Benefit Sharing Mechanism in Forest Protection and Livelihoods in Central Vietnam: Empirical Insights into Two Indigenous Communes

越南中部之森林保護的利益分享機制及生計：兩個原住民社群團體的觀察研究

10.6234/JGR.201911_(71).0006

莫家俊(Mucahid Mustafa Bayrak)

Vietnam ； Forest conservation ； Benefit sharing mechanism ； Sustainable livelihoods ； Indigenous communitiesa ； 越南 ； 森林保育 ； 利益分享機制 ； 永續生計 ； 原住民社群

地理研究

71期（2019 / 11 / 01）

107 - 131

英文

The relationship between forest degradation, poverty and conservation has been unclear. The objective of this study was to identify the impacts of benefit sharing mechanism (BSM), forest conservation and devolution on indigenous communities in two selected communes (sub-district level units) in Central Vietnam: Huong Hiep and Thuong Nhat. To do this, we adopted a sustainable livelihoods approach and subdivided livelihood impacts into financial, natural, physical, social, cultural and human capitals. These types of capital are interconnected and continuously subjected to change. For this study, we conducted livelihood surveys on household level (n=85), and semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with households and other stakeholders. The research has been conducted in the summers of 2013 and 2014 for four months in total. Thuong Nhat was a commune with a fully developed BSM and community forestry scheme. Huong Hiep, on the other hand, was still in the process of developing a similar scheme. The financial impact of BSM was minimal as the fee for forest patrolling for individual households was relatively small. On the other hand, BSM exacerbated income inequality in Huong Hiep as only selected elite households were eligible for receiving financial benefits for forest conservation. BSM and forest devolution allowed communities to legally own community forestland in Thuong Nhat through so-called community Red Books. Households in Thuong Nhat were able to collect non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and cut trees for housing in their forest. BSM and forest conservation consolidated the influence of the formal institutions on forest use in the communities. This led to the deterioration of customary forest classifications and a ban on swidden agriculture. Whereas in Thuong Nhat the influence of customary institutions, forest classifications and livelihoods was largely diminished as a result of BSM and community forestry, households in Huong Hiep still adhered to their customary ways of managing the forest. Lastly, this study identified internal and external drivers for success and failure of BSM in Vietnam. These drivers included: the ability for households to diversify their livelihoods; involvement of the community, and customary institutions and arrangements; access to land and credit; human and social capital accumulation; and increased resilience.

森林退化、貧窮與森林保育之間的關係一直不清楚。本研究選定越南中部的Huong Hiep及Thuong Nhat，目標為找出利益分享機制（BSM），森林保育與對原住民社群權力下放的影響。研究方法為永續生計法並將生計影響細分為金融，自然，物理，社會，文化與人力資本；這些資本之間相互影響並且不斷變動。本研究進行家庭生計問卷（n=85），半結構式訪談，並有家庭及其他利害關係人的焦點團體討論。研究期間為2013與2014年的夏天，為期共四個月。Thuong Nhat的BSM與社區林業計畫充分發展；Huong Hiep則仍在發展中。由於各個家庭森林巡護的費用相對較低，因此BSM經濟影響極小。另一方面，BSM加劇Huong Hiep所得不均，因為只有部分選定的菁英家庭能夠得到森林保育的經濟利益。BSM和權力下放讓Thuong Nhat的原住民能夠透過所謂社群Red Books的方式合法擁有社群森林土地。Thuong Nhat的家庭能在他們的森林收取非木材林產品（NTFPs）並砍樹蓋房。BSM和森林保育強化政府在社群森林使用的影響。這也破壞了傳統森林分類並禁止遊墾農業。由於BSM與社區林業，傳統機構與森林分類與生計對Thuong Nhat的影響大幅降低。然而，Huong Hiep的家庭仍沿用傳統方式管理森林。最後，本研究找出影響BSM在越南成功與失敗的內在與外在因素。這些因素包括：家庭生計的多元發展能力、社群和傳統機構的參與、土地運用和信用貸款、人力與社會資本的累積、復原能力的增加。

1. Wang, G.Y.,Mang, S.,Krzyzanowski, J.,Guo, F.T.,Wang, T.L.,Riehl, B.,Kang, H.J.,Li, Q.L.,Innes, J.L.(2015).Climate change and forest adaptation in the Asia-Pacific.Journal of Geographical Research,63,73-110.
   連結：
2. Adger, W. N.(2006).Vulnerability.Global environmental change,16(3),268-281.
3. Agrawal, A.(1995).Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge.Development and change,26(3),413-439.
4. Agrawal, A.,Chhatre, A.,Hardin, R.(2008).Changing governance of the world's forests.Science,320(5882),1460-1462.
5. Agrawal, A.,Nepstad, D.,Chhatre, A.(2011).Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation.Annual Review of Environment and Resources,36(1),373-396.
6. Århem, N.(2009).In the sacred forest: Landscape, livelihood and spirit beliefs among the Katu of Vietnam.Göteborg:Goteborg University.
7. Bayrak, M. M.,Marafa, L. M.(2020).REDD+ as a Vehicle for Community-Based Forest Management? Critical Insights from Vietnam.Small-scale Forestry,1-25.
8. Bayrak, M. M.,Tran N. T.,Burgers, P. P. M.(2013).Restructuring space in the name of development: the socio-cultural impact of the Forest Land Allocation Program on the Indigenous Co Tu people in Central Vietnam.Journal of Political Ecology,20,36-52.
9. Bayrak, M.M.(2015).Hong Kong,The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
10. Bayrak, M.M.,Tran, T.N,Marafa L.M.(2014).Creating Social Safeguards for REDD+: Lessons Learned from Benefit Sharing Mechanisms in Vietnam.Land,3(3),1037-1058.
11. Berkes, F.(2008).Sacred Ecology.New York:Routledge.
12. Burgers, P.(2004).Utrecht,Utrecht University.
13. Casse, T.,Milhøj, A.,Nielsen, M. R.,Meilby, H.,Rochmayanto, Y.(2019).Lost in implementation? REDD+ country readiness experiences in Indonesia and Vietnam.Climate and Development,11(9),799-811.
14. Chambers, R.(1995).Poverty and livelihoods: whose reality counts?.Environment and urbanization,7(1),173-204.
15. Chambers, R.,Conway, G.R.(1991).Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century.Brighton, UK:University of Sussex.
16. Coe, C. A.(2016).The allocation of household-based forest protection contracts in Tam Dao National Park, Vietnam: Elite capture as a bureaucratic impulse against community capture.Journal of sustainable forestry,35(2),89-118.
17. Coleman, J. S.(1988).Social capital in the creation of human capital.American journal of sociology,94,S95-S120.
18. Commune Peoples Committee Huong Hiep-CPC Huong Hiep(2012).Statistical Yearbook.Dakrong, Vietnam:CPC Huong Hiep.
19. Costanza, R.,Wilson, M. A.,Troy, A.,Voinov, A.,Liu, S.,D'Agostino, J.(2006).The value of New Jersey's ecosystem services and natural capital.New Jersey:Department of Environmental Protection.
20. Dam, B. V.,Catacutan, D. C.,Ha, H. M.(2014).Importance of National Policy and Local Interpretation in Designing Payment for Forest Environmental Services Scheme for the Ta Leng River Basin in Northeast Vietnam.Environment and Natural Resources Research,4(1),39-53.
21. Dao, N.(2015).Rubber plantations in the Northwest: rethinking the concept of land grabs in Vietnam.Journal of Peasant Studies,42(2),347-369.
22. De Haan, L.(2017).Livelihoods in development.Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d s du développement,38(1),22-38.
23. Ellis, F.(1998).Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification.The Journal of Development Studies,35(1),1-38.
24. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations—FAO. (2010). Global Forest Resources Assessment: Global Tables. Available at: [accessed 10.05.2019]
25. Haas, J. C.,Loft, L.,Pham, T. T.(2019).How fair can incentive-based conservation get? The interdependence of distributional and contextual equity in Vietnam's payments for Forest Environmental Services Program.Ecological economics,160,205-214.
26. Huong, N. Q.,Matusch, T.(2012).Human Activity Impact in Buffer Zones of Protected Areas in Vietnam, A Case Study of Bach Ma National Park.International Symposium on Geoinformatics for Spatial Infrastructure Development in Earth and Allied Sciences,Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam:
27. Huynh, H. T. N.,Bruyn Lobry de, L.,Prior, J.,Kristiansen, P.(2016).Community participation and harvesting of non-timber forest products in benefit-sharing pilot scheme in Bach Ma National Park, Central Vietnam.Tropical Conservation Science,9(2),877-902.
28. Institute of Strategy and Policy on Natural Resources and Environment-ISPONRE(2009).Viet Nam Assessment Report On Climate Change (VARCC).Hanoi, Vietnam:Kim Do Publishing House.
29. James, H. (Ed.)(2019).Population, Development, and the Environment.Singapore:Palgrave Macmillan.
30. McElwee, P. D.(2016).Forests are Gold: Trees, People, and Environmental Rule in Vietnam.Seattle, Washington:University of Washington Press.
31. Richardson, J. (Ed.)(1986).Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education.Westport, CT:Greenwood.
32. Salemink, O.(2003).The ethnography of Vietnam's Central Highlanders: a historical contextualization, 1850-1990.Honolulu, HI:University of Hawaii Press.
33. Salick, J.,Byg, A.(2007).Indigenous peoples and climate change.Oxford:Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research.
34. Scoones, I.(1998).Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis.Brighton, UK:University of Sussex.
35. Sen, A.(1985).Commodities and Capabilities.Amsterdam, The Netherlands:Elsevier Science.
36. Sunderlin, W. D.,Angelsen, A.,Belcher, B.,Burgers, P.,Nasi, R.,Santoso, L.,Wunder, S.(2005).Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: an overview.World development,33(9),1383-1402.
37. Zoomers, A.(2014).Rural livelihoods in a context of new scarcities.The Companion to Development Studies,Oxon: