670 first draft PNKB community 2013 en

1.3 On-going processes to address local community concerns in PNKB 4 2.2 Assessing emerging forms of participation and consultation 7 3.3 New issues emerging in the context of the IUCN-r

Rapid appraisal

of community participation and benefit-sharing

in biodiversity conservation and on relevant lessons to be learned from the Phong Nha - Ke Bang National Park Region

Peter Bille Larsen and Nguyen Manh Ha

1st draft report December, 2012 for GIZ, Quang Binh Nature Conservation and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources

in the Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park Region, Quang Binh Province

Quang Binh Provincial

1.3 On-going processes to address local community concerns in PNKB 4

2.2 Assessing emerging forms of participation and consultation 7

3.3 New issues emerging in the context of the IUCN-recommended expansion area

12 3.4 Unresolved forest and agricultural tenure in the bufferzone 12 3.5 Recognizing and working with rather than against customary tenure 14 3.6 Growing outside pressures and “land grabbing” 15

4.1 Moving beyond livelihoods as a threat towards recognition 17 4.2 Underreporting or inadequate representation of forest dependency 18 4.3 Equitable cost and benefit-sharing framework lacking 20 4.4 A rights-based approach to livelihoods and benefit-sharing 22 4.5 The importance of equitable benefit-sharing and preferential arrangements in

5.2 Growing focus on sustainable use in management, yet lack of equity focus 26 5.3 Recognizing the limitations of expanding the normal protection system 27 5.4 Strengthening community forest protection contract approaches 28 5.5 Putting PNKB regulations on co-management into equitable practice 29

6.1 Culture and living heritage: the missing link 33

6.3 From recognition of culture to the integration of culture in management 35 6.4 Transboundary conservation and socio-cultural dynamics 37

7 Capacity and structures in place to strengthen governance of forest people

Annex: possible co-management structure Ke Bang co-management council and the

Committee for Ethnic Minorities Chief Technical Adviser

Department of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs Euro

Focus Group Discussion Forest Land Allocation Gesells a t r nternationale usa enarbeit hectare(s)

Household International Union for the Conservation of Nature reditanstalt r iederau bau

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs Non-Governmental Organisation

Non-Timber Forest Product Official Development Assistance Phong Nha – Ke Bang National Park Provin ial People’s Co ittee Provincial Project Management Unit State Forest Enterprise

Technical Assistance Terms of Reference People’ Co ettee United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organisation Vietnam Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development

Vietnam Bank for Social Policies Village Development Plan

Vietna Far ers’ Asso iation Vietnam Dong

Vietna o en’s Union

Preface

T is report as been supported and inan ed under t e “Nature Conservation and Sustainable anage ent o Natural esour es in t e P ong N a- e ang National Par egion” in uang in Provin e t roug inan ial logisti al and te ni al support o t e Gesells a t r internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

The consultant team made up of Peter Bille Larsen and Nguyen Manh Ha would particularly like to thank Jens Kallabinski, Pham Thi Lien Hoa and Nguyen Duy Luong for the opportunity

to conduct this rapid appraisal.We are grateful for the good support and nice company offered

by the project team members Mr Tuân, Mr Duc and Mr Vân, who took actively part in the fieldwork We would also like to thank the Phong Nha Ke Bang National Park colleagues, KfW staff, provincial authorities and other friends for their active support Finally, the project team would like to thank the hamlets, who kindly shared their precious time with us in order for us to conduct our interviews, learn about their everyday struggles and hopefully shed light on challenges and possible ways forward

With a very intense, but short field schedule, rapid data collection tools were employed, yet there is no pretension here to be exhaustive on the admittedly wide range of topics and issues covered Still, the analysis seeks to identify a number of critical areas of work, for the protected area management board, provincial authorities and the KfW and GIZ partners Throughout the report key findings are listed alongside recommendations for action

Given the increasing attention to the social performance of World Heritage sites, it is our hope that findings can assist Vietnamese authorities in identifying effective and equitable solutions

to the challenges in the area

For a province and a people that have fought so long to rebuild their homes, striving to protect their heritage and secure local benefits are admirable aspirations We have been honoured to

be able to work with Quang Binh province and its partners on this important topic

1 Introduction and specific mandate

This brief report seeks to provide a snapshot of the relationships, issues and concerns between Phong Nha Ke Bang National Park and World Heritage site and the surrounding communities with a specific focus on ethnic minorities Specific objectives for the consultant team included:

“1 To provide an independent and credible analysis of the current status of relevant aspects of indigenous peoples1 and the Phong Nha – Ke Bang National Park and its surroundings

2 To provide an analysis on lessons to be learned and recommendations for improvements (emphasis on social safeguard policies for all investments/interventions

It was specifically expected that the consultancy would involve a preliminary assessment and analysis of the following elements:

a Information sharing and consultation

b Tenure

c Decision-making and management

d Livelihoods and benefits

e Culture

1.1 Methodology

The review combines a desk review of key documents and background literature provided with field assessments in selected villages in and around the park Given time constraints, a rapid assessment and open-ended qualitative assessment approach was preferred in order to, within the very short time-span, identify key elements, which could nevertheless contribute to on-going planning and implementation processes Several recent documents have put particular emphasis on collecting quantitative data on demography, poverty statistics and it was deemed important to undertake a less data-intensive, yet open-ended qualitative approach to answer the questions at stake

Initial plans included two periods of fieldwork, which were later reduced to one brief preparatory visit along with a second data-gatheringfield-visit from December 3 to December 9

in selected hamlets in the communes of Tân Trach (Ban 39/ Arem/ Ma Coong people), Thuong Hoa (Ban On, Ruc/ Sach people) and Dân Hoa (Ban Cha Lo/ May people)

1 ereas “indigenous peoples” is not syste ati ally applied by Vietna ese aut orities t e ore commonly appearing term of ethnic minorities is used synonymously throughout this report.

Name of Village no household Population Ethnicity

Arem,

Ma Coong

On Village T ượng Trạch commune 63 259 Ruc, SáchYên Hợp village T ượng Trạch commune 42 191 Ruc, Sách

Mò O- Ồ Ồ village T ượng Trạch commune 66 268 Ruc, Sách

In addition, a brief visit was made to commune officials in Thuong Trach and brief talks were held with villagers in Yên Hop and Mo O Ồ O hamlets of Thuong Hoa As the hamlets concerned all are within so-called border areas, this created particular permit requirements and registration steps at all levels when conducting fieldwork The final border permit was received late morning of the first day, and local authorities and border police kindly provided support and presence during the fieldwork process

Initial plans to have hamlet participatory consultations were “reduced” to informal information sharing dinners given the particular fieldwork conditions and the preparation challenges Finally, the initial ToR involved the preparation of a provincial stakeholder meeting, which in the end was cancelled during the field trip Instead, a feedback session was held with the protected area management board In summary, what was initially planned more as a participatory appraisal, in the end took form of a rapid appraisal

The team was made up of an environmental anthropologist alongside a protected area specialist both with experience in the area While the initial hope was to have an anthropological study undertaken, time did not allow for ethnography (requiring several months

of fieldwork) However, we have sought to bring in open-ended approaches to data gathering

1.2 Background on social dynamics and PNKB with a specific focus on ethnic minorities

Phong Nha–Ke Bang National Park (PNKB) covers an area of125,498 hectares (if the extension is included) and a buffer zone of 225,000 ha with both high population figures and levels of cultural diversity A series of recent efforts including overall bufferzone development plans as well as village-specific participatory processes point to the growing attention to social dynamics not least in the context of KfW and GIZ support

Ethnic minority communities make up roughly one fifth of the bufferzone communes, yet this figure is much higher if only hamlets bordering the PNKB are listed It needs to be noted that many of the bordering ethnic minority communities have among the highest poverty rates, not only in the province, but the country as a whole Provincial data demonstrates that poverty rates are closely correlated with ethnic minority presence By end of the 2007, Thuong Trach, Dan Hoa and Trong Hoa communes, for example, had poverty rates above 90 %, even having increased in some of these communes (Ilumtics 2008: : 19-20) With such poverty rates and lack of food security, even minor changes can have dramatic impacts, as is illustrated by some

of field material presented here In fact, poverty and ethnicity correlations are even stronger the further one approaches to park highlighting a series of questions relating to the ethnicity, conservation and poverty interface Thus whereas poverty levels in Thuong Hoa commune were roughly around 50 % in 2007, the figures for the Ruc ethnic minority hamlets within the commune neighboring the Ke Bang park extension in the commune were almost double as high This has made it difficult to achieve the objectives of hunger and poverty reduction (UBND Quảng Bình 2006) despite significant investments over the years

It is increasingly clear for authorities that poverty reduction are not being achieved involving complex linkages to resource degradation and fragile livelihoods, but also recognizing the potential negative impacts of current forest management policies

World Heritage site recognition in PNKB has been a major milestone in terms of generating both public policy attention and wider awareness about the specific challenges in the area The PNKB strategic plans put a strong emphasis on reflecting the highest international standards

on protected area conservation and World Heritage Site management Within the last few years, UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee have increasingly alongside advisory bodies such as IUCN and ICOMOS started addressing how State parties have integrated community and rights concerns in their World Heritage nominations and management practices The issues addressed here largely reflect the kinds of topics and policy objectives becoming international World Heritage standards The report should in other words be seen as

a management contribution allowing for a better understanding of community participation in the World Heritage site dynamics as well the identification of relevant management responses

T e initial proje t agree ent o t e / G parti ularly e p asizes t at “t e project will pay parti ular attention to t e equal parti ipation o wo en and et ni inorities” This offers a genuine opportunity to support Vietnamese authorities in this respect

1.3 On-going processes to address local community concerns in PNKB

The PNKB area is undergoing a series of rapid project developments, park extension, tourism development and management planning processes, which in one way or another, involve or affecta wide range of community participation issues Many park staff members have over the years worked closely with villagers and local leaders through meetings, environmental education and protection contract managementas well as some pilot efforts involving community-based mapping, participatory development planning and non-timber forest products Despite such experiences, there have been few attempts to systematically analyze the advances made and constraints met

The report seeks to make a small contribution in this respect The team also invited the park management to share their experience, and upon request by the management board also sent

a set of written questions to explore the subject matter in more detail Two PNKB project staff formed part of the data gathering process in the field At the final meeting, where preliminary findings were discussed, exchanges were held with staff representatives and we have sought

to integrate findings in the analysis below This being said, further work can be done by the park management to undertake a self-evaluation exercise about the issues raised in the report

A series of on-going community-related processes are closely linked to international processes Management decisions are not merely aimed at satisfying provincial or national requirements, but equally to reflect global standards, the most evident case being the World Heritage process This also concerns the recent emphasis on social issues.Within recent years, both CBD and UNESCO processes have put increasing emphasis on rights-based approaches, equitable benefit-sharing and participation in protected areas and Throughout the

40 year history of the convention, work in the World Heritage context on community and rights issues have gradually taken on more importance and received explicit attention, not least through the adoption of the fift “C” to “en an e t e role o o unities in t e i ple entation

o t e orld Heritage Convention” ( HC 2007 in C rist ur New ealand) T e World Heritage Convention framework increasingly alongside wider conservation policy seeks to contribute to wider sustainable development objectives and diverse management approaches Site renomination to acknowledge cultural values and criteria has, for example, taken place in some cases Given that the park expansion has been driven by IUCN evaluations as well as being a KfW donor requirement, it is equally important to take into account international policy development in relation to community rights, participation and benefit-sharing when assessing

current dynamics The study therefore also seeks to provide a point of reflection upon current dynamics using the main categories currently employed by UNESCO and the advisory bodies:

 Information sharing, consultation and consent

 Tenure & rights

 Participation in decision-making and management

 Livelihoods, costs and benefit-sharing

 Culture

2 Information sharing, consultation and consent

This section particularly explores the use of information, consultation and consent procedures

in on-going PNKB processes Whereas a recent study specifically explores the use of Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) in REDD-related processes (J Kallabinski, personal communication), the focus is here particularly on protected area-related processes as seen from below

2.1 Evolving forms of participation

In overall terms, there has been a growing emphasis on consultation as evidenced by having some level of community consultations upon drafting the management and strategic planning, protected area expansion plans as well as bottom-up driven development priority setting (VDP 2011) Whereas community relations were previously driven by a top-down “environ ental edu ation” approa there is now more emphasis on sharing information and participation

Evolving forms of participation in PNKB

Several planning documents indicate the use of consultation and participation of local representatives in the planning of the bufferzone, sustainable tourism and management plans (PPC Quang Binh 2012a: : 6) In the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) exer ise underta en by irdli e it is noted t at “ onsultation pro esses ave been arried out with local communities, including indigenous ethnic minority groups (such as Arem, Ruc/ Chut)

in villages of in villages of Tan Trach, Thuong Hoa and Hoa Son co unes” (Birdlife 2012) This indicates particular attention being paid to the need for particular consultation needs and rights of what the Birdlife report labels as “indigenous et ni inorities” w i in prin iple would indicate interest in reflecting best national and international protected area practice, indeed stressing t e i portan e o onsultation Next steps suggested in lude t at “opinions and suggestions by indigenous local communities are taken into account and incorporated in

t e Par ’s anage ent plan” as well as “Spe ial attention s ould be paid to lo al

o unities’ suggestions/requests on landuse planning and bene it and responsibility s aring

in natural resour e use.” (ibid:13-14) Yet t e sa e report also underlines ow “during t e Park establishment planning process and Investment plan making process, local communities ave a little involve ent in t e pro ess”

2.2 Assessing emerging forms of participation and consultation

Given the history of top-down driven protected area processes in the area (Larsen 2008), it is important to assess newly evolving efforts in terms of their relevance, effectiveness and actual outcomes What appears is a varied landscape of consultation and participation practices to a large extent determined by the specific activity framework, and sometimes even the specific competencies of a consultant hired for a specific assignment

In most cases where villagers remembered meetings (notably in connection with the park extension and the strategic park plan), they could no longer remember what exactly had been discussed, nor whether or what the outcomes were of the consultations held While some leaders had a slightly clearer sense of the focus of what they had participated in or had been consulted about, they were not able to show actual results, moreover, there were no documented meeting minutes, agreements available locallyon any consultation meeting which had been conducted The core conclusion here is the lack of systematic predictable participation and consultation approaches for local people to incrementally build up a better understanding of protected area and World Heritage processes and engage more actively

Participation spectrum

In the spectrum of consultation possibilities, main emphasis has been on sharing information once decision have been taken alongside process specific consultations e.g linked to a given project process For village leaders living within the park (such as Tân Trach), people would generally remember having meetings, yet not being able to show or inform about meeting

results The lack of knowledge was further evident in discussions about park expansion in the

Ke Bang area There was consistent confusion about the boundaries and consequences of park expansion Thus where international policy frameworks to protected area designation, expansion and World Heritage recognition increasingly emphasize the use of Prior Informed Consent and similar standards, such standards were yet to be fully explored and applied in the PNKB setting

In more substantive terms, there was very limited knowledge, if any, about proposed boundaries, zoning proposals, protection boundaries and the consequences for people There are o ten general state ents stating t e ondu t o “open onsultation” yet ield data also revealed considerable confusion in terms of preparations, issues covered and actual levels of engagement in decision-making processes The scientific report on the expansion process, for example, revealed very scattered knowledge among affected villagers about the size, borders and consequences of the park expansion, the most knowledgeable being hamlet leaders Conversely, the report also showed that when shown the areas on a map:

“t ey all new and ould spea learly about t e position and ara ter o t e par expansion border People noted how they previously would often enter the forest areas

to arvest ertain orest produ ts li e oney so e orest produ ts li e rattan … (Nguyen et al 2012: : 63).“

For forest-dependent people, they obviously know the forest, yet much more effort needs to be done in terms of outlining customary use areas and secure consent around appropriate management responses (see below) There was equally a confusion about where and what the World Heritage site covered Thus some villagers living in the middle of the PNKB WH site would respond they had never been there (meaning they perceived the World Heritage site as limited to the Phong Nha caves) Furthermore, what and with whom information is shared is yet to be systematically organized Interviewees from hamlet to commune and district level did often not have key documents about park activities, extension process, maps and even specific project activities involving themselves In overall terms, most local authorities lacked a basic overview about the strategic management plan and implications for their work The consequences of poor information flows are easily t at e erging proble s and “burning issues” re ain unresolved potentially turning into dra ati on li ts t is in t is sense also quite clear that the PNKB area does not yet have clear mechanisms for community claims, disagreements and conflict resolution measures

Key finding

Appoaches to participation in PNKB are mainly based on data gathering and information sharing upon decision, rather than applying informed consent procedures and active involvement in decision-making Information levels and consultation processes are on the increase, yet till now have been inadequate to secure effective and equitable participation and informed consent in key planning processes including the park expansion Furthermore, basic information sharing is yet to be systematically organized across different levels alongside clear-cut mechanisms and processes for community claims and independent conflict resolution measures

The risk of taking a participation process for granted is ever present Consider how the majority

of commune and district officials in the expansion plan considered that the Ke Bang expansion did not fundamentally have any impact of significance on local livelihoods Such conclusions were confirmed at the district level in Minh Hoa through interviews with Phong Nha- e ang’ district project officials, as well as in some communes, raising the concern that local officials may easily neglect fundamental livelihood concerns, in part, because they are unaware the actual nature of forest dependency in the area concerned Commune and district officials are rarely fully aware of, or may even seek to downplay, the importance of forest-based liveli oods and ay “ignore” basi subsisten e season-based forest use if only major timber

is considered One commune level party Secretary when asked whether people entered PNKB and the expansion area answered:

“ ông ó ô…dân Dân Hóa chủ yêu đi rừng bên Lào”

They don’t go (to the expansion area) people in Dân Hoa mainly go to the Laos

While the latter is certainly (also) the case, depending on hamlet, season and forest product there is considerable presence and use of forest products by hamlets in the expansion area How to explain this discrepancy? Emphasis when forest use is discussed generally focuses on high value species and activities, and tends to neglect critical livelihood issues from subsistence to relatively small commercial values, which are often of seasonal importance rather than permanent throughout the year (see further discussion on livelihoods below) There are clear periods where the national park forests are used more heavily than neighbouring Laotian forests and vice versa Local officials may not be aware or wish to communicate such matters Ignoring customary use areas and periods in the park planning processes, based on official statements of little use, may therefore result in neglecting customary use areas affected

by park planning processes In overall terms park expansion and discussions around World Heritage matters still seem to be largely centralized discussions with technical inputs provided

by consultants (FIPI) and government agencies Consultation is yet to be done in a fledged manner fully reflecting the particular cultural context, collective concerns and particular rights at stake

fully-Key finding

The lack of systematic participation and consultation mechanisms is leading to a deficit of knowledge about the customary forest use practices and wider community perspectives and is yet to involve differentiated consultation and consent practices reflecting distinct positions and rights conditions

Recommendation

The World Heritage site and the management board should urgently adopt and implement participation, consultation and consent measures as a cross-cutting policy reflecting the distinct rights and concerns of communities These measures should in accordance with provincial priorities, reflect the highest UNESCO, IUCN and CBD standards including the use

of Free Prior Informed Consent where relevant

3 Tenure & rights

Whereas tenure security for agricultural lands by Kinh in surrounding bufferzone zones is relatively secure and clear through land use certificates, far more uncertainty and contradictions currentlyexist with regards to tenure rights over forest resources, forest lands, fallow lands and shifting cultivation plots by ethnic minorities

To what extent do current PNKB protected area and WH processes take into account such community tenure security and rights issues? Some developments have taken place in recent years to increasingly take up community tenure issues The design of the KfW and GIZ efforts from early on involved an emphasis on clarifying tenure issues alongside wider processes to consolidate tenure notably in relation to agriculture, but also in relation to community forestry lands

In the study hamlets, this was manifest in different ways In Tân Trach, where Arem have long suffered from not having legal access to cultivation lands, a process was underway to recognize some 200 ha as an internal bufferzone In Thuong Trach commune, a major land use planning process had been undertaken, and initial map results were being shared with commune authorities as we visited the area Specific proposals allocating some 3,915.7 ha for the 14+ hamlets of the commune were being reviewed by provincial authorities during fieldwork.In Dân Hoa and Thuong Hoa communes, a process of land allocation had been set in motion, yet implementation appeared highly uneven between and even within, different hamlets A common feature was often slower progress on allocation processes in more remote hamlets, but also varying allocation between households In one hamlet observed (Mo O Ồ Ồ), there was even a case mentioned of a recent settler being allocated land before indigenous inhabitants

Not only allocation itself, but even management of forest lands is by some observers considered ineffective (FIPI 2012: 48) The Project in part seeks to address some of these concerns by among other things supporting of communal forest land allocation, cooperation with SFEs and the implementation of forest land cadastre, yet there is room for more action as discussed further below Considering the fundamental importance of land and forest resources for these communities, far more investments should be made in ensuring adequate allocation processes Given the fact that most allocation processes are only now being consolidated, there is still room for the KfW and GIZ project to facilitate a review process allowing the PNKB World Heritage site to better reflect best practices on tenure security This should be considered both from the perspective of improving livelihood security and reflecting national and international standards for tenure security

3.1 Broadening notions of tenure

Tenure is often interpreted as limited to questions of clear landownership without addressing the wider questions of other resources, access, use and control over other benefit aspects equally important to understand tenure more broadly The approach taken here, as in wider World Heritage processes internationally, addresses not just questions of land ownership, but the wider issues of access, use and withdrawal of forest and other resources While the central question relates to how community issues have been dealt with within the protected areas, a number of bufferzone related tenure questions are also addressed in this section As an overall principle, the current strategic management plan clearly emphasizes that:

“Not ing in t is document is intended to diminish in any way their land rights or user rig ts eit er legally re ognized or usto ary.” (PPC Quang Binh 2012a: : 21)

This shows a strong policy commitment to further build and take into account both legally

recognized and customary land rights and user rights This is very much in line with the overall

global World Heritage policy framework seeking to build on and address rather than annul customary tenure in the management of World Heritage sites Yet, in practice, customary tenure security and rights have not been fully or adequately addressed in prior protected area processes in PNKB, norin current extension plans and merit further attention in future work in the area What appears in the following are the following key tenure and rights issues that would need further attention and action:

1) the question of unresolved protected area legacy issues

2) new issues emerging in the context of the IUCN-recommended expansion area

3) Unresolved forest and agricultural tenure in bufferzone

4) Question of customary tenure

5) Questions of formalizing community tenure rights (and closing de facto open access)

3.2 Unresolved protected area legacy issues

Among protected area legacy questions, are a series of tenure issues, which remain to be unresolved In Tân Trach commune, this involves two distinct cases On the one hand, it concerns the resettlement of the indigenous Arem community and their longstanding wish to return to their ancestral lands In a complex of history of being resettled several times, most recently being required to move from contaminated lands towards a resettlement area without direct water access, this protected area legacy issue remains critical to address in an urgent fashion The Arem have previously repeatedly requested to move back and have more stable access to earlier settlement sites and processes to address these have taken place under some tension The other case in the small commune concerns a number of Vân Kiêu communities in the Doong village, where resettlement is being considered It was not possible

to visit this village, yet it is highly recommended that an independent facilitation of the process

is provided The question of resettlement consequences and responses require far more transparent approach recognizing customary land rights and a mechanism in place to deal with the access to traditional areas in an equitable manner Both cases should involve

implementing the new participation measures discussed in an earlier section

In Thuong Trach, it was not possible to discuss the legacy issue in further detail, yet previous research clearly identifies overlap between the protected area and customary use areas of the MaCoong This overlap has yet to be addressed in more explicit terms As the following quote from the strategic management plan indicates there is consciousness about the legacy of

neglecting and de jure annulling community rights in the park:

“ u o t e urrent on li t between t e National Par and lo al o unities ay ave been created when the Park was formed and extended by grants of management authority over land and resources that were traditionally used by local communities and to which they may have had legal rights Addressing the actual or perceived inequities created by this transfer of rights may be a precondition to promoting and encouraging the cooperation and active participation of communities in the sustainable protection, conservation, management and presentation of the National Park and its World Heritage values This in turn is seen as a necessary condition to the sustainable protection, conservation, management and presentation of World Heritage values.” (PPC Quang Binh 2012a: 44)”

The critical point here is that while this rights legacy is recognized in the plan, there are no specific management responses to document and analyze the rights legacy issues at stake and how to address and resolve them in an equitable manner One solution listed is that of see ing to “nor alize t e situation o t ose people w o are living within the national park by

de ar ating ‘internal bu erzones’ wit in t e ore zone T is o ers so e potential yet t e approach will need to be designed carefully taking into account recommendations from this report It is, for example, highly problematic that a community as the Arem, who were already resettled twice are still listed under “ orest land en roa ent” in t e operational plan (PPC

Quang Binh 2012b: : 23) These people are living within customary land areas, and as the operational plan later notes “par planning did not adequately onsider t e land-use demand of Tan Tra o une” (ibid: 24) Addressing t e usto ary land rig ts o et ni inorities wit customary ties to PNKB is not a question of encroachment, but needs to be reconsidered as redressing a legacy of neglecting their customary tenure rights and practices Curent technical cooperation activities can likely bring in new approaches and ideas in this respect

Key finding

There is an urgent need to address protected area legacy issues such as resettlement and the neglect of customary tenure in a more transparent fashion

Recommendation

It is recommended that a process to document and address protected area legacy issues such

as resettlement, livelihood loss and the neglect of customary tenure rights is put in place by the management board with support from the project

3.3 New issues emerging in the context of the IUCN-recommended expansion area

A critical development involves the expansion of the protected area into the Ke Bang area While the protected area expansion is generally perceived by planning authorities as relatively unproblematic in terms of not overlapping with land under other forms of property (ie mainly involving government owned land), a closer look at the process raises a series of questions First of all, it was already clear during the preparation of the expansion plans through consultation in 16 hamlets affected by the park expansion that only around 30 % knew about the park expansion plans, and only very few, namely hamlet leaders, were aware of boundaries proposed (Nguyen et al 2012: : 60) These findings were confirmed in the hamlets visited for this review Not only is there limited knowledge about expansion among officials and hamlet leaders, it is also clear that expansion plans do not take into account customary tenure areas Rather park expansion dynamics are mainly based on assessing biodiversity importance and whether there is an overlap with agricultural lands, with only very limited assessment of traditional forest use areas, old settlements, fallows and wider cultural landscapes The whole question of customary tenure rights to forest-land and resources is only timidly and indirectly addressed through questions of access rights to certain non-timber forest products There is a critical need to document and address customary tenure in a far more comprehensive manner within the expansion area and the national park as the whole

Key finding

While overlaps between the PNKB expansion area and agricultural areas have mostly been addressed, a wider set of customary tenure rights over some shifting cultivation areas, older fallows and wider forest-related tenure rights remain to be fully understood and addressed in terms of current expansion plans

Recommendation

The Project is highly recommended to urgently put in place with technical support by the GIZ a process to identify and map out customary tenure rights within and in the immediate surroundings of the PNKB National Park and the expansion areas

3.4 Unresolved forest and agricultural tenure in the bufferzone

Visits in each commune, revealed how forest land allocation has till date been implemented quite unevenly across the bufferzone with varying approaches e.g in term of collective or

individual allocation practices In Dân Hoa 6 hamlets had received forest land for collective management, while it is absent in most others.Yet, even where it has been undertaken areas are small and based on numerical logics – rather than broader cultural and ecosystemic logics ndeed as t e ollowing statisti s ro t e t ree “ ục hamlets"in Thuong Hoa show, the areas allocated or in process are relatively small

Total area of natural land managed by

No of land areas not allocated 29.8

The total area of forest and agricultural land under village management calculated is very limited and small compared to the wider customary forest-lands While knowledge about customary land is systematically absent or deficient, it was e.g apparent that a number of older fallow areas in Thuong Hoa were being excluded from existing land use planning purposes Another example would be a lear “drive” ro t e party se retary in t e Ón a let

to resettle households in the hamlet, who are attempting to retain on additional settlement and cultivation area This issue appeared in several hamlets and is likely far more significant than reported At stake, is a longstanding practice of shifting cultivation side by side with a policy drive to stop or reduce the customary livelihood practice framed in the language of

“sedentarization” T e e e ts o t is were dra ati ally felt in the Cha Lo hamlet (Dan Hoa commune), which had seen its agricultural lands drastically reduced and taken over into the newly established Minh Hoa watershed protection forest The consequence had been dramatic

in terms of household subsistence activities, not least reinforcing forest dependence activities

in other areas Another challenge from the perspective of harmonizing land use planning with customary use concerns the current approaches to community forests (a key project component in the bufferzone) Field data from one field-site (Cha Lo) revealed little understanding of the current hamlet head about the actual allocation process, and even the location itself of the community forest Only after some discussion, was the Red Book presented revealing a composite community forest of four different plots rather than one contiguous community forest Hamlet leaders were unable to explain the location of the forest plots, and there was a significant disconnect between customary forest holdings and the so-called “community forest” w i appeared ore in paper t an anyw ere else Project activities have led to some advances in terms of forest-land allocation to communities, yet the size and

extent are from adequate to secure sustainable livelihoods What appears is also an urgent

need to effectively expand and prioritize community tenure security where customary use

areas overlap with the lands of State Forestry Entreprises, Watershed Forest and third parties

in the bufferzone Although this review could not enter into detail on this matter, there is an urgent need for high-level provincial facilitation in this respect to secure bufferzone communities an adequate land and resource base for long-term livelihood security purposes

Key finding

Implementation of agricultural and forest land allocation processes in the core and bufferzone reveal substantial gaps and implementation challenges There is a need for additional land use assessment and planning processes in the bufferzone to fully address customary agricultural and forest use as integral components including where such lands and resources overlap with State Forestry Entreprises, the National Park or Watershed Protection Forest

Recommendation

The PNKB project and German partners are recommended to urgently conduct a detailed review process of current agricultural and forest land allocation processes allowing for a rapid identification of needs and opportunities to adapt and expand allocations to better reflect customary livelihoods needs and rights

3.5 Recognizing and working with rather than against customary tenure

As discussed above, there is an urgent need to work with customary tenure in a far more explicit and harmonized manner as a key bufferzone priority Longstanding policy stances against shifting cultivation are in part hindering a far more pro-active management engagement with customary agricultural practices Several studies clearly underline the importance of stopping shifting cultivation – defining it as deforestation (FIPI 2012: : 89) Yet, the assumptions here are simplistic both in terms of neglecting the rotational cycles at stake as well as neglecting the significance of shifting cultivation fields from a livelihood perspective – and as an alternative to forest dependence This is making it difficult to effectively secure the recognition and protection of customary tenure security and more ecologically reasonable (ie

longer) fallow cycles Strong policy stances againsttraditional shifting cultivation have in fact

contributed towards undermining livelihood security and increasing pressures on the forest In Cha Lo hamlet for example, households have literally been forced to increase forest trips to eak out a living In terms of forest lands, the current numerical approach of e.g limiting the maximum size of forest land allocations to 30 ha per head is highly flawed and hindering an allocation policy based on longer-standing community holdings, customary rights and management practices.The latter has e.g been seen the case in Thuong Trach commune where one hamlet attempt to receive 1,800 ha was being considered too big simply based on numerical calculations To effectively promote equitable allocation solutions, a far more explicit focus on customary relations is a critical prerequisite to move out of this numbers game Instead, a pro-active management approach based on customary holdings would provide a better and more socially equitable criterion for a revised PNKB forestland allocation process

Key finding

Current forest and land allocation processes are often limited to pre-defined limits, and are yet

to fully build on and reflect customary tenure relationships, which form a critical ingredient in culturally sensitive and equitable bufferzone development and conservation planning

Such customary tenure relationships are not merely about production, but fundamentally concern long-standing cultural ties to the land For the Arem, regaining tenure rights to old settlement areas were not just about fishing grounds, but about returning to ancestors Such ties, revealing the ancestral relationships of PNKB as a lived cultural landscape, need to be further recognized and supported In practice, many local officials accept and work with some

level of customary use Thus even where forest use may be considered illegal, in principle, many officials accept subsistence activities This however makes communities highly vulnerable to individual action The chairman of Tân Trach fatherlands front, for example, described how a new forest guard had prohibited Arem from gathering dry firewood Only after protesting vehemently had the guard accepted firewood collection While there is generally some acceptance of forest use, this is far too dependent on individual goodwill and acceptance In overall terms, only smaller fragments of customary land and forest use areas are recognized, and the banning of use within the forest and traditional shifting cultivation in many areas (watershed, SFEs and others) has left it nearly impossible to have a more planned approach with about strengthening the sustainable forest use There is an urgent need for a general assessment on this issue to consolidate and recognize customary tenure rights are at stake here for people to consolidate their livelihoods

3.6 Growing outside pressures and “land grabbing”

Apart from the lack of formal recognition of community tenure discussed above, community

tenure security was for a long time maintained by difficult access de facto preventing outsider

from entering and accessing these areas Physical access to both resources within the Phong Nha Ke Bang area and neighbouring Laos have become more accessible through significant road improvements or new roads within the last 15 years Whereas the Ón households in Thuong Hoa were previously several hours walk from commune headquarters, the area is now connected by road Where Tân Trạch and Thuong Trach were previously very difficult to access, an improved road 20 now provides access and more development will be invested for this area as the Ca Roong border pass will be enlarged to facilitate future import and export activity.The opening of Cha Lo border crossing has equally transformed the resource dynamics

in Dân Hóa In practice, access to PNKB is accelerating with continuous improvements The effects of lacking a clear framework for the protection of customary tenure can be observed in

a number of growing trends in the PNKB bufferzone All hamlets observed had recent settlers setting up shops and obtaining land and resident permits in the hamlets Phenomena observed also included “outsiders” “requesting” and investing in land plots for aforestation, agricultural land etc There were reports from other hamlets about a growing practice not just of direct, but equally of outsiders investing illegally in land through local owners and controversial sharecropping arrangements Added to this, are longstanding challenges of keeping people from lowerlying areas outside of the forests In the Rục hamlets, the commune officials had facilitated the entry of new households to the hamlets, some of which had been among the first

to receive Red Books, while the majority were still lacking land titles (interview, Mo O Mo O) There seems to be the lack of a clear policy and effective implementation mechanisms to protect existing community lands from the further entrance of other settlers and land grabbing The new land allocation process and emerging markets is also generating a series of internal dynamics in which social differentiation seems to be taking place One informant spoke of buying several hectares of forest land for a few bags of rice further indicating the dramatic tenure shifts taking place Such processes are likely to accelerate e.g in the context of road improvement and tourism development in areas Arrival and access of world heritage

recognition creates new conditions, as the transformation of land markets experienced upon the recognition of Phong Nha-Ke Bang

Key finding

There is growing pressure on land and resources, and urgent need for a bufferzone policy prioritizing community tenure security and blocking further settlements and access to land resources

Recommendation

Provincial authorities are recommended to put in place a safe-guard policy in the bufferzone to protect indigenous community tenure security and prevent future outside settlements and resource access in the area

4 Livelihoods, costs and benefit-sharing

How and to what extent have livelihoods issues and equitable benefit-sharing been addressed

in the PNKB processes, and what lessons can we learn from the villages visited? From an overall perspective, the desk review revealed significant importance granted to livelihoods as such, yet also a need to revisit how livelihoods are addressed and how design relevant project interventions

It should be noted that the management board has a clear organizational mandate linked to participation and livelihood benefitsas spelt out in in Article 8(3):

„ an quản lý Vườn quốc gia Phong Nha - Kẻ Bàng tổ chứ o dân ư vùng đệm tham gia các hoạt động bảo vệ, bảo tồn, sử dụng hợp lý lâm sản và các tài nguyên tự nhiên, các dịch vụ du lị sin t ái để góp phần nâng cao thu nhập và gắn sinh kế của người dân với các hoạt động của Vườn quố gia“ (UBND Quảng Bình 2007)

„T e P ong N a - Ke Bang National Park Management Board organizes for local people living in the buffer zone to participate in activities on protection, conservation and proper use of forest products and other natural resources, ecological tourism services for the sake of contribution to income increase and linking livelihood improvement of local people with forest protection activities of the National Park (PPC Quang Binh, Decision 18/2007)

Addressing the question of sustainable livelihoods is alsoa central objective in the strategic management plan, just as it is the basis of German support and wider World Heritage Commitments to sustainable development objectives2 To be specific, the Project goal as determined by the agreement between provincial authorities, KfW and the GTZ (GIZ) specifically noted the “a elioration o t e legal in o e o t e target group” i.e “t e population

o t e ore and bu erzone” as t e proje t goal alongside redu ing t e pressure on t e PN

What is important to note here is the emphasis on legal income of both core zone and

bufferzone populations Yet, in practice, current conservation measures in terms of objectives and strategic measures are yet to fully embrace this commitment Current approaches to livelihoods largely follow a long tradition of seeking to delink forest-based livelihoods in order to reduce impacts This is evidenced in t e urrent obje tive or ulation e p asizing “alternative liveli oods” at is interesting owever is t e e p asis in t e obje tive o introdu ing

“sustainable use”

4.1 Moving beyond livelihoods as a threat towards recognition

A critical challenge with the current project approach involves the overarching idea of working against forest dependency The most important threat identified in the conservation needs assessment (CNA) is onsidered to be “wildli e unting and trapping or subsistence needs and o er ial purposes” What appears is thus how a core livelihoods strategy practiced for generations as a subsistence activity and right is redefined as a threat Notably the importance forest-based livelihoods as a customary right rather than poverty-driven necessity is continuously neglected Still, it needs to be recognized clearly, as the CNA indeed does, that

t ere are “no syste ati studies/ assess ents o t e i pa ts o unting/ trapping on t e population depletion ” (Birdlife 2012: 3) Nor are there for that matter systematic studies of the impact of shifting cultivation, another livelihood activity often identified as a threat Most analyses tend to speak of the detrimental impacts of these activities without differentiating

2

See e.g http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2010/whc10-34com-5De.pdf „

orld Heritage: ene its eyond orders“ Edited by Amareswar Galla

these according to species, the types of hunting/ trapping, shifting cultivation areas nor the areas concerned Rather sweeping statements about the negative role of livelihoods are listed This does not allow to effectively distinguish between common species, where sustainable hunting and trapping is possible and highly endangered species Nor does it distinguish between traditional livelihoods and more predatory forms of forest extraction by outsiders Shifting cultivation practices are also continuously rendered “a t reat” While recent processes

to secure red books over some parts of the traditional shifting cultivation areas moves in the direction of recognition, many old fallows remain cut off – o ten requali ied as “natural orest” within a few years of fallow This was e.g the case in Tân Trạch and Cha Lo, especially the latter having experienced drastic reductions of their shifting cultivation area Tan Trach is only recently being formalized in terms of partial agricultural rights This will be recognized as red books, yet the process is slow It is also full of gaps Old fallows are not recognized, nor are customary landholdings taken into account Needs are identified on a limited basis in terms of currently extracted areas and again a numerical figure: 200 ha

At stake in the hamlets visited is also a longstanding “cat and mouse” attempt to hide shifting cultivation away from reports, understate forest dependency – leaving people in a catch 22 when responding to questions about their traditional forest use and current processes to forest land allocation Whereas shifting cultivation in total terms of coverage and intensity arguably does not represent a major threat to biodiversity, they represent a critical source of livelihood security In places, where this has been stopped notably for rice, this is presenting serious livelihood concerns The very high poverty figures particularly among indigenous communities

is further perpetuated by the fragility of customary livelihoods

Key finding

Despite the overall emphasis on sustainable livelihoods, there is a dominant management logic against (customary) livelihoods, hindering more effective and equitable engagement with livelihood rights among the most needy and further provoking poverty

Recommendation

Provincial authorities should urgently put in place a pro-poor policy to recognize and support customary livelihoods clearly distinguishing such forest use and practices from forest use by outsiders

4.2 Underreporting or inadequate representation of forest dependency

“Is PNKB A Source of Livelihood? The question is posed here because the Team got the

i pression t at ost rural people’s view of the Park is either neutral (some ethnic minority people in farther away areas hardlyknow what it is; only that there must be some nice caves to visit) or rat er negative “ (Gebert and Trang 2011: 30)

Despite some 10 years or more with efforts to increasingly document household numbers, livelihood activities and poverty levels, securing adequate representations of and quality data about livelihoods in PNKB still remains a challenge Data is often approximate, non-quantified and sometimes erroneous in terms of representation

There is the risk of simplistic descriptions of ethnic minority livelihoods as and backwards

“ ajority o et ni people are only a iliar wit ba ward ultivation pra ti es ave li ited experience in intensive farming and technical knowledge (FIPI 2012: : 38)” “ a ward farming practices ingrained in the mind of many local people (especially ethnic minorities) is regarded as the barrier for the socio-economic development buffer zone communes of Phong Nha - e ang NP.” (ibid: 61).Custo ary liveli oods and t eir i portan e in luding both forest use and shifting cultivation, thus remain poorly understood

In the park expansion study, there is a tendency to systematically describe forest use as insigni i ant and only on erning a “ ew ouse olds” T ese are ig ly proble ati conclusions for a number of reasons First, many, rather than few households, do in fact, depending on season, harvest and other factors continuously engage in forest-related livelihood activities within the expansion area Secondly, it can be assumed that many villagers given the legislative focus on prohibiting forest use will tend to underreport actual use forms to avoid problems Thirdly, the reporting on forest use tends to focus on monetary income (Thu nhập) easily neglecting the equally important subsistence dimensions In several of the hamlets, it was evident that subsistence-oriented forest activities were a fundamental source of food for the most poor Fourthly, seasonal variations are easily neglected Fifthly, it is

increasingly evident that the land allocation process has de jure reduced agricultural

landholdings for many communities in practice leading to greater forest dependency (see discussion elsewhere)

Finally, there is a problematic way of describing forest use practices in the past tense Several documents speak of decreasing importance (PPC Quang Binh 2012a), yet in practice research revealed highly varying situations This is e.g striking in the case of the Rục hamlets, where their main activities are described as rice, corn and manioc, whereas dry rice cultivation in fact has been almost fully abandoned Overall income statistics repeatedly reveal how monetary incomes only provide a very partial picture of local livelihood strategies (FIPI 2012: : 34-35) The very low monetary incomes need to be seen in the context of far more diverse livelihoods,

in which forest dependency plays a crucial role Even where statistics are present, they are

“guesti ates” rat er t an indi ative This was e.g evident from the percentage figures on forest dependence listed in the scientific study for the Ke Bang expansion plan

Key finding

Traditional forest use and dependence is continuously under-reported and misunderstood in discriminatory terms in terms of consequences for biodiversity loss as well as systematic neglect as a development priority

One of the consequences of not adequately representing forest livelihoods and dependency is the tendency to not include such livelihoods as a development and investment priority Thus the green village development plans, supported under the project, only rarely include investments in forest-based livelihoods even where people live in or off the forest This is also evident in the guidance for the village development plans, which includes two annexes des ribing “Liveli ood a tivities wit NEGAT VE i pa ts on biodiversity” and anot er annex wit “Liveli ood a tivities wit POS T VE i pa ts on biodiversity” (letters in capital orginal) Livelihoods with NEGATIVE impacts on biodiversity include “ olle tion o non-timber forest produ ts or subsisten e use” Even t e olle tion o wild oney is listed as a negative i pa ts due to “ ire ris s” (VDP 2011: : 22).Rather than encouraging discussion about how to maintain sustainability of ancestral livelihoods, the methodology encourages the opposite3 It was for example clear from discussions with Arem and others that sustainable honey harvesting methods are practiced and can be supported vs less sustainable forms It is also illustrative that biodiversity priorities are framed mainly as global priorities Local biodiversity priorities are not listed, whereas local forms of use are often listed as threats or encroachment (Birdlife 2012: : 25-29).The logic here is one of providing alternatives to, not strengthening forest dependence Yet, in practice, by not recognizing and distinguishing between different forms of forest use and dependency, important opportunities are lost to support sustainable forest-based livelihoods This again, should be seen in the case of hamlets known for severe subsistence problems and lack of sustainable livelihoods, where the forest is not only a customary practice, but tends to sustain the poorest of the poor

3

The resulting scheme involved the following guiding questions:

„Does t e proposed a tivity in rease i pa ts on t e national par /natural orests/biodiversity?

o YES – remove activity from Green VDP; no further discussion on this activity

o NO – analyze urt er and e against green list o liveli ood a tivities“

Existing “t eories o ange” see ing to urt er delin people ro t e orest rely on ragile grounds The idea, for example, that subsistence forest use by the poorest will be stopped by new economic opportunities and that forest use of ethnic minorities “still” ta es pla e as a matter of necessity neglects far more complex relations What can be identified are local people continuously depending on forest resources in PNKB, even where others have moved

in In the cases of the Ruc, many new opportunities in terms of reforestation, trade and projects have been captured by the few, with the majority of the poor falling back on the forest for survival It should be remembered that many of these area have received millions of development support involving “alternative” liveli oods However or t e vast ajority t e ore livelihood activities are still shifting cultivation and forest activities

Key finding

The overall policy stance remains prohibitive and restrictive in terms of customary livelihoods with some exception in terms of NTFPs and recent fallow lands Yet, forest resources as old fallows, hunting and trapping grounds remain the backbone of community livelihood strategies

in some hamlets, yet are under severe pressure and should receive investments and protection attention rather than being fought.There is a need to take a far more pro-active planning perspective on managing for rather than against sustainable livelihoods

4.3 Equitable cost and benefit-sharing framework lacking

Whereas overall project ideas are driven by intentions to support livelihood development, it was not clear whether a framework of principles and set of mechanisms were in place to guide decision-making and project support in this respect Thus whereas project intends to reduce forest dependency and use, it remains unclear how the benefits would be shared, just as it was unclear how associated burden of costs of new conservation measures would be shared Analysis and planning instruments have only in superficial terms addressed the impact of PA plans on indigenous and local communities and their livelihoods

As discussed above, the current approach to livelihoods is problematic Reduction of forest dependence is framed as a management necessity, yet it is now recognized that the benefits and costs are not born equitably Not only are the costs of protected area conservation particularly for indigenous communities with whom the park overlaps are not being calculated, the types of compensation agreements put in place are highly inadequate and tend to confuse forest protection contracts as a compensation measure The Arem in Tân Trạchare a case in point, where people resettled from traditional areas now live off rice subsidies, which were even removed for a period due to forest fires reportedly generated by neighbouring hamlets Current benefit-sharing logics are governed by a keen concern by local people that access to liveli oods ave been lost as s i ting ultivation was pro ibited “ we ould do s i ting cultivation, we wouldn’t be ungry!” a lo al o i ial put it ndeed in spe i i on erning t e Arem a series of consecutive resettlement projects lay bare the significant costs of conservation The current resettlement site at Arem hamlet lacks water access people living off rainfed tanks, which obviously dry up in the summer A previous resettlement site turned out to

be contaminated Furthermore, the community has a customary land area spreading much further and thus in principle generating a far greater area of benefit-sharing Till date, the community remains without clean water, and a majority of the people in the dry season move

to other areas, where there is access to partly contaminated water as they have been banned access to traditional settlement sites The current subsidy situation can at best be qualified as

an ad hoc stop gap measure, but is far from what under CBD and IUCN guidance could qualify

as equitable cost and benefit-sharing

Currently, in effect, ethnic minority communities are largely bearing the costs of conservation

On the one hand, they are losing access to customary livelihoods, just as they are suffering

from the impacts of outside pressures on a reduced resource base Currently, no distinctions are made between different user groups, although emerging management and extension plans

in reasingly are oving towards e p asizing ex lusive user rig ts or ertain “ ore zone” populations4

Finally, there is no framework im place to evaluate, measure or otherwise qualify livelihoods, benefits as well as costs associated with protected area conservation There is equally a need

to flesh out a specific framework for benefit-sharing The current ad hoc arrangements linked

to specific sites (e.g new cave development) is inadequate to ensure equitable benefit-sharing across the World Heritage site The risk is that benefit-sharing arrangements are driven more

by individual negotiations rather than an overall commitment to equitable solutions

Equitable cost and benefit sharing

Existing regulatory development offers some support in this respect of Decision no 126/

Đ-TTg o February 2012 is now putting in pla e pilot arrange ents about “bene it-sharing in the anage ent prote tion and sustainable develop ent o prote ted areas” T e decision, among other things, spells out specific rights and responsibilities, as well as the necessity for specific regulations on forms of allowed use Yet, it is also clear that these are quite timid attempts to address benefit-sharing mainly addressing questions of NTFPs An effective and equitable benefit-sharing mechanism for PNKB will need to spell out benefit-sharing agreements in more comprehensive terms not only limited to non-timber forest products

Key finding

Protected area processes are far from achieving equitable cost and benefit-sharing in PNKB There is a need for systematic implementation of equitable benefit-sharing including management, tourism, employment and revenue as well as far more explicit attention to both subsistence and commercially-oriented forest use

To put this into practice will require a far more explicit attention to the kinds of costs and benefits involved in the entire World Heritage process and explicit policy commitment towards equitable benefit-sharing Currently, for example, there is only a partial discussion about how communities can benefit from further financial resources generated for protected area conservation and World Heritage site management There is also a need for further discussion

4 The exact nature, scope and conditions for such arrangements remain to be fleshed out See further discussion in management section

about how benefits from mass tourism to the major caves can benefit local populations (see further discussion below) It should also be noted that the current practice of implementing forest protection contracts as a compensation is problematic Forest protection contracts are not adequate as a compensation measure for shifting cultivation livelihoods Similar questions are arising in the context of the implementation of Payment for Ecosystem Services arrangements

Recommendation

Provincial authorities are recommended to urgently put in place a comprehensive policy for equitable cost and benefit-sharing

4.4 A Rights-based approach to livelihoods and benefit-sharing

Finally, there is a need to take into account special rights and need for livelihood protection safeguards in relation to ethnic minority communities when discussing benefit sharing Speaking generally o “ u an use” does not learly distinguis , for example, between subsistence and professional teams entering for major market operations While local people may be involved in the latter operations, a more nuanced approach of different forms of use is critical to retain PNKB as a living landscape Rather than a “poverty-generating lands ape” PNKB as a World Heritage site should support sustainable healthy livelihoods To put it somewhat sharply there is need to shift from an approach where forest people become impoverished non-forest people to one where people actually benefit from living in proximity to biodiversity based on their rights

A number of key forest communities are particularly dependent on forest livelihoods for subsistence within key areas of the park largely overlapping with customary use areas From that perspective the question of livelihoods is not simply one of finding alternatives, but addressing and protecting their rights to customary livelihoods and making sure that communities benefit equitably from conservation measures implemented within customary use areas.Blanket statements or regulations of prohibiting all commercialization of flora and fauna5

as well as other natural resources from the park are counterproductive to such an effort

In terms of positive benefits, the opportunity to benefit and create employment through community-based management mechanism is not yet fully exploited.There is a significant potential to reform the management system and devolve management responsibilities, create local employment and generate more benefits reflecting rights to customary resources (see annex)

Key finding

There is a need for an explicit rights-based sustainable use approach including hunting, gathering under combined with a solid monitoring scheme over the remaining period of the KfW / GIZ project to allow for the project to achieve its objectives effectively

4.5 The importance of equitable benefit-sharing and preferential arrangements in tourism

Tourism is is a the heart of generating significant economic benefits, yet only a very limited amount is re-invested directly among the most needy and affected of conservation activities.53

% is used for salary payments for tourism staff, and 47 % of tourism income goes to the

5 7 Nghiêm cấm việc kinh doanh, mua bán á loài động thực vật hoang dã và các tài nguyên khác của Vườn Quốc gia Phong Nha - Kẻ Bàng (article 8.7)

general provincial budget (Birdlife 2012: 16).There has long been a regulatory emphasis on engaging communities in tourism activities6:, yet forms of participation and benefit-sharing remain very limited The Operational Plan equally emphasizes sustainable eco-tourism as a

ey avenue or lo al bene its: “

“E otouris developed based on t e outstanding global values o t e site ust be carried out in a sustainable way to improve the economic benefits and wellbeing of

lo al o unities and uang in provin e.”

Yet, with the current tourism infrastructure and organizational set-up it is more likely that communities will bear the burden rather than actually reap benefits from further tourism development in their areas While several plans over the years have emphasized putting in place community-based management, overall sector development has mainly benefited public and large-scale private sector development Core sites in the PNKB area are either controlled

by the state or leased to private entreprises with only limited resources returning to neighbouring communities Most benefits stay with operators The drive towards intensified tourism development concerns not only the cave and leasing arrangements, but equally new regulations facilitating private sector investments in the area While much tourism development

as been built around t e assu ption around t e “ ore t e better” t ere is now growing understanding among provincial leaders that better mechanisms are needed for local communities to benefit equitably from such activities

Given such trends, there is a need for a substantial change in order to ensure that neighbouring ethnic minority communities can actually reap positive benefits from existing and further tourism development In particular, there is an urgent need to put in place provincial regulations, which ensure that hamlets and communes are devolved control over PNKB tourism sites, allow for grassroots management and equitable benefit-sharing This would also require ensuring corresponding budget allocations from the overall PNKB tourism unit budget

to allow for planning, management and operations

Key finding

Massive tourism development in PNKB is yet to equitably benefit local communities, despite repeated plans, underlining the urgent need for specific policy mechanisms for equitable benefit-sharing to be put in place

Recommendation

Provincial authorities are encouraged to urgently reform benefit-sharing mechanisms to allow for local communities to benefit more equitable alongside specific community-based control and management mechanisms for village-based tourism Pilot status from the DoNC to implement such efforts should urgently be requested given the presence of technical support from GIZ at both national and provincial level

6 „c) Tạo điều kiện cho các hộ gia đìn á n ân sống trong vùng lõi và vùng đệm của Vườn quốc gia tham gia các dịch vụ du lị sin t ái để nâng cao thu nhập và gắn sinh kế của người dân với các hoạt động của Vườn quốc gia (UBND Quảng Bình 2007).„

5 Participation in decision-making and management

To what extent do local communities take part in decision-making and the management of PNKB? What are the immediate opportunities to strengthen their active participation? Whereas protected area management in Vietnam is largely perceived as a government-run process, this section focuses on community participation around a series of specific management aspects

as experienced during fieldwork

PNKB faces the challenge of having become increasingly accessible within the last 15 years, alongside a growing protection force There has thus been strong emphasis on closing access

and patrolling of old fallows Still, in practice a growing de facto open access situation exists for

large parts of the protected area This creates somewhat of a management discrepancy with a continuous clamp down on local livelihoods, whereas management responses to major biodiversity challenges and organized illegal extraction have been far more limited

As discussed above, management planning in terms of zonation, borders and organization and management objectives is largely a government and expert-driven process, although recent years have involved more frequent use certain forms of consultation Still, in practice, there was little evidence in the plans that local communities had influence on the decision-making related to traditional use sites, use practices and the identification of critical biodiversity values and priorities from a local livelihood perspective In fact, it was recognized widely by both Vietnamese and international partners that actual local community participation in decision-making in the design of management approaches remains weak This concerns not only the national park, but equally neighbouring watershed protection forests and forest areas of SFEs within the bufferzone, albeit focus here is mainly on the park itself The overall ignorance about park processes in all three sites visited, testified to the limited use of more pro-active engagement approaches It is also striking that customary use areas, cultural landscapes and rights are yet to be addressed in a clear manner in the background study In some ways, this produ es a “ istory” ree snaps ot o s all settle ents wit only utilitarian lin ages wit t eir surrounding forest areas This is furthermore problematic given that experiments in mapping were undertaken in the late 1990s to bridge this gap One villager in Thuong Hoa called for a clearer assessment of all forest resources in conjunction with villagers He called for a need to better map out of resources and undertake planning jointly with communities This section indeed argues that far more concrete and hands-on conservation planning is needed in conjunction with communities For this to be effective and equitable, far more attention is needed in relation to:

 Revisiting the park expansion process

 The management of sustainable use

 Recognizing the limitations of the existing protection system

 Strengthening community protection groups

 Putting into practice co-management regulations

Key finding

There is an overall social deficit of including local perspectives, equity concerns and knowledge about local conservation priorities for core protected area processes in terms of setting management objectives, zonation and wider management planning.Forest management logics are ainly based on en or e ent “against” liveli oods rat er t an management of sustainable livelihoods for conservation

5.1 Assessing park expansion process

One of the major management decisions in recent years involves the 2007 provincial decision (857/QD-UBND) to expand the national park from 85.754 ha to a planned 123.326 ha.Much of

this management planning has involved further surveys documenting the high levels of biodiversity, but also a KfW financed study to understand the impact of communities in the expansion area as well as impact of the expansion on communities, while seeking to guarantee “little so ial and e ono i e e ts” on t e surrounding o unities (Nguyen et al 2012: : 2) In practice, roughly two thirds of the expansion area lies in Thuong Hoa commune, while roughly one third is in Hoa Son commune

In 2008, another decision defined the expansion area to be managed under the PNKB management board The drive to give the expansion area protected area status and be under full national park management has largely been driven by the main donor and IUCN/ UNESCO recommendations Yet, park expansion and zoning arrangements, as they are being considered currently, however, do not yet reflect customary forest practices and tenure The scientific study for the expansion only spea s o “li ited i pa ts” wit out learly quali ying or quantifying these It notes how the area is far ro orest owners and t ere ore onsiders “no

i pa t on t e produ tion and trade o e ono i units in t e area” (Nguyen et al 2012: : 57, our translation) Similar conclusions also appear in consultations with communal authorities7, who,

according to the assessment all conclude that park expansion plans will not impact on

agricultural lands These conclusions seem questionable given the scattered presence of customary fallow lands as well as non-titled agricultural lands in some parts of the expansion area The level of accuracy in the assessment of customary agricultural lands is not yet satisfactory given the conclusion t at “no one enters t ese areas to pra ti e s i ting ultivation

or ot er or s o ultivation” (Nguyen et al 2012: : 63) These are questionable conclusions and need to be read carefully in a historical context of underreporting shifting cultivation practices long considered illegal (see earlier discussion) The scientific report also recognizes that expansion will have an impact on the income of:

“so e people wit in o e ro forest products like honey, non-timber forest products, rattan, small animals These impacts only affect some households near the forest with income from the forest Therefore there will only be little impact on the general socio-economic situation and inco e o t e o une” (ibid: 59)

T is is proble ati and see s to be grounded in a narrow “agri ultural” o us re le ting a general tendency to underestimate the importance of customary forest-based livelihoods and practices, and furthermore ignoring old allows being rede ined as “Natural regenerated orest” The scientific report behind the expansion proposes two options One where all land in the expansion area is defined as strict protection and another where 2.120 would be listed as a ecological restoration zone, and the other 29.200 ha would be listed as strict protection.In both cases, there is no systematic attempt to map out all customary use areas and an explicit effort

to address the impact on these This being said, the scientific assessment specifically in relation to the Ruc hamlets notes for the ecological restoration zone that:

“t eir liveli oods and ulture depend essentially on t e orest T ere ore it is ne essary to open

a cultural space to conserve their values This area could also create a basis for based management and allow for people to sustainably use some natural resources sustainably This is both a cultural conservation method and simultaneously and effective nature

7

The consultations with communal authorities also reveal the challenge of representing the very diverse nature of human and environmental relationships within their boundaries Asked whether expansion plans i pa t t e lives and e ono ies o people in t e o une Dan Hoa responded “only very

li ited” w ereas T uong Hoa and Hoa Son re ognized t ere would be i pa ts Trong Hoa and Trung Hoa officials in turn replied there would not be any impacts Specifically, in terms of negative impacts

t ere was entioning “little negative in luen e” in t e o unes o Dan Hoa T uong Hoa and Hoa Son The general perception among communal authorities seemed to be that expansion area was far from settlement areas with no impact on agricultural lands and shifting cultivation lands As discussed above t is assertion re ains questionable given ertain “uno i ial” settle ents usto ary settle ent and fallow lands While t e report asserts t at orest land allo ation as been “good” and “well- anaged” in t e o unes o Dan Hoa and T uong Hoa (ibid: 59) t is needs to be urt er developed