SNR
on their livelihoods.
1.2.

Purposes and questions of the study

The very first purpose of the study is focused on learning, analyzing the vulnerability context,
livelihood situation, particularly identifying strengths and weaknesses of livelihood assets
such as human, social, natural, physical, and financial capital. Then the study analyzes the
advantages and disadvantages in the process of livelihood capital access, the combination of
these resources to make livelihood strategies; livelihood outcomes of the Cotu people in
Bhalee, Tay Giang, Quang Nam.


-3-

The second purpose of the study is to evaluate impacts of current policies, especially forestrelated policies on the perspective of livelihood. Then, incorporating with other poverty

reduction researches, programs and projects, the very last goal of the study is to propose
solutions for sustainable livelihoods combining forest reserve in order to help improve
livelihoods, and a sustainable way out of poverty for the Cotu at the research sites.
In order to obtain these three objectives, the study concentrates on answering the following
questions:
(1)

What are the main livelihoods and vulnerability context of the Cotu at Bhalee

commune, Tay Giang district, Quang Nam province?
(2)

How are the current policies, especially forest-related policies affecting livelihoods of

the Cotu at the research area?
(3)

What are the livelihood strategies for the Cotu to help them out of poverty, through

improving living standards combined with protecting forest resources?
1.3.

Subject and scope of the study

Subject of the study: livelihood assets of the Cotu in Bhalee, Tay Giang, Quang Nam in
relation to vulnerable context together with policies, institution; livelihood strategies;
livelihood outcomes.
Scope of the study: the research is conducted in three villages lying in the buffer zone of Saola
Nature Reserve.
1.4.

The structure of the study

The study consists of seven chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the research context and problem,
and then indicates objectives and questions of the study together with subjects and scope of
the study. Chapter 2 discusses analysis framework and some empirical studies, which are the
background and basis for the study. Chapter 3 gives information about the research location,
including natural and social-economic conditions. Chapter 4 presents design of the study


-4-

including sample selection, data collection with data processing and analysis. Chapter 5 shows
findings and fieldwork results. Chapter 6 contains discussion about current policies
influencing on the people’s livelihoods. Finally yet importantly, chapter 7 sums up the
research with conclusions and recommendations.


-5-

CHAPTER 2 . LITERATURE REVIEW AND IMPERICAL STUDIES
2.1.

Framework of the study

The study applies sustainable livelihoods framework (SLF) of the United Kingdom’s
Department for International Development (DFID). Human being, in order to exist and
develop, it is obvious to work to meet physical and spiritual needs. Firstly, there are the basic
demands such as eating, dressing, and sheltering. Then, it upgrades to further demands. The
process of laboring to find ways to earn a living, that calls livelihoods. According to DFID: “A

livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living. A
livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and
maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not
undermining the natural resource base.”
It is inevitable that livelihoods themselves cannot describe thoroughly relationships interacting
with them. In other words, livelihoods do not stand-alone but operate under influences of other
factors from surrounding environment. Therefore, it is necessary to study livelihoods in a
framework of relationships. Interactions and their results are livelihoods framework.
The framework is a tool to fulfill understanding about livelihoods, especially livelihoods of the
poor in relationship with a number of influencing factors. The SLF represents main factors
affecting livelihoods and typical relationship among these factors (DFID, 1999).


-6-

Figure 2-1. Sustainable livelihoods framework of DFID, 1999
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS FRAMEWORK
LIVELIHOOD
OUTCOMES

LIVELIHOOD ASSETS
VULNERABILITY
CONTEXT

- Shocks

TRANSFORMING
STRUCTURES &
PROCESSES

Human
Social

STRUCTURES
Natural

- Trends

Influence
& Access

- Seasonality
Physical Financial

Levels of
government
Private
sector

Laws,
policies,
culture,
institutions

PROCESSES

LIVELI
HOOD
STRATE
GIES

- More
income
- Increased
well-being
- Reduced
vulnerability
- Improved
food security
- More
sustainable
use of natural
resource base

Source: DFID, 1999

The framework considers human activities within the context of vulnerability. In this context,
the poor have access to certain assets through current social, organizational, and institutional
environments. These environments affect human livelihoods in achieving livelihood outcomes
consistent with livelihood objectives of the poor (DFID, 1999).
Vulnerability context forms the external environment in which people live and survive.
Livelihoods and availability of assets are basically affected by trends as well as shocks and
seasonality which humans have limited ability to control. The trends can be innovation in
technology, changes in materials, etc. The shocks can be shocks in health, natural calamity,
epidemic, etc. The seasonality can be in agricultural product price, job opportunities, etc.
Factors making up the vulnerability context are considerably important as these have direct
influence on assets status and people’s choices in the process of creating livelihood outcomes.


-7-

Livelihood assets: The framework points out five fundamental assets making up livelihoods,
these five form the pentagon of assets. The pentagon shape displays differences in access to
these assets. Different combinations of assets create various livelihood outcomes based on two
primary relationships between these five assets that are sequencing and substitution
relationships. The pentagon is the core value in the SLF (DFID, 1999).
Human capital: Human beings, with skills, knowledge, competence, labor capability and
potential, health to work. Human capital is the prerequisite element to make use of the other
four resources.
Natural capital: Natural capital is a storage of natural resources, which is necessary resource
for livelihoods.
Physical capital: Physical capital is infrastructure and goods to support livelihoods.
Financial capital: Financial capital includes savings and credit. It is expressed in the form of
common banknotes, coins, or other types of assets with different value. This kind of capital is
an intermediary transaction among other kinds of capital.
Social capital: Social capitals are social resources, which people use to pursue livelihood
objectives. They include social relationships in order to have cooperation among different
groups to transform natural capital into physical capital.
Transforming structures and processes in the SLF are institutions, organizations, policies
and laws shaping livelihoods (M. Kollmair and St. Gamper, 2002). . Structures and processes
cover all levels, from households to international arena, from private sector to public sector.
Institutions, policies at every level are specified through law and regulations. This institutional
environment defines access, transition rights between livelihood assets and return rate of all
livelihood strategies.
Livelihood strategies are range of combination and arrangement and choices households use
to achieve their livelihood goals (Ellis, 2000). Depending on their properties, the impact of
institutional environment and vulnerable context people choose the most appropriate


-8-

livelihood strategies for the best livelihood outcomes. Three groups of primary livelihood
strategies are expanding agriculture, diversifying livelihoods and migration. People can
combine livelihood strategies, subjecting to context, to create the best results.
Livelihood outcomes are outputs that households achieve from combining livelihood assets to
implement livelihood strategies. Those results are more income, better well-being,
vulnerability reduction, food security improvement, or more sustainable use of natural
resources.
2.2.

Empirical studies

The study refers to other empirical researches relating to livelihoods, ethnic minorities, natural
resource reserve and particularly focus on researches applying the SLF of DFID.
Mishra and Smyth (2010) show that almost all ethnic minorities live in isolated regions and
work within traditional fields. However, once they have a chance to access more education,
they can, definitely, participate in high-skilled non-agricultural areas and take higher levels in
organizations. This suggests that improving knowledge and education opportunities for ethnic
minorities can, doubtlessly, a significant solution to create sustainable livelihoods for the
ethnic minorities.
Asian Development Bank (2005) carried out research and implemented a number of projects
building sustainable livelihood models for ethnic minorities in Vietnam. According to ADB
reports, ethnic minorities are easily affected by development (cultivation land confiscated for
development purposes). As a result, together with social and economic growth, authorities at
all levels should issue fair policies so that ethnic minorities are able to take part in progression
opportunities. Besides, the government should create conditions so that they can benefit from
development.
Nguyen Thi Minh Phuong (2012) with a study “Livelihoods of the Ede: A case study of Eabar
commune, Buon Don District, Daklak province” applies the SLF of DFID and shows that Ede
households have differences in five livelihood assets between the poor, near-poor and

wealthier groups. The wealthiest group, compared to the poor and the near poor, possess most


-9-

of advantages of the five assets. The biggest challenge of all livelihood capitals in this case
study is the limited human capital with low education, lack of skill. Then, the next obstacles
are natural and financial resources, which directly affect improving process of livelihoods for
the Ede, especially for the poor.
Nguyen Xuan Vinh (2014) researching “Livelihood policy combining natural resource reserve
– A case study of Cape village, Dat Mui Commune, Ngoc Hien District, Ca Mau province”
concludes that the majority of households do not have many significant livelihood assets
except for elementary labor force lacking technological knowledge, low-power production
equipment, low diversity and incapable of financial access. Households are under high risk of
illness, high dependent-labor rate, extreme weather, competitiveness in fisheries, natural
resource depletion, and climate change like increasing sea level, landslides, epidemics, and
dependent on traders. In that context, RAMSAR convention and forest-protection policy turn
out to be shocks making many residents lose their livelihoods.
Douglas C. Macmillan and Quoc Anh Nguyen (2013) with research “Factors influencing the
illegal harvest of wildlife by trapping and snaring among the Cotu ethnic group in Vietnam”
focused on two villages of the Cotu living in the boundary of SNR. The study found out that
“trapping is widespread and motivated by financial gain and non-pecuniary benefits such as
social esteem and enjoyment, rather than by poverty per se. Trappers’ awareness of wildlife
protection law was low and animals were killed indiscriminately in traps and snares designed
to catch a wide range of animal species. With demand for wildlife and wildlife products
expected to increase, they believe that new approaches will be required to protect threatened
species in Vietnamese protected areas.”
In conclusion, various empirical studies point out those ethnic minorities in Vietnam should
have priority in development policy. These groups, due to historical circumstances, live under
specific and underdeveloped conditions. Therefore, they suffer the disadvantages that

development leaves behind. As a result, the government, definitely, should play a role in
improving equality by protecting the poor, especially the ethnic minorities through sustainable
poverty-reduction programs and creating sustainable livelihoods.


-10-

CHAPTER 3 . OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH LOCATION
3.1.

Natural conditions

Bhalee commune is located in the northwest of Tay Giang district, 14 kilometers from the
district center. Bhalee has a total area of 7,111.8 ha, with a population of 2,510 people; most of
them are the Cotu. Bhalee has eight villages, among them, there are three villages located in
the buffer of the SNR, which are A tep 1, A tep 2 and Ta lang. Location of Bhalee commune
and three buffer villages are showed in Appendix 1, 2.
SNR was established by the People’s Committee of Quang Nam under Decision No.
2265/QĐ-UBND on 13.07.2012. The reserve is located in the north-west of the province, on
the administrative territory of four communes: Bhalee, A Vuong (Tay Giang district), Ta Lu
and Song Kon (Dong Giang district). This is a low mountainous area of about 600 – 1,440 m
height above sea level. SNR Quang Nam is also a place of many other rare species. Due to
special features of topographic and biodiversity richness, this area became a target for logging,
hunting, trapping and exploiting non-timber resources by local people and outsiders as well.
Besides, forest encroachment for cultivation and other pressures are so serious that forest
resources are damaged severely, biodiversity is threatened severely. Map of SNR is shown in
Appendix 3.
SNR belongs to Special Use Forest (SUF) system of Vietnam, including 30 national parks and
69 nature reserves. SUF of Vietnam is under control of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development, General Department of Forestry, Department of Forest Protection. However,

there are six national parks that are under this management level. Provincial Department of
Agriculture and Rural Development, Provincial Forest Protection Department directly manage
the other parks. The People’s Committee of Quang Nam made the decision to establish SNR
and delegate FPD to directly manage it (Saola Nature Reserve Quang Nam, 2013).
SNR was established based on some legal basis as specified in Appendix 4. The decentralized
management structure is shown in Appendix 5.


-11-

3.2.Demographic characteristics
Table 3-1. Demographic characteristics at 3 villages of the study

Ord.

Village

Population

No. of
HHs

Poor HHs
(%)

Near-poor HHs
(%)

1
2

3
4

A tép 1
A tép 2
Tà làng
Average

278
223
321

55
46
70

61.82%
58.70%
50.00%
56.14%

9.09%
6.52%
5.71%
7.02%

Total of Poor &
Near-poor HHs
(%)
70.91%

65.22%
55.71%
63.16%

Source: Result of investigation and review for poor and near-poor HHs, Bhalee commune 2014

Three villages in the study have remarkably high poor and near-poor proportion. The average
poor and near-poor percentage is 63.16% - higher than the average percentage of total Bhalee
(57%) and of total Tay Giang (53%).1
People in these three villages live in clusters, along Ho Chi Minh high way. Labor force makes
up approximately 55% of the population and male labor accounts for more than a half. This
labor force is abundant for production activities but individuals in this labor force are
untrained. Therefore, this kind of labor has the latent risk of illegal exploitation once they have
no other options for income jobs.
3.3.

Social-economic status

Agriculture and forestry are main economic sectors at this research site. They account for
more than 95% of all sectors (Statistical Department of Tay Giang, 2014). Other activities just
make a small proportion. Due to steep slope terrain, cultivation land is limited. Therefore,
productivity is rather low and products are merely enough for household basic need. Besides,
together with long-time practices of exploiting fisheries from streams, rarely do the Cotu build
ponds to raise fish. Doing business and services, which are important fields showing the

1

The above proportion follows the new poor and near-poor standard, in accordance with Decision 09/2011/QĐ-TTg of the Prime Minister on

30th Jan, 2011. (Poor: average income from 400,000 vnđ/ person/ month and below; near-poor: average income from 401,000 – 520,000 vnđ/

person/ month; both are new standard for rural areas)


-12-

development of a community and consumption bridges for other sectors are not developed and
not popular among the Cotu.
For agriculture, the Cotu mainly produce upland rice, cassava, ginger, some variety of
vegetables for daily use.
For forestry, the Cotu at the buffer area of the SNR often affects forest-related resources with
four main impact groups: hunting, trapping, snaring animals; logging; overusing NTFPs;
forest clearance for cultivation.
Table 3-2. Impact groups on forest
Ord.

Impact Group

Details

1

Hunting, trapping, snaring
animals

Local people do for use and sell

2

Logging

For building house and sell

3

Overusing NTFPs

Local people exploit đót, song, rattan, ba kích (Morinda
cochinchinensis DC.), and honey. These products are
main income

4

Forest clearance for cultivation

Local people lack of cultivation land, left no choice so
they encroach forestlands for agriculture activities

Source: consolidation through group discussion

Forest-related activities of the Cotu influence forest resources and are often, diverse, and
contain regional cultural specialties and practices of this ethnic minority living in Truong Son
Mountain. All activities cater for daily life and mostly depend on forest resources, such as
logging for house building, trapping, snaring for daily food, and reclaiming forestlands for
agricultural production. All of these are part of typical human ecology once the Cotu are able
to know sustainable exploitation of natural resources.
However, these activities experience major changes when exploitation of natural resources is
not only for basic need but also for selling to increase income. That is why the Cotu people
overexploit resources.

-13-

CHAPTER 4 . DESIGN OF THE STUDY
4.1.

Research process

After determining the research context, I set up research objectives and research questions.
Based on this, I chose data sample together with ways of collecting primary and secondary
data. After consolidating all necessary data, I used the SLF for analysis and thesis writing.
Figure 4-1. Research process
CONTEXT
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

-

Vulnerability context: Establishment of SNR
Livelihood assets
Livelihood strategies and outcomes

RESEARCH SAMPLE

DATA COLLECTION

SECONDARY DATA

PRIMARY DATA

Households
SURVEY

Group
discussion

Semistructured
survey

- Social-economic reports
- Policies of SNR
- Policy implementation process

DATA ANALYSIS

WRITING THESIS

THESIS


-14-

4.2.

Data Collection Techniques

4.2.1. Primary data and sample selection
Primary data are collected through household surveys, focused group discussions and semistructured interviews.
Household surveys are implemented with a sample of HHs. The sample selection technique is
purposive sampling. The sample selection process first begins with the village heads. They
have a list of all HHs in the villages with the number of poor and near-poor households. Based
on this list, I choose randomly 35 (20%) out of 171 HHs in three villages. The sample is

chosen as follows:
Table 4-1. Sample selection
Villages
No. of HHs
No. of poor HHs
No. near-poor HHs
No. of non-poor HHs
Sample of poor HHs
Sample of near-poor HHs
Sample of non-poor HHs
Total of sample for each village

A tep 1
55
34
5
16
7
1
3
11

A tep 2
46
28
3
15
6
1
3

10

Ta lang
70
35
4
31
7
1
6
14

Total
171
97
12
62
20
3
12
35

Additionally, primary data are collected through group discussions with a group of male
laborers, who are dramatically affected by the new rules of SNR. Discussion concentrates on
their jobs before and after the establishment of SNR, their working calendar, their intention for
future jobs, and their expectations.
The semi-structured interviews are conducted with leaders of the commune, with rangers, and
SNR leaders to have some insights in pros and cons of SNR together with some
recommendations on the aspects of people livelihoods.

-15-

4.2.2. Secondary data
Secondary data on social-economic situation; current policies, programs, etc. are obtained
from reports from a range of levels such as from the People’s Committee of Tay Giang
district, the People’s Committee of Bhalee commune, statistics yearbook of Tay Giang district
and some other relating departments. In addition, I also refer to some previous studies.
4.3.

Data processing tools

The study applies qualitative methods based on the SLF approach to learn about Cotu
livelihoods before and after establishment of SNR, and to compare aspects of livelihood assets
between two groups (poor and near-poor group vs. non-poor group). Collected data are
aggregated using Microsoft Excel. After that, data are reported in tables, graphs, and diagrams
in the study. Then, the study uses descriptive statistics and comparative statistics to analyze
the livelihoods status, livelihoods strategies and livelihoods outcomes of HHs.
Descriptive statistics are used to have an overall view of the research site, livelihoods reality
of HHs through 5 livelihoods assets, advantages and disadvantages of HHs in the process of
access to these 5 capitals.
Comparative statistics are applied to have deep and profound insights in the differences among
poor, near-poor and non-poor HHs on aspect of access to livelihoods resources.
Qualitative analysis is helpful for analyzing issues about impacts of SNR on the Cotu’s
livelihoods, as well as facilitators vs. barriers in access to capitals.
4.4.

Interpretation of findings

The study have its general analysis of current status of five livelihood capitals of the Cotu at

the research site through the description and comparison of data from household surveys,
group discussions and semi-structured interviews. In addition, the household surveys provide
information about vulnerability context, local people’s response to vulnerability context and
their expectation of assistance from the authorities. Furthermore, semi-structured interviews
help the study to have deep insights in advantages as well as difficulties of SNR management,