English 2.28MB - Center for International Forestry Research
English 2.28MB - Center for International Forestry Research
English 2.28MB - Center for International Forestry Research
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions<br />
on the Edge of a Conservation Area,<br />
Khe Tran Village, Vietnam<br />
Manuel Boissière • Imam Basuki • Piia Koponen<br />
Meilinda Wan • Douglas Sheil
National Library of Indonesia Cataloging-in-Publication Data<br />
Boissière, Manuel<br />
Biodiversity and local perceptions on the edge of a conservation area, Khe<br />
Tran village, Vietnam/ by Manuel Boissière, Imam Basuki, Piia Koponen,<br />
Meilinda Wan, Douglas Sheil. Bogor, Indonesia: <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>International</strong><br />
<strong>Forestry</strong> <strong>Research</strong> (CIFOR), 2006.<br />
ISBN 979-24-4642-7<br />
106p.<br />
CABI thesaurus: 1. nature reserve 2. nature conservation<br />
3. landscape 4. biodiversity 5. assessment 6. community involvement<br />
7. Vietnam I. Title<br />
© 2006 by CIFOR<br />
All rights reserved.<br />
Printed by Inti Prima Karya, Jakarta<br />
Revised edition, June 2006<br />
Design and layout by Catur Wahyu and Gideon Suharyanto<br />
Photos by Manuel Boissière and Imam Basuki<br />
Maps by Mohammad Agus Salim<br />
Cover photos, from left to right:<br />
- A villager prepares the soil <strong>for</strong> peanut plantation in a <strong>for</strong>mer rice field, Khe Tran<br />
- A young woman carries Acacia seedling ready to be planted<br />
- Villagers discuss the future of Phong Dien Nature Reserve<br />
- The different land types in Khe Tran: bare land, village with home gardens, rice fields, and<br />
protected mountain areas<br />
Published by<br />
<strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>International</strong> <strong>Forestry</strong> <strong>Research</strong><br />
Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang Barang<br />
Bogor Barat 16680, Indonesia<br />
Tel.: +62 (251) 622622; Fax: +62 (251) 622100<br />
E-mail: ci<strong>for</strong>@cgiar.org<br />
Web site: http://www.ci<strong>for</strong>.cgiar.org
Contents<br />
Acronyms and terms vii<br />
Acknowledgements ix<br />
1. <strong>Research</strong> context and objectives 1<br />
2. Methods 3<br />
Village activities 3<br />
Field activities 4<br />
3. Achievements 8<br />
4. Conservation context in Khe Tran 10<br />
4.1. Previous conservation activities 10<br />
4.2. Government programs that affected Khe Tran village 12<br />
Summary 14<br />
5. Site description 15<br />
5.1. <strong>Research</strong> site 15<br />
5.2. People from Khe Tran 17<br />
5.3. Land use and natural resources 23<br />
Summary 28<br />
6. Local perceptions of the different land types and resources 29<br />
6.1. Local land uses 29<br />
6.2. Land type importance 31<br />
6.3. Forest importance 32<br />
6.4. Forest importance in the past, present and future 34<br />
6.5. Importance according to source of products 36<br />
6.6. Most important products from the <strong>for</strong>est 37<br />
6.7. Threats to local <strong>for</strong>ests and biodiversity 41<br />
6.8. People’s hopes <strong>for</strong> the future of their <strong>for</strong>est and life 42<br />
Summary 45<br />
iii
iv | Contents<br />
7. Characterization of land types 46<br />
7.1. Sampling of land types 46<br />
7.2. Specimen collection and identification 48<br />
7.3. Plant biodiversity 51<br />
7.4. Forest structure 53<br />
7.5. Species vulnerability 55<br />
Summary 58<br />
8. Ethno-botanical knowledge 59<br />
8.1. Plant uses 59<br />
8.2. Species with multiple uses 61<br />
8.3. Uses of trees 62<br />
8.4. Uses of non-trees 62<br />
8.5. Forest as resource of useful plants 64<br />
8.6. Nonsubstitutable species 65<br />
8.7. Remarks on potential uses of species 66<br />
Summary 66<br />
9. Local perspectives on conservation 67<br />
Summary 70<br />
10. Conclusion and recommendations 71<br />
10.1. Conclusion 71<br />
10.2. Recommendations 75<br />
Bibliography 77<br />
Annexes 79<br />
1. LUVI (mean value) of important plant species by different use<br />
categories (result based on scoring exercise of four groups of in<strong>for</strong>mant) 79<br />
2. LUVI (mean value) of important animal species by different use<br />
categories based on scoring exercise of four groups of in<strong>for</strong>mant 83<br />
3. The botanical names, families and local name of specimens collected<br />
within and outside the plots by their use categories 84
Tables and figures<br />
Tables<br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions | v<br />
1. Composition of MLA research team in Khe Tran village 3<br />
2. Important events affecting the local livelihoods 21<br />
3. Income range by source of products and settlement area 22<br />
4. Identified land types in Khe Tran 24<br />
5. Regrouped land types in Khe Tran 25<br />
6. Important <strong>for</strong>est plants and their local uses 30<br />
7. Main categories of use of plant and animal resources 30<br />
8. Local importance of land types by use category (all groups) 33<br />
9. Forest importance by use categories (all groups) 33<br />
10. Forest importance over time according to different use categories<br />
(all groups) 35<br />
11. Importance (%) of source of product by gender 37<br />
12. Most important <strong>for</strong>est plants and animals in Khe Tran (all groups) 39<br />
13. Most important <strong>for</strong>est plants by categories of use (all groups) 40<br />
14. Most important <strong>for</strong>est animals by categories of use (all groups) 40<br />
15. Locally important plant species by use category and IUCN list<br />
of threatened trees 41<br />
16. Villagers’ perception on threats to <strong>for</strong>est and biodiversity (19 respondents) 42<br />
17. Villagers’ perception about <strong>for</strong>est loss (19 respondents) 43<br />
18. Villagers’ ideas on threats to human life (19 respondents) 43<br />
19. Summary of specimen collection and identification of plant species<br />
from 11 sample sites 50<br />
20. Plant richness in Khe Tran 53<br />
21. Main tree species based on basal area and density listed with their<br />
uses in Khe Tran 54<br />
22. Richness (total number of species recorded per plot) of life <strong>for</strong>ms<br />
of non-tree species in all land types in Khe Tran 55<br />
23. Threatened species in Khe Tran based on vegetation inventories<br />
and PDM exercises 57<br />
24. Summary of specimen collection and identification of plant species<br />
from 11 sample sites 59<br />
25. Mean number of species and number of useful species recorded<br />
in each land type 60<br />
26. Distribution of all useful plant species per plot and by use category 61<br />
27. Plant species with at least four uses 62<br />
28. Distribution of tree species considered useful per plot and per use category 63<br />
29. Distribution of non-tree species considered useful per plot and per use<br />
category 64<br />
30. Villager’s perceptions on conservation and Phong Dien Nature Reserve 69
vi | Contents<br />
Figures<br />
1. Scoring exercise (PDM) with Khe Tran men group 5<br />
2. Working on sample plot 6<br />
3. Location of Khe Tran village in the buffer zone of Phong Dien<br />
Nature Reserve 16<br />
4. Situation of Khe Tran village 18<br />
5. Livestock and Acacia plantations are important in Khe Tran 20<br />
6. A woman from the lower part of the village harvests rubber<br />
from her plantation 22<br />
7. Considerable areas of bare land are used in Khe Tran <strong>for</strong> new<br />
Acacia plantation 25<br />
8. Biodiversity and resource distribution map of Khe Tran 27<br />
9. Land type by importance (all groups) 31<br />
10. Importance of <strong>for</strong>est types (all groups) 32<br />
11. Forest importance over time (all groups) 35<br />
12. Source of product importance (all groups) 37<br />
13. Importance of <strong>for</strong>est resources by use categories (all groups) 38<br />
14. Recent flood on a bridge between Phong My and Khe Tran 44<br />
15. Field sampling of land types in Khe Tran (total sample size 11 plots) 47<br />
16. Distribution of sample plots in the research area 49<br />
17. Accumulation of non-tree species with the increasing random<br />
order of subplots (each 20 m 2 ) <strong>for</strong> various land types in Khe Tran 50<br />
18. Relative dominance in primary and secondary <strong>for</strong>est plots in Khe Tran<br />
based on basal area 52<br />
19. Forest structural characteristics in Khe Tran. Left panel: basal area and<br />
density; right panel: tree height, stem diameter and furcation index 56<br />
20. All plant species considered useful by the Khe Tran villagers shown<br />
in use categories 63<br />
21. Total number of all useful plant species per category in primary,<br />
secondary and plantation <strong>for</strong>ests 65
Acronyms and terms<br />
asl above sea level<br />
CBEE Community-Based Environmental Education<br />
CIFOR <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>International</strong> <strong>Forestry</strong> <strong>Research</strong><br />
CIRAD Centre de coopération <strong>International</strong>e en Recherche Agronomique<br />
pour le Développement<br />
dbh diameter at breast height<br />
DPC District Peoples Committee<br />
ETHZ Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich (Federal Institute of<br />
Technology in Zürich)<br />
ETSP Extension and Training Support Project<br />
FIPI <strong>Forestry</strong> Inventory and Planning Institute<br />
FPD Forest Protection Department<br />
GoV Government of Vietnam<br />
HUAF Hue University of Agriculture and <strong>Forestry</strong><br />
IUCN <strong>International</strong> Union <strong>for</strong> Conservation of Nature and Natural<br />
Resources<br />
Land type component of landscape that is covered by natural coverage or used<br />
<strong>for</strong> human activities<br />
Land use component of landscape that is used <strong>for</strong> human activities<br />
Landscape holistic and spatially explicit concept that is much more than the<br />
sum of its components e.g. terrain, soil, land type and use<br />
Lowlands village area on the lower reaches of O Lau river<br />
vii
viii | Acronyms and terms<br />
LUVI Local User Value Index<br />
MLA Multidisciplinary Landscape Assessment<br />
NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product<br />
PDM Pebble Distribution Method<br />
PDNR Phong Dien Nature Reserve<br />
PPC Province Peoples Committee<br />
SDC Swiss Development Cooperation<br />
SFE State Forest Enterprises<br />
TBI-V Tropenbos <strong>International</strong>-Vietnam<br />
Uplands village area on the upper reaches of O Lau river<br />
USD US Dollar<br />
Village group of households included in a commune (subdistrict level) but<br />
not recognised as a legal entity in Vietnam<br />
VND Vietnamese Dong (USD 1 approximately equals to VND 15,700)<br />
WWF World Wildlife Fund
Acknowledgements<br />
We would like to express our profound gratitude to individuals and institutions <strong>for</strong><br />
their assistance in the course of undertaking this research. We wish to thank the<br />
representatives of the Government of Vietnam, the Provincial Peoples Committee<br />
(PPC) of Thua Thien Hue province, Peoples Committee of Phong Dien district<br />
and Phong My commune <strong>for</strong> their interest in our work.<br />
Our appreciations are addressed to Tran Huu Nghi, Jinke van Dam, Tu<br />
Anh, Nguyen Thi Quynh Thu, from Tropenbos <strong>International</strong> Vietnam, <strong>for</strong> their<br />
cooperation and <strong>for</strong> their assistance in organising our surveys.<br />
We were lucky to collaborate with all the MLA participants: Le Hien (Hue<br />
University of Agriculture and <strong>Forestry</strong>), Ha Thi Mung (Tay Nguyen University),<br />
Vu Van Can, Nguyen Van Luc (FIPI), Nguyen Quy Hanh and Tran Thi Anh<br />
Anh (Department of Foreign Affairs of Thua Thien Hue province), and Ho Thi<br />
Bich Hanh (Hue College of Economics) <strong>for</strong> their hard work and interest <strong>for</strong> the<br />
project.<br />
We would like to thank Patrick Rossier (ETSP-Helvetas), Eero Helenius<br />
(Thua Thien Hue Rural Development Programme), and Chris Dickinson (Green<br />
Corridor Project-WWF), <strong>for</strong> their useful suggestions.<br />
We wish to thank Ueli Mauderli (SDC), Jean Pierre Sorg (ETHZ), <strong>for</strong> their<br />
useful comments and suggestions during their survey in Khe Tran, Jean-Laurent<br />
Pfund and Allison Ford (CIFOR) <strong>for</strong> their valuable comments during the redaction<br />
of the report, Michel Arbonnier (CIRAD) <strong>for</strong> the revision of the plant list, Henning<br />
Pape-Santos, our copy-editor, and Wil de Jong, the coordinator of the project <strong>for</strong><br />
his support.<br />
Last but not the least, we would like to thank the villagers from Khe Tran, Son<br />
Qua and Thanh Tan <strong>for</strong> their cooperation during our different surveys, <strong>for</strong> their<br />
patience and <strong>for</strong> all the in<strong>for</strong>mation they provided to us.<br />
ix
. <strong>Research</strong> context and objectives<br />
Vietnam has been re<strong>for</strong>ming its <strong>for</strong>est management in favour of household and<br />
local organization (Barney 2005). The government increasingly gives local people<br />
the right to manage the <strong>for</strong>ests. Un<strong>for</strong>tunately, in this changing environment,<br />
recognition of local people’s rights is still limited and local knowledge and<br />
perspectives are rarely taken into account by the state institutions implementing<br />
land titling and decentralization. The challenge is to better in<strong>for</strong>m each stakeholder<br />
on the perspectives of people living in and near the <strong>for</strong>est on the natural resources<br />
and landscapes. Furthermore, clarification of the local capacity to manage <strong>for</strong>ests<br />
is necessary <strong>for</strong> better in<strong>for</strong>med decision making.<br />
Stakeholder and biodiversity at the local level is a three-year collaboration<br />
between the <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>International</strong> <strong>Forestry</strong> <strong>Research</strong> (CIFOR) and the Swiss<br />
Development Cooperation (SDC). Tropenbos <strong>International</strong>-Vietnam (TBI-V)<br />
has been a very helpful collaborator <strong>for</strong> coordinating the project activities. The<br />
project goal is to contribute to the enhancement of the livelihoods of local <strong>for</strong>est<br />
dependent communities and sustainable <strong>for</strong>est management. The project aims to<br />
strengthen local capacity to plan and implement locally relevant <strong>for</strong>est landscape<br />
management as a mechanism to achieve those goals. It focuses on situations where<br />
decentralization has given local government more authority and responsibility <strong>for</strong><br />
<strong>for</strong>ests. The project fosters better engagement by local decision-makers that takes<br />
into consideration the needs and preferences of local people, especially the poor<br />
communities.<br />
Multidisciplinary landscape assessment, or MLA, is a set of methods developed<br />
by CIFOR scientists to determine ‘what is important to local communities, in<br />
terms of landscape, environmental services, and resources’. The approach is<br />
rooted in social (anthropology, ethnobotany and socio-economics) as well as<br />
natural sciences (botany, ecology, geography and pedology); was tested and used<br />
in different countries (Bolivia, Cameroon, Gabon, Indonesia, Mozambique and<br />
Philippines). The methods are fully detailed in four languages: <strong>English</strong>, French,<br />
Indonesia and Spanish (Sheil et al. 2003; http://www.ci<strong>for</strong>.cgiar.org/mla/).
| <strong>Research</strong> context and objectives<br />
MLA helps the project by providing in<strong>for</strong>mation on the way local people<br />
articulate and document their knowledge of land and natural resources uses. Local<br />
knowledge is considered crucial in<strong>for</strong>mation <strong>for</strong> the management of <strong>for</strong>est.<br />
Finally, in this report we aim to provide in<strong>for</strong>mation on the way the local<br />
community in Khe Tran (Phong My commune, Phong Dien district, Thua Thien<br />
Hue province) perceives and manages its environment, and we discuss the options<br />
it has to participate in future nature reserve management.
. Methods<br />
The multidisciplinary approach of MLA gathers in<strong>for</strong>mation on land use in village<br />
and field, and studies local perceptions on <strong>for</strong>est landscapes and resources as well<br />
as local priorities in terms of land management and which land types, resources<br />
and activities are important to local people. The MLA team, working in both<br />
village and field, was composed by scientists from different disciplines (Table 1).<br />
Table 1. Composition of MLA research team in Khe Tran village<br />
Team member Responsibility/research aspect Contact<br />
Manuel Boissière Team coordinator/ethnobotany m.boissiere@cgiar.org<br />
Ha Thi Mung Socio-economy mungbmt@yahoo.com<br />
Imam Basuki Socio-economy i.basuki@cgiar.org<br />
Le Hien Socio-economy Hienle2001@yahoo.com<br />
Meilinda Wan Socio-economy m.wan@cgiar.org<br />
Douglas Sheil Ecology d.sheil@cgiar.org<br />
Piia Koponen Ecology p.koponen@cgiar.org<br />
Nguyen Van Luc Botany vanluc_qh@yahoo.com.vn<br />
Vu Van Can Botany Tel. 04-861-6946<br />
Ho Thi Bich Hanh Translator hanhdhkt@gmail.com<br />
Nguyen Quy Hanh Translator Quyhanh2000@yahoo.com<br />
Tran Thu Anh Anh Translator hianhanh@yahoo.com<br />
Village activities<br />
Consisting of one or two researchers assisted by a translator, the village team was<br />
responsible <strong>for</strong> all socio-economic data collection. The team used questionnaire<br />
and data sheets to interview most households and key in<strong>for</strong>mants and to record
| Methods<br />
the results of community meetings and focus group discussions. In<strong>for</strong>mation was<br />
gathered from each household head on socio-economic aspects (demography,<br />
sources of income and livelihoods) and some other cultural aspects (history of<br />
the village, social organization, stories and myths, religion). The questionnaire<br />
and data sheets also provided basic in<strong>for</strong>mation on local views by gender, threats<br />
against biodiversity and <strong>for</strong>ests, perspectives on natural resource management and<br />
conservation, and land tenure.<br />
Participatory mapping exercises began during the very first days of the survey<br />
with two women and men groups of villagers using two basic maps, assisted by<br />
two research members to explain the objectives of the exercise. They facilitated<br />
the process through discussion with villagers about which resources and land<br />
types to add to the basic maps. These maps were then put together to build a single<br />
map representing the perception of the overall community. During all our onsite<br />
activities, the map was available to any villager <strong>for</strong> adding features and making<br />
corrections. In the case of Khe Tran, we worked a second time with a group of key<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mants to increase the precision of the map, and two young villagers drew the<br />
map again with their own symbols.<br />
Village activities involved:<br />
(a) community meetings to introduce the team and its activities to the village<br />
members, to cover basic in<strong>for</strong>mation on land and <strong>for</strong>est types available,<br />
location of each type (through participatory resources mapping) and categories<br />
of use that people identify <strong>for</strong> each of these landscapes and resources;<br />
(b) personal and small groups interviews to learn about village and land use<br />
history, resource management, level of education, main sources of income,<br />
livelihoods and land utilization system;<br />
(c) focus group discussion on natural resource location, land type identification<br />
by category of uses, people’s perception of <strong>for</strong>ests, sources of products<br />
<strong>for</strong> household consumption and important species <strong>for</strong> different groups of<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mants using the scoring exercise known as ‘pebble distribution method’,<br />
or PDM. PDM was used to quantify the relative importance of land types,<br />
<strong>for</strong>est products and species to local people by distributing 100 pebbles or<br />
beans among illustrated cards representing land types, use categories or<br />
species (Figure 1). In the following tables and figures with in<strong>for</strong>mation from<br />
PDM, the 100% value refers to the total number of pebbles. The pebbles were<br />
distributed by the in<strong>for</strong>mants among the cards according to their importance.<br />
Field activities<br />
The field team consisted of four researchers assisted by one translator, two local<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mants and a field assistant. This team was responsible <strong>for</strong> botany, ethnobotany<br />
and site history data collection. It gathered in<strong>for</strong>mation through direct<br />
observations, measurements and interviews in each sample plot using structured<br />
datasheets.
Figure 1. Scoring exercise (PDM) with Khe Tran men group<br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Activities in the field were decided on and set up in accordance with<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation collected in the village. The field team collected data from sample<br />
plots (Figure 2). The team chose plot locations after the different land types had<br />
been identified by the villagers. Sampling of land types took into account the main<br />
categories of the land types and sites where the most important resources could<br />
be found. Village in<strong>for</strong>mants accompanying the field team provided details on<br />
history and land use of each site, as well as the uses and names of the main <strong>for</strong>est<br />
products that were traditionally collected there. Although the sampling ef<strong>for</strong>t was<br />
distributed across most of the land types, <strong>for</strong>est habitats were given emphasis<br />
since they cover the largest area and generally house more species per sample<br />
than other land types. Most of the land types were sampled with one (rice field,<br />
primary <strong>for</strong>est) or two plots, in total 11 plots were surveyed with 110 subplots.<br />
For each plot a general site description with tree and non-tree data and detailed<br />
ethno-ecological in<strong>for</strong>mation was composed and plot position was recorded with<br />
GPS. Plots consisted of 40 m transects subdivided into 10 consecutive 5 m wide<br />
subunits, where the presence of all herbs, climbers with any part over 1.5 m long<br />
and other smaller plants was recorded. Trees with a diameter at breast height (dbh)<br />
of 10 cm or more were censused and their height and diameter measured using the<br />
same base-transect but variable area subunits (Sheil et al. 2003).<br />
Collaboration between village team and field team was crucial to the collection of<br />
relevant in<strong>for</strong>mation, but collaboration with villagers was also important to link<br />
the data collected by direct measurements with those coming from discussions,
| Methods<br />
Figure 2. Working on sample plot<br />
interviews and questionnaires. Preparation of the final reference list of plants with<br />
their corresponding local-language names took considerable time because of the<br />
mixture of Vietnamese language and Pahy language used by the local people.<br />
Some specimens identified to one species had several local names (e.g. Ageratum<br />
conyzoides) and other specimens with one local name belonged to different species<br />
(e.g. Fibraurea tinctoria and Bowringia sp.). A. conyzoides was given two local<br />
names (Cá hỡi and Sắc par abon) by different in<strong>for</strong>mants at different sites along<br />
with different uses. (Being bad <strong>for</strong> soil, Cá hỡi has few uses, while Sắc par abon<br />
was mentioned as potential fertilizer <strong>for</strong> sweet potato, although another in<strong>for</strong>mant<br />
said that it is actually not used by villagers). Catimbium brevigulatum, which was<br />
recorded in seven plots, had four different local names (A kai, A xây cỡ, Betre,<br />
Papan). Although in<strong>for</strong>mants were reliable and persistent in their ways of naming<br />
species, both gender and different experiences caused variation and the mixture of<br />
different languages (mainly Pahy and Vietnamese) was sometimes confusing <strong>for</strong><br />
the researchers. The ethno-botanical survey was conducted simultaneously in the<br />
field, where we had in total 12 in<strong>for</strong>mants, normally two or more at the same time<br />
with both genders represented. This was important to ensure the broad sampling<br />
of knowledge about uses and sites. As an example, genus Bowringia, which was<br />
present in four plots in two land types (secondary <strong>for</strong>est and primary <strong>for</strong>est), had<br />
no use according to five in<strong>for</strong>mants, whereas two in<strong>for</strong>mants said it was used as<br />
firewood and its roots could be sold.
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
From each plot plant specimens <strong>for</strong> further herbarium identification were<br />
collected. The entire specimen collection has been left with botanist Vu Van Can in<br />
Hanoi. All specimens were conserved in alcohol be<strong>for</strong>e drying and identification.<br />
Some specimens were identified in the field, others later in Hanoi. Genus and<br />
species names follow the nomenclature used in Iconographia Cormophytorum<br />
Sinicorum (Chinese Academy of Science, Institute of Plant <strong>Research</strong> 1972–<br />
1976), Cây cỏ Việt Nam (Pham Hoang Ho 1993), Vietnam Forest Trees (Forest<br />
Inventory and Planning Institute 1996), Yunnan Kexue Chubanshe (Yunnan Shumu<br />
Tuzhi 1990) and the <strong>International</strong> Plant Names Index database (http://www.ipni.<br />
org/); and family names in The plant-book: a portable dictionary of the vascular<br />
plants (Mabberley 1997) and the <strong>International</strong> Plant Names Index database<br />
except Leguminosae sensu lato, which follows the subfamily categorization of<br />
Mimosaceae, Fabaceae sensu stricto and Caesalpiniaceae.<br />
The study in Khe Tran covered two periods, from 15 May to 9 June 2005 and<br />
from 2 to 15 October 2005. The first period was reserved mainly <strong>for</strong> data collection<br />
on the importance of local land types, while during the second period we focused<br />
more on quality control and biodiversity and conservation aspects according to<br />
local people. During both periods, commune officers joined the research team to<br />
make sure that we were safe. Even if their presence was not directly useful to our<br />
research, it was an opportunity <strong>for</strong> researchers to socialize with local authorities<br />
and discuss local perspectives on biodiversity and land types.
. Achievements<br />
During the project, our objectives were to<br />
(a) test and adapt the MLA method as an appropriate mechanism <strong>for</strong><br />
integrating local perceptions and views in decision making and planning.<br />
The method was successfully tested in the rural context of Khe Tran, and even<br />
if the MLA was originally designed <strong>for</strong> assessments of local perceptions and<br />
priorities of <strong>for</strong>est dependant societies in a tropical context, we have shown<br />
here that the method can be adapted to situations where local communities<br />
rely less on the <strong>for</strong>est products than they used to;<br />
(b) provide baseline data that can be used <strong>for</strong> the biodiversity conservation<br />
of the planned Phong Dien Nature Reserve. We have a considerable data<br />
base from our different surveys in Khe Tran, with an amount of important<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation on local priorities and perceptions, on the richness of the vegetation<br />
in the village’s vicinity, on the uses of <strong>for</strong>est and non-<strong>for</strong>est products by the<br />
local people as well as on the economic, social and demographic data of the<br />
village. Seven hundred and fifty-four specimens of plants were recorded,<br />
consisting of 439 species from 108 families, <strong>for</strong> which we registered 824<br />
uses. All these data, including socio-economic data will be valuable <strong>for</strong> the<br />
successful management of the planned nature reserve, providing in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
on the biodiversity in the buffer and core zones, and on the different uses and<br />
valuation of species and of natural resources by the local people;<br />
(c) provide an overview of the importance of landscape and local species<br />
to the people of Khe Tran and collect in<strong>for</strong>mation on their livelihoods<br />
and perspectives on Phong Dien Nature Reserve. Through community<br />
meetings, participatory mapping and scoring exercises, the landscape of the<br />
research area has been studied. Findings reflect the local point of view and
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
relative importance of each category of use. Direct field observations using<br />
systematic sampling supported the recorded local views of the importance of<br />
different species, land types and spatial design of the landscape;<br />
(d) discuss the opportunities and constraints faced by conservation<br />
institutions in the future nature reserve regarding land allocation and<br />
<strong>for</strong>est rehabilitation schemes. Dialogue with local in<strong>for</strong>mants occurred<br />
during the survey, in focus group discussion, interviews and more in<strong>for</strong>mal<br />
discussions, to understand the local priorities and perspectives facing the<br />
future nature reserve planning. A workshop with local people was held at the<br />
end of the survey to discuss the implications of conservation according to<br />
the local point of view, the options <strong>for</strong> local people in the frame of the future<br />
nature reserve, the role they would like to play and the threats to biodiversity<br />
they identified; and<br />
(e) facilitate greater involvement of local people and other stakeholders in<br />
decision making and planning at the local level. Based on survey results,<br />
workshops will be held at the provincial, communal and village levels to share<br />
our in<strong>for</strong>mation and experience with all interested partners, stakeholders and<br />
decision makers, and discussions will be held to look <strong>for</strong> options to involve<br />
local communities in reserve management. Be<strong>for</strong>e these workshops another<br />
part of the project, called Future Scenario, was implemented as a follow-up<br />
of our activity in Khe Tran (Evans 2006). Future Scenario helped the local<br />
community in Khe Tran to build strategies <strong>for</strong> their future based on local<br />
knowledge and preliminary MLA results. A presentation of the local people’s<br />
future scenario was made to the local authorities (commune officers).<br />
Be<strong>for</strong>e we analyse the survey results, it is necessary to better understand the<br />
context of conservation in the Phong Dien area and who the villagers of Khe Tran<br />
are.
4.1. Previous conservation activities<br />
Government of Vietnam (GoV) policies have affected the <strong>for</strong>est-related activities<br />
of Khe Tran village. Prior to 1992, the upland <strong>for</strong>est, one of the last remaining<br />
patches of lowland evergreen <strong>for</strong>est including and adjacent to Khe Tran, was<br />
considered a ‘productive <strong>for</strong>est’ and managed by logging companies under the<br />
Department of <strong>Forestry</strong> at the province level. Then in 1992 this site, ‘dominated by<br />
a ridge of low mountains, which extends south-east from the Annamite mountains<br />
and <strong>for</strong>ms the border between Quang Tri and Thua Thien Hue provinces’, was<br />
recognised <strong>for</strong> its ‘important role in protecting downstream water supplies and<br />
reducing flooding in the lowlands of Thua Thien Hue province’ and designated as<br />
a ‘watershed protection <strong>for</strong>est’, a status it still has (Le Trong Trai et al. 2001).<br />
In 1998, international bird conservation groups focused attention on the site<br />
after rediscovery of Edward’s Pheasant (Lophura edwardsi) in these hills, a fowl<br />
thought extinct. Today the site is part of a government <strong>for</strong>est strategy to create a<br />
system of 2 million ha of special use <strong>for</strong>est (national parks, nature reserves and<br />
historical sites) throughout the country and it is listed as one of the sites destined<br />
to become a nature reserve (41,548 ha) in 2010 (Barney 2005).<br />
Local <strong>for</strong>ests around Khe Tran are one of the key biodiversity areas of the<br />
province, since many rare and endangered species of plants and animals can be<br />
found there. Le Trong Trai et al. (2001) report that significant numbers of endemic<br />
and nonendemic plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and butterflies are<br />
found in Phong Dien <strong>for</strong>ests including Khe Tran. Endangered tiger, Panthera<br />
tigris, was confirmed to be present in this area. Muoc, who belongs to the Pahy<br />
ethnic group from Khe Tran, reported that in March 1998 he observed a tiger of<br />
approximately 100 kg at 200 meters from his village. He also reported that in May<br />
1998 a tiger preyed on one of his buffalo in the Moi valley (16°27’N 107°15’E).<br />
He further noticed that, judging by the footprints, two adults and one cub were<br />
present. Villagers also reported during our survey the regular presence of some<br />
of the globally threatened green peafowl (Pavo muticus), although these reports<br />
0<br />
. Conservation context in Khe Tran
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
remain unconfirmed. Some of these key biodiversity species are closely related to<br />
the livelihood of the local people. Our study analyses this kind of knowledge.<br />
First among the threats to <strong>for</strong>est biodiversity identified by BirdLife<br />
<strong>International</strong> and the Forest Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI) is hunting,<br />
because of the value and rarity of the game, followed by firewood and other nontimber<br />
<strong>for</strong>est product (NTFP) collection, timber cutting, <strong>for</strong>est fires (including<br />
human-made as part of scrap metal collection) and clearance of <strong>for</strong>est land <strong>for</strong><br />
agriculture (Le Trong Trai et al. 2001). But the threats are usually specific to each<br />
site, and detailed in<strong>for</strong>mation is needed <strong>for</strong> each location, as we did in Khe Tran.<br />
In June and July 2001, the nature reserve project team including the project<br />
leader and two local people, in collaboration with the Phong Dien Forest Protection<br />
Department (FPD), conducted hunting surveys in Khe Tran and other parts of the<br />
future Phong Dien Nature Reserve (PDNR). <strong>International</strong> Nature Conservation<br />
made this investigation in the frame of a project named ‘Understanding the<br />
impacts of Hunting on Edwards’s Pheasant Lophura edwardsi at PDNR, Vietnam:<br />
Towards a Strategy <strong>for</strong> Managing Hunting Activities’. Interviews were conducted<br />
with villagers, village leader, hunters/trappers (hereinafter called hunters) and<br />
wildlife traders. Villagers also helped to cross-check in<strong>for</strong>mation obtained in the<br />
field. During the initial meetings with hunters in the future core zone, the team<br />
was accompanied by a local guide. The guide helped to introduce the survey<br />
and emphasized its scientific nature. This helped the socialization of the team’s<br />
activities and to gain local support and trust (see the report in http://www.ruf<strong>for</strong>d.<br />
org/rsg/Projects/reports/Tran_Quang_Ngoc_Aug_2001.doc).<br />
The Protection Area and Development review, in collaboration with the World<br />
Wildlife Fund (WWF), BirdLife <strong>International</strong> and FPD undertook another field<br />
study in Khe Tran and other specific sites of Thua Thien Hue province in late 2001<br />
and early 2002. The objective was to examine the actual and potential economic<br />
contribution of the protected areas to different economic sectors in the province<br />
and to define important policy and planning issues related to maintaining and<br />
enhancing the development benefits from the protected areas. This in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
helped policy-makers and planners to understand how their actions could<br />
influence protected area management, local livelihoods and associated economic<br />
development in the areas. A number of case studies also investigated specific<br />
connections between protected areas and economic sectors (see http://www.<br />
mekong-protected-areas.org/vietnam/docs/vietnam-field.pdf).<br />
A project on Community Participation <strong>for</strong> Conservation Success developed by<br />
WWF, Xuan Mai <strong>Forestry</strong> University and FPD used Khe Tran as one of the training<br />
sites in buffer zones. It was designed to increase the effectiveness of conservation<br />
programs in Vietnam by promoting community participation through communitybased<br />
environmental education (CBEE). The project, started in 2003, aimed to<br />
increase the immediate and long-term capacity of government to incorporate<br />
CBEE training into mainstream training institutions. It also contributed directly to<br />
conservation actions in two priority sites in the Central Annamite, by integrating<br />
CBEE activities into the implementation of protected area conservation projects<br />
(Matarasso and Do Thi Thanh Huyen 2005).
| Conservation context in Khe Tran<br />
4.2. Government programs that affected Khe Tran village<br />
Swidden cultivation was a major activity <strong>for</strong> local livelihoods until 1992–1993,<br />
when most of the households were resettled as part of the government’s fixed<br />
cultivation program. Called ‘327 Program’ (1992–1997), it was the first ef<strong>for</strong>t<br />
of the GoV to develop industrial plantations and to decentralize control over and<br />
reallocate benefit-sharing of <strong>for</strong>est resources in Vietnam (Barney 2005), in line<br />
with the ‘Doi Moi’ economic re<strong>for</strong>m (which, with six major economic changes,<br />
helped Vietnam come out of the economic crisis in 1986). Since then most of the<br />
Khe Tran people have concentrated more on their new agriculture and plantation<br />
land and decreased their activity in the natural <strong>for</strong>ests. In this community, there<br />
was little land suitable <strong>for</strong> wet rice cultivation, and villagers began to cultivate<br />
crops such as maize and peanuts, and to diversify crop production with rubber and<br />
Acacia plantations supported by the national 327 Program.<br />
In 2003, according to Artemiev (2003), new guidelines were <strong>for</strong>med on State<br />
Forest Enterprises (SFE) by various government institutions (see Prime Minister<br />
Decision 187/1999/QĐ-TTg from September 1999 and Political Bureau Resolution<br />
28-NQ/TW of 16 June 2003 on the arrangement, renovation and development of<br />
State Farm and Forest Enterprises), which re<strong>for</strong>med its status to<br />
1. business SFE (<strong>for</strong>estry related business), which earns profits as its main<br />
per<strong>for</strong>mance objective and receives no subsidies to cover its operating cost;<br />
2. Protection Forest Management Board (<strong>for</strong>est protection activities), which<br />
combines earned profits and subsidies only <strong>for</strong> cost recovery;<br />
3. other business <strong>for</strong>m (transportation, construction, wood processing,<br />
extension services, etc.), which is similar to business SFE in its objective;<br />
and<br />
4. public utility State Owned Enterprises.<br />
For more than one decade <strong>for</strong>estry activities have been implemented under a<br />
series of national <strong>for</strong>est development programs, most recently the ‘661 Program’<br />
and its predecessor, the 327 Program. In Phong Dien district, the 661 Program<br />
is managed by Phong Dien Forest Enterprise and the management board of Bo<br />
River Watershed Protection Forest (Le Trong Trai et al. 2001). The main <strong>for</strong>estry<br />
activities focused on ‘af<strong>for</strong>esting’ bare lands and degraded areas, and establishing<br />
<strong>for</strong>est plantations. In Khe Tran village, households were paid VND 700,000 to<br />
VND 1 million per hectare <strong>for</strong> planting trees on land allocated <strong>for</strong> plantations<br />
(Acacia spp.). They were then paid a further VND 450,000 <strong>for</strong> the first year and<br />
VND 250,000 <strong>for</strong> each of the next two years under the terms of the <strong>for</strong>est protection<br />
contract (<strong>for</strong> comparison, the average annually per capita income in Khe Tran is<br />
VND 1,944,167). They were not allowed to cut the trees but, in places with older<br />
trees, were allowed to collect fallen branches <strong>for</strong> firewood. In A Luoi district, <strong>for</strong><br />
example, households were paid VND 400 per tree <strong>for</strong> planting cinnamon trees,<br />
which equals VND 4 million/ha (high planting density of Cinnamomum cassia is<br />
10,000 trees/ha; Le Thanh Chien 1996).
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Further, Le Trong Trai et al. (2001) described that payments from these national<br />
<strong>for</strong>estry programs have provided benefits to villagers in the short term, and Acacia<br />
spp. and pine plantations established under these programs are growing reasonably<br />
well. However, villagers brought attention to a number of problems they had to<br />
face in response to the needs of the national <strong>for</strong>estry programs. For example,<br />
villagers from Khe Tran and Ha Long pointed out that they faced considerable<br />
difficulties after their individual agreement (temporary Land Use Certificate)<br />
on plantation with the Forest Enterprise expired, and they were left without any<br />
further incentive. This kind of agreement does not provide any official recognition<br />
of the local people’s rights to the land, and they only have the right to use the<br />
land, temporarily, <strong>for</strong> the time of the agreement. These same villagers expressed<br />
a preference <strong>for</strong> natural <strong>for</strong>est management approaches that deliver sustainable<br />
and regular benefits and allow them to manage existing <strong>for</strong>est land (including<br />
regenerating <strong>for</strong>est and ‘bare’ lands) in a more sustainable manner.<br />
In Phong Dien district, the main species <strong>for</strong> plantation establishment are<br />
Acacia auriculi<strong>for</strong>mis, Acacia mangium and Pinus kesiya, selected by project<br />
managers of the national <strong>for</strong>estry programs. The total area under <strong>for</strong>est plantation<br />
is substantial: according to Phong Dien Forest Enterprise, 30,366 ha of plantations<br />
have now been established in the three communes of Phong Dien district near the<br />
buffer zone, with support from the 327 and 661 programs. Most plantations have<br />
been established on flat lands and lower slopes, <strong>for</strong> accessibility and financial<br />
reasons.<br />
Rubber trees were also established under the 327 Program in Khe Tran.<br />
Un<strong>for</strong>tunately, according to Le Trong Trai et al. (2001), this plantation was<br />
established on the river banks, the village’s best lands available <strong>for</strong> agriculture<br />
crops. Because the trees already produce latex, villagers are left without any better<br />
option <strong>for</strong> other agriculture. In our survey we observed that beyond the rubber<br />
plantation and the plain area in the lower part of the village, land is composed of<br />
reddish, stony and hard soil surface.<br />
Le Trong Trai et al. (2001) argued that with an abundance of heavily degraded<br />
land available <strong>for</strong> rehabilitation, <strong>for</strong>est management and other land uses, there is<br />
considerable potential <strong>for</strong> cash earning activities in the buffer zone (<strong>for</strong> example<br />
through economic crop plantations). This activity would also reduce the overall<br />
pressure on the <strong>for</strong>est resources in the nature reserve. They also suggested that<br />
current arrangements <strong>for</strong> <strong>for</strong>est development and management in the bare lands<br />
are costly, create social tensions and seem to be unsustainable in the long run.<br />
On the other hand some of the Acacia plantations have been established in areas<br />
that are not optimal from environmental or economical perspectives. This practice<br />
may lead to increasing conflicts, especially as land pressure <strong>for</strong> crops continues<br />
to increase. Consideration might, there<strong>for</strong>e, be given to allocating a greater<br />
proportion of existing <strong>for</strong>est lands <strong>for</strong> community management.
| Conservation context in Khe Tran<br />
Summary<br />
Khe Tran village has been through different land use policies. Its <strong>for</strong>ests were<br />
first considered productive <strong>for</strong>ests, then watershed protection <strong>for</strong>ests, and<br />
it is planned to be part of Phong Dien Nature Reserve in 2010, because of<br />
its important biodiversity and the presence of rare and endangered species.<br />
However, <strong>for</strong>ests in the village’s surroundings have been deeply disturbed,<br />
because of war, logging activities and agricultural practices. Many projects<br />
linked to the preparation of the nature reserve have taken place in Khe Tran.<br />
Banning local people from many extractive activities in the planned reserve,<br />
the government has proposed to develop other activities to provide incomes<br />
to all households. In this context, rubber and Acacia plantation programs were<br />
implemented with government support. Even if these programs are supposed<br />
to provide cash income to the local people, some villagers worry about their<br />
future rights on the plantations and expect to get rights to manage the natural<br />
<strong>for</strong>ests and the bare land in a sustainable way. Lack of land <strong>for</strong> agriculture may<br />
become a problem <strong>for</strong> food security and may leave many villagers with few<br />
alternatives to the exploitation of the natural <strong>for</strong>est.
. Site description<br />
5.1. <strong>Research</strong> site<br />
Khe Tran (Phong My commune, Phong Dien district, Thua Thien Hue province) is<br />
situated near the limits of the future Phong Dien Nature Reserve (PDNR) (Figure<br />
3). The village covers an area of about 200 ha and its average elevation is 160 m<br />
asl. Located to the north-west of Hue city, it can be reached by car in 1.5 hours<br />
from the provincial capital. During the rainy season flooding regularly isolates the<br />
village <strong>for</strong> several days. Khe Tran is bordered by the Phong Dien Nature Reserve<br />
on the west and south, and by Hoà Bac village on the east.<br />
The village is in the buffer zone of PDNR, an area of <strong>for</strong>est and converted<br />
lands. The reserve and the village area are dominated by low mountains, which<br />
extend south-east from the Annamite Mountains and <strong>for</strong>m the border between<br />
Quang Tri and Thua Thien Hue provinces. The highest points within the nature<br />
reserve are Coc Ton Bhai (1,408 m), Ca Cut (1,405 m), Ko Va La Dut (1,409 m),<br />
Coc Muen (1,298 m) and Co Pung (1,615 m).<br />
Very little natural <strong>for</strong>est remains in the village vicinity, and plantations cover<br />
an increasing portion of the abundant bare lands. Village houses are scattered on<br />
both sides of a small trail, 1 km from the main road running between Phong My<br />
and Hoà Bac. One characteristic of the village is the isolation of the houses from<br />
each other, and it takes approximately 30 minutes to walk from one end to the<br />
other of this village of 20 households. Home gardens commonly consisting of<br />
pepper and jackfruit are surrounding most of the houses.<br />
This place was chosen <strong>for</strong> our project as the reference site <strong>for</strong> the MLA<br />
activities <strong>for</strong> several reasons:<br />
1. There is a strong presence of a minority group, the Pahy, in the village,<br />
mixed with some Kinh (the majority ethnic group in Vietnam) and Khome<br />
(an alternate name <strong>for</strong> one of the Khmer language groups in Vietnam; see<br />
Gordon 2005). There are 53 ethnic minorities in Vietnam (12.7% of the<br />
population in 1979 census) and some of them have problematic relationships<br />
with the main ethnic group, represented by the central government (Yukio
| Site description<br />
Sources:<br />
- Le Trong Trai et al. 2001<br />
- SRTM 90m Digital<br />
Elevation Data, The<br />
NASA Shuttle Radar<br />
Topographic Mission<br />
- World Administrative<br />
Boundaries, UNEP World<br />
Conservation Monitoring<br />
Centre, 1994<br />
Figure 3. Location of Khe Tran village in the buffer zone of Phong Dien Nature Reserve
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
2001). Generally the main conflicts occur in the Central Highlands (conflicts<br />
over land allocation to Kinh people, problems of traditional land management<br />
and of shifting cultivation), and ethnic minority groups often are not well<br />
perceived by the Kinh. Nevertheless, the GoV has recently made ef<strong>for</strong>ts to<br />
recognize the situation and vulnerability of minority groups and has developed<br />
a policy of integration of these groups into the more global economic life,<br />
through development and infrastructures programs (ADB 2005). We found it<br />
relevant to work with a local community belonging to a minority group that<br />
was already mixed with the main Kinh group. The fact that this community<br />
has been <strong>for</strong>bidden to practice its traditional shifting cultivation activities,<br />
and encouraged to follow the more sedentary mode of agriculture, was one<br />
more reason <strong>for</strong> us to study its perception and priorities <strong>for</strong> natural resource<br />
management, and how it manages its relationships with other village groups<br />
and government authorities at commune, district and provincial levels.<br />
2. A second important reason was the presence of a future nature reserve in the<br />
village’s vicinity. This reserve, decided on after the discovery of Edward’s<br />
Pheasant in the mountains of Phong Dien district, is planned <strong>for</strong> 2010 (BirdLife<br />
<strong>International</strong> et al. 2001) and has great potential <strong>for</strong> local communities’<br />
involvement, although at this time people from Khe Tran and other villages at<br />
the limit of the reserve are <strong>for</strong>bidden to pursue any extractives activity inside<br />
the future core zone. Yet our survey could provide valuable in<strong>for</strong>mation on the<br />
way local people envisage their possible participation in reserve management<br />
and <strong>for</strong> negotiations among all stakeholders.<br />
3. Last, most of the projects in Phong Dien district focus on mines and<br />
infrastructure, while few seek to gain experiences in land use planning<br />
(some projects have developed activities in community <strong>for</strong>estry, but mainly<br />
plantation <strong>for</strong>ests). Results from our activities can be used <strong>for</strong> comparison<br />
with similar projects undertaken in other districts of Thua Thien Hue, or even<br />
other provinces of Vietnam.<br />
5.2. People from Khe Tran<br />
5.2.1. History of the people from Khe Tran<br />
Prior to 1967, Khe Tran village was situated around the upstream portion of the O<br />
Lau and My Chanh rivers (see Figure 4). The villagers practiced shifting cultivation<br />
in this hilly area. They were displaced by war to A Luoi district and even Laos PDR.<br />
In 1971, the GoV in<strong>for</strong>med them that their homeland was safe and that they could<br />
re-occupy it. The village leader and a few other villagers returned to Tam Gianh,<br />
a place situated 2 km from the actual settlement, upstream on O Lau river, and the<br />
remaining refugees followed soon after. The displaced Khe Tran villagers settled<br />
there <strong>for</strong> five years, be<strong>for</strong>e moving on to Khe Cat village, where they remained<br />
until 1978. Finally, they re-occupied their <strong>for</strong>mer homeland, the upstream part of<br />
O Lau river. In 1992, encouraged by the government to settle closer to the main<br />
road, some villagers moved to Khe Tran lowlands (the lower part of O Lau river
| Site description<br />
Sources:<br />
- Department of<br />
Planning and<br />
Investment, TT-Hue<br />
province, 2005<br />
- Landsat Satellite<br />
Imagery Path 125<br />
Row 049, The Global<br />
Land Cover Facility,<br />
2001<br />
- SRTM 90m Digital<br />
Elevation Data, The<br />
NASA Shuttle Radar<br />
Topographic Mission<br />
- World Administrative<br />
Boundaries, UNEP<br />
World Conservation<br />
Monitoring Centre,<br />
1994<br />
Figure 4. Situation of Khe Tran village
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
in the lower part of the village), thus moving away from the lands traditionally<br />
occupied by the Pahy. Most of these villagers were of mixed ethnic origins. This<br />
is how the village became divided into two parts, as mentioned be<strong>for</strong>e, on the<br />
upper and lower reaches of the O Lau river; with support from the government the<br />
villagers living in the lowlands developed agricultural crops (including rice) and<br />
rubber plantations.<br />
5.2.2. Population and ethnicity<br />
One hundred twenty-four villagers, divided into 20 households, live in Khe Tran.<br />
People 15 to 60 years old represent 71% of the population, the remainder being<br />
composed of children (21%) and seniors (8%). Most villagers are farmers and<br />
only a few have other occupations such as police, teacher or tailor.<br />
As mentioned be<strong>for</strong>e, most of the villagers belong to the Pahy ethnic group,<br />
one of the many minority groups found in Vietnam; 23 people are Kinh, which is<br />
the majority ethnic group in Thua Thien Hue province and in Vietnam generally<br />
(Vu Hoai Minh and Warfvinge 2002). There is a single representative of the<br />
Khome ethnic group. Originally only Pahy people inhabited Khe Tran and the<br />
surrounding areas, but with time other ethnic groups have settled in the region<br />
through intermarriages. Pahy and Kinh people live together in both the upland and<br />
lowland village parts.<br />
Interactions between government and minorities like the Pahy are sometimes<br />
strained, especially in respect to land and natural resources rights of usage. Working<br />
with the Pahy of Khe Tran allowed us to study the situation of a minority group <strong>for</strong><br />
which the process of integration and trans<strong>for</strong>mation is practically achieved, and<br />
our observations may be of value as a basis <strong>for</strong> comparison with other groups in<br />
Central Vietnam.<br />
5.2.3. Education<br />
Only eight villagers have not received an education. The villagers who have<br />
received the most years of education are young people (under 30 years old), most<br />
of whom have finished elementary school. A very few have gone to high school.<br />
The sole elementary school is located in a nearby village on the way to the<br />
commune (Phong My). The primary (middle) school is at the commune (5 km<br />
from the village), and secondary (high) schools are located in Phong Dien district.<br />
There was an elementary school in the village, but it closed <strong>for</strong> lack of students.<br />
Most of villagers hope <strong>for</strong> better education, infrastructure and institutions.<br />
They think that education can help them to increase their welfare by providing<br />
their children with useful knowledge and skills.<br />
5.2.4. Livelihood<br />
Villagers of Khe Tran work most of the time in their rice fields, in their home<br />
gardens (mostly growing pepper and jackfruit) and in rubber and Acacia plantations
0 | Site description<br />
as a result of the government resettlement program. Despite these new sources<br />
of income, people still occasionally gather <strong>for</strong>est products (e.g. honey, rattan)<br />
and war wreckage from the nature reserve. Some villagers still depend on nature<br />
reserve <strong>for</strong>ests, but an increasing number of people depend on more permanent<br />
agriculture and plantation <strong>for</strong> their livelihoods and <strong>for</strong> cash earning. Villagers in<br />
the lowlands principally depend <strong>for</strong> their livelihoods on cultivation of seasonal<br />
crops, plantations, livestock and home gardens, whereas those in the uplands are<br />
relying on plantations and livestock (Figure 5).<br />
Figure 5. Livestock and Acacia plantations are important in Khe Tran<br />
Some important events have affected the livelihoods of the villagers. Until<br />
recently, the inhabitants of Phong Dien districts, including Khe Tran village, had<br />
to cope with problems of flooding, drought and <strong>for</strong>est fire. For example, floods<br />
caused widespread damage to crops and infrastructure in 1983 and 1999. During<br />
the 1999 floods, houses, crops and even lives were lost in Khe Tran. Widespread<br />
fires and drought were also reported in the district in 1985, and another drought<br />
occurred in 1990. We recorded these events which started from 1992, when some<br />
villagers started to settle in the lower part of the village (Table 2).<br />
5.2.5. Source of income<br />
There is a big difference between the two parts of the village in terms of household<br />
income (Table 3). According to the household survey, people from the lower part<br />
have a higher annual income (average of VND 13.7 million) than those from the
Table 2. Important events affecting the local livelihoods<br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Year Disasters/important events Causes<br />
1992 Settlement in Khe Tran village Following government plans<br />
1993 Forest assigned to villagers Because previous <strong>for</strong>est management by<br />
the government failed to prevent <strong>for</strong>est<br />
destruction, <strong>for</strong>ests were assigned to local<br />
people (re<strong>for</strong>estation program). This helped<br />
the local people to use the bare lands, which<br />
are still officially included in the <strong>for</strong>est<br />
category<br />
1999 Flood Natural disaster which damaged/destroyed<br />
some houses<br />
2003 Access to electricity Government program<br />
2004 Access to water <strong>for</strong> irrigation<br />
(self-running water system)<br />
Government program <strong>for</strong> poverty alleviation<br />
upper area (VND 9.6 million). The average household contains six members, with<br />
an income of VND 1.6 million to VND 2.3 million per capita. These values are<br />
much lower than the general per capita income in Vietnam of USD 553, or VND<br />
8.7 million in 2004 (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/4130.htm). We found that<br />
some households’ income was below the poverty line of VND 1.04 million per<br />
capita (Vietnam General Statistical Office at http://www.unescap.org/Stat/meet/<br />
povstat/pov7_vnm.pdf#search=’poverty%20line%20in%20vietnam’).<br />
Rubber (Figure 6) and Acacia plantation, livestock, home gardens and<br />
retirement subsidies are the main source of income <strong>for</strong> the lower area, while Acacia<br />
plantations and war subsidies (compensation) represent the main source <strong>for</strong> the<br />
upper part. People from the upper part have little cash income from livestock,<br />
rattan, home gardens and the collection of war wreckage.<br />
Some of the villagers were in the army during the war against the USA, and<br />
they still receive compensation from the government. Two villagers have opened<br />
small shops that sell drinks and foods. The owners lay in supplies at the market of<br />
Phong My commune. Some villagers work in Phong Dien as teachers and police<br />
officers, and one is a tailor in Ho Chi Minh City.<br />
Villagers living in the upper part are near the natural <strong>for</strong>est and use it when<br />
they experience food shortages. Food security is critical in the upper part as they<br />
do not cultivate rice and <strong>for</strong> cash income depend on Acacia plantation. Ef<strong>for</strong>ts to<br />
intensify livestock and home garden production may help to improve their income<br />
and to secure food availability. Maltsoglou and Rapsomanikis (2005) reported that<br />
livestock plays an important role in household income in rural areas of Vietnam.<br />
Acacia plantation is a potential source of substantial income <strong>for</strong> households<br />
nowadays and may become even more important in the future. Demand <strong>for</strong> local<br />
Acacia production is significant and absorbs all harvested products in Khe Tran.<br />
Demand from pulp and chipboard factories located near Thua Thien Hue and the<br />
GoV program to expand the plantation area (Barney 2005) bode well <strong>for</strong> <strong>for</strong>est<br />
plantation as a means to increase local income. Plantation may also provide fodder<br />
<strong>for</strong> livestock.
| Site description<br />
Table 3. Income range by source of products and settlement area<br />
Source of income<br />
Household income (VND millions)<br />
Lower area Upper area<br />
Monthly Annually Monthly Annually<br />
Rubber plantation 0.27–0.67 3.20–8.00 0.00 0.00<br />
Acacia plantation 0.58 7.00 0.10–0.25 1.20–3.00<br />
Livestock 0.25 3.00 0.10–0.29 1.20–3.50<br />
Home garden 0.58 7.00 0.25 3.00<br />
Pension 0.61 7.30 0.60 7.20<br />
Agriculture n.a. n.a. 0.10 1.20<br />
Rattan 0.05 0.60 n.a. n.a.<br />
War wreckage 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.20<br />
Store 0.00 0.00 0.05–0.58 0.60–7.00<br />
Others 0.17 2.00 0.03–0.15 0.30–1.80<br />
Average 1.14 13.70 0.80 9.63<br />
Range 0.35–2.08 4.2–25 0.33–1.67 4–20<br />
n.a. means respondents gave no in<strong>for</strong>mation in regard to the small amount of income obtained from<br />
corresponding source<br />
Figure 6. A woman from the lower part of the village harvests rubber from her<br />
plantation
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Another opportunity to increase and diversify income is to utilize the river <strong>for</strong><br />
fish production. O Lau river, near the village, is approximately 20 m wide and in<br />
some parts has natural pools that offer potential <strong>for</strong> fish farming. Fisheries have<br />
been introduced and are popular in other areas of Phong Dien and A Luoi districts<br />
(Le Trong Trai et al. 2001) and may also prove useful in this village, even if there<br />
are great concerns in case of flood and about dioxin contamination of the river.<br />
5.2.6. Access and interaction with outsiders<br />
Access to the commune is good, with a 4 m–wide path linking the village to the<br />
main road of the commune. Villagers use bicycles and motorbikes to go to the<br />
commune. During the rainy season, however, sections of the path are sometimes<br />
cut by floods, especially in the lower parts. The village road becomes muddy and<br />
slippery. A bridge connects the lower and upper parts of the village, and a bigger<br />
bridge is under construction with assistance from the Thua Thien Hue Rural<br />
Development Project (Appraisal Mission 2004).<br />
Outsiders interacting with villagers are traders who buy agricultural products<br />
(peanut, pepper, rubber, cassava) or sell meat and clothes. Sometimes villagers<br />
meet outsiders who collect eaglewood, war wreckage or rattan, but there is little<br />
interaction. The coffee shops in the upper part of the village are the place where<br />
villagers frequently chat with outsiders.<br />
Villagers reported that many extension workers from government and<br />
nongovernment institutions have held training courses in the village since the<br />
program of land allocation and re<strong>for</strong>estation started in the early 1990s. They<br />
think that these extension ef<strong>for</strong>ts have been very useful and hope to have more<br />
workshops especially on technical and management aspects of livestock, plantation<br />
and agriculture.<br />
5.3. Land use and natural resources<br />
In the village’s vicinity the planned nature reserve and its buffer zone consist of<br />
patches of degraded <strong>for</strong>est, grassland, Acacia and rubber plantations, and areas<br />
reserved <strong>for</strong> agriculture. Two main rivers can be found near the village, the O Lau<br />
and My Chanh rivers.<br />
During our first observations and community meetings, we identified the<br />
main surrounding land types, e.g. alluvial plain with settlements, pepper gardens,<br />
rubber plantations, rice fields and other dry-land agriculture, hilly areas with<br />
secondary <strong>for</strong>ests, Acacia plantations, settlements, pepper gardens and grasslands.<br />
We recorded about 20 different land types identified by the villagers around Khe<br />
Tran (Table 4). The land type identification reflects the official perception and<br />
classification of land tenure (e.g. land reserved <strong>for</strong> settlement, land <strong>for</strong> peanut<br />
farming), along with some features less relevant to our activities (e.g. waterfall,<br />
small road, bridge).<br />
We tried, there<strong>for</strong>e, to classify the local perception, rather than the official<br />
one, and the land types were regrouped into six main types, namely bare hills,
| Site description<br />
Table 4. Identified land types in Khe Tran<br />
Land types (Pahy) Description<br />
Cutect vườn Land <strong>for</strong> garden<br />
Cutect màu Land <strong>for</strong> agriculture<br />
Cutect a tong Land <strong>for</strong> peanut farming<br />
Cutect along Land <strong>for</strong> <strong>for</strong>est plantation<br />
Cutect vá Land <strong>for</strong> cemetery<br />
Cutect cho tro Land <strong>for</strong> rice farming<br />
Cutect tiêu Land <strong>for</strong> pepper farming<br />
Cutect cao su Land <strong>for</strong> rubber farming<br />
Cutect âm bút Land <strong>for</strong> natural <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Cutect cỏ Land <strong>for</strong> grass/bare land<br />
Đa pưh Pahy Pahy/O Lau river<br />
Đá so tù moi Tu moi tributary<br />
Cutect ta xu Land <strong>for</strong> houses<br />
Ân yên cooh 935 Mountain peak of 935<br />
A chuh Rana Rana waterfall<br />
Chooh Rana Sandy area of Rana riverside<br />
Mỏ zeeng Gold mine<br />
Along papứt Big tree <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Along cacet Small tree <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Câm foong fứt Bridge<br />
dry land <strong>for</strong> agriculture, <strong>for</strong>ests, home garden, rice field and rivers. The <strong>for</strong>ests<br />
classification was further divided into plantation, small tree and big tree <strong>for</strong>ests<br />
(see Table 5).<br />
O Lau river is an important part of the landscape near the village. It traverses<br />
the entire village territory, close to the settlements. The second big river, My<br />
Chanh river in the northern part of Khe Tran, is rarely used by the local people.<br />
Forests within and around the village are categorized into three types as<br />
mentioned above. Plantation <strong>for</strong>ests in our survey include Acacia and rubber.<br />
The oldest (8 years) rubber plantation of the village is situated near the main<br />
road, and covers about 10 ha, including some patches of new plantations. The<br />
Acacia plantation begins in the middle of the village and reaches to the upper part,<br />
covering about 160 ha. Small tree <strong>for</strong>est represents the dominant types of <strong>for</strong>est<br />
around the village, mainly inside the Phong Dien Nature Reserve, and consists<br />
of young Myrtaceae and Rubiaceae <strong>for</strong>ests. Big tree <strong>for</strong>est (or primary <strong>for</strong>est) is<br />
distant from the village, situated at more than one day’s walk, inside the reserve<br />
area.<br />
Bare lands (Figure 7) were caused historically by war, fires, grazing and<br />
shifting cultivation (Le Trong Trai et al. 2001). This land type, dominated by<br />
shrubs and grasses, is the target of re<strong>for</strong>estation ef<strong>for</strong>ts by the government. Acacia<br />
plantations are developed on these bare hills.<br />
The rest of the village’s landscape is divided into settlements, home<br />
gardens (pepper and fruits), bare hills, rivers and roads. If land <strong>for</strong> plantation is<br />
geographically specialized (Acacia in the upper part and rubber in the lower part),<br />
home gardens can be found near the houses in both parts of the village.
Table 5. Regrouped land types in Khe Tran<br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Land types (<strong>English</strong>/Pahy) Description<br />
Home garden/Cutect vườn Mostly pepper with jackfruits and pineapples;<br />
around houses<br />
Land <strong>for</strong> agriculture /Cutect màu Peanut and cassava; lower part of Khe Tran<br />
Rice field/Cutect cho tro Dry rice field<br />
Bare land/Cutect cỏ North of the village; shrub and grass on hills and<br />
riverbanks<br />
River/Đa pưh South and north of the village (O Lau and My<br />
Chanh rivers)<br />
Forest plantation/Cutect along Rubber and Acacia<br />
Small tree <strong>for</strong>est/Along ca cut Young regrowth around village<br />
Big tree <strong>for</strong>est/Along papứt West of the village (far from the village)<br />
Figure 7. Considerable areas of bare land are used in Khe Tran <strong>for</strong> new Acacia<br />
plantation<br />
Khe Tran landscape mainly reflects the ef<strong>for</strong>ts of the central government to<br />
manage the local community resettlement and to apply agricultural and <strong>for</strong>estry<br />
programs through land allocation schemes. This mosaic landscape dominates<br />
the village area near the settlements. They are situated on alluvial plains, which<br />
represent the best land.<br />
The GoV has pursued a land use policy that has greatly influenced the<br />
development of Khe Tran. With the objective of creating a natural reserve at Phong
| Site description<br />
Dien, the government has encouraged villagers to abandon traditional agriculture<br />
and other activities in the mountains <strong>for</strong> permanent agriculture in the rich lowland<br />
soils. The government is omnipresent in the activities of villagers through the<br />
Provincial People’s Council, which frequently intervenes at the local level. The<br />
people’s council of the Phong My commune is involved in all decision-making<br />
concerning daily village management, nominates the village chief and decides the<br />
attribution of government-financed development projects.<br />
Our in<strong>for</strong>mers said that they did no longer hunt in the <strong>for</strong>est because there is<br />
little game and hunting is banned by the government. This said, when shown a<br />
map, they can tell where to find the different wild animals, which shows that they<br />
have only recently given up hunting or that some clandestine hunting (mostly by<br />
snares as firearms are illegal) still occurs.<br />
An old cemetery is situated in the middle of an Acacia plantation, and the<br />
remains of abandoned villages can be found around the small tree <strong>for</strong>est in the<br />
village area. These land features represent important historical and cultural sites<br />
<strong>for</strong> the villagers.<br />
5.3.1. Distribution of resource and land types (participatory<br />
resource mapping)<br />
As mentioned previously (see Methods, Chapter 2), community meetings were<br />
used to map the main resources and land types identified by villagers. These<br />
participatory mappings are a preliminary condition to arrive at a common<br />
understanding of the local perceptions of the different land types and activities in<br />
the target area.<br />
During the participatory mapping exercise, we provided a basic map showing<br />
the main rivers and tributaries, roads and village location. Local representatives<br />
added the spatial distribution of many land types and resources, e.g. <strong>for</strong>ests,<br />
Acacia and rubber plantation, agricultural land, settlements and home gardens,<br />
old village, specific locations <strong>for</strong> hunting and other specific resources such as war<br />
wreckage, rattan, bear, pheasants, etc. The final result of this map can be seen in<br />
Figure 8.<br />
Villagers showed good knowledge of the resources near their settlement,<br />
including resources from home gardens, agriculture land, plantation <strong>for</strong>ests,<br />
small tree <strong>for</strong>ests, bare hills and rivers. Most of the villagers seem to have limited<br />
knowledge of the resources situated farther from the village, e.g. in the big tree<br />
<strong>for</strong>est.<br />
Even if the map was not meant to be used <strong>for</strong> official or legal purposes,<br />
villagers considered it a good tool <strong>for</strong> communication with the outsiders on local<br />
land types and resources. The map was used during a workshop with villagers on<br />
biodiversity conservation issues in Khe Tran during the last days of our survey<br />
(see local perceptions in Chapter 6). The field team also used the map <strong>for</strong> the<br />
selection of relevant sites <strong>for</strong> measuring plots in the various land types identified<br />
by villagers and collecting in<strong>for</strong>mation on local knowledge of <strong>for</strong>est products and<br />
sites history.
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Figure 8. Biodiversity and resource distribution map of Khe Tran
| Site description<br />
The process of compiling the map showed us that, even if the landscape<br />
around Khe Tran is severely disturbed, mainly made up of secondary <strong>for</strong>ests,<br />
plantations, grassland and bare lands, villagers recognize a large number of wild<br />
resources not far from the village, including some extremely rare animals (tigers,<br />
bear). According to in<strong>for</strong>mants, these animals were observed at some time during<br />
the last 5–6 years.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e, even if the knowledge of resources and land type locations is<br />
important, it is concentrated mainly in the village’s vicinity. We will return to this<br />
map during our discussion on traditional knowledge in the following chapter.<br />
Summary<br />
The village is characterized by the presence of a strong minority group, the<br />
Pahy, mixed with the majority group in Vietnam, the Kinh, and with the Khome.<br />
The population of Khe Tran moved during the war against the USA, some to<br />
A Luoi district, close to the Laotian border, and some into Laos. At the end<br />
of the war, they were authorized to resettle in their village, and in 1992 the<br />
government encouraged the villagers to settle near the main road and helped<br />
them to develop more sedentary cultivation of rice fields and industrial crops<br />
plantations of Acacia and rubber.<br />
Only few people among the 20 households have received no education.<br />
Most villagers spend a large amount of time in their gardens, rice fields and<br />
plantations. The village is divided in two areas, the upper part, where villagers<br />
have smaller incomes and depend on home gardens and Acacia plantations <strong>for</strong><br />
their livelihoods; and the lower part, with a higher mean income, depending<br />
on more diversified crops cultivation, including Acacia and rubber plantations,<br />
home gardens and peanut, cassava and rice fields. The 20 households are<br />
scattered and it takes about 30 minutes to walk from one end of the village to<br />
the other.<br />
Villagers distinguish a large number of land types, some corresponding<br />
with the official nomenclature. Of the eight main land types, <strong>for</strong>ests account<br />
<strong>for</strong> three. In addition to big tree <strong>for</strong>ests and small tree <strong>for</strong>ests, villagers include<br />
plantations among the <strong>for</strong>est landscape. This classification may relate to the<br />
official ‘<strong>for</strong>est status’ of the bare land used <strong>for</strong> plantation. Plantation <strong>for</strong>ests are<br />
part of a large land allocation and <strong>for</strong>est rehabilitation plan promoted by the<br />
local government to provide more income from ‘stable’ and sedentary activities<br />
and to keep the villagers out of more <strong>for</strong>est-dependant activities (shifting<br />
cultivation, timber collection, NTFP collection), especially in the Phong Dien<br />
Nature Reserve. Nevertheless, participatory mapping of the natural resources<br />
of the village shows that knowledge of <strong>for</strong>est products, wildlife and other<br />
natural resources is still important among the villagers, even if this knowledge<br />
tends to be limited to the close vicinity of the village. We did not collect<br />
much in<strong>for</strong>mation on areas situated farther from the village, in the core zone<br />
of the Nature Reserve. Villagers also have a strong sense of ownership when<br />
discussing land tenure in the village, repartition of plantation responsibilities<br />
and expectation in the future.
. Local perceptions of the different<br />
land types and resources<br />
Perceptions of natural resources differ between local people, such as the Pahy, and<br />
outsiders such as the government, traders, researchers or development agencies.<br />
Decision makers need in<strong>for</strong>mation on local perspectives to plan and manage<br />
the natural resources in a more sustainable way. We present here the villagers’<br />
perceptions of their surrounding natural (e.g. <strong>for</strong>est, river) and other (<strong>for</strong>est<br />
plantation, home garden, etc.) land types and the village’s biodiversity.<br />
We captured local perceptions of the surrounding landscape and biodiversity<br />
using scoring exercises (PDM), focus group discussions and interviews (as<br />
described in Methods, Chapter 2). Some of the results were qualitative concerning<br />
the description of the perceptions, others were quantitative to compare the<br />
perceptions of different groups of villagers, but always accompanied by<br />
explanations on the values given by in<strong>for</strong>mants.<br />
Villagers use numerous natural resources in their daily activities. These<br />
resources (plants and animals) can be found in the various landscape units identified<br />
by the local people. Natural resources are used <strong>for</strong> food, medicine, construction,<br />
basketry, firewood, cash earning, etc. The following results show how and why<br />
these resources are meaningful <strong>for</strong> local people in Khe Tran.<br />
6.1. Local land uses<br />
As discussed earlier, there are six main land types around Khe Tran (Table 5, page<br />
25). Bare land, river, big tree <strong>for</strong>est and small tree <strong>for</strong>est represent the natural land<br />
types, while garden, <strong>for</strong>est plantation, rice field and dry land <strong>for</strong> agriculture are<br />
the direct consequence of villagers’ activities, sometimes with support from the<br />
local government. During the community meetings, villagers named some areas<br />
allocated by the government <strong>for</strong> agriculture and plantations in a highly <strong>for</strong>mal<br />
way, e.g. ‘allocated land <strong>for</strong> rubber plantation’, or, in Pahy, ‘cutect cao su, in<br />
contrast with more basic land type, e.g. ‘small tree <strong>for</strong>est’ (along papút).
0 | Local perceptions of the different land types and resources<br />
According to the villagers biodiversity is important <strong>for</strong> their livelihoods.<br />
Table 6 shows some important products that local people still gather exclusively<br />
from the natural <strong>for</strong>est. Hundreds of other products (plant and animal) are still<br />
collected during their daily activities in the surrounding landscape. In Section 6.6,<br />
we discuss in more detail the most important products from <strong>for</strong>est.<br />
More complete, although not exhaustive, lists are also available in Annexes<br />
1 and 2, which show the important knowledge of local people on biodiversity and<br />
the large range of uses they have <strong>for</strong> many <strong>for</strong>est products. During discussions,<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mants agreed to categorize the main uses of these products into 14 big<br />
categories (Table 7) adapted from the MLA method to the local context.<br />
Table 6. Important <strong>for</strong>est plants and their local uses<br />
Product names (Pahy or Vietnamese/scientific) Uses<br />
A ro/Licuala spinosa Conical hat<br />
Ấp lăng/— Roof<br />
Cây re/Calamus walkeri Furniture<br />
Chùn quét/— Broom<br />
Long huện/Tarrietia javanica Cattle cage<br />
Tu vien/Melocalamus compactiflorus Rope<br />
Tân ning/— Honey<br />
Ùi a dúm/— Firewood<br />
Table 7. Main categories of use of plant and animal resources<br />
Categories of use Description<br />
Basketry Rope made from leaves, rattan or bark <strong>for</strong> weaving or tying<br />
Firewood Wood <strong>for</strong> fire<br />
Fodder Used <strong>for</strong> feeding cattle, pigs<br />
Food Primary and secondary foods, famine food<br />
Heavy construction Material <strong>for</strong> permanent construction (houses and bridges)<br />
Hunting function Poisons, bait, gums, catapult made of plant/animal parts<br />
used to catch animal<br />
Hunting place Indirect use of plant as hunting location, usually fruits<br />
appreciated by game<br />
Light construction Poles and cuttings <strong>for</strong> cattle cage, fences, furniture<br />
Marketable items Plant/animal parts and processed products that are sold <strong>for</strong><br />
cash<br />
Medicine Medicinal and health related<br />
Ornamental/traditional/ritual Plant/animal parts used in ceremony, dress, decoration,<br />
house ornaments<br />
Recreation Area or <strong>for</strong>est products used <strong>for</strong> entertainment needs<br />
The future Plant/animal invested and will be important in the future<br />
Tools Plant/animal parts used <strong>for</strong> tools in agriculture, housing;<br />
includes rice pounders, ploughs, tool handles, etc.
Importance value (%)<br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
6.2. Land type importance<br />
The results from the scoring exercise with men and women groups show that<br />
villagers consider <strong>for</strong>est the most important land type (40% and 35%; Figure 9).<br />
Both natural and plantation <strong>for</strong>ests are important to villagers because they provide<br />
many products <strong>for</strong> the local livelihoods such as latex, timber, rattan, firewood,<br />
honey, medicinal plants, bamboo, food, etc. Natural <strong>for</strong>ests also have the role of<br />
protection of the village against floods and erosion. Villagers consider gardens the<br />
second most important land type, especially <strong>for</strong> those who live on the upper part<br />
of the village, because gardens provide fodder, bamboo <strong>for</strong> fences <strong>for</strong> cattle and<br />
fruits <strong>for</strong> cash income. They consider rice fields the least important because they<br />
belong to only those who live in the lower part of the village and because rice is a<br />
recently cultivated crop here that can be substituted by cassava or peanut. People<br />
who do not have rice fields buy rice from the local market at Phong My commune,<br />
not far from the village.<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
Forest<br />
Garden<br />
River<br />
Dry land <strong>for</strong> agriculture<br />
Land types<br />
Figure 9. Land type by importance (all groups)<br />
Bare hill<br />
Rice field<br />
The high importance villagers place on <strong>for</strong>est is explained by the products sold<br />
and by the contribution to the local livelihoods that <strong>for</strong>est can provide. Forest will<br />
support the villagers’ livelihoods in the future too (Table 8, page 33). Rice fields<br />
provide only few uses such as food <strong>for</strong> humans and cattle. Cattle are often let free<br />
in the rice fields once the harvest is completed.<br />
Men<br />
Women
Importance value (%)<br />
| Local perceptions of the different land types and resources<br />
Gardens and <strong>for</strong>ests are important <strong>for</strong> the future because they can provide<br />
consequent income. Bare land comes in third position <strong>for</strong> its use in the future<br />
because it will provide lands <strong>for</strong> new <strong>for</strong>est plantations. Forest dominates all but<br />
four of the use categories (Table 8). Bare lands are the most important land types<br />
<strong>for</strong> fodder, and gardens <strong>for</strong> food. Gardens and the riverside are equally important<br />
as hunting places, and they represent the places where villagers spend a large<br />
amount of their time. The main game hunted is small birds in the vicinity of the<br />
village. River is important <strong>for</strong> recreation because villagers regularly go to swim<br />
and wash in the nearby river, and children go there to play.<br />
6.3. Forest importance<br />
Villagers divide <strong>for</strong>est land type into three categories, namely big tree <strong>for</strong>est<br />
(primary <strong>for</strong>est), small tree <strong>for</strong>est (young, secondary regrowth) and plantation<br />
<strong>for</strong>est. Men and women have different points of view concerning the importance<br />
of these <strong>for</strong>est types. Men consider plantation the most important <strong>for</strong>est type (49%;<br />
Figure 10), because they reckon that in the future plantations will provide them<br />
with more regular cash income. Big tree <strong>for</strong>est comes in second place (43%),<br />
although villagers said they gather more products there than in the other <strong>for</strong>est<br />
types. One reason <strong>for</strong> the lower importance given is the difficult accessibility of<br />
these <strong>for</strong>ests.<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
Plantation <strong>for</strong>est Big tree <strong>for</strong>est Small tree <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Forest types<br />
Figure 10. Importance of <strong>for</strong>est types (all groups)<br />
Men<br />
Women<br />
Women consider the big tree <strong>for</strong>est the most important type (50%). They<br />
explain that big tree <strong>for</strong>est provides many valuable products to them. Uses of these<br />
products includes food, medicine, heavy construction, tools, basketry, ornaments<br />
and marketable items (Table 9). Women also often go to the <strong>for</strong>est to collect leaves<br />
to make conical hats.
Table 8. Local importance of land types by use category (all groups)<br />
The future<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornament<br />
Medicines<br />
Marketable items<br />
Light<br />
construction<br />
Hunting place<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy<br />
construction<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
Basketry<br />
Land type Overall<br />
Bare land 9.00 0.00 28.25 40.25 5.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 19.25 3.25 12.75 3.00 0.00 14.75 6.75<br />
Dry land <strong>for</strong> agriculture 14.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 21.25 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 16.00 3.75 0.00 0.00 9.00 3.75<br />
Forest 37.50 70.00 50.25 7.00 19.50 68.75 50.67 12.67 54.50 48.75 52.75 74.50 8.50 37.00 67.25<br />
Garden 23.00 28.75 18.50 11.50 24.00 31.25 49.33 39.33 22.50 26.25 14.75 15.00 30.00 22.75 21.00<br />
Rice field 5.25 0.00 0.00 1.50 8.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.50 0.00<br />
River 11.25 1.25 8.00 14.75 22.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 3.75 5.75 16.00 7.50 61.50 12.00 1.25<br />
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00<br />
Tools<br />
Food<br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions | 33<br />
Table 9. Forest importance by use categories (all groups)<br />
The future<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornament<br />
Medicines<br />
Marketable<br />
items<br />
Light<br />
construction<br />
Hunting place<br />
Hunting<br />
function<br />
Heavy<br />
construction<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
Basketry<br />
Overall<br />
Forest type<br />
Big tree <strong>for</strong>est 46.25 63.25 11.25 23.00 64.50 59.50 46.50 20.00 38.25 45.50 53.50 79.00 0.00 41.25 52.00<br />
Small trees <strong>for</strong>est 19.25 21.75 40.00 62.50 20.25 13.50 33.50 45.00 41.00 27.00 26.25 21.00 0.00 13.50 36.50<br />
Plantation <strong>for</strong>est 34.50 15.00 48.75 14.50 15.25 27.00 20.00 35.00 20.75 27.50 20.25 0.00 100.00 45.25 11.50<br />
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00<br />
Tools<br />
Food
| Local perceptions of the different land types and resources<br />
Men do not consider the small tree <strong>for</strong>ests important. They are mostly used<br />
<strong>for</strong> fodder extraction and <strong>for</strong> hunting. We will see in the section on ethno-botanical<br />
knowledge, Chapter 8, that a large number of herbaceous plants are recognized<br />
<strong>for</strong> their use as fodder. Usually, villagers find food <strong>for</strong> their cattle in the grasslands<br />
near the village, rather than in the <strong>for</strong>est, but this result shows that their knowledge<br />
is focused on this kind of activity and that their perception has followed their<br />
progressive settling process. In these <strong>for</strong>est areas, they also gather small materials<br />
<strong>for</strong> tools and cattle fences. On the contrary, women consider this <strong>for</strong>est type the<br />
second most important. According to them, because small tree <strong>for</strong>ests are closer<br />
to the village, it is easier <strong>for</strong> them to collect grass <strong>for</strong> cattle, tool materials and<br />
firewood. The results show that resource accessibility and the differing activities<br />
by gender play an important role in the difference of perception by the villagers.<br />
The results of group discussions show that plantation <strong>for</strong>ests have not brought<br />
optimal benefits yet, as plantations are still recent, but in the near future they will<br />
become the most profitable source of income. This point seems to relate to the<br />
fact that plantations are the key element of the government policy <strong>for</strong> the settling<br />
process. Government officials emphasize that plantations bring more income and<br />
a better livelihood to local people than shifting cultivation, and <strong>for</strong> that reason<br />
villagers should stay close to the main road and reduce their activities in the <strong>for</strong>est.<br />
But local perception shows a different perspective on the importance of natural<br />
and planted <strong>for</strong>ests to local livelihoods.<br />
In the context of nature reserve management, the Khe Tran community needs<br />
alternative sources of income to replace the loss of products previously provided<br />
by the <strong>for</strong>est (marketable items, construction materials, tools, etc.). There should<br />
be an agreement on the possibility of access to the <strong>for</strong>est during hard times<br />
(drought or flood). Perception of <strong>for</strong>ests should be considered in its dynamic<br />
aspects, however, and the importance of <strong>for</strong>ests to local people may change with<br />
time.<br />
6.4. Forest importance in the past, present and future<br />
The notion of <strong>for</strong>est importance across different time scales was difficult to explain<br />
during group discussions. Groups had to compare the importance of <strong>for</strong>est (both<br />
natural and plantation) among three time periods (present, 30 years ago and the<br />
next 20 years) based on the different categories of uses, but to avoid confusion the<br />
category ‘<strong>for</strong> the future’ was not used.<br />
The result shows that <strong>for</strong>est of 30 years ago was more important <strong>for</strong> villagers<br />
than that of today (Figure 11). According to local in<strong>for</strong>mants, in the past they<br />
were more dependent on <strong>for</strong>est products <strong>for</strong> food, heavy construction, firewood,<br />
basketry, hunting and recreation. Today agriculture (home gardens and plantations)<br />
has replaced many previous activities in the <strong>for</strong>est.<br />
Villagers consider the <strong>for</strong>est of the future more important than the <strong>for</strong>est<br />
at present. All groups think that it will provide more fodder, more products <strong>for</strong><br />
ornament and more marketable resources such as latex and timber (Table 10).<br />
Each household should have a bigger plantation that is a more important source of
Present<br />
23%<br />
Next 20 years<br />
34%<br />
Figure 11. Forest importance over time (all groups)<br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
30 years ago<br />
43%<br />
Table 10. Forest importance over time according to different use categories (all<br />
groups)<br />
Category of use 30 years ago Present Next 20 years Total<br />
Total importance 44.0 22.5 33.5 100.0<br />
Basketry 43.5 37.0 19.5 100.0<br />
Firewood 47.8 32.0 20.3 100.0<br />
Fodder 17.3 36.3 46.5 100.0<br />
Food 43.5 28.3 28.3 100.0<br />
Heavy construction 40.0 29.0 31.0 100.0<br />
Hunting function 75.0 19.3 5.7 100.0<br />
Hunting place 70.0 20.7 9.3 100.0<br />
Light construction 33.0 39.5 27.5 100.0<br />
Marketable items 22.0 31.5 46.5 100.0<br />
Medicine 32.5 33.0 34.5 100.0<br />
Ornamental/traditional/ritual 8.5 32.0 59.5 100.0<br />
Recreation 58.0 0.0 42.0 100.0<br />
Tools 36.5 37.8 25.8 100.0<br />
income. The <strong>for</strong>est of the future will also protect the water source and will prevent<br />
the village from floods and erosion. Moreover, <strong>for</strong>est will be a safety net in case<br />
of hard times.<br />
Looking at the results in more detail, we find that <strong>for</strong> most use categories the<br />
<strong>for</strong>est of the past was the most important, except <strong>for</strong> fodder, light construction,<br />
marketable items, medicine, ornamental and tools. The presence of a protected<br />
area, af<strong>for</strong>ding limited access to <strong>for</strong>est resources, partly explains why the <strong>for</strong>est<br />
of the present is the least important one. Another reason is the diversification of<br />
subsistence activities, which makes local people rely less on <strong>for</strong>est products than
| Local perceptions of the different land types and resources<br />
they used to. The growing importance of marketable items in the future comes from<br />
the expectation of more Acacia and rubber plantations. Villagers also expect to<br />
have more cattle in the future and will rely more on <strong>for</strong>est resources <strong>for</strong> feeding it.<br />
Justification <strong>for</strong> the increasing importance of medicinal and ornamental functions<br />
of the <strong>for</strong>est in the future is key to a better understanding of the local perception of<br />
the village’s development. The future is supposed to bring wealth, education and<br />
time. Education will sharpen the local knowledge on medicinal plants and wealth<br />
will provide more time to look <strong>for</strong> ornamental plants in the <strong>for</strong>est. Villagers told<br />
about the possibility of developing an ornamental plants business and were aware<br />
of the good possibilities <strong>for</strong> cash earning, but they are not yet fully using them.<br />
These results also suggest that villagers’ dependency on and perception of<br />
natural <strong>for</strong>est importance have been affected by the application of GoV programs<br />
such as the Phong Dien Nature Reserve management and <strong>for</strong>est rehabilitation.<br />
Reserve management has stopped people from looking <strong>for</strong> <strong>for</strong>est products. The<br />
consequence is that natural <strong>for</strong>est has become less important to villagers. Plantation<br />
<strong>for</strong>est, being part of the rehabilitation program and a relatively new activity in Khe<br />
Tran, has an increasing importance and is replacing natural <strong>for</strong>ests in that function.<br />
Villagers expect to be granted permanent land use certificates (the ‘red book’) <strong>for</strong><br />
these planted areas, a way, according to them, to secure their rights.<br />
The source of products is also important to understand the local dependency<br />
on domestic or wild products.<br />
6.5. Importance according to source of products<br />
Villagers use a large number of plants and animals in their daily lives. To better<br />
understand the importance of the different products we categorize them into three<br />
sources: wild, cultivated/farmed and purchased.<br />
Villagers perceive domesticated products as the most important source<br />
<strong>for</strong> both plant and animal products (Figure 12). The villagers cultivate plants<br />
(pepper, peanut, cassava, rice, jackfruit, bamboo) as well as grow animals (cattle,<br />
chickens, pigs). They use these products mainly <strong>for</strong> domestic use and <strong>for</strong> cash<br />
earning. Although the villagers still depend on wild products, they focus more on<br />
maintaining their farming and plantation systems. Wild products from the natural<br />
<strong>for</strong>est (mostly plants) are still collected, but, as villagers are not allowed to hunt<br />
animals or cut trees in the natural <strong>for</strong>est of the conservation area, they usually<br />
collect wild animals from places close to the village but outside the nature reserve,<br />
e.g. gardens, bare lands and <strong>for</strong>est plantations.<br />
Both men and women groups agree that cultivated plants and farmed animals<br />
are the most important sources of products <strong>for</strong> consumption (Table 11). They<br />
explain that these are their most valuable and accessible sources <strong>for</strong> food and<br />
cash. The importance local people give to wild products may be influenced by the<br />
fact that free wild resources are limited and often inaccessible because of the ban<br />
on extractive activities in the future reserve.
Importance value (%)<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Domesticated Wild Purchased<br />
Source of product<br />
Figure 12. Source of product importance (all groups)<br />
Table 11. Importance (%) of source of product by gender<br />
Gender<br />
Wild plants Wild animals<br />
<strong>for</strong>est<br />
non<br />
<strong>for</strong>est <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Cultivated/<br />
farmed Purchased<br />
non<br />
<strong>for</strong>est plant animal plant animal<br />
Plant<br />
Animal<br />
All<br />
Total<br />
Women 8.00 7.00 4.00 6.50 25.00 19.00 17.00 13.50 100.00<br />
Men 13.00 6.50 6.50 5.50 26.00 18.00 13.50 11.00 100.00<br />
Mean 10.50 6.75 5.25 6.00 25.50 18.50 15.25 12.25 100.00<br />
6.6. Most important products from the <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Forest is the most important land type according to the local people partly<br />
because of the products it supplies. Here we show how the <strong>for</strong>est (both natural<br />
and plantation) provides people with products and which are the most important<br />
plants and animals.<br />
Figure 13 shows that <strong>for</strong>ests are considered most important in providing <strong>for</strong><br />
a better future (20%) and <strong>for</strong> food (11%), marketable items (11%), fodder (10%),<br />
heavy construction (10%) and tools (10%). These values were calculated from a<br />
general consideration of the uses of <strong>for</strong>est types, the first step during the scoring<br />
exercises, when groups of villagers estimate the overall importance of <strong>for</strong>est<br />
resources.
| Local perceptions of the different land types and resources<br />
Fodder<br />
Figure 13. Importance of <strong>for</strong>est resources by use categories (all groups)<br />
A second activity was to assess the importance of the 10 main species <strong>for</strong> each<br />
category of use. In<strong>for</strong>mants listed and scored the most important plant and animal<br />
species they gather from the <strong>for</strong>est. A list was made <strong>for</strong> each of the categories of<br />
use except hunting place, recreation and the future. Villagers decided not to include<br />
these latter categories because no specific plant or animal from the <strong>for</strong>est was used<br />
<strong>for</strong> them. The result shows that local people consider <strong>for</strong>est important <strong>for</strong> the<br />
future, but cannot name any specific plant or animal to support this assumption.<br />
This emphasizes the fact that specific knowledge on <strong>for</strong>est has decreased. Local<br />
people still recognize the various roles of <strong>for</strong>est in general, but have difficulty to<br />
provide in<strong>for</strong>mation on more specific resources.<br />
The scores of the important species from the <strong>for</strong>est were analysed, and the<br />
top 10 most important plants and animals were identified using a tool called LUVI<br />
(Local User Value Index; Sheil et al. 2003), which represents the sum of all a<br />
species values. A summary of the results is shown in Table 12.<br />
The importance of plants seems correlated to their usefulness (number of use<br />
categories). Bamboo (Pheo), the most important plant in Khe Tran, is used <strong>for</strong>
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Table 12. Most important <strong>for</strong>est plants and animals in Khe Tran (all groups)<br />
Plant Animal<br />
Pahy Latin/<strong>English</strong> LUVI Pahy/<strong>English</strong> LUVI<br />
Pheo Poaceae/bamboo 24.22 A binh/rat 7.81<br />
Ki re Calamus walkeri /rattan 20.49 Chon den/— 3.67<br />
Tràm Acacia auriculi<strong>for</strong>mis/Acacia 19.21 A cuot/frog 3.55<br />
Pe Musaceae/banana 12.87 A at na/— 2.35<br />
A xop Wendlandia glabrata/tree 12.28 Khuou/bird 1.87<br />
A ro Licuala spinosa/Licuala palm 11.96 A ut/— 1.75<br />
Huen Tarrietia javanica/tree 11.06 Truoi/chicken 1.63<br />
Pa lar Cleistanthus aff. myrianthus/tree 10.41 Chim Cuong/peacock 1.22<br />
Tu vien Melocalamus compactiflorus/<br />
scrambling bamboo<br />
9.82 Hon/— 1.21<br />
Lim Afzelia xylocarpa/Macka wood 9.03 Pi reo/— 1.15<br />
food (bamboo shoots), in construction and as fodder (Table 13). It can also be sold<br />
to the chopstick industry and provide villagers with cash income. This valuable<br />
plant is available in nearby <strong>for</strong>ests, especially on the riverside, where people grow<br />
it near their settlement.<br />
Another important resource, rattan is used <strong>for</strong> making ropes and baskets,<br />
but it is also sold to the furniture industry. Villagers still regularly go into the<br />
<strong>for</strong>est to look <strong>for</strong> rattan, which is then transported to the village by river. The FPD<br />
tolerates this activity even near conservation areas, as it provides income to local<br />
people without disturbing the natural <strong>for</strong>est too much. Acacia is valued <strong>for</strong> its<br />
economic importance, and banana <strong>for</strong> food (and sometimes as commodity sold<br />
among villagers).<br />
Macka wood (Lim) was the tenth most important plant. The wood from this<br />
tree has two specific uses: heavy construction and tools. Many other plants, such<br />
as Pheo, Huen, A xop, and Tràm, have the same uses, but Lim is one of the best.<br />
It seems that the importance of plants, especially plants from natural <strong>for</strong>est, <strong>for</strong><br />
heavy construction is decreasing because people are not allowed to cut trees in<br />
the nature reserve. Some villagers explained that they had planted <strong>for</strong>est trees in<br />
their yard to satisfy some of their log needs, as otherwise they would have to buy<br />
expensive planks and posts <strong>for</strong> the construction of their houses.<br />
No plant is used <strong>for</strong> the three categories of hunting place, recreation and the<br />
future, but several of the top 10 plants can share the same uses, such as <strong>for</strong> tools<br />
or marketable items. No plant has just one use, and Lim is the only one to have<br />
just two uses.<br />
A type of rat, A binh is considered the most important animal from the <strong>for</strong>est.<br />
It is important <strong>for</strong> food, as it is easy to catch. We were able to find only the Pahy<br />
names <strong>for</strong> most of the animals, as we could not observe them directly. Animals<br />
have only four different uses, according to the villagers: the main one is <strong>for</strong> food,<br />
then ornaments, medicine and cash earning (Table 14).
0 | Local perceptions of the different land types and resources<br />
Table 13. Most important <strong>for</strong>est plants by categories of use (all groups)<br />
Basketry<br />
Pahy<br />
name Scientific name<br />
Pheo Poaceae<br />
Ki re Calamus walkeri<br />
Tràm Acacia auriculi<strong>for</strong>mis<br />
Pe Musaceae<br />
A xop Wendlandia glabrata<br />
A ro Licuala spinosa<br />
Huen Tarrietia javanica<br />
Pa lar Cleistanthus aff. myrianthus<br />
Tu vien Melocalamus compactiflorus<br />
Lim Afzelia xylocarpa<br />
Table 14. Most important <strong>for</strong>est animals by categories of use (all groups)<br />
Animal (Pahy) Basketry<br />
A binh<br />
Chon den<br />
A cuot<br />
A at na<br />
Khuou<br />
A ut<br />
Truoi<br />
Chim cuong<br />
Hon<br />
Pi reo<br />
Firewood<br />
Fodder<br />
Food<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Firewood<br />
Fodder<br />
Hunting function<br />
Food<br />
Heavy construction<br />
People have valuable knowledge on local biodiversity of natural resources<br />
found near the village and those that can be linked to activities important <strong>for</strong><br />
their livelihoods (e.g. knowledge on plants used as fodder is important in all the<br />
land types). The species recognised and assessed cover both rare and abundant<br />
Hunting place<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Hunting place<br />
Marketable items<br />
Light construction<br />
Marketable items<br />
Medicines<br />
Ornament<br />
Medicines<br />
Ornament<br />
Recreation<br />
Recreation<br />
The future<br />
The future<br />
Tools<br />
Tools
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
resources, as well as cheap and expensive products. For example, Macka wood<br />
(Lim) is a useful plant <strong>for</strong> tools and construction materials in Khe Tran but it is<br />
also listed in the World Conservation Union’s (IUCN) World List of Threatened<br />
Trees, and is more generally known as a valuable commercial timber (Table 15).<br />
Local knowledge can be used to better understand conservation priorities <strong>for</strong><br />
plants and animals. We learned that local people can provide much in<strong>for</strong>mation on<br />
species’ abundance, distribution and other biodiversity parameters. It would also<br />
be useful to involve local people more closely in the biodiversity management of<br />
the future nature reserve. Their familiarity with the area and their perception of the<br />
<strong>for</strong>est would be a valuable contribution to the conservation of the area.<br />
Table 15. Locally important plant species by use category and IUCN list of threatened<br />
trees<br />
Pahy<br />
name<br />
Scientific name Local uses IUCN Red List category<br />
Lim Afzelia xylocarpa Tools, construction material Endangered<br />
Sao Hopea odorata Marketable items Vulnerable<br />
Prao Parashorea stellata Construction material Critically endangered<br />
A ngo Pinus latteri Marketable items Near threatened/almost<br />
vulnerable<br />
6.7. Threats to local <strong>for</strong>ests and biodiversity<br />
People in Khe Tran have a long history of living near <strong>for</strong>ests and managing them<br />
<strong>for</strong> their livelihoods. They have accumulated experiences and knowledge on local<br />
<strong>for</strong>ests and biodiversity conditions. It is important to understand and acknowledge<br />
this wisdom when planning future management activities appropriate <strong>for</strong> the<br />
reserve.<br />
When asked about threats to the local <strong>for</strong>est and biodiversity, in<strong>for</strong>mants gave<br />
various answers. The diversity of results indicates that the nature of recognized<br />
threats is highly related to the in<strong>for</strong>mant’s location (lower or upper part of the<br />
village) and to individual experience.<br />
Timber felling was the main threat identified by villagers (17 of 19<br />
respondents; Table 16). The GoV declared logging <strong>for</strong>bidden in 2000, following<br />
the establishment of an investment plan <strong>for</strong> Phong Dien Nature Reserve. Even<br />
if the reserve status is not yet official (it will be in 2010), the government is<br />
already taking action to protect the <strong>for</strong>ests of the future conservation area.<br />
Villagers consider that logging may destroy the <strong>for</strong>est, and it is a sensitive issue<br />
because, while the villagers are banned from logging, they have no right to stop<br />
outsiders from collecting timber in the area. Villagers have no rights with respect<br />
to <strong>for</strong>est management, and they would like this situation to change (see following<br />
section).<br />
Forest fire is considered a threat because fire is often used <strong>for</strong> war wreckage<br />
and honey collection or caused by careless cigarette smoking and (in the past)<br />
clearing land <strong>for</strong> agriculture. To collect scrap metal in grasslands people use metal
| Local perceptions of the different land types and resources<br />
Table 16. Villagers’ perception on threats to <strong>for</strong>est and biodiversity (19 respondents)<br />
Threat to <strong>for</strong>ests and biodiversity<br />
Number of respondents<br />
perceiving threat<br />
Logging 17<br />
Forest fire 8<br />
Slash-and-burn agriculture 6<br />
War wreckage collection 6<br />
Hunting 4<br />
Extraction of <strong>for</strong>est products 3<br />
Firewood collection 1<br />
detectors and because it is difficult to use them on this kind of land, they clear the<br />
grass with fire. When this is done during the dry season, the danger is high <strong>for</strong> the<br />
fire to expand out of control.<br />
People think that hunting activities can harm the <strong>for</strong>est’s wildlife. Although<br />
hunting is <strong>for</strong>bidden, villagers often meet poachers in the <strong>for</strong>est looking <strong>for</strong><br />
endangered species (bear, tiger). The collection of firewood and other NTFPs is<br />
considered less harmful to the <strong>for</strong>est habitats.<br />
People’s knowledge and perception of the threats to <strong>for</strong>est and biodiversity<br />
are similar to those reported by Le Trong Trai et al. (2001), even if we found<br />
that the ranks attributed to those threats are quite different. For example, the Le<br />
Trong Trai et al. (2001) affirm that Khe Tran people perceive NTFP collection<br />
and timber cutting as the most pernicious ongoing threat to the <strong>for</strong>est, but our<br />
survey shows local people rank logging and <strong>for</strong>est fire as the most serious threats.<br />
To some extent, the discourses of local people may be influenced by the official<br />
vision and discourse on threats. Villagers try to follow the communal, district and<br />
provincial rules as much as possible and this ef<strong>for</strong>t may influence their perception<br />
of land management. We think that this behaviour helps villagers to emphasize the<br />
struggle <strong>for</strong> their rights over the lands around Khe Tran.<br />
These factors, according to villagers, in addition to the ‘open access’ to the<br />
<strong>for</strong>est <strong>for</strong> outsiders (because of limited FPD personnel to control access) have<br />
increased the threat to local biodiversity. Local people’s involvement in the<br />
management of the reserve could be a way to reduce some of the threats. During<br />
one of the meetings some villagers expressed their interest to become more directly<br />
involved in the management of the surrounding natural <strong>for</strong>est and they hoped that<br />
it might bring them some benefits, e.g. employment and even some timber <strong>for</strong><br />
their daily needs. If they were to become part of the nature reserve management,<br />
it could help achieve a win-win situation.<br />
6.8. People’s hopes <strong>for</strong> the future of their <strong>for</strong>est and life<br />
Villagers gave many answers to our questions on the future of their <strong>for</strong>est and life<br />
during personal interviews. Their aspirations are presented in Tables 17 and 18 .<br />
The main answer given by villagers asked what they would do if the <strong>for</strong>est<br />
degraded or disappeared is to re<strong>for</strong>est the area. They think they will always
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Table 17. Villagers’ perception about <strong>for</strong>est loss (19 respondents)<br />
What to do after <strong>for</strong>est is lost<br />
Number of respondents choosing<br />
measure<br />
Re<strong>for</strong>estation 8<br />
Expand agricultural land 3<br />
Expand <strong>for</strong>est plantation 3<br />
Improve livestock 2<br />
Nothing but sadness and regret 2<br />
Prepare to face flood and storm 2<br />
Expand home garden 1<br />
Table 18. Villagers’ ideas on threats to human life (19 respondents)<br />
Threats to human life<br />
Number of respondents perceiving<br />
threat<br />
Disease 14<br />
Natural hazard 11<br />
Poverty 11<br />
Lack of knowledge 3<br />
Lack of transport infrastructure 2<br />
Land mines 2<br />
Pests of agricultural plants 2<br />
Lack of communication facilities 1<br />
Unemployment 1<br />
War 1<br />
need <strong>for</strong>est to protect them from floods and storms. They believe that the effect<br />
of natural disasters is often increased by the absence of <strong>for</strong>est on the hills. The<br />
idea to re<strong>for</strong>est the area reflects villagers’ familiarity with <strong>for</strong>est rehabilitation.<br />
The government project of Acacia plantation is well accepted in Khe Tran and<br />
successfully implemented in the main bare land areas.<br />
Some of the villagers think they would develop more agricultural and farming<br />
activities, <strong>for</strong>est plantations on cleared <strong>for</strong>est land, expecting more income<br />
from these activities. A few of them said they would just be sad because of the<br />
floods in case of <strong>for</strong>est loss. Other villagers considered the option of preparing<br />
ample livestock and cash reserves to face the hazards. Local people generally<br />
believe natural <strong>for</strong>ests can protect them from natural hazards, and this opinion is<br />
emphasized by those who have experienced disasters during the past.<br />
Villagers identified many threats to human life, but the main factors were<br />
disease, poverty/hunger and natural hazards (flood, storm and drought, Figure 14).<br />
The lack of knowledge on cultivation and plantation techniques is also considered<br />
a threat, because it would cause failures in harvest and provoke starvation (Table<br />
18).<br />
Local people explain that they would work harder to face these threats<br />
and would ask <strong>for</strong> help from the government, which shows their high reliance<br />
on government support and guidance. They expect their children to have better
| Local perceptions of the different land types and resources<br />
Figure 14. Recent flood on a bridge between Phong My and Khe Tran<br />
education opportunities and to receive training on cultivation techniques and land<br />
management. They also expect to earn more money, build stronger houses, yield<br />
more agricultural products, and plant more trees to prevent hunger and diseases.<br />
It seems that people will use any possible way to prevent and overcome those<br />
threats. Plantation, agriculture and livestock are considered important activities<br />
to be intensified.
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Summary<br />
The natural resources from the various land types in Khe Tran provide important<br />
products <strong>for</strong> local livelihoods. Forest, including natural <strong>for</strong>est and plantations,<br />
is the most important land type <strong>for</strong> all the villagers because of all the products<br />
that can be collected from it. Rice fields are the least important land type, as<br />
very few are being cultivated because of the inappropriate soil. An important<br />
category of use is fodder, mainly found on bare lands.<br />
Perception on <strong>for</strong>ests types differ by in<strong>for</strong>mant gender and according to<br />
the accessibility of the resource and the different activities. Plantation is the<br />
most important category <strong>for</strong> men, because of its economic benefits. Among<br />
women big tree <strong>for</strong>est ranks first, because of the diversity of NTFP they collect<br />
from it. Because of its relatively recent development, villagers do not consider<br />
plantation an optimal activity from which to get full benefits. Plantation is the<br />
alternative to <strong>for</strong>est extractive activities proposed by the government, but it<br />
should not be the only one, as the profitability of plantation products depends<br />
on fluctuating market condition.<br />
The importance of <strong>for</strong>est on different time scales is changing <strong>for</strong> local<br />
people. Forest in the present is the least important category, because of the<br />
depletion of resources, the government ban on all natural resource collection in<br />
the <strong>for</strong>est, and the actual alternative activities. Forest of the past is considered<br />
the most important one <strong>for</strong> all the activities that were carried out there. Forest of<br />
the future is more important than that of the present time because of the belief<br />
that plantation <strong>for</strong>est will bring more income.<br />
Domesticated resources are considered more important than wild and<br />
purchased resources. Dependency on <strong>for</strong>est resources has been affected by the<br />
government policy on the PDNR.<br />
When asked what is most important in general, among all use categories,<br />
local people consider the <strong>for</strong>est resources of the future most important, followed<br />
by food and marketable item. Local expectations on what <strong>for</strong>est could provide<br />
in the future is there<strong>for</strong>e high. But at the same time, when asked concretely<br />
about the uses of the 10 main species, the future is no longer mentioned. This<br />
shows that the specific knowledge on <strong>for</strong>est has decreased. Local people still<br />
recognize the different roles of the <strong>for</strong>est in general, but have difficulty to<br />
provide in<strong>for</strong>mation on specific resources. Knowledge is still important <strong>for</strong><br />
areas near the village, and the familiarity with the area and local perceptions on<br />
<strong>for</strong>est land types would be a valuable contribution <strong>for</strong> conservation agencies.<br />
The main threat to <strong>for</strong>ests identified by villagers is logging, followed by<br />
<strong>for</strong>est fires. Most of them agreed to re<strong>for</strong>est an area after natural <strong>for</strong>est loss<br />
so as to protect them from natural hazards. Even if local discourses may,<br />
sometimes, follow the official one, this opinion shows awareness of the risks of<br />
unsustainable activities <strong>for</strong> both the <strong>for</strong>est and local livelihoods.
. Characterization of land types<br />
Our objective in Chapters 7 and 8 is to report the results from the field team<br />
activities, which were based on in<strong>for</strong>mation provided by the village team. These<br />
two types of activities, even though separated, were the result of tight collaboration<br />
between all the team members.<br />
7.1. Sampling of land types<br />
Small amounts of repetition of particular land types within the 11 plots (Figure<br />
15) restrict the possibilities <strong>for</strong> statistical analysis and broader generalization<br />
but nevertheless the sample serves the purpose of better understanding the<br />
valuation and perceptions of landscape based on quantitative data, e.g. species<br />
identification. We will make some generalizations throughout the text, such as<br />
reporting densities and basal areas per hectare, but we ask the reader to be aware<br />
of limitations to broad quantitative characterizations of landscapes and their land<br />
type comparisons.<br />
The first plot was established in a 12-year-old rubber plantation, which was<br />
created just one year after the resettlement of Khe Tran village. This area does<br />
not suffer frequent flooding and it has experienced only minimum disturbance,<br />
the most severe impacts being caused by strong winds. Although cattle grazing<br />
is officially disallowed, some was evident during the fieldwork. Hunting is also<br />
not allowed, and <strong>for</strong> other activities permission from owners (10 households) is<br />
needed.<br />
The Acacia plantation was eight years old, which is already the harvesting<br />
age in plantations of many similarly fast growing species. When the <strong>for</strong>est was<br />
young, the government prohibited the cutting of trees or branches, along with<br />
cattle grazing. Any digging was also <strong>for</strong>bidden. Nevertheless everyone has<br />
free access to the graveyard inside the plantation, which is to be honoured by<br />
refraining from hunting in its proximity. In 1983 and 1999, when most of the
Garden (pepper and<br />
jackfruit garden)<br />
18%<br />
Shrub land<br />
(bare hill)<br />
18%<br />
Rice field<br />
9%<br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Plantation <strong>for</strong>est<br />
(rubber, Acacia)<br />
18%<br />
Primary <strong>for</strong>est<br />
(big tree <strong>for</strong>est)<br />
9%<br />
Secondary <strong>for</strong>est<br />
(small tree <strong>for</strong>est)<br />
28%<br />
Figure 15. Field sampling of land types in Khe Tran (total sample size 11 plots)<br />
village area was prone to flooding, this area was affected as well. Plantations have<br />
also experienced <strong>for</strong>est fires, especially in 1983.<br />
Most of the secondary <strong>for</strong>ests of the area have experienced disturbance rather<br />
recently. One plot (Plot 3) was established in <strong>for</strong>est that had experienced many<br />
fires in the period between 1980 and 1995, and in 1983 a big storm had caused<br />
many trees to fall. Earlier this area had also been used <strong>for</strong> shifting cultivation,<br />
and the <strong>for</strong>est was evaluated to be young, not more than 10 years old. The second<br />
secondary <strong>for</strong>est plot (Plot 9) was in older <strong>for</strong>est (40 years old) with clearly less<br />
disturbance, although it bore some marks of illegal logging. A third plot (Plot 11)<br />
was established at a site that had seen some fires in 1983, but the age of the <strong>for</strong>est<br />
was relatively high (40 years) and it was mainly used as a source of firewood and<br />
scrap metal.<br />
Two plots were established in gardens with more than 10 years of cultivation<br />
history after having been natural <strong>for</strong>ests—one a pepper garden and the other a<br />
jackfruit garden with riparian bamboo patches. Both areas had flooded in 1983<br />
and the riparian area had burned. The jackfruit garden had been a small bamboo<br />
plantation from 1986 to 1995, and be<strong>for</strong>e that it was a mixed banana, pineapple and<br />
cassava garden. Cassava and pineapple were still cultivated next to the jackfruit<br />
garden, which was presently not intensively managed and thus in close to natural<br />
condition with the main trees being jackfruits. In the pepper garden there had been<br />
cassava and sweet potato cultivation between 1996 and 2002 and natural <strong>for</strong>est<br />
be<strong>for</strong>e that. The rice field was a young fallow between the first harvests at the time<br />
of the survey. This area has also been cultivated with peanuts.
| Characterization of land types<br />
The edge of old growth primary <strong>for</strong>est is not easily reached by walking from<br />
the Khe Tran village. Some of the oldest patches of <strong>for</strong>est lie close to the mountain<br />
tops or on steep slopes reached only after more than one hour’s climb and walk.<br />
The only plot in mature secondary <strong>for</strong>est closest to the condition of primary <strong>for</strong>est<br />
was established in 60-to-70-year-old stands visited regularly, but not often, by<br />
villagers. Men and women come to this site to collect rattan, honey and metal. The<br />
<strong>for</strong>est was af<strong>for</strong>ded protected status by the provincial government in 1983, and the<br />
earlier regular hunting <strong>for</strong> bear, ‘helmeted’ hornbills, elephants and porcupines<br />
was thus <strong>for</strong>bidden along with timber production activities.<br />
Shrub lands (or bare hills) are a rather heterogeneous land type category with<br />
areas that have a history of having been under sugar cane cultivation (Plot 2) but<br />
are now fallows waiting to be converted to production area. Villagers describe<br />
those barren areas without any clear function <strong>for</strong> villagers as being degraded or<br />
barren because of the impact of chemicals during the war time (Plot 8).<br />
7.2. Specimen collection and identification<br />
A total of 754 plant specimens were collected from 11 plots (Figure 16). In addition<br />
to systematic plot sampling of trees and non-trees, the most abundant seedling,<br />
sapling, shrub and monocot species were also recorded and sampled separately. In<br />
the text all the categories of ‘abundant’ species refer to this separate census, if not<br />
otherwise stated. Table 19 shows the division of specimens in trees, non-trees and<br />
abundant species. In total 108 families comprising 260 genera and 439 species<br />
were recorded (Annex 3 provides the botanical names, families and local name<br />
of specimens collected within and outside the plots). The number of unidentified<br />
taxa remains high due to the technical difficulties in sampling as well as the high<br />
vascular plant richness of the area.<br />
The sampling was not exhaustive, and was not supposed to be so, as one<br />
of the main objectives of using MLA was to test the relevance of such a tool in<br />
the Vietnamese context. Nevertheless the sampling using 11 plots in total was<br />
considered rigorous and adequate <strong>for</strong> non-tree representativeness, since the curves<br />
of cumulating numbers of non-tree vascular plant species laid against cumulating<br />
numbers of random subplots are levelling out <strong>for</strong> most land types (Figure 17).<br />
There was surprisingly diverse under storey in the plantation <strong>for</strong>ests and thus they<br />
could have been sampled with an additional plot. For trees this short inventory time<br />
did not enable as good sampling as <strong>for</strong> non-trees, but nevertheless the collected<br />
data can be used as a basis <strong>for</strong> recommendations and considerations of further<br />
inventories of the <strong>for</strong>ests. For trees the accumulation curves show in most of the<br />
land types no levelling down, pointing to the need <strong>for</strong> more plots, which were<br />
unfeasible considering the time constraints.
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Sources:<br />
- Department of Planning and<br />
Investment, TT-Hue province,<br />
2005<br />
- Landsat Satellite Imagery Path<br />
125 Row 049, The Global<br />
Land Cover Facility, 2001<br />
- Project Location GPS Point,<br />
<strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>International</strong><br />
<strong>Forestry</strong> <strong>Research</strong>, 2005<br />
- SRTM 90m Digital Elevation<br />
Data, The NASA Shuttle<br />
Radar Topographic Mission<br />
- World Administrative<br />
Boundaries, UNEP World<br />
Conservation Monitoring<br />
Centre, 1994<br />
Figure 16. Distribution of sample plots in the research area
0 | Characterization of land types<br />
Table 19. Summary of specimen collection and identification of plant species from 11<br />
sample sites<br />
Family Genus Species<br />
Tree 39<br />
Identified = 34<br />
Unidentified = 5<br />
Non-tree 80<br />
Identified = 64<br />
Unidentified = 16<br />
Abundant* 28<br />
Identified = 25<br />
Unidentified = 3<br />
All plants 108<br />
Identified = 84<br />
Unidentified = 24<br />
65<br />
Identified = 56<br />
Unidentified = 9<br />
172<br />
Identified = 130<br />
Unidentified = 42<br />
50<br />
Identified = 40<br />
Unidentified = 10<br />
260<br />
Identified = 199<br />
Unidentified = 61<br />
98<br />
Completely identified = 71<br />
Identified up to genus = 18<br />
Unidentified = 9<br />
292<br />
Completely identified = 166<br />
Identified up to genus = 84<br />
Unidentified = 42<br />
62<br />
Completely identified = 34<br />
Identified up to genus = 18<br />
Unidentified = 10<br />
439<br />
Completely identified = 261<br />
Identified up to genus = 117<br />
Unidentified = 61<br />
Total<br />
records<br />
*Abundant refers to the seedling, sapling, shrub and monocot species separately recorded in the field<br />
as the most abundant ones based on expert opinion.<br />
Cumulating number of non - tree species<br />
120<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
0<br />
Secondary <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Plantation <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Primary <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Rice field<br />
Shrub land<br />
Garden<br />
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29<br />
Subplots<br />
Figure 17. Accumulation of non-tree species with the increasing random order of<br />
subplots (each 20 m 2 ) <strong>for</strong> land types in Khe Tran<br />
268<br />
413<br />
73<br />
754
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
7.3. Plant biodiversity<br />
Tree species (dbh ≥10 cm) among 39 families and non-tree species among 80<br />
families were inventoried. The most common families among non-trees were<br />
Cyperaceae and Poaceae, both of which were present in 10 of the 11 plots. The<br />
most common families among trees and non-trees combined were Rubiaceae and<br />
Euphorbiaceae (each found in 9 plots) and Fabaceae (8). Among trees the most<br />
common families were Euphorbiaceae and Moraceae (5) followed by Lauraceae,<br />
Myrtaceae and Rubiaceae (4).<br />
Twenty-eight percent of identified families and 84% of all plant species<br />
were singletons, present in only one plot, which indicates the high diversity of<br />
vegetation and large differences among land types. This view is also supported by<br />
the data from non-tree species alone, in which case 68 of the total of 292 species<br />
(identified and unidentified lumped together) were present in only one subplot<br />
(out of 110 subplots), 38 in two subplots and 258 species (88%) were present<br />
in only one land type. Only a few true generalists were recorded in many land<br />
types. The most common and abundant non-trees were the herbs Centella asiatica<br />
(Apiaceae), present in 34 subplots and four land types, Catimbium breviligulatum<br />
(Zingiberaceae) in 33 subplots in four land types, and Curculigo cf. capitulata<br />
(Hypoxidaceae) in 10 subplots and four land types. The next most common ones<br />
were Hypolytrum nemorum (Cyperaceae) (23, 4), Schizostachyum cf. gracile<br />
(Poaceae) (23, 2), Paspalum conjugatum (Poaceae) (21, 3) and Cleome viscosa<br />
(Capparaceae) (19, 1). Nevertheless only a few species were shared between<br />
different land types.<br />
Secondary <strong>for</strong>ests stand mainly on steep slopes and consist of diverse<br />
tree species (from 20 to 30 tree species per plot, tree richness index from 0.81<br />
to 0.91), often with fairly open canopy and dense understorey. Basal area in<br />
secondary <strong>for</strong>ests varied from 11 to 17 m 2 ha -1 . Relative dominance of a species<br />
is commonly expressed as percentage of the total basal area. Based on this index<br />
one more dominating tree species in secondary <strong>for</strong>ests was identified (Figure 18).<br />
Barringtonia macrostachya (Lecythidaceae) was recorded in all secondary <strong>for</strong>est<br />
plots with its relative dominance always being close to 35%. Its relative abundance<br />
(percentage of the total number of individuals per plot) varied from 15% to 43%.<br />
Other species with relative large basal areas were Cinnamomum cf. burmannii<br />
(Lauraceae) (21% present in one plot) and Aporosa tetrapleura (Euphorbiaceae)<br />
(relative dominance from 2% to 8% in three plots, present in both secondary and<br />
primary <strong>for</strong>est). In secondary <strong>for</strong>ests 55 tree species (132 individuals) out of the<br />
total of 70 species were present with a single individual, indicating high overall<br />
diversity of the <strong>for</strong>ests and the need <strong>for</strong> larger sample size <strong>for</strong> trees if more rigorous<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation on them is needed.<br />
Planted and managed <strong>for</strong>ests are very common and promoted by the<br />
government, thus many bare hills have recently been converted into mixed fast<br />
wood plantations of Acacia mangium, Acacia auriculi<strong>for</strong>mis and Acacia siamensis<br />
(Plot 5) or rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) plantations (Plot 1). Since <strong>for</strong> example A.<br />
mangium reaches harvest age in a mere 6 to 8 years after planting, the landscape<br />
has changed fast. Planting Acacia has also been supported by its catalyzing effect
Relative basal area<br />
| Characterization of land types<br />
0<br />
0.1<br />
0.2<br />
0.3<br />
0.4<br />
0.5<br />
0.6<br />
0.7<br />
0.8<br />
0.9<br />
1<br />
Species<br />
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29<br />
Secondary <strong>for</strong>est (Plot 11)<br />
Secondary <strong>for</strong>est (Plot 9)<br />
Secondary <strong>for</strong>est (Plot 3)<br />
Primary <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Figure 18. Relative dominance in primary and secondary <strong>for</strong>est plots in Khe Tran<br />
based on basal area<br />
on the growth of natural <strong>for</strong>est tree species. Many of the fast wood plantations<br />
close to the village were not intensively managed and the plot located in Acacia<br />
plantation shows that the diversity of non-tree species in the understorey was<br />
relatively high (on average 32 species per plot), even comparable to secondary<br />
<strong>for</strong>ests (from 27 to 51) (Table 20).<br />
The primary <strong>for</strong>ests (which could also be considered to be old secondary<br />
<strong>for</strong>ests) of the area are relatively inaccessible because of the distance and their<br />
rarity due to the disturbance history. The most abundant species in the primary<br />
<strong>for</strong>est were Adinandra cf. hainanensis (Theaceae), Aporosa tetrapleura and<br />
A. dioica, all with 7% of the total number of individuals in the plot of primary<br />
<strong>for</strong>est.<br />
The most abundant seedlings in the understorey of Acacia plantation were<br />
not Acacia but species from the genera Ficus (Moraceae) and Eurya (Theaceae)<br />
and saplings of Maesa balansae (Myrsinaceae). The only primary <strong>for</strong>est plot had<br />
relatively open canopy and thus an almost as diverse understorey as secondary<br />
<strong>for</strong>ests or bare hills (shrub lands) with abundant seedlings from Myrtaceae and<br />
saplings from Lauraceae and Polygalaceae. In the understorey of rubber plantations<br />
the most abundant tree seedling was Mallotus paniculatus (Euphorbiaceae), sapling<br />
Maesa balansae with the most abundant shrub Melastoma sp.1 (Melastomataceae).<br />
None of the recorded most abundant seedlings or saplings were present as main<br />
tree species in respective land use type. Most of the main tree species have<br />
specified use value <strong>for</strong> local people, and Table 21 shows different land types with<br />
the main tree species and their importance to local livelihoods. The main uses <strong>for</strong><br />
tree products are <strong>for</strong> construction, firewood and food, which can be considered<br />
major <strong>for</strong>est services.
Table 20. Plant richness in Khe Tran<br />
Land type Plot Tree<br />
richness*<br />
Number<br />
of tree<br />
individuals<br />
recorded<br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Number<br />
of tree<br />
species<br />
Mean<br />
number<br />
of tree<br />
species<br />
Number<br />
of nontree<br />
species<br />
Mean<br />
number<br />
of nontree<br />
species<br />
Garden<br />
4<br />
6<br />
0.25<br />
0.00<br />
16<br />
12<br />
2<br />
1<br />
2<br />
46<br />
27<br />
37<br />
Plantation<br />
<strong>for</strong>est<br />
1<br />
5<br />
0.00<br />
0.30<br />
40<br />
40<br />
1<br />
3<br />
2<br />
25<br />
39<br />
33<br />
Primary<br />
<strong>for</strong>est<br />
7 0.91 40 29 29 33 33<br />
Rice field 10 n.a. 0 0 0 31 31<br />
Secondary<br />
<strong>for</strong>est<br />
3<br />
9<br />
11<br />
0.87<br />
0.92<br />
0.81<br />
40<br />
40<br />
40<br />
25<br />
30<br />
20<br />
25<br />
36<br />
51<br />
36<br />
41<br />
Shrub<br />
land<br />
2<br />
8<br />
n.a.<br />
n.a.<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
30<br />
24<br />
27<br />
*Tree richness = log sp/log count<br />
10 10<br />
n.a. means not applicable<br />
7.4. Forest structure<br />
Richness of life <strong>for</strong>ms of non-tree species varied substantially among land types.<br />
Epiphytes were present in only one secondary <strong>for</strong>est plot. Herbs, with 190 species,<br />
were the richest non-tree life <strong>for</strong>m category in all land types, especially in more<br />
open and managed areas such as dry rice fields and gardens. Lianas, climbers and<br />
ferns were also present in all of the land types, except rice fields (Table 22).<br />
Secondary <strong>for</strong>ests had the highest canopy, highest dbh and second lowest<br />
furcation index, as illustrated in Figure 19 on the right. Mean height of the<br />
secondary <strong>for</strong>est varied from 10 to 17 m with a maximum of two canopy layers,<br />
which indicates the lack of high primary <strong>for</strong>est species. Mean height of the primary<br />
<strong>for</strong>est was 14 m, which is in line with other survey results from this area (e.g. Le<br />
Trong Trai et al. 2001). Canopy height in plantation <strong>for</strong>est varied between 14 and<br />
16 m and in gardens from 6 to 10 m.<br />
Furcation index indicates the plant height where apical dominance is no<br />
longer a property of a single defined stem. It was recorded on a continuous scale<br />
from 0 to 110% (the latter being a tree trunk without clear dominant stem). Some<br />
structural features of trees may be linked to their disturbance history and MLA<br />
experiences from, <strong>for</strong> example, Papua and Kalimantan show that apical dominance<br />
is generally low in primary rain<strong>for</strong>ests with closed canopy. An increase of value<br />
may reflect the rate of disturbance in the <strong>for</strong>ests (trees resprout after breakage) and<br />
history of utilization of trees. As presented in Figure 19, on the right, furcation<br />
index values in Khe Tran varied from 30 to 63. The highest value was recorded<br />
in rubber plantation and the lowest ones in the most distant secondary <strong>for</strong>est plots<br />
and Acacia plantation without intensive management.
| Characterization of land types<br />
Table 21. Main tree species based on basal area and density listed with their uses in<br />
Khe Tran<br />
Land<br />
type<br />
Garden (pepper and<br />
jackfruit garden)<br />
Plantation <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Primary (big tree) <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Secondary (small tree)<br />
<strong>for</strong>est<br />
Main tree species Uses Basal area<br />
(m 2 ha -1 )<br />
Artocarpus<br />
heterophyllus<br />
Food (fruit), heavy and light<br />
construction (timber <strong>for</strong> house<br />
and cattle barn), firewood<br />
cf. Moraceae Food (fruit), heavy<br />
construction (timber <strong>for</strong><br />
house), support stalk <strong>for</strong><br />
growing of pepper<br />
Unknown species Tree used as a support stalk <strong>for</strong><br />
growing of pepper<br />
Acacia auriculi<strong>for</strong>mis Heavy construction (timber<br />
<strong>for</strong> house), marketable item<br />
(timber <strong>for</strong> pulp), firewood<br />
Acacia mangium Heavy construction (timber<br />
<strong>for</strong> house), marketable item<br />
(timber <strong>for</strong> pulp), firewood<br />
Density<br />
(tree ha -1 )<br />
2.3 100<br />
0.6 73<br />
2.5 233<br />
5.8 429<br />
1.3 67<br />
Hevea brasiliensis Marketable item (latex) 11.0 398<br />
Adinandra cf.<br />
hainanensis<br />
Firewood 1.0 53<br />
Aporosa tetrapleura Heavy construction (timber<br />
<strong>for</strong> house), firewood, light<br />
construction (timber <strong>for</strong> cattle<br />
barn)<br />
0.8 51<br />
cf. Osmanthus sp.1 Firewood 1.8 40<br />
Syzygium cf.<br />
cochinchinensis<br />
Heavy construction (timber <strong>for</strong><br />
house)<br />
1.2 28<br />
Vitex trifolia Firewood 0.5 45<br />
Aporosa tetrapleura Firewood, light construction<br />
(timber <strong>for</strong> cattle barn)<br />
Barringtonia<br />
macrostachya<br />
Cinnamomum cf.<br />
burmannii<br />
7.1 42<br />
Food, firewood 5.3 123<br />
Firewood 3.7 19<br />
Fagaceae Firewood 3.2 43<br />
Trees with dbh ≥ 10 cm are clearly smaller and growing less densely in gardens<br />
compared to other land types with trees. Density is very similar in plantations and<br />
secondary <strong>for</strong>ests, but the latter has clearly higher basal areas per hectare.
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Table 22. Richness (total number of species recorded per plot) of life <strong>for</strong>ms of non-tree<br />
species in all land types in Khe Tran<br />
Land type Plot number<br />
Garden<br />
Plantation <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Herbs<br />
Lianas (woody<br />
climbers)<br />
Climbers (nonwoody<br />
lianas)<br />
Palms<br />
Pandanus<br />
Ferns<br />
4 38 4 2 2<br />
6 10 8 5 1 3<br />
1 21 1 3<br />
5 14 13 6 6<br />
Primary <strong>for</strong>est 7 12 10 5 1 3 2<br />
Rice field 10 31<br />
Secondary <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Shrub land<br />
3 15 12 2 3 4<br />
9 7 14 3 7 2 2<br />
11 13 17 3 8 2 5 2 1<br />
2 16 2 3 7 2<br />
8 20 2 2<br />
All plots 190 77 27 20 5 36 6 1<br />
7.5. Species vulnerability<br />
Ten plant species with threatened status were recorded in the field and/or in PDM<br />
exercises. These threatened species and their status are shown in Table 23. Species<br />
with undefined status are omitted. Data is based on checklist of WCMC (1994)<br />
and IUCN (2006). None of the red-listed plant species recorded at Phong Dien and<br />
Dakrong Nature Reserves and reported by BirdLife (Le Trong Trai et al. 2001)<br />
were found in the sample plots.<br />
For most of these threatened species villagers named uses, and four of the<br />
species, Hopea odorata, Parashorea stellata, Afzelia xylocarpa and Pinus latteri,<br />
were valued as very important ones. Those were found only outside the sampling<br />
plots. Most of the threatened species recorded in the field were found in secondary<br />
<strong>for</strong>ests and no threatened species were found from intermediate or cultivated land<br />
types.<br />
All of the threatened species were considered to have substitute sources <strong>for</strong><br />
their particular use. Calamus tonkinensis, which is used <strong>for</strong> making furniture and<br />
building roofs, is also listed as threatened. The biggest threats to Parashorea<br />
stellata are habitat degradation and wood clear cutting, the latter being also<br />
conducted by Khe Tran villagers. According to IUCN (2006), Amesiodendron<br />
chinense is a dominant component of some <strong>for</strong>est localities and has been observed<br />
to regenerate well, although population reductions have occurred. It was considered<br />
Climbing ferns<br />
Epiphytes
Individuals ha -1<br />
| Characterization of land types<br />
1200<br />
1000<br />
800<br />
600<br />
400<br />
200<br />
0<br />
Density<br />
Basal<br />
area<br />
Garden<br />
Plantation<br />
Primary<br />
Secondary<br />
20<br />
18<br />
16<br />
14<br />
12<br />
10<br />
8<br />
6<br />
4<br />
2<br />
0<br />
m 2 ha -1<br />
Proportion of max value<br />
1<br />
0.8<br />
0.6<br />
0.4<br />
0.2<br />
0<br />
Avg. dbh (cm) Max. dbh (cm)<br />
Avg. height (m) Max. height (m)<br />
Avg. furcation<br />
Figure 19. Forest structural characteristics in Khe Tran. Left panel: basal area and<br />
density; right panel: tree height, stem diameter and furcation index<br />
a marketable item in the village. Apart from threatened status, Gnetum montanum<br />
(present in secondary <strong>for</strong>est, in one plot), which is one of the CITES-listed species<br />
<strong>for</strong> Vietnam, listed in Annex 3, was not valued as useful species since it was<br />
mentioned many times without uses and only once as a source of children food.<br />
Garden<br />
Plantation <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Primary <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Secondary <strong>for</strong>est
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Table 23. Threatened species in Khe Tran based on vegetation inventories and PDM<br />
exercises<br />
Species Family Uses Status 1 Land use type<br />
Calamus dioicus Arecaceae Basketry R Secondary <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Calamus salicifolius Arecaceae None R Secondary <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Calamus tonkinensis Arecaceae Heavy and light<br />
construction<br />
R Secondary <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Epiprinus balansae Euphorbiaceae Firewood R Secondary <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Hopea odorata Dipterocarpaceae Marketable item VU* 2<br />
Parashorea stellata Dipterocarpaceae Heavy<br />
construction<br />
CR*<br />
Afzelia xylocarpa Mimosaceae Marketable item EN* 2<br />
Pinus latteri Pinaceae Marketable item R, LR/<br />
NT*<br />
Amesiodendron<br />
chinense<br />
Sapindaceae Heavy<br />
construction,<br />
firewood<br />
Camellia cf. fleuryi Theaceae Firewood, heavy<br />
construction<br />
2<br />
2<br />
LR/NT* Primary <strong>for</strong>est,<br />
secondary <strong>for</strong>est<br />
R, VU* Primary <strong>for</strong>est<br />
1 Status according to WCMC (1994) without asterisk, according to IUCN (2006) with asterisk. R: rare;<br />
VU: vulnerable; CR: critically endangered; EN: endangered; LR/ NT: near threatened.<br />
2 Recorded in PDM exercise as locally important species, but not observed in the field plots.
| Characterization of land types<br />
Summary<br />
The flora of Khe Tran exhibits high species richness, and although our sampling<br />
was not exhaustive, it is sufficiently rigorous to address the value and relative<br />
richness of remaining natural <strong>for</strong>ests as well as other land types. It also shows<br />
that the potentially monotonous land types, such as plantations or rice fields, are<br />
still very high in non-tree diversity in Khe Tran, which enables and maintains<br />
their multiuse function.<br />
According to this survey, the people of Khe Tran represent no imminent<br />
threat <strong>for</strong> recorded endangered species. We recommend that in<strong>for</strong>mation on<br />
threatened species be given to villagers to raise the awareness of conservation<br />
needs and that the specific uses of especially threatened species be discussed<br />
in order to give people the option to choose other species <strong>for</strong> these uses. It<br />
seems likely that the range of threats from cutting of construction material<br />
and collection of firewood and material <strong>for</strong> basketry may have contributed to<br />
the status of plant species in the past, but the impact at present is difficult to<br />
assess. Direct impact on <strong>for</strong>est cover or composition as a whole is impossible to<br />
quantify based on our sampling. There<strong>for</strong>e further research on sustainability of<br />
NTFP collection is required. Most of the natural vegetation is disturbed <strong>for</strong>est<br />
or shrub lands and the impacts of floods and fires continue to influence <strong>for</strong>est<br />
cover and structure. The most substantive influence on remaining <strong>for</strong>ests may<br />
be the way of planning and measure of recognising the outside effect on land<br />
types. During the fieldwork we saw many people coming from elsewhere to<br />
collect NTFPs and some marks of illegal logging conducted by people from<br />
outside the area.
. Ethno-botanical knowledge<br />
8.1. Plant uses<br />
We categorized all the uses of plants recorded in the field according to the<br />
categories used in the PDM exercise (Table 7, Chapter 6). In addition a category<br />
of ‘miscellaneous’ was created <strong>for</strong> 15 species that were outside the most common<br />
use categories. In the miscellaneous group we find: fertilizer, support stalk <strong>for</strong><br />
growth of pepper, fabric dye, shampoo, charcoal to blacken teeth, incense and<br />
furniture polish. Similarly to the results from the PDM exercises, no plant was<br />
recorded <strong>for</strong> the future and hunting place categories.<br />
The result of herbarium identification shows that 71% species gathered are<br />
useful species from 81 families and 164 genus (Table 24). Annex 3 provides local<br />
uses in<strong>for</strong>mation of collected plants with their botanical names, families and local<br />
names.<br />
Table 24. Summary of specimen collection and identification of plant species from 11<br />
sample sites<br />
Total<br />
collected<br />
plants<br />
Total useful<br />
plants<br />
Family Genus Species<br />
108<br />
Identified = 84<br />
Unidentified = 24<br />
81<br />
Identified = 72<br />
Unidentified = 9<br />
260<br />
Identified = 199<br />
Unidentified = 61<br />
202<br />
Identified = 164<br />
Unidentified = 38<br />
439<br />
Completely identified = 261<br />
Identified up to sp. = 117<br />
Unidentified = 61<br />
312<br />
Completely identified = 202<br />
Identified up to sp. = 72<br />
Unidentified = 38<br />
Trees are very useful <strong>for</strong> the Khe Tran people (Table 25). From the total of 98<br />
tree species recorded in the 11 plots, 94 have at least one use. All trees recorded
0 | Ethno-botanical knowledge<br />
(dbh ≥10 cm) in the garden and plantation <strong>for</strong>est are considered useful, which<br />
reflects the fact that these <strong>for</strong>ests are relatively intensively managed and mainly<br />
useful species are left to grow there. No tree was found in the rice fields and shrub<br />
lands, as they are usually cut at the seedling stage.<br />
Table 25. Mean number of species and number of useful species recorded in each<br />
land type<br />
Land type<br />
-------------- Tree -------------- ----------- Non-tree -----------<br />
Mean<br />
number<br />
of<br />
species<br />
Mean<br />
number<br />
of useful<br />
species<br />
Percent<br />
useful<br />
Mean<br />
number<br />
of<br />
species<br />
Mean<br />
number<br />
of useful<br />
species<br />
Percent<br />
useful<br />
All plots (n = 11) 98* 94* 96 292* 175* 60<br />
Garden (n = 2) 2 2 100 37 27 73<br />
Plantation <strong>for</strong>est (n = 2) 2 2 100 33 21 62<br />
Primary <strong>for</strong>est (n = 1) 29 27 93 33 11 33<br />
Rice field (n = 1) 0 0 0 31 24 77<br />
Secondary <strong>for</strong>est (n = 3) 25 22 87 41 15 37<br />
Shrub land (n = 2) 0 0 0 27 17 61<br />
*Total number of species from all plots<br />
At the time of the fieldwork the rice field was dry, a young fallow during a<br />
short period be<strong>for</strong>e the rainy season returned with the new planting. It had the<br />
highest percentage of useful non-tree species (77%, 24 species) of all land types,<br />
while primary <strong>for</strong>est had the lowest (33%, 11 species).<br />
For all non-trees, the percentage of useful species is higher in cultivated areas<br />
(rice field, garden and plantation <strong>for</strong>est) than in other places, including the natural<br />
<strong>for</strong>est. This reflects the distance and accessibility of the different areas <strong>for</strong> the<br />
local people. Since villagers visit the cultivated areas more often than they go to<br />
the natural <strong>for</strong>est, they are more familiar with the plants near the settlement. In<br />
comparison with the PDM exercise <strong>for</strong> the source of products, cultivated plants<br />
have more value than wild plants (Figure 12, Chapter 6).<br />
The use categories with the largest total number of recorded useful species are<br />
firewood, fodder and food. Firewood is gathered mainly from the natural <strong>for</strong>est,<br />
while fodder is found mainly in gardens and rice fields (after harvest). Food comes<br />
mainly from the garden. There<strong>for</strong>e even if <strong>for</strong>ests are important in most of the<br />
categories of uses, land types near the village, such as gardens, plantations and<br />
rice fields, are the most important <strong>for</strong> the main categories (Table 26).
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Table 26. Distribution of all useful plant species per plot and by use category<br />
Basketry/rope<br />
Firewood<br />
Fodder<br />
Food<br />
Heavy construction<br />
number<br />
Plot<br />
Land type<br />
Garden<br />
4<br />
6 1<br />
1<br />
6<br />
24<br />
9<br />
8<br />
11<br />
2<br />
1 2 2<br />
1<br />
3<br />
5<br />
5<br />
5<br />
2 1<br />
38<br />
25<br />
32<br />
Plantation <strong>for</strong>est<br />
1<br />
5 1<br />
4<br />
13<br />
12<br />
12<br />
5<br />
8<br />
1<br />
3<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
6<br />
4<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1 1<br />
25<br />
35<br />
30<br />
Primary <strong>for</strong>est 7 3 23 1 5 15 1 4 1 4 2 1 2 39 39<br />
Rice field 10 19 5 2 2 1 24 24<br />
3 19 5 8 11 3 11 2 2 4 4 3 50<br />
Secondary <strong>for</strong>est 9 4 29 2 5 11 1 2 1 4 3 2 49 46<br />
11 3 24 8 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 39<br />
Shrub land<br />
2<br />
8<br />
7<br />
5<br />
11<br />
11<br />
5<br />
3<br />
1<br />
1 1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
2<br />
2<br />
1<br />
1 1 1<br />
1 22<br />
22<br />
22<br />
All plots 12 117 89 57 44 5 21 16 29 15 18 2 11 318<br />
8.2. Species with multiple uses<br />
Some species have multiple uses (Table 27), as is apparent in the following<br />
examples. The most multipurpose species is Gigantochloa sp. (giant bamboo),<br />
which is used <strong>for</strong> basketry, firewood, food (from the shoot), fodder (leaf), fence<br />
<strong>for</strong> cattle facility, marketable item (chopstick) and tools. Giant bamboo was only<br />
present near the jackfruit garden, but grows abundantly in the whole area, not far<br />
from the settlements. Imperata cylindrica (Cogon grass) is used <strong>for</strong> spice (from the<br />
roots), medicine (root), thatching (leaf) and fodder (leaf). Macaranga trichocarpa,<br />
a pioneer species, indicates disturbance in <strong>for</strong>ests and is commonly used by local<br />
people. It was not very abundant (one individual in each secondary <strong>for</strong>est plot),<br />
although rather common in secondary <strong>for</strong>est. Drink made from its leaves is<br />
believed to improve and maintain health and its wood is used <strong>for</strong> firewood. In the<br />
past this species was also used to make beds. Artocarpus heterophyllus (jackfruit)<br />
is used <strong>for</strong> firewood, heavy and light construction and food (fruits).<br />
Hunting function<br />
Light construction<br />
Marketable item<br />
Medicine<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous<br />
Recreation<br />
Tools<br />
Total number of species<br />
Mean number of species
| Ethno-botanical knowledge<br />
Table 27. Plant species with at least four uses<br />
Basketry/rope<br />
Botanical name Family Local name<br />
Gigantochloa sp. Poaceae Abung<br />
Artocarpus heterophyllus Moraceae Pa nây<br />
Calamus sp.1 Arecaceae Ki re<br />
Imperata cylindrica Poaceae A séc/Cá tranh<br />
Schizostachyum cf. gracile Poaceae A tang/Ilatuvia<br />
Unknown sp. 4 Myrtaceae Clem<br />
Unknown sp. 22 Unknown A cê lem<br />
Firewood<br />
Fodder<br />
Food<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Light construction<br />
Marketable items<br />
Medicine<br />
Tools<br />
8.3. Uses of trees<br />
For the local people trees in primary and secondary <strong>for</strong>est are useful <strong>for</strong> firewood,<br />
food, heavy and light construction, medicine, tools and miscellaneous uses (such as<br />
dye, shampoo, woody plant species taken from its original habitat and transplanted<br />
in the gardens to grow pepper on it; see Table 28). Trees in plantation <strong>for</strong>est are<br />
used mainly to obtain cash income from the latex from Hevea brasiliensis, the<br />
timber from Acacia auriculi<strong>for</strong>mis, A. mangium and the pulp from A. siamensis.<br />
Villagers also use them <strong>for</strong> house construction and firewood.<br />
From the garden, trees such as Artocarpus heterophyllus and unknown sp.<br />
30 and 31, are used as resource <strong>for</strong> firewood, food (fruit), timber <strong>for</strong> heavy and<br />
light construction, and as support stalk <strong>for</strong> pepper. Barringtonia macrostachya,<br />
which is the main tree in secondary <strong>for</strong>ests, is used <strong>for</strong> firewood and its fruits were<br />
important sources of food during the war.<br />
8.4. Uses of non-trees<br />
Based on the PDM exercise result, domesticated animals are more important<br />
resources than wild and purchased ones. Fortunately Khe Tran has plenty of<br />
different species of plants (89 species) that can be used as fodder (Figure 20). They<br />
only use non-tree species <strong>for</strong> that purpose. Even if primary and secondary <strong>for</strong>ests<br />
provide virtually many plant species that could be used as fodder, villagers do not<br />
need to go that far to get this kind of product because many varieties are available<br />
in the rice fields, gardens, plantations and shrub land, which are more accessible.<br />
Rice field has the highest number of plants used <strong>for</strong> fodder (19 species, see Table<br />
29), but only after harvest.
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Table 28. Distribution of tree species considered useful per plot and per use<br />
category<br />
Land type Plot number<br />
Total number of<br />
tree species<br />
Firewood<br />
Food<br />
Heavy<br />
construction<br />
Light<br />
construction<br />
Garden<br />
4<br />
6<br />
2<br />
1 1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1 1<br />
2<br />
Plantation <strong>for</strong>est<br />
1<br />
5<br />
1<br />
3 3 3<br />
1<br />
3<br />
Primary <strong>for</strong>est 7 29 23 1 13 3 1 1 1<br />
Rice field 10 0<br />
3 25 17 2 8 5 2 2<br />
Secondary <strong>for</strong>est 9 30 23 1 9 2<br />
11 20 18 1 2<br />
Use category<br />
Shrub land<br />
Recreation<br />
Hunting function<br />
Tools<br />
Basketry/rope<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Marketable item<br />
Miscellaneous<br />
Light construction<br />
Medicine<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
2 0<br />
8 0<br />
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130<br />
Number of species<br />
Marketable item<br />
Medicine<br />
Miscellaneous<br />
Tree species<br />
Tools<br />
Non-tree species<br />
Abundant species*<br />
Figure 20. All plant species considered useful by the Khe Tran villagers shown in use<br />
categories<br />
*Including the seedling, sapling, monocot or shrub of the tree and non-tree species
| Ethno-botanical knowledge<br />
For food and medicine they use, respectively, 39 and 22 non-tree species<br />
(Figure 20). Centella asiatica (Rau ma/Pahy), a major wild vegetable, is used <strong>for</strong><br />
food and medicine, as well as sold in the market.<br />
Table 29. Distribution of non-tree species considered useful per plot and per use<br />
category<br />
Basketry/rope<br />
Firewood<br />
Fodder<br />
Food<br />
Heavy construction<br />
number<br />
Plot<br />
Land type<br />
Garden<br />
4<br />
6 1 1<br />
24<br />
8<br />
7<br />
7<br />
1<br />
1 1<br />
1<br />
3<br />
5<br />
5<br />
3<br />
2 1<br />
46<br />
27<br />
Plantation 1 12 4 1 1 1 5 1 25<br />
<strong>for</strong>est<br />
5 1 12 5 1 3 1 1 1 39<br />
Primary <strong>for</strong>est 7 3 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 33<br />
Rice field 10 19 5 2 2 1 31<br />
Secondary<br />
<strong>for</strong>est<br />
3<br />
9<br />
11<br />
4<br />
3<br />
1<br />
5<br />
2<br />
4<br />
3<br />
7<br />
3<br />
2<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
1<br />
3<br />
1<br />
2<br />
1<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
1<br />
3<br />
1<br />
2<br />
2<br />
36<br />
51<br />
36<br />
Shrub land<br />
2<br />
8<br />
1 11<br />
11<br />
4<br />
2 2<br />
1<br />
1 1 1<br />
1 30<br />
24<br />
8.5. Forest as resource of useful plants<br />
The most important useful species recorded from the <strong>for</strong>est are used <strong>for</strong> firewood<br />
(101 species), followed by species <strong>for</strong> heavy construction (41 species) and food<br />
(35 species), as shown in Figure 21. The local people use not only wood species<br />
<strong>for</strong> firewood but also bamboo (Gigantocloa sp. 1, Schizostachyum cf. gracile and<br />
Stixis scandens).<br />
Secondary <strong>for</strong>est has more species (18) used <strong>for</strong> the food category than<br />
plantation and primary <strong>for</strong>ests (13 and 5 species, respectively), all plant <strong>for</strong>ms<br />
considered. The species from primary <strong>for</strong>est are Artocarpus styracifolius<br />
(Moraceae), Linociera cf. ramiflora (Oleaceae), Zingiber sp. 2 (Zingiberaceae),<br />
Schizostachyum cf. gracile (Poaceae) and Tetracera sarmentosa ssp. asiatica<br />
(Dilleniaceae).<br />
There are several plants from the <strong>for</strong>est, especially from plantation and<br />
secondary <strong>for</strong>ests, appreciated by children <strong>for</strong> food: Catimbium breviligulatum<br />
(young stem), Dracaena sp. (shoot), Gnetum cf. montanum (fruit), Fibraurea<br />
recisa (fruit), Linociera cf. ramiflora (flower), Melastoma sp. 2 (fruit), Physalis<br />
angulata (fruit), Psychotria sp. 2 (fruit), Randia spinosa (fruit), Rubus sp. 2 (fruit)<br />
and Stixis suaveolens (fruit).<br />
Hunting function<br />
Light construction<br />
Marketable item<br />
Medicine<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous<br />
Recreation<br />
Tools<br />
Total number of species
Use categories<br />
Recreation<br />
Hunting function<br />
Tools<br />
Miscellaneous<br />
Basketry/rope<br />
Marketable item<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Medicine<br />
Light construction<br />
Fodder<br />
Food<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Firewood<br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110<br />
Number of species<br />
Figure 21. Total number of all useful plant species per category in primary, secondary<br />
and plantation <strong>for</strong>ests<br />
8.6. Nonsubstitutable species<br />
Hevea brasiliensis, Imperata cylindrica, Centella asiatica and Gomphia serrata<br />
are the only plants that have functions or uses <strong>for</strong> which there were no known<br />
substitutes according to the villagers. Rubber is used <strong>for</strong> its latex, the following<br />
two as medicine and the last one to blacken the teeth (with its stem, which is<br />
turned into charcoal).<br />
From the uses of plants and land types, we can admit that the livelihoods of<br />
villagers are no longer totally dependent on <strong>for</strong>ests. We can observe a diversity<br />
of sources of income and materials, some of them still found in the natural <strong>for</strong>est.<br />
The multiple uses of land types show that people know their area still very well<br />
(see participatory map of resources, Figure 8 in page 27). During our survey some<br />
people said they were considering different options <strong>for</strong> use types concerning, <strong>for</strong><br />
example, medicinal plants, but they expected more education and training to that<br />
end. They also considered the possibility of finding and using more ornamental<br />
plants. ‘Life is easier nowadays, and one can start to think more about the additional<br />
recreational or aesthetic things like ornamental plants’, said one villager.
| Ethno-botanical knowledge<br />
8.7. Remarks on potential uses of species<br />
Saccharum spontaneum (Poaceae), which in Khe Tran is used <strong>for</strong> fodder, is a<br />
valuable medicinal plant in India (Oudhia 2004). There may be some potential in<br />
scoping further possibilities <strong>for</strong> this usage.<br />
Caryota urens (Arecaceae) is recorded as food only in the past and the stems<br />
of Caryota monostachya are used to build floors, while Le Van Lan, Ziegler and<br />
Grever (2002) mentions that leaves of the Caryota sp. are used <strong>for</strong> building roofs<br />
and sheds, and their stalks <strong>for</strong> fences. He also lists that Ageratum conyzoides<br />
(Asteraceae) is medicinal plant against cold (Le Van Lan, Ziegler and Grever<br />
2002).<br />
More ethno-botanical and socio-economic studies are necessary to collect<br />
data on potentially economically viable plants that could be developed in the area,<br />
considering market demand and network, and the sustainability of resources.<br />
Summary<br />
The villagers use a large range of species <strong>for</strong> their livelihoods, not only from the<br />
natural <strong>for</strong>ests, but on the contrary, mainly from the cultivated areas. The reason<br />
is that their main activities are near the village, and primary <strong>for</strong>ests are of difficult<br />
and restricted access. The plant with the most numerous uses, bamboo, can be<br />
found everywhere near the habitations. Rice fields, Acacia and rubber plantations<br />
and home gardens are places where villagers can find a lot of useful plants, mainly<br />
<strong>for</strong> fodder, medicine and food. Very few species (only four) are not substitutable<br />
<strong>for</strong> the usage villagers have of it, and local people are no longer relying as much<br />
on <strong>for</strong>est products <strong>for</strong> their livelihoods as they once did, since their subsistence<br />
activities have recently diversified, even if some <strong>for</strong>est products are still used.
. Local perspectives on conservation<br />
From the previous sections of this report it is apparent that biodiversity is high<br />
in the Khe Tran area and that natural resources still play an important role in<br />
local people’s livelihoods. During our survey we observed that villagers gather<br />
these products from wild and domesticated sources and sometime even purchase<br />
them. Even if domesticated sources are perceived as the most important product<br />
sources, many products from the natural <strong>for</strong>est are still collected <strong>for</strong> several uses.<br />
In all, 134 plant and 29 animal species are considered important species of the<br />
<strong>for</strong>est (see Site description, Chapter 5).<br />
Considering the presence of a conservation area close to the village, local<br />
people’s relations to their natural environment, and the ban on extractive activities<br />
in the reserve, we organized a small workshop with the villagers to better<br />
understand their perceptions concerning <strong>for</strong>est and biodiversity conservation as<br />
well as their perspectives and priorities concerning Phong Dien Nature Reserve<br />
development. The villagers were divided into two groups, according to the part<br />
of the village in which they live (lower and upper part of the village). The groups<br />
had more or less similar perspectives on the meaning of conservation (Table 30).<br />
Villagers from the lower part defined conservation as <strong>for</strong>est protection, which bans<br />
any activities that disturb it, such as hunting, logging, making fire or gold mining.<br />
They considered conservation more along its management perspectives, whereby<br />
all villagers should share responsibilities, with a task <strong>for</strong>ce available to solve<br />
urgent <strong>for</strong>est problems. Clear demarcation between conservation and production<br />
<strong>for</strong>ests should be available, with a concrete management strategy at all levels.<br />
The upper village group also perceived conservation as <strong>for</strong>est protection, but they<br />
considered it according to their willingness to protect it and as an opportunity <strong>for</strong><br />
employment.<br />
Apart from the local definition of conservation, we asked both groups how they<br />
would imagine their life and activities in Khe Tran if there were no conservation<br />
area. Both groups agreed that, without a conservation area, they would have free
| Local perspectives on conservation<br />
access to the <strong>for</strong>est. The lower village group thought that they would also have<br />
free access to new places to settle and <strong>for</strong> their cattle, but that their lives would be<br />
more difficult, because they would be more dependent on <strong>for</strong>est resources (unless<br />
a governmental program gave them incentive to move away from extractive<br />
activities) and more vulnerable to natural hazards. The upper village group thought<br />
that they would have a hard time and poor life conditions; they would be obliged<br />
to move more often to open new gardens, and this option was linked, according to<br />
the local point of view, to the traditional use of shifting cultivation. Conservation<br />
is synonymous with more sedentary agricultural practices <strong>for</strong> the villagers.<br />
For both groups the presence of the conservation area implied a better future,<br />
with more infrastructure facilities, domesticated products (plants and animals),<br />
better relationships among villagers and more employment opportunities.<br />
These answers, even if conditioned and influenced by the position and<br />
vulnerability of the local people towards government policy, shows that<br />
conservation, according to their perception, means change, progress, education,<br />
new activities and the loss of the main traditional activities. Once again these<br />
answers have to be considered in their political and social context, taking into<br />
account the tendency of villagers to give a soothing discourse to outsiders (here, the<br />
scientists). But it af<strong>for</strong>ds perspectives on the way local people consider their future<br />
living at the edge of a conservation area, their opportunities and expectations.<br />
Local people hope that, with the <strong>for</strong>mation of Phong Dien Nature Reserve,<br />
they will acquire the right to participate in its management and they even expect<br />
to have a key role in coordination with the government staff in charge of reserve<br />
protection.<br />
Villagers have a positive perception of conservation of <strong>for</strong>est and biodiversity,<br />
even if they worry about their right to collect natural resources in the future. Their<br />
interest in participating in reserve management depends on their expectation of<br />
financial compensation if they, <strong>for</strong> example, take part in the task <strong>for</strong>ce in charge<br />
of the control of the reserve. It is also a way to emphasize their land rights and<br />
to push the government to recognize these rights. They consider that a negotiated<br />
participation in reserve management will allow them to collect some <strong>for</strong>est<br />
resources, including timber, NTFPs and even the valuable eaglewood.
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Table 30. Villager’s perceptions on conservation and Phong Dien Nature Reserve<br />
Perception Lower part villagers Upper part villagers<br />
Definition of<br />
conservation<br />
Life with<br />
conservation<br />
Life without<br />
conservation<br />
Role to play<br />
in future<br />
management<br />
of Phong<br />
Dien Natural<br />
Reserve area<br />
• Forest area is protected; all hunting<br />
of precious animals, logging,<br />
setting of <strong>for</strong>est fires, gold mining<br />
and trapping is banned<br />
• Conservation area must be<br />
considered as the work of all<br />
people, with a task <strong>for</strong>ce that can<br />
solve urgent cases<br />
• There must be a definite<br />
demarcation between conservation<br />
area and production/planted <strong>for</strong>est<br />
• In order to have good conservation<br />
ef<strong>for</strong>ts, a concrete plan/program/<br />
project/organization is required at<br />
all levels<br />
• Will stabilize their life<br />
• Forbidden from entrance to <strong>for</strong>est<br />
and clearing <strong>for</strong> cultivation. More<br />
focus on planting <strong>for</strong>est; better<br />
income from production <strong>for</strong>est<br />
harvesting<br />
• Will establish cattle facilities<br />
• Gain better awareness of <strong>for</strong>est and<br />
literacy standard<br />
• Better infrastructure<br />
• Close relationships among local<br />
people<br />
• Free access to <strong>for</strong>est, clearance to<br />
search <strong>for</strong> metals, <strong>for</strong> cultivation,<br />
logging and trapping (hunting)<br />
• Free migration (movement to other<br />
locations)<br />
• Free grazing of cattle<br />
• Low awareness of natural disasters<br />
• Local life is dependent on <strong>for</strong>est<br />
• Have the right to manage/protect<br />
the reserve and receive a subsidy<br />
• In general, management should rest<br />
in the cooperation of staff in charge<br />
and local people, with a permanent<br />
task <strong>for</strong>ce<br />
• Local people may collect NTFPs<br />
• Forest and natural resources<br />
are protected<br />
• Hunting, setting fires,<br />
logging, etc. is prohibited<br />
• Conservation is very<br />
important and it is the job of<br />
both state and local people<br />
• Local people will have<br />
employment from<br />
conservation area activities<br />
• Conservation brings<br />
brighter future and offers<br />
employment<br />
• Focus on planting and<br />
tending <strong>for</strong>est, animal<br />
husbandry<br />
• More state projects; better<br />
infrastructure (roads, etc.)<br />
• Free access to <strong>for</strong>est, e.g.<br />
cattle grazing, hunting and<br />
clearing <strong>for</strong> cultivation<br />
• Life is hard and poor<br />
• People had to move to<br />
different places several<br />
times annually<br />
• More ef<strong>for</strong>ts on planting<br />
<strong>for</strong>est <strong>for</strong> younger<br />
generations<br />
• Every person has to protect<br />
the <strong>for</strong>est (including its<br />
animals)<br />
• Local people want to be<br />
staff that look after the<br />
conservation area<br />
• Hope to establish a<br />
conservation organization in<br />
Khe Tran and make Phong<br />
Dien Reserve an area of rich<br />
biodiversity and beauty
0 | Local perspectives on conservation<br />
These results show that the local people want to be part of the conservation<br />
process and not just be considered an external threat that should be banned from<br />
any extractive activity. Recognition of their rights, negotiation on the possibility<br />
to collect <strong>for</strong>est products and emphasis on local people’s responsibility <strong>for</strong> their<br />
own land should be considered important elements of a successful conservation<br />
ef<strong>for</strong>t in Khe Tran.<br />
Summary<br />
Even if sometimes they are following the ‘official’ position on biodiversity<br />
conservation and its definition, villagers explained that they would like to be<br />
part of the process, <strong>for</strong> various reasons: to get access to resources, to enhance<br />
their rights to the land, to get payment <strong>for</strong> the activities they would per<strong>for</strong>m<br />
<strong>for</strong> the FPD. By doing so, local people expect to be able to negotiate with the<br />
government the sustainable use of a number of resources, mainly NTFPs, but<br />
some logging and game hunting too. They want to collaborate with conservation<br />
institutions and to preserve the <strong>for</strong>est <strong>for</strong> the future and as a safety net, since<br />
they do not strongly rely on <strong>for</strong>est resource anymore.
0. Conclusion and recommendations<br />
In conclusion to the MLA activities implemented during this SDC-funded project,<br />
‘Stakeholders and biodiversity at the local level’, we discuss the relevance of the<br />
method, summarize the main results of our surveys in the context of the different<br />
objectives of the project and provide recommendations in the Khe Tran village<br />
context.<br />
10.1. Conclusion<br />
10.1.1. Relevance of MLA in a Vietnamese context<br />
If the overall project sought to strengthen local capacity to plan and implement<br />
locally relevant and viable <strong>for</strong>est landscape management, two objectives were<br />
particularly relevant to our MLA activities:<br />
• to develop appropriate mechanisms <strong>for</strong> integrating local perceptions and<br />
views in decision making and planning; and<br />
• to facilitate greater involvement of local people and other stakeholders in<br />
decision making and planning at the local level.<br />
We proposed, by our activities, to test a set of tools, the MLA, designed to<br />
study local perception of landscapes and natural resources in the local context, a<br />
small village in rural Central Vietnam.<br />
We are now able to confirm that the MLA tool was relevant to this kind of<br />
study and provided valuable in<strong>for</strong>mation on the local management of natural<br />
resources. It was adapted to the Khe Tran context, where <strong>for</strong>est has been disturbed<br />
and no longer plays the role it used to play in local livelihoods. Plot sampling,<br />
because it records both tree and non-tree specimens, can be used in various<br />
environments: <strong>for</strong>ests, plantations or even rice fields. The socio-economic data<br />
and the in<strong>for</strong>mation about local perception gained through scoring exercises and
| Conclusion and recommendations<br />
participatory mapping are also relevant to a context where local people have<br />
shifted from <strong>for</strong>est-oriented activities to more sedentary agriculture. They show<br />
the evolution and trans<strong>for</strong>mation of the local people’s priorities and knowledge<br />
on natural resources. The set of methods used during our survey provided a large<br />
set of data and results on Khe Tran villagers and their perspectives and options<br />
concerning the management of the future Phong Dien Nature Reserve.<br />
An important database is available containing the data we collected through 11<br />
plot samplings and 20 household surveys undertaken in Khe Tran on ethnobotany,<br />
<strong>for</strong>est landscapes characterization, local importance of natural resources and all<br />
socio-economic data necessary to the project achievement. This database helps us<br />
to provide an overview of the <strong>for</strong>est condition and on how <strong>for</strong>ests still influence<br />
the local livelihood of the Pahy.<br />
Soil analysis, which could not be implemented in the frame of our activities<br />
<strong>for</strong> logistical reasons, may provide relevant in<strong>for</strong>mation on land suitability <strong>for</strong> the<br />
different land use options proposed by the government to the local people.<br />
The MLA survey and the participatory development of future scenarios have<br />
also helped to facilitate discussions with local villagers about their options in the<br />
context of living at the edge of a nature reserve. The results of these discussions<br />
provide an in<strong>for</strong>med case study and can help the government to make betterin<strong>for</strong>med<br />
decisions on Khe Tran–specific land and <strong>for</strong>est management. A June<br />
2006 workshop in Thua Thien Hue will give us the opportunity to share this<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation with provincial and local institutions. During the workshop we will<br />
report the project results at the provincial and local levels. We will present the<br />
results to government agencies, nongovernmental organizations and villagers, and<br />
we will collect feedback on the way these results, and more generally the MLA set<br />
of tools, can be used by each participant in the frame of their own activities and<br />
projects in Vietnam.<br />
Based on previous presentation and on interactions with various stakeholders<br />
during project implementation, it is clear that the method has already raised<br />
interest.<br />
• District and commune officers consider MLA a valuable source of in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
on socio-economy, land use and local point of view on land management.<br />
• Educational institutions such as the Hue University of Agriculture and <strong>Forestry</strong><br />
have expressed interest to integrate the method into their curriculum.<br />
• Conservation institutions such as the FPD consider MLA a valuable source<br />
of in<strong>for</strong>mation <strong>for</strong> future <strong>for</strong>est land allocation, natural resource management<br />
and <strong>for</strong>est conservation.<br />
• The international nongovernmental organizations Helvetas, SNV (Netherland<br />
Development Organization), TBI and WWF consider it an interesting way to<br />
gather in<strong>for</strong>mation on local perceptions and priorities in the context of their<br />
own projects. Some partners have argued that a systematic implementation<br />
might be difficult in Vietnam because the land use planning and land allocation<br />
processes are already following specific procedures and because some parts<br />
of MLA may be considered time consuming and dependent on specialized<br />
expertise. Nevertheless they have expressed interest to compare the results
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
collected by this method with their own in<strong>for</strong>mation on community <strong>for</strong>estry,<br />
community-based natural resource management and land allocation.<br />
• The Vietnamese participants in the surveys have also expressed great interest<br />
in and enthusiasm <strong>for</strong> the set of methods, the important in<strong>for</strong>mation it generates<br />
and the strong relationship with local people it helps to build. Some of the<br />
participants working in government institutions such as FIPI, Department of<br />
Foreign Affairs, HUAF (Hue University of Agriculture and <strong>Forestry</strong>) and Tay<br />
Nguyen University have expressed the desire to use the methods in their own<br />
projects in other places in the province and in the rest of Vietnam, as they find<br />
that MLA provides relevant data on local priorities related to land allocation<br />
in the country.<br />
More generally, in Vietnam, the government increasingly gives local people<br />
the right to manage the <strong>for</strong>ests, even if recognition of local people’s rights is still<br />
limited, as is the consideration of local knowledge and perspectives in that rapidly<br />
changing context. The government still makes decisions on land use planning<br />
following a relatively rigid top-down approach. In this context, MLA provides a<br />
relevant set of tools that can be selectively utilized in situations where stakeholders<br />
and especially decision makers want to become better in<strong>for</strong>med on the perspectives<br />
of the local people on the important issues of <strong>for</strong>est land management, re<strong>for</strong>estation<br />
and allocation.<br />
The results of our survey were also used as a basis <strong>for</strong> follow-up activities<br />
in Khe Tran, in the frame of the Future Scenario part of this SDC project (Evans,<br />
2006). The in<strong>for</strong>mation provided by MLA activities and the good relationship<br />
we built with the villagers were important contributions to the success of Future<br />
Scenario activities.<br />
10.1.2. Main results of our surveys<br />
The status of <strong>for</strong>est in Khe Tran has changed within the last 13 years from productive<br />
<strong>for</strong>est to watershed protection <strong>for</strong>est, which is planned to become part of Phong<br />
Dien Nature Reserve in 2010 because of its high biodiversity. The war, logging<br />
activities and agricultural practices have deeply disturbed the <strong>for</strong>est landscape. In<br />
the frame of the future reserve, local people have been banned from most of the<br />
extractive activity in the natural <strong>for</strong>est. The government has proposed to develop<br />
other activities to provide income to each household. In this context, rubber and<br />
Acacia plantation programs are supposed to provide cash income to villagers.<br />
The village is characterized by the presence of a strong minority group, the<br />
Pahy, mixed with other groups. The villagers moved away during the war, and<br />
they were authorized to resettle in their village only after the conflict ended. They<br />
routinely spend a large amount of time in their gardens, rice fields and plantations.<br />
The village is divided into two areas, the upper part, where villagers have lower<br />
incomes and depend on home gardens and Acacia plantations <strong>for</strong> their livelihoods,<br />
and the lower part, with a higher mean income and depending on more diversified<br />
crop cultivation, including rubber and rice.
| Conclusion and recommendations<br />
Among the eight main land covers, <strong>for</strong>ests are divided into three categories:<br />
big tree <strong>for</strong>ests, small tree <strong>for</strong>ests and plantations. The fact that villagers include<br />
plantations in the <strong>for</strong>est category seems related to the official <strong>for</strong>est status<br />
of plantation lands. Species richness is high in Khe Tran and even potentially<br />
monotonous land cover types such as plantations or rice fields still have high nontree<br />
diversity, which enables and maintains their multiuse function. Villagers still<br />
use a wide range of species <strong>for</strong> their livelihoods, partly from the natural <strong>for</strong>ests<br />
but, under present conditions, mainly from the cultivated areas.<br />
Participatory mapping also showed that knowledge on <strong>for</strong>est products,<br />
wildlife and other natural resources is still important <strong>for</strong> villagers, even if this<br />
knowledge tends to be limited in diversity of resources and in area covered. Apart<br />
from this ethno-botanical knowledge, we found that villagers also have a strong<br />
sense of ownership when they discuss land tenure in the village, repartition of<br />
plantation responsibilities and expectations <strong>for</strong> the future. Local people represent<br />
no imminent threat to the recorded endangered species. The direct impact of human<br />
activities on <strong>for</strong>est cover at present cannot be quantified based on our sampling.<br />
Forest, including natural <strong>for</strong>est and plantations, is the most important<br />
landscape element <strong>for</strong> all the villagers <strong>for</strong> all the products that can be collected<br />
from it. Perceptions of <strong>for</strong>est types vary by gender and according to accessibility<br />
and activities per<strong>for</strong>med. For men, plantation is the most important category<br />
because of the economic benefits, while <strong>for</strong> women it is natural <strong>for</strong>est because of<br />
the diversity of NTFPs encountered.<br />
With respect to different time frames, <strong>for</strong>est in the present (including<br />
plantations) is the least important, because of the actual resources depletion, the<br />
government ban on all natural resource collection in the <strong>for</strong>est and the actual<br />
alternative activities. Forest of the past is considered more important, because of<br />
all the activities that were possible then. Domesticated resources are considered<br />
more important than any other category, wild or purchased. The government<br />
policy on the PDNR has affected dependency on <strong>for</strong>est resources.<br />
Even if the knowledge on natural resources is still important considering<br />
the new management activities, we observe that the knowledge on <strong>for</strong>est is<br />
progressively decreasing. Local people still recognize the different roles of the<br />
<strong>for</strong>est in general, but have difficulty to provide in<strong>for</strong>mation on specific resources.<br />
A big contribution to conservation could be realized by integrating the local<br />
point of view into it and by preserving the local knowledge. The main threat<br />
identified by villagers is logging, followed by <strong>for</strong>est fires. This ranking shows<br />
that there is awareness of the risks <strong>for</strong> the <strong>for</strong>est, but also <strong>for</strong> local livelihoods, of<br />
engaging in unsustainable activities.<br />
The villagers explained that they would like to be part of the conservation<br />
process, <strong>for</strong> various reasons: to get access to the resources, to enhance their rights<br />
to the land, to get payment <strong>for</strong> the activities they would per<strong>for</strong>m <strong>for</strong> the FPD. They<br />
expect also to be able to negotiate the use of some of the resources, mainly NTFPs,<br />
but logging as well. They want to collaborate with conservation institutions, not<br />
only <strong>for</strong> the reasons mentioned above, but also to keep the <strong>for</strong>est as a safety net<br />
<strong>for</strong> the future.
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
10.2. Recommendations<br />
The following recommendations are based on the results of our survey, and are<br />
taking into account the different objectives of the project. More specifically, these<br />
recommendations concern potential follow-up in Khe Tran and the possibility<br />
of more closely involving the local population in conservation management and<br />
other land use planning. Government and other development agencies may use<br />
them to analyse the role of local stakeholders in <strong>for</strong>est management.<br />
10.2.1. Community <strong>for</strong>estry and <strong>for</strong>est management<br />
• Community <strong>for</strong>estry should be considered an interesting option <strong>for</strong> involving<br />
local people in reserve management by involving them in more sustainable<br />
activities.<br />
• More, and longer-term, targeted studies of the different categories of land<br />
cover would help to gain more comprehensive in<strong>for</strong>mation on the <strong>for</strong>est<br />
conditions in and near Khe Tran and on the local knowledge and priorities<br />
concerning <strong>for</strong>est conservation and management. This would necessitate<br />
closer involvement in the daily life of the Pahy, the possibility to stay <strong>for</strong><br />
longer periods in the villages and authorization to travel to less accessible<br />
<strong>for</strong>ests located farther from the village in the core zone of the reserve.<br />
10.2.2. Land tenure<br />
• Land tenure remains a sensitive issue, even if initiatives are undertaken by<br />
the government to recognize the rights of local communities on their land.<br />
Especially concerning plantations, land tenure should be secured so that the<br />
local community does not have to rely only on limited contracts to exploit<br />
these lands.<br />
10.2.3. Conservation<br />
• Involvement in management. Local people should be more directly involved<br />
in conservation area management. At the moment, they only have to follow<br />
the rules designed by government and conservation agencies, and they are not<br />
allowed to per<strong>for</strong>m any extractive activity in <strong>for</strong>est proximate to or within the<br />
nature reserve. Local people represent a human resource that can be useful<br />
<strong>for</strong> the reserve (in the fight against poachers and illegal loggers, <strong>for</strong> example).<br />
The local interest clearly was direct participation in reserve administration<br />
activities, through jobs.<br />
• Involvement in negotiations. We recommend that in<strong>for</strong>mation on threatened<br />
species be given to villagers to raise the awareness of conservation needs. The<br />
specific uses of especially threatened species should be discussed in order to<br />
give people the option of choosing other species <strong>for</strong> these uses.<br />
• Zonation in the reserve. Traditionally a part of the reserve has belonged to the<br />
local community, and villagers should not be kept away from their territory
| Conclusion and recommendations<br />
but be part of the decisions concerning its sustainable management. Local<br />
people should be given more rights to collect and use <strong>for</strong>est products, through<br />
a negotiation process. Viewing the local people as part of the solution <strong>for</strong><br />
conserving Phong Dien Nature Reserve is not yet an option <strong>for</strong> the government<br />
but they could help keep poachers away from the reserve. There should be an<br />
agreement on the possibility to access the <strong>for</strong>est, even that inside the nature<br />
reserve, during hard times (drought or flood) to collect some important <strong>for</strong>est<br />
products.<br />
10.2.4. Economic incentives<br />
• The danger of the new economic and subsistence activities (plantations, rice<br />
farming) is that they keep people away from more-traditional activities. Even<br />
if the Pahy society is changing, preserving its traditional roots and its bases<br />
should be an important condition in any attempt of integration into other<br />
economic systems.<br />
• Decisions should be made on the diversification of agricultural practices<br />
(aquaculture, etc.). The profitability of plantations depends on market<br />
fluctuation and they should not be taken as the sole alternative to shifting<br />
cultivation and extractive activities in the <strong>for</strong>est.<br />
• The current new economic activities (especially plantations) are unsecured.<br />
Since most of the land around the village has been converted, few options are<br />
left to villagers in case of an economic crisis.<br />
10.2.5. Cultural identity and local knowledge<br />
• The political process of integration of the Pahy minority group into the<br />
lowland way of life carries the danger of loss of cultural identity. Even if the<br />
integration of other ethnic groups into Pahy society is a slow process, these<br />
communities bring with them new behaviours, new activities and relationships<br />
with the local government.<br />
• Emphasis should be placed on tapping the existing (remaining) local<br />
knowledge of the village community. More studies should be implemented to<br />
collect in<strong>for</strong>mation on local skills, and the traditional knowledge should be<br />
sustained.<br />
• Further research on the sustainability of NTFP collection is necessary, as an<br />
option <strong>for</strong> sustainable use of <strong>for</strong>est resources. Most of the natural vegetation<br />
in Khe Tran is disturbed <strong>for</strong>est or shrub lands, and the impacts of floods and<br />
fires continue to influence <strong>for</strong>est cover and structure.
Bibliography<br />
Appraisal Mission. 2004. Thua Thien Hue rural development programme II:<br />
programme framework document. Post Appraisal Revision. (http://global.<br />
finland.fi/english/procurement/ThuaThienHue/pd_viet_tthII.pdf)<br />
Artemiev, Igor. 2003. State <strong>for</strong>estry enterprise re<strong>for</strong>m in Vietnam: unlocking the<br />
potential <strong>for</strong> commercial wood growing. Technical note. Rural Development<br />
and Natural Resources East Asia and Pacific Region.<br />
Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2005. Ethnic minority development plan <strong>for</strong><br />
Central region water resources project. ADB VIE 30292. (http://www.adb.<br />
org/Documents/IndigenousPeoples/VIE/EMDP-CRWR.pdf)<br />
Barney, Keith. 2005. Central plans and global exports: Tracking Vietnam’s <strong>Forestry</strong><br />
Commodity Chains and Export Links to China. Forest Trend. (http://www.<br />
<strong>for</strong>est-trends.org/documents/publications/Vietnam%20Final%20Report%20<br />
7-1-05.pdf)<br />
Evans, Kristen. 2006. Evaluating and Adapting Future Scenarios in Forest-<br />
Dependent Communities in Hue Province, Vietnam.<br />
Le Thanh Chien. 1996. Trial planting of Cinnamomum cassia <strong>for</strong> high essential oil<br />
productivity from the leaves. Forest Science Institute of Vietnam, Hanoi.<br />
Forest Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI). 1996. Vietnam Forest Trees.<br />
Agricultural Publishing House, Hanoi.<br />
Gordon, Raymond G., Jr. (ed.) 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 15th<br />
edition. SIL <strong>International</strong>, Dallas, TX, USA. (http://www.ethnologue.com/)<br />
Chinese Academy of Science, Institute of Plant <strong>Research</strong>. 1972-1976. Iconographia<br />
Cormophytorum Sinicorum. Volume 1 – 5. Since Press. Beijing. (Zhongguo<br />
Gaodeng Zhiwu Tujian, Kexue Chubanshe:1-5 Beijing)<br />
IUCN. 2006. IUCN red list of threatened species. http://www.iucnredlist.org/
| Conclusion and recommendations<br />
Le Van Lan, S. Ziegler, and T. Grever. 2002. Utilization of <strong>for</strong>est products and<br />
environmental services in Bach Ma National Park, Vietnam. http://www.<br />
mekong-protected-areas.org/vietnam/docs/bach_ma_<strong>for</strong>est_products.pdf<br />
Mabberley, D.J. 1997. The plant-book: a portable dictionary of the vascular plants.<br />
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.<br />
Maltsoglou, Irini and George Rapsomanikis. 2005. The contribution of livestock<br />
to household income in Vietnam: a household typology based analysis. PPLPI<br />
Working Paper No. 21. FAO. (http://www.fao.org/ag/AGAinfo/projects/en/<br />
pplpi/docarc/wp21.pdf)<br />
Matarasso, Michael and Do Thi Thanh Huyen. 2005. Community participation <strong>for</strong><br />
conservation success: promoting effective conservation of Vietnam’s natural<br />
heritage through community-based environmental education. Final Progress<br />
Report. WWF Indochina Environmental Education Unit, Vietnam.<br />
Oudhia, Pankaj. 2004. Kans (Saccharum spontaneum L.). http://www.hort.purdue.<br />
edu/newcrop/CropFactSheets/kans.html<br />
Pham Hoang Ho. 1993. Cây cỏ Việt Nam. Volume 1-6. Montreal.<br />
Sheil, Douglas, Rajindra Puri, Imam Basuki, Miriam van Heist, Meilinda Wan,<br />
Nining Liswanti, Rukmiyati, Mustofa A. Sardjono, Ismayadi Samsoedin, Kade<br />
Sidiyasa, Chrisandini, Edi Permana, Eddy M. Angi, Franz Gatzweiler, Brook<br />
Johnson, Akhmad Wijaya. 2003. Exploring biological diversity, environment<br />
and local people’s perspectives in <strong>for</strong>est landscapes, 2nd revised and updated<br />
edition. <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>International</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Forestry</strong> <strong>Research</strong>, Ministry of <strong>Forestry</strong><br />
and <strong>International</strong> Tropical Timber Organization, Bogor, Indonesia.<br />
Le Trong Trai, Tran Hieu Minh, Tran Quang Ngoc, Tran Quoc Dung and Ross<br />
Hughes. 2001. An investment plan <strong>for</strong> the establishment of Phong Dien<br />
Nature Reserve, Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam. BirdLife <strong>International</strong><br />
Vietnam Program and the Forest Inventory and Planning Institute, Hanoi,<br />
Vietnam.<br />
Vu Hoai Minh and Hans Warfvinge. 2002. Issues in management of natural <strong>for</strong>ests<br />
by households and local communities of three provinces in Viet Nam: Hoa<br />
Binh, Nghe An, and Thua Thien Hue. Asia Forest Network; Working Paper<br />
Series vol 5, Cali<strong>for</strong>nia. 47p.<br />
WCMC. 1994. Biodiversity profile of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam.<br />
Appendix 5: threatened plant species. (http://www.wcmc.org.uk/infoserv/<br />
countryp/vietnam/app5.html)<br />
Yukio, Ikemoto. 2001. Poverty alleviation policies and ethnic minority people<br />
in Vietnam. Conference Justice and Poverty: Examining Sen’s Capability<br />
Approach, Cambridge, 5–7 June 2001. (http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/<br />
vhi/sen/papers/ikemoto.pdf )<br />
Yunnan Shumu Tuzhi, 1990. Yunnan Kexue Chubanshe, Kunming.
Annexes<br />
Annex 1. LUVI (mean value) of important plant species by different use categories (result based on scoring exercise of four groups of<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mant)<br />
Plant name Category of use<br />
No.<br />
Marketable<br />
Scientific/<strong>English</strong> Family Pahy Firewood Fodder Food<br />
Tools<br />
items<br />
1 Allium sp. Alliaceae Toi - - 0.10 - -<br />
2 Colocasia sp. Araceae Pong - 0.16 0.75 - -<br />
3 Colocasia sp. Araceae Tu ven - 0.56 - - -<br />
4 Colocasia sp. Araceae Tu ven thuc - 0.56 - - -<br />
5 Schefflera octophylla Araliaceae A ruom 0.09 - - - -<br />
6 Calamus walkeri Arecaceae Ki re - - 0.99 1.96 -<br />
7 Caryota urens Arecaceae A tút - - 0.14 - -<br />
8 Licuala spinosa Arecaceae A ro 0.27 - - 1.78 1.47<br />
9 Livistona saribus Arecaceae Ta lo - - 0.30 - -<br />
10 Ormosia balansae Arecaceae Ràng - - - - 0.42<br />
11 Rhapis laoensis Arecaceae à ché r - - 0.68 - -<br />
12 Canarium pimela Burseraceae Clam 0.20 - - - -<br />
13 Cratoxylum pruniflorum Clusiaceae Leng ngeng 0.64 - - - -<br />
14 Garcinia merguensis Clusiaceae Chaon - - 0.12 - -<br />
15 * Convolvulaceae La bai - 0.17 - - -<br />
16 Hopea odorata Dipterocarpaceae Sao - - - 0.25 -<br />
17 Aporosa sp. Euphorbiaceae Mộc 0.11 - - 0.08 -<br />
18 Baccaurea annamensis Euphorbiaceae Dau ne - - 0.08 - -<br />
19 Hevea brasiliensis Euphorbiaceae Cu su/Cao su 0.27 - - 1.68 -<br />
20 * Euphorbiaceae A leo 0.28 - - - -
Annex 1. Continued<br />
0 | Annexes<br />
Plant name Category of use<br />
No.<br />
Marketable<br />
Scientific/<strong>English</strong> Family Pahy Firewood Fodder Food<br />
Tools<br />
items<br />
21 Cleistanthus aff. hirsutulus Euphorbiaceae Palar - - - - 2.09<br />
22 Afzelia xylocarpa Fabaceae Lim - 0.21 - - 0.14<br />
23 Lithocarpus sp. Fagaceae A re 0.60 - - - 1.27<br />
24 * Gesneriaceae Tai nai - - 0.06 - -<br />
25 Litsea sp. Lauraceae Boi loi - - - 0.22 0.72<br />
26 Barringtonia macrostachya Lecythidaceae Tâm lang - - 0.14 - -<br />
27 Angiopteris sp. Marattiaceae Ti lai - - 0.07 - -<br />
28 Melastoma sp. Melastomataceae Car cho 0.27 - - - -<br />
29 Khaya senegalensis Meliaceae Xa cu - - - 0.30 -<br />
30 Acacia auriculi<strong>for</strong>mis Mimosaceae Tràm 1.22 - - 2.53 0.21<br />
31 Acacia mangium Mimosaceae Keo - - - 1.16 -<br />
32 Ficus racemosa Moraceae Tut nat - 0.14 - - -<br />
33 Banana Musaceae Pe - 0.89 2.16 0.17 -<br />
34 Horsfieldia amygdalina Myristicaceae Cha hàm 0.05 - - - -<br />
35 Artocarpus heterophylla Myrtaceae Panay - - 0.44 - 0.31<br />
36 Baeckea frutescens Myrtaceae Sen - - - 1.03 -<br />
37 Eucalyptus sp. Myrtaceae Bach dan 0.27 - - - -<br />
38 Rhodomyrtus tomentosa Myrtaceae Clem 0.45 - - - 0.23<br />
39 Pinus latteri Pinaceae A ngo - - - 0.49 -<br />
40 Bamboo Poaceae Mang - - - 0.44 -<br />
41 Bamboo Poaceae Tang nu - - - - 0.14<br />
42 Bamboo Poaceae Pheo 0.27 0.13 1.91 0.37 0.49<br />
43 Digitaria petelotii Poaceae Samalu - 0.15 - - -
Annex 1. Continued<br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Plant name Category of use<br />
No.<br />
Marketable<br />
Scientific/<strong>English</strong> Family Pahy Firewood Fodder Food<br />
Tools<br />
items<br />
44 Grass Poaceae Sắc - 1.94 - - -<br />
45 Imperata sp. Poaceae Sắc blang - 0.60 - - -<br />
46 Melocalamus sp.1 Poaceae A tang 0.27 - - 0.59 -<br />
47 Melocalamus sp.2 Poaceae Tu vien - - - - 2.19<br />
48 Thysanolaena sp. Poaceae Chul - 2.12 - 0.39 -<br />
49 * Poaceae Sắc ila - 0.44 - - -<br />
50 Mussaenda sp. Rubiaceae Piêng pang - 0.14 - - -<br />
51 Wendlandia glabrata Rubiaceae A xop - - - - 2.32<br />
52 Commersonia bartramia Sterculiaceae A pong 0.47 - - - 1.28<br />
53 Tarrietia javanica Sterculiaceae Huen - - - 0.69 1.15<br />
54 Mushroom * Tria - - 1.09 0.10 -<br />
55 Vegetable * Co cho 0.11 - 0.23 - -<br />
56 * * A lo 0.11 - - - -<br />
57 * * A pang - - - - 0.47<br />
58 * * A roc - 0.24 - 0.21<br />
59 * * Bong bot 0.20 - - - -<br />
60 * * Cac cho 0.04 - - - -<br />
61 * * Chel 0.11 - - - -<br />
62 * * Choan 0.28 - - - -<br />
63 * * Chua - - 0.07 - -<br />
64 * * Chun - - - 0.11 -<br />
65 * * Co chat - 0.34 - - -<br />
66 * * Co chinh - 0.26 - - -
Annex 1. Continued<br />
| Annexes<br />
Plant name Category of use<br />
No.<br />
Marketable<br />
Scientific/<strong>English</strong> Family Pahy Firewood Fodder Food<br />
Tools<br />
items<br />
67 * * Co ron - - 0.26 - -<br />
68 * * Crol 0.32 - - - -<br />
69 * * Cron - - 0.24 - -<br />
70 * * Cu - - - - 0.21<br />
71 * * Dong 0.14 0.24 - -<br />
72 * * Leng nganh 0.27 - - - -<br />
73 * * Pa ro ne - - - 0.15 -<br />
74 * * Ran xel 0.07 - - - -<br />
75 * * Ta rang - - - - 0.53<br />
76 * * Tan ao 0.22 - - - -<br />
77 * * Tu luon - - - 0.17 -<br />
78 * * Tu phi 0.56 - - - -<br />
79 * * Tu Va - - 0.38 - -<br />
80 * * Tung ao 0.17 - - - -<br />
81 * * Va 0.14 - - - -<br />
- means that the species is not used <strong>for</strong> the corresponding category<br />
* means that the species is unidentified because of no specimen/sample was found in the research site.
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Annex 2. LUVI (mean value) of important animal species by different use categories<br />
based on scoring exercise of four groups of in<strong>for</strong>mant<br />
Animal name Category of use<br />
No.<br />
Pahy <strong>English</strong> Food<br />
Marketable<br />
item<br />
Medicine Tools<br />
1 A at na * 0.59 - - -<br />
2 A binh Rat 1.95 - - -<br />
3 A che Bird 0.02 - - -<br />
4 A cuot Frog 0.89 - - -<br />
5 A ut * - - 0.44 -<br />
6 Can chong * - - 0.24 -<br />
7 Chim chao mao Bird - 0.14 - 0.03<br />
8 Chim chich choe Bird - - 0.03<br />
9 Chim cuong Peacock - 0.21 - 0.10<br />
10 Chim sao Bird - 0.20 - 0.04<br />
11 Chon den * 0.92 - - -<br />
12 Co chong * - - 0.17 -<br />
13 Cu lui * 0.14 - - -<br />
14 Cu xanh Snake 0.02 - 0.12 -<br />
15 Cuong * - - - 0.27<br />
16 Dong * - - - 0.08<br />
17 Hon * - - 0.30 -<br />
18 K chu * - 0.09 - 0.05<br />
19 Khep * - - 0.03 -<br />
20 Khuou Bird - 0.27 - 0.25<br />
21 Kien * 0.06 - - -<br />
22 Kiep * 0.08 - - -<br />
23 Pi reo * - - - 0.29<br />
24 Quai * 0.04 - - -<br />
25 quai * - - 0.24 -<br />
26 Tac ke * - - 0.16 -<br />
27 Truoi Chicken 0.41 - - -<br />
28 Truon prieng * 0.15 - - -<br />
29 Vet * - - - 0.07<br />
- means that the species is not used <strong>for</strong> the corresponding category
Annex 3. The botanical names, families and local name of specimens collected within and outside the plots by their use categories<br />
| Annexes<br />
No use<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
Dicotyledones<br />
Adiantum diaphanum Adiantaceae - 2 <br />
Adiantum sp.1 Adiantaceae - 2 <br />
Adiantum sp.2 Adiantaceae - 2 <br />
Adiantum sp.3 Adiantaceae Ta ranh canh 3 <br />
Anogramma microphylla Adiantaceae Sắc a trom can chong 4 <br />
Alternanthera sessilis Amaranthaceae Sắc chiêú 5 <br />
Alternanthera sp.1 Amaranthaceae Sắc cằn cờ leng 6 <br />
Centella asiatica Apiaceae Rau má/Sắc a tăng/Sắc i cha 3 4 5 6 <br />
Melodinus cf. annamensis Apocynaceae A mư a tang 2 <br />
Melodinus cf. myrtifolius Apocynaceae A mư cê ló 2 <br />
Melodinus locii Apocynaceae A mư cê ló 2 <br />
Wrightia dubia Apocynaceae Choh/Còi ke 2 <br />
Hoya sp.1 Asclepiadaceae A mư bỏ tê ró 2 <br />
Streptocaulon sp.1 Asclepiadaceae A mu pu xá 3 6 <br />
Ageratum conyzoides Asteraceae Cá hỡi/Sắc par abon 3 4 <br />
Crassocephalum crepidioides Asteraceae Rau nghđo/Sắc a ngươn 3 6 <br />
Eupatorium sp.1 Asteraceae Tôm bro bon 6 <br />
Gnaphalium polycaulon Asteraceae - 5 <br />
Basketry/rope<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
Lactuca sp.1 Asteraceae Sắc a pi 6
Annex 3. Continued<br />
No use<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
Lactuca sp.2 Asteraceae Sắc tía 6 <br />
Spilanthes cf. iabadicensis Asteraceae Sắc răm bon 6 <br />
Vernonia patula Asteraceae Sắc a chể 6 <br />
Begonia cf. porteri Begoniaceae Cu to a rop 2 <br />
Canarium pimela Burseraceae Clam 2 <br />
Dacryodes cf. breviracemosa Burseraceae A long chua lòy/A long khét 2 <br />
Garuga sp.1 Burseraceae A long cì ăi 2 <br />
Garuga sp.2 Burseraceae A long chuá 2 <br />
Bauhinia cf. lorantha Caesalpiniaceae A mư cu tiên 2 <br />
Bauhinia cf. penicilliloba Caesalpiniaceae A mư cu tiên/A mư tà riêng 1 2 <br />
Peltophorum dasyrrhachis Caesalpiniaceae Tulvom 2 <br />
Cleome viscosa Capparaceae Cơn côc mẵn 5 6 <br />
Basketry/rope<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Stixis scandens Capparaceae Nôm bê lốc 4 <br />
Stixis suaveolens Capparaceae Cần cò lốt 3 <br />
Calophyllum cf. balansae Clusiaceae A long cồn 2 <br />
Cratoxylum maingayi Clusiaceae A long oi/A long râu gia/Rìng rìng 2 6 <br />
Cratoxylum sp.1 Clusiaceae A long ran sia 3 <br />
Hypericum japonicum Clusiaceae Sắc a da pang nang 4 <br />
Quisqualis indica Combretaceae A long chà chế 3 <br />
Ipomoea batatas Convolvulaceae A rau cu lang 6 <br />
Ipomoea purpurea Convolvulaceae A mu ran gion/Sắc rần dòn 6
Annex 3. Continued<br />
| Annexes<br />
No use<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
Dillenia turbinata Dilleniaceae Ripo 1 2 <br />
A mư cah hát/A mư lân hát/A mư lang<br />
Tetracera sarmentosa spp. asiatica Dilleniaceae<br />
1 2 <br />
hat<br />
Aceratium sp.1 Elaeocarpaceae Sắc a nả 6 <br />
Basketry/rope<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
Elaeocarpus cf. nitidus Elaeocarpaceae - 2 <br />
Itea macrophylla Escalloniaceae Cỏ cha 2 <br />
Aporosa dioica Euphorbiaceae A long mom/Mom along sên 1 4 <br />
Aporosa microstachya Euphorbiaceae Mộc 4 <br />
Aporosa tetrapleura Euphorbiaceae A long mom pu xá/A long môt/Mom 1 2 <br />
Cleistanthus cf. hirsutulus Euphorbiaceae Pa lar 2 <br />
Cleistanthus sp.1 Euphorbiaceae A long ti 2 <br />
Croton potabilis Euphorbiaceae A long lán liếc 2 <br />
Epiprinus balansae Euphorbiaceae A long pa cha 2 <br />
Euphorbia sp.1 Euphorbiaceae - 5 <br />
Glochidion cf. jussieuanum Euphorbiaceae A long vu ve 3 <br />
Hevea brasiliensis Euphorbiaceae Caosu 3 <br />
Macaranga trichocarpa Euphorbiaceae A long cà pai 2 <br />
Mallotus floribundus Euphorbiaceae Lanh lep 1 <br />
Mallotus hookerianus Euphorbiaceae A long tò ràng a rây 2 <br />
Mallotus paniculatus Euphorbiaceae Alỏe/A long a ló 3 <br />
Phyllanthus amarus Euphorbiaceae Chã ợị 3
Annex 3. Continued<br />
No use<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
Phyllanthus sp.1 Euphorbiaceae Sắc pa co 6 <br />
Abrus mollis Fabaceae A mư ân rá 2 <br />
Arachis hypogaea Fabaceae Aton lon 5 <br />
Bowringia callicarpa Fabaceae A beo/A mư nghê 1 2 <br />
Bowringia sp.1 Fabaceae - 2 <br />
Dalbergia polyadelpha Fabaceae A vét 2 <br />
Dalbergia sp.1 Fabaceae A long pộ ru 3 <br />
Derris sp.1 Fabaceae A mư a óc 6 <br />
Desmodium trifolium Fabaceae - 4 <br />
Millettia sp.1 Fabaceae A chuông 6 <br />
Ormosia semicastrata var.<br />
Fabaceae Ràng cóc 2 <br />
litchiifolia<br />
Lithocarpus ailaoensis Fagaceae A re 2 <br />
Basketry/rope<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Lithocarpus hemisphericus Fagaceae A long lim 2 <br />
Lithocarpus sp.1 Fagaceae A long vang 2 <br />
Lithocarpus sp.2 Fagaceae A long cu vï 2 <br />
Quercus cf. sp.1 Fagaceae A long a rở 2 <br />
Homalium cf. hainanense Flacourtiaceae A long cê lâm 2 <br />
Boea rufescens Gesneriaceae - 2 <br />
Chirita cf. minutihamata Gesneriaceae - 2 <br />
Dicranopteris linearis Gleicheniaceae Rang rang 3
Annex 3. Continued<br />
| Annexes<br />
No use<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
Dicranopteris sp.1 Gleicheniaceae Taranh 3 <br />
Gomphandra sp.1 Icacinaceae Càm măng a đe 2 <br />
Gonocaryum lobbianum Icacinaceae - 2 <br />
Iodes ovalis var. vitiginea Icacinaceae A mư bay bươn/Pi a pang 1 3 <br />
Irvingia malayana Irvingiaceae A long chê 2 <br />
Ixonanthes cf. reticulata Ixonanthaceae A long mât 2 <br />
Leucas zeylanica Lamiaceae Sắc thúi/Sắc tă ong 5 <br />
Beilschmiedia sp.1 Lauraceae Mân 2 <br />
Cinnamomum cf. burmannii Lauraceae A long cha chế 2 <br />
Cinnamomum cf. mairei Lauraceae A long tân bu 2 <br />
Cryptocarya cf. metcalfiana Lauraceae - 1 <br />
cf. Litsea sp.1 Lauraceae - 2 <br />
Litsea cubeba Lauraceae A long cê lã 2 <br />
Litsea verticillata Lauraceae - 1 <br />
Machilus odoratissima Lauraceae Bêi lêi 2 <br />
Phoebe cuneata Lauraceae A long trèng treng 2 <br />
Barringtonia macrostachya Lecythidaceae Tâm lang 2 <br />
Strychnos cf. ovata Loganiaceae A mư lá vang/Amư tât cây/A mư tói 1 2 <br />
Urena lobata Malvaceae A long ta con a a/Sắc ki đon 4 6 <br />
Acinodendron sp.1 Melastomataceae A long a riêp 2 <br />
Basketry/rope<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
Blastus cf. eglandulosus Melastomataceae A long ka cho 2
Annex 3. Continued<br />
No use<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
Blastus eglandulosus Melastomataceae A long ka cho 2 <br />
Melastoma sp.1 Melastomataceae Crâr cho 3 <br />
Melastoma sp.2 Melastomataceae A long ca ro cho 3 <br />
Melastoma sp.3 Melastomataceae A long ca ro cho 4 <br />
cf. Memecylon sp.1 Melastomataceae A long trẽn trẽn 2 <br />
Memecylon cf. fruticosum Melastomataceae A long apăng 2 <br />
Memecylon ligustrinum Melastomataceae Cê lâm 2 <br />
Dysoxylum cf. binectariferum Meliaceae A long capo 1 <br />
Amư/Dây a mư/Piro pang kon/ Sắc cì<br />
Diploclisia glaucescens Menispermaceae<br />
3 4 6 <br />
pỡng<br />
Fibraurea recisa Menispermaceae A mư nghê/Sắc rần sàng 2 3 <br />
Fibraurea cf. recisa Menispermaceae - 1 <br />
Fibraurea tinctoria Menispermaceae A beo 2 <br />
Acacia auriculi<strong>for</strong>mis Mimosaceae A long tràm 3 <br />
Acacia mangium Mimosaceae A long keo 3 4 <br />
Acacia siamensis Mimosaceae A long muồng 3 <br />
Acacia sp.1 Mimosaceae A mư tà riêng 2 <br />
Archidendron chevalieri Mimosaceae Ea lìt 2 <br />
Mimosa pudica Mimosaceae Sắc a chiết 6 <br />
Mimosa sp.2 Mimosaceae Sắc a xông 6 <br />
Mollugo pentaphylla Molluginaceae Sắc a cho 5 6 <br />
Basketry/rope
Annex 3. Continued<br />
0 | Annexes<br />
No use<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
Artocarpus heterophyllus Moraceae A long pa nây 6 <br />
Artocarpus melinoxylus Moraceae A put 2 <br />
Artocarpus cf. melinoxylus Moraceae A long a pứt 2 <br />
Artocarpus styracifolius Moraceae Chæi 1 <br />
Ficus sagittata Moraceae A mư cusóc 2 <br />
Ficus sp.1 Moraceae A long tốt tốt 3 <br />
Ficus sp.2 Moraceae A mư sôc 2 <br />
Ficus vasculosa Moraceae A long ca đom/Già díp 1 2 <br />
Taxotrophis sp.1 Moraceae Tỏri 2 <br />
Horsfieldia amygdalina Myristicaceae Cha hàm 2 <br />
Horsfieldia sp.1 Myristicaceae A long cha hàm 2 <br />
Ardisia quinquegona var. latifolia Myrsinaceae - 1 <br />
Basketry/rope<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
Maesa balansae Myrsinaceae Dong don 3 <br />
Maesa perlarius Myrsinaceae A long 4 <br />
Acmena cf. acuminatissima Myrtaceae A long choang 2 <br />
Decaspermum parviflorum Myrtaceae A long bùng bôc 2 <br />
Rhodomyrtus sp.1 Myrtaceae A long cê lem 6 <br />
Syzygium cf. bonii Myrtaceae - 1 <br />
Syzygium cf. bracteatum Myrtaceae A long a sâu 2 <br />
Syzygium cf. cochinchinensis Myrtaceae A long ca doan/Cê lâm 1 2 <br />
Syzygium cf. lineatum Myrtaceae A long tu kiêng 2
Annex 3. Continued<br />
No use<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
Syzygium rubicundum Myrtaceae A long trám 1 <br />
Syzygium sp.1 Myrtaceae - 1 <br />
Syzygium sp.2 Myrtaceae - 1 <br />
Syzygium sp.4 Myrtaceae Cê lâm cù so 1 <br />
Syzygium sp.5 Myrtaceae A long a păng 2 <br />
Basketry/rope<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
Syzygium sp.6 Myrtaceae A long a páng 2 <br />
Syzygium sp.7 Myrtaceae A long tần coi tì rá 2 <br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Syzygium sp.8 Myrtaceae A long a tiởng 2 <br />
Syzygium vestitum Myrtaceae Trâm tổ kiến 2 <br />
Gomphia serrata Ochnaceae Tờ nu 2 <br />
Linociera cf. ramiflora Oleaceae A long chot a vot 1 <br />
Linociera thorelii Oleaceae A long ta rê con ke/Trai 3 4 <br />
Myxopyrum nervosum Oleaceae A mư a pư ăng 1 2 <br />
cf. Osmanthus sp.1 Oleaceae Chàm hàm 1 <br />
Ludwigia prostrata Onagraceae Sắc tiêu 6 <br />
Microdesmis caseariaefolia Pandaceae A long tù nu tù mò/Tờ nu tờ mo 2 <br />
Adenia heterophylla Passifloraceae A mư cu tiên 3 <br />
Piper cf. brevicaule Piperaceae - 1 <br />
Piper nigrum Piperaceae Tiêu tho 6 <br />
Piper sp.1 Piperaceae - 1 <br />
Piper sp.2 Piperaceae A ai ki nen 1
Annex 3. Continued<br />
| Annexes<br />
No use<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
Piper sp.3 Piperaceae Là bả âm bút/Tiêu tho 2 6 <br />
Piper sp.4 Piperaceae Sắc alít 6 <br />
Xanthophyllum cf. flavescens Polygalaceae A long to răng a rây 1 2 <br />
Xanthophyllum cf. hainanense Polygalaceae A long a so 2 <br />
Rubus sp.1 Rosaceae Sắc a lau 6 <br />
Rubus sp.2 Rosaceae A long po ro su/Parosu 3 6 <br />
Gardenia sootepensis Rubiaceae A long ca ao 1 2 <br />
Gardenia sp.1 Rubiaceae A long ka ao 2 <br />
Hedyotis capitellata var. mollis Rubiaceae A mư a tói 3 <br />
Hedyotis diffusa Rubiaceae Sắc pi nhe 6 <br />
Hedyotis hedyotides Rubiaceae Pi a pàng cù téc 2 <br />
Hedyotis cf. hispida Rubiaceae - 2 <br />
Hedyotis cf. leptoneura Rubiaceae Sắc a dó 6 <br />
Hedyotis cf. microcephala Rubiaceae Tà rinh 3 <br />
Hedyotis multiglomerata Rubiaceae Rau mè 3 <br />
Hedyotis multiglomerulata Rubiaceae Sắc lá tre 5 <br />
Hedyotis cf. pilulifera Rubiaceae Sắc ản truôi 1 3 <br />
Hedyotis cf. symploci<strong>for</strong>mis Rubiaceae Sắc tê rá i a chá 4 <br />
Hedyotis sp.1 Rubiaceae Cây mè/Sắc mè 5 6 <br />
Ixora sp.1 Rubiaceae Pin ra vốt 2 <br />
Basketry/rope<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood
Annex 3. Continued<br />
No use<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
Lasianthus cyanocarpus var.<br />
Rubiaceae - 2 <br />
asperulatus<br />
Lasianthus sp.2 Rubiaceae - 1 <br />
Morinda cf. parvifolia Rubiaceae A mư a dó/A mư bo tê ro 2 3 <br />
Morinda cf. umbellata Rubiaceae Dây a mư 4 <br />
Morinda sp.1 Rubiaceae A mư pa lai 2 <br />
Mussaenda aptera Rubiaceae A mư pa ro pang/Pia rơ pang 2 3 <br />
Mussaenda cf. aptera Rubiaceae A mư a lá/Pia pàng âm bút 2 <br />
Mussaenda sp.1 Rubiaceae Pi a rỏ pang 3 <br />
Neolamarckia cf. adamba Rubiaceae A long ka ao 2 <br />
Neonauclea cf. purpurea Rubiaceae Mắt boái 2 <br />
Paederia scandens Rubiaceae Sắc co lo/Sắc la vang/Tar bo tro 6 <br />
Psychotria serpens Rubiaceae Sắc bul 2 <br />
Psychotria sp.1 Rubiaceae Còike 2 <br />
Psychotria sp.2 Rubiaceae Along piararốt 3 <br />
Randia spinosa Rubiaceae Along a xông a tói 3 <br />
Acronychia pedunculata Rutaceae A long atốt/Cơm rưîu 2 <br />
Euodia calophylla Rutaceae A long a lô 2 <br />
A long cfsốc lâm pá/A long par cha/A<br />
Maclurodendron sp.1 Rutaceae<br />
2 <br />
long răng sê<br />
Amesiodendron chinense Sapindaceae Tà ràng 1 2 <br />
Basketry/rope
Annex 3. Continued<br />
| Annexes<br />
No use<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
Nephelium lappaceum Sapindaceae A long cê rôl 2 <br />
Planchonella cf. annamensis Sapotaceae - 2 <br />
Lindernia anagallis Scrophulariaceae Pi a rò pang 4 6 <br />
Lindernia oblonga Scrophulariaceae - 3 5 <br />
Lindernia pusilla Scrophulariaceae Sắc a púa/Sắc cu so 4 6 <br />
Scoparia sp.1 Scrophulariaceae Sắc răng cưa 5 <br />
Torenia benthamiana Scrophulariaceae Sắc a quang 4 <br />
Torenia glabra Scrophulariaceae - 3 <br />
Physalis angulata Solanaceae Cê leng 3 <br />
Physalis sp.1 Solanaceae Sắc cê leng cê long 5 <br />
Solanum cf. americanum Solanaceae Sắc rau bay 4 6 <br />
Heritiera augustata Sterculiaceae Mang 2 <br />
Heritiera macrophylla Sterculiaceae A long mang 2 <br />
Melochia corchorifolia Sterculiaceae Sắc báy/Sắc lăn lép/Sắc tờ con 5 6 <br />
Adinandra cf. hainanensis Theaceae - 1 <br />
Camellia cf. fleuryi Theaceae A tung 1 <br />
Camellia cf. nitidissima Theaceae A long a tung 2 <br />
Camellia sinensis Theaceae A long tre 3 <br />
Camellia sp.0 Theaceae Rau ròn 1 <br />
Camellia sp.1 Theaceae - 1 <br />
Basketry/rope<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
Camellia sp.2 Theaceae Lân lép 1
Annex 3. Continued<br />
No use<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
Eurya cf. acuminata var. euprista Theaceae A tích/Cần nổ 2 <br />
Eurya cf. nitida Theaceae A long chên 3 <br />
Eurya cf. trichocarpa Theaceae A tich 1 <br />
Eurya sp.1 Theaceae A têch 1 <br />
Eurya sp.2 Theaceae Mâl 1 <br />
Linostoma decandrum Thymelaeaceae A tiêng 2 <br />
Gironniera cuspidata Ulmaceae A xấc 2 <br />
Gironniera subaequalis Ulmaceae A long a sất 2 <br />
Gironniera yunnanensis Ulmaceae A long a sấc 2 <br />
Clerodendrum cyrtophyllum Verbenaceae A long a lau 3 <br />
Premna sp.1 Verbenaceae Piarò pang 6 <br />
Premna sp.2 Verbenaceae Piarò pang 6 <br />
Vitex cf. pierreana Verbenaceae Ti 2 <br />
Vitex trifolia Verbenaceae A long ti hê 1 <br />
Rinorea cf. anguifera Violaceae A long a sâc 2 <br />
Tetrastigma cf. tonkinense Vitaceae - 2 <br />
Tetrastigma sp.1 Vitaceae - 2 <br />
Ferns<br />
Allantodia metteniana var. faurieri Athyriaceae Cằn 2 <br />
Diplazium crassiusculum Athyriaceae - 2 <br />
Blechnum orientale Blechnaceae Sắc côn căn 3 <br />
Basketry/rope
Annex 3. Continued<br />
| Annexes<br />
No use<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
Blechnum sp.1 Blechnaceae Con 6 <br />
Aspidistra cf. minutiflora Convallariaceae Sắc ta cao 2 <br />
Disporum trabeculatum Convallariaceae - 2 <br />
Ophiopogon japonicus Convallariaceae Sắc a bon/Sắc ta riết 3 4 6 <br />
Ophiopogon reptans Convallariaceae - 2 <br />
Ophiopogon sp.1 Convallariaceae Sắc soi tần cào 2 <br />
Lindsaea ensifolia Dennstaedtiaceae Sắc ta renh co 2 <br />
Pteris cf. venusta Pteridaceae Tờ cây 2 <br />
Pteris multifida Pteridaceae Sắc con can 4 <br />
Pteris sp.1 Pteridaceae Bong bong 2 <br />
Pteris sp.2 Pteridaceae - 2 <br />
Pteris sp.3 Pteridaceae Taron 3 <br />
Pteris sp.4 Pteridaceae - 1 <br />
Lygodium con<strong>for</strong>me Schizaeaceae Sắc pang tuoi/sắc cong chao 2 4 <br />
Lygodium digitatum Schizaeaceae Sắc cổng chào 2 <br />
Lygodium cf. digitatum Schizaeaceae Ta ranh 2 <br />
Lygodium flexuosum Schizaeaceae Bong bong 3 <br />
Lygodium microphyllum Schizaeaceae Sắc co 4 <br />
Lygodium sp.1 Schizaeaceae Sắc cê ten nhon 6 <br />
Lygodium sp.2 Schizaeaceae Sắc cê ten nhon 6 <br />
Lygodium sp.3 Schizaeaceae Sắc cê ten nhon 6 <br />
Basketry/rope<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood
Annex 3. Continued<br />
No use<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
Lygodium sp.4 Schizaeaceae Sắc tà rang 6 <br />
Lygodium sp.5 Schizaeaceae Ta rò nhon 3 <br />
Ferns allies<br />
Lycopodium cernuum Lycopodiaceae Hoa ợĩ 3 <br />
Selaginella cf. picta Selaginellaceae - 2 <br />
Gymnospermae<br />
Gnetum cf. montanum Gnetaceae A mư cê lãt 2 <br />
Monocotyledones<br />
Colocasia esculenta Araceae Uìlang 6 <br />
Pothos sp.1 Araceae Amư căncrô 2 <br />
Pothos sp.2 Araceae - 2 <br />
Raphidophora sp.1 Araceae - 2 <br />
Raphidophora sp.2 Araceae - 2 <br />
Raphidophora sp.3 Araceae - 1 <br />
Raphidophora sp.4 Araceae - 2 <br />
Raphidophora sp.5 Araceae Ati kahép 2 <br />
Calamus cf. dioicus Arecaceae Ki re tăng 2 <br />
Calamus cf. salicifolius Arecaceae - 2 <br />
Calamus sp.1 Arecaceae Ki re 2 <br />
Calamus sp.2 Arecaceae Saphun 2 <br />
Calamus sp.3 Arecaceae A tói 2 <br />
Basketry/rope
Annex 3. Continued<br />
| Annexes<br />
No use<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
Calamus sp.5 Arecaceae A tút 2 <br />
Calamus sp.6 Arecaceae Lết 2 <br />
Calamus sp.7 Arecaceae A zay 2 <br />
Calamus tonkinensis Arecaceae Kì re đá 2 <br />
Calamus walkeri Arecaceae Kì re 1 <br />
Caryota monostachya Arecaceae A tút 2 <br />
Caryota urens Arecaceae A tút 2 <br />
Korthalsia sp.1 Arecaceae Ki a sa phun 2 <br />
Licuala sp.1 Arecaceae A ro 2 <br />
Licuala spinosa Arecaceae A ro 2 <br />
Licuala cf. spinosa Arecaceae A chê rê 6 <br />
Pinanga duperreana Arecaceae Ki re tăng 2 <br />
Pinanga sp.1 Arecaceae Ântôm apoang 2 <br />
Plectocomia elongata Arecaceae Adur 2 <br />
cf. Plectocomia sp.4 Arecaceae Adur 2 <br />
Basketry/rope<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
Commelina cf. diffusa Commelinaceae Sắc pờ lông a tót 6 <br />
Commelina sp.2 Commelinaceae Sắc nem 6 <br />
Tradescantia zebrina Commelinaceae Co riu 3 <br />
Bulbostylis barbata var. pulchella Cyperaceae Sắc a bơn 6 <br />
Cyperus diffusus Cyperaceae - 3 <br />
Cyperus haspan Cyperaceae Sắc a môn/Sắc ta riởng 4
Annex 3. Continued<br />
No use<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions |<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
Cyperus iria Cyperaceae - 5 <br />
Cyperus cf. nutans Cyperaceae Sắc cha chéc 4 <br />
Cyperus cf. thorelii Cyperaceae - 3 <br />
Fimbristylis argentea Cyperaceae Sắc bông 4 <br />
Fimbristylis cf. argentea Cyperaceae Sắc pa rươi 6 <br />
Fimbristylis gracilenta Cyperaceae Sắc tra vuỡi a chiên 4 <br />
Fimbristylis miliacea Cyperaceae - 5 <br />
Fimbristylis cf. miliacea Cyperaceae Sắc tiá 6 <br />
Fimbristylis cf. parvilenta Cyperaceae Sắc nu 5 <br />
A set/Sắc a pê rưng/Sắc cha chéc/Sắc<br />
Hypolytrum nemorum Cyperaceae<br />
1 2 3 6 <br />
cha chiết/Chua/Pi nhieh<br />
Hypolytrum nemorum var.<br />
Cyperaceae - 1 <br />
proliferum<br />
Rhynchospora chinensis Cyperaceae - 5 <br />
Rhynchospora rugosa Cyperaceae Sắc tarvangl 6 <br />
Scleria cf. levis Cyperaceae Sắc dai 3 <br />
Dioscorea cf. laurifolia Dioscoreaceae A mư cu tróc 2 3 <br />
Dioscorea sp.1 Dioscoreaceae A mư ta la 1 2 <br />
Dracaena sp.1 Dracaenaceae A long lĩ vằng/Sắc lá vằng 2 <br />
Flagellaria indica Flagellariaceae Sắc a tên 1 6 <br />
Curculigo cf. annamitica Hypoxidaceae A đòm đo 2 <br />
Basketry/rope
Annex 3. Continued<br />
00 | Annexes<br />
No use<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
Curculigo cf. capitulata Hypoxidaceae A đom đo/Nom ca lai/Sắc a đom đo 1 2 3 4 <br />
Stachyphrynium sp.1 Marantaceae A nen 1 2 <br />
Bulbophyllum cf. pectinatum Orchidaceae A long cù chỏ 2 <br />
Mischobulbum sp.1 Orchidaceae Sắc pa par 2 <br />
Pandanus cf. gressittii Pandanaceae Chứa a sông/Roso/Sắc cha chiết 2 <br />
Pandanus sp.1 Pandanaceae A ro 1 <br />
Pandanus sp.2 Pandanaceae A tút 1 <br />
Pandanus sp.3 Pandanaceae A long sâm 1 <br />
Dianella ensifolia Phormiaceae Sắc a chung 6 <br />
Basketry/rope<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
Cynodon dactylon Poaceae Bắt rờ kên 6 <br />
Dactyloctenium aegyptium Poaceae Sắc chin 5 <br />
Digitaria heterantha Poaceae Sắc voi 4 <br />
Digitaria petelotii Poaceae Samalu 3 <br />
Digitaria violascens Poaceae Sắc chỉn 5 <br />
Echinochloa colonum Poaceae Sắc tói 6 <br />
Eleusine indica Poaceae Sắc pa pát 5 6 <br />
Eragrostis unioloides Poaceae Sắc a bon/Sắc chi 4 <br />
Eragrostis zeylanica Poaceae A tép 6 <br />
Eriachne chinensis Poaceae Co chi 3 <br />
Gigantochloa sp.1 Poaceae A bung 6 <br />
Hemarthria sp.1 Poaceae - 5
Annex 3. Continued<br />
No use<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
Imperata cylindrica Poaceae A séc/Cá tranh 3 4 <br />
Oplismenus cf. compositus Poaceae A luông tây/Sắc trá a chá/Sắc pa lông 3 4 <br />
Oplismenus sp.1 Poaceae Sắc ông 6 <br />
Oplismenus sp.2 Poaceae Tarò nhon 3 <br />
Basketry/rope<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
Oryza sativa Poaceae A cả 5 <br />
Panicum cf. atrosanguineum Poaceae - 5 <br />
Panicum brevifolium Poaceae - 3 <br />
Panicum cf. psilopodium Poaceae Sắc tre 4 <br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions | 0<br />
Panicum repens Poaceae Sắc pò lông a tót 6 <br />
Panicum cf. trichoides Poaceae Sắc âm bút 2 <br />
Panicum sp.1 Poaceae Sắc lép 3 <br />
Paspalum conjugatum Poaceae Luôn tây/Sắc lóng/Sắc cê ri a cha 4 5 6 <br />
Paspalum cf. distichum Poaceae Sắc bắt 6 <br />
Paspalum orbiculare Poaceae Sắc nem 4 <br />
Pennisetum sp.1 Poaceae - 3 <br />
Saccharum arundinaceum Poaceae A séc 3 <br />
Saccharum sp.1 Poaceae Sắc a reng 3 <br />
Saccharum spontaneum Poaceae A séc/À séc/Sắc pờ lăng 3 4 6 <br />
Sacciolepis indica Poaceae Sắc a mư/Sắc a luông con hê 4 6 <br />
Schizostachyum cf. gracile Poaceae A tang/Ilatuvia 1 2 <br />
Schizostachyum hainanense Poaceae A tàng 2
Annex 3. Continued<br />
0 | Annexes<br />
No use<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
Setaria palmifolia Poaceae Sắc tê rá a chá/Sắc a luỡng 3 4 <br />
Thysanolaena latifolia Poaceae A tèng 4 <br />
Thysanolaena maxima Poaceae A ròng/A tăng 2 3 <br />
Smilax cf. aspericaulis Smilacaceae A mư trăn trót 2 <br />
Smilax bauhinioides Smilacaceae Sắc gai 3 <br />
Smilax corbularia Smilacaceae A mư tà rá 2 <br />
Smilax cf. corbularia Smilacaceae A mư răng đơn 1 2 <br />
Smilax cf. ferox Smilacaceae - 3 <br />
Dây a mư/Sắc a xông/Sắc a pâc/Sắc pa<br />
Smilax glabra Smilacaceae<br />
3 4 6 <br />
ruoi/Sắc po mê po<br />
Smilax cf. lanceaefolia Smilacaceae - 2 <br />
Smilax megacarpa Smilacaceae A mư trung guân 2 <br />
Smilax megalantha Smilacaceae Coi toria 3 <br />
Smilax cf. megalantha Smilacaceae - 1 <br />
Smilax cf. ocreata Smilacaceae Mùng mơ 4 <br />
Smilax perfoliata Smilacaceae Phong phô 3 <br />
Smilax cf. petelotii Smilacaceae A mư trăn trót 2 <br />
Smilax cf. pottingeri Smilacaceae - 2 <br />
Smilax sp.1 Smilacaceae - 1 <br />
Smilax sp.3 Smilacaceae A mư trung guân 2 <br />
Alpinia chinensis Zingiberaceae A kai 2 <br />
Basketry/rope<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood
Annex 3. Continued<br />
No use<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions | 0<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
Alpinia cf. phuthoensis Zingiberaceae A đòm đo/A kai 2 <br />
Catimbium breviligulatum Zingiberaceae A kai/A xây cỡ/Betre/Papan 1 2 3 4 <br />
Catimbium cf. breviligulatum Zingiberaceae A kai/A sai sen 6 <br />
Zingiber sp.1 Zingiberaceae A sai am but 2 <br />
Zingiber sp.2 Zingiberaceae Pa par 1 <br />
Indeterminated Dicotyledones<br />
unknown63 sp.63 Amaranthaceae Sắc bông gà 5 <br />
unknown46 sp.46 Asteraceae Sắc ang von 4 <br />
unknown23 sp.23 cf. Euphorbiaceae A lẻo 4 <br />
unknown42 sp.42 Fabaceae Lim xủt 1 <br />
unknown59 sp.59 Fagaceae Along are 2 <br />
unknown38 sp.38 Gesneriaceae - 1 <br />
unknown19 sp.19 Lauraceae Dây a mư 4 <br />
unknown44 sp.44 Lauraceae Boi loi 1 <br />
unknown21 sp.21 Melastomataceae Cành chò 4 <br />
unknown29 sp.29 Melastomataceae Tôm cờ cho 6 <br />
unknown26 sp.26 Menispermaceae - 2 <br />
unknown31 sp.31 cf. Moraceae Tôm pa nây 6 <br />
unknown04 sp.04 Myrtaceae Clem 3 <br />
Basketry/rope<br />
unknown36 sp.36 Rubiaceae A long chôt a vot 6 <br />
unknown20 sp.20 Rutaceae A song 4
Annex 3. Continued<br />
0 | Annexes<br />
No use<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
Indeterminated Monocotyledones<br />
unknown35 sp.35 Commelinaceae Sắc eó 5 <br />
unknown50 sp.50 Commelinaceae Sắc éo 5 <br />
unknown51 sp.51 Commelinaceae Sắc trai 5 <br />
unknown52 sp.52 Commelinaceae Sắc eó 5 <br />
unknown57 sp.57 Commelinaceae Sắc a lík 4 <br />
unknown58 sp.58 Commelinaceae Sắc pa par 4 <br />
unknown18 sp.18 Cyperaceae Sắc lau 4 <br />
unknown24 sp.24 Cyperaceae A séc 2 <br />
unknown25 sp.25 Cyperaceae - 2 <br />
unknown47 sp.47 Cyperaceae Sắc a séc 4 <br />
unknown49 sp.49 Cyperaceae Sắc ka kiet 2 <br />
unknown55 sp.55 Cyperaceae Sắc a séc 2 <br />
unknown61 sp.61 Cyperaceae Sắc cú 5 <br />
Basketry/rope<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
unknown02 sp.02 cf. Cyperaceae Co let 3 <br />
unknown03 sp.03 Poaceae Co chi 3 <br />
unknown11 sp.11 Poaceae Sắc tre 4 <br />
unknown12 sp.12 Poaceae - 4 <br />
unknown14 sp.14 Poaceae Sắc tre 4 <br />
unknown27 sp.27 Poaceae A sa ma lu 6 <br />
unknown33 sp.33 Poaceae Sắc tói 6
Annex 3. Continued<br />
No use<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
Biodiversity and Local Perceptions | 0<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
unknown13 sp.13 Zingiberaceae Pa pan 4 <br />
unknown48 sp.48 Zingiberaceae A kai 2 <br />
Indeterminated plants<br />
unknown01 sp.01 Unknown01 Cr chuònco 3 <br />
unknown05 sp.05 Unknown05 - 4 <br />
unknown06 sp.06 Unknown06 Ta ran 4 <br />
unknown07 sp.07 Unknown07 Cỏ lác 4 <br />
unknown08 sp.08 Unknown08 Van tuế 4 <br />
unknown09 sp.09 Unknown09 Ta ran 4 <br />
unknown10 sp.10 Unknown10 Ta ran 4 <br />
unknown15 sp.15 Unknown15 Ta ran 4 <br />
unknown16 sp.16 Unknown16 Ta ran 4 <br />
unknown17 sp.17 Unknown17 Bỡng lau 4 <br />
unknown22 sp.22 Unknown22 A cê lem 4 <br />
unknown30 sp.30 Unknown30 Tôm cằn côm 6 <br />
unknown32 sp.32 Unknown32 Cân cán 3 <br />
unknown34 sp.34 Unknown34 A long co ro cho 6 <br />
unknown37 sp.37 Unknown37 - 1 <br />
unknown39 sp.39 Unknown39 Car chual ko 1 <br />
unknown40 sp.40 Unknown40 - 1 <br />
unknown41 sp.41 Unknown41 A lô 1 <br />
Basketry/rope
Annex 3. Continued<br />
0 | Annexes<br />
No use<br />
Tools<br />
Recreation<br />
Ornamental/ritual<br />
Miscellaneous***<br />
Medicine<br />
Marketable item<br />
Light construction<br />
Hunting function<br />
Heavy construction<br />
Local name*<br />
Land<br />
Botanical name Family<br />
(Pahy/Vietnamese)<br />
type**<br />
unknown43 sp.43 Unknown43 Aruom 1 <br />
unknown45 sp.45 Unknown45 Mâl 1 <br />
unknown53 sp.53 Unknown53 A mư lân hát 2 <br />
unknown54 sp.54 Unknown54 - 2 <br />
unknown56 sp.56 Unknown56 A long pu lốt 2 <br />
unknown60 sp.60 Unknown60 Sắc 6 <br />
Basketry/rope<br />
Food<br />
Fodder<br />
Firewood<br />
*Further research is needed to improve the accuracy of the local names<br />
**Land types: 1=primary <strong>for</strong>est, 2=secondary <strong>for</strong>est, 3=plantation <strong>for</strong>est, 4=shrub land, 5=rice field, 6=garden<br />
***Miscellaneous: fertilizer, support stalk <strong>for</strong> growth of pepper, fabric dye, shampoo, charcoal to blacken teeth, incense and furniture polish
The <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>International</strong> <strong>Forestry</strong> <strong>Research</strong> (CIFOR) is a leading international <strong>for</strong>estry research<br />
organization established in 1993 in response to global concerns about the social, environmental, and economic<br />
consequences of <strong>for</strong>est loss and degradation. CIFOR is dedicated to developing policies and technologies<br />
<strong>for</strong> sustainable use and management of <strong>for</strong>ests, and <strong>for</strong> enhancing the well-being of people in developing<br />
countries who rely on tropical <strong>for</strong>ests <strong>for</strong> their livelihoods. CIFOR is one of the 15 Future Harvest centres of the<br />
Consultative Group on <strong>International</strong> Agricultural <strong>Research</strong> (CGIAR). With headquarters in Bogor, Indonesia,<br />
CIFOR has regional offices in Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon and Zimbabwe, and it works in over 30 other<br />
countries around the world.<br />
Donors<br />
The <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>International</strong> <strong>Forestry</strong> <strong>Research</strong> (CIFOR) receives its major funding from governments,<br />
international development organizations, private foundations and regional organizations. In 2005, CIFOR<br />
received financial support from Australia, Asian Development Bank (ADB), Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China,<br />
Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD), Cordaid,<br />
Conservation <strong>International</strong> Foundation (CIF), European Commission, Finland, Food and Agriculture Organization<br />
of the United Nations (FAO), Ford Foundation, France, German Agency <strong>for</strong> Technical Cooperation (GTZ), German<br />
Federal Ministry <strong>for</strong> Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Indonesia, <strong>International</strong> Development<br />
<strong>Research</strong> Centre (IDRC), <strong>International</strong> Fund <strong>for</strong> Agricultural Development (IFAD), <strong>International</strong> Tropical Timber<br />
Organization (ITTO), Israel, Italy, The World Conservation Union (IUCN), Japan, Korea, Netherlands, Norway,<br />
Netherlands Development Organization, Overseas Development Institute (ODI), Peruvian Secretariat <strong>for</strong><br />
<strong>International</strong> Cooperation (RSCI), Philippines, Spain, Sweden, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences<br />
(SLU), Switzerland, Swiss Agency <strong>for</strong> the Environment, Forests and Landscape, The Overbrook Foundation,<br />
The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Tropical Forest Foundation, Tropenbos <strong>International</strong>, United States, United<br />
Kingdom, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), World Bank, World Resources Institute (WRI) and<br />
World Wide Fund <strong>for</strong> Nature (WWF).
Decisions on land use in Vietnam are often only based on biophysical and economical<br />
assessments, with little consideration <strong>for</strong> the local people’s opinions or perspectives. This can<br />
lead to conflicts over natural resources management, unsustainable land use and decisions<br />
that are unfair to local people. In the landscape surrounding Khe Tran, a village in Central<br />
Vietnam lives a Pahy minority group. The driving <strong>for</strong>ce in this area has been different land<br />
use policies, resulting mainly from a government ‘top down’ approach, and the consequent<br />
changes in local <strong>for</strong>est status.<br />
The major activities <strong>for</strong> local livelihoods have shifted from swidden agriculture and high<br />
dependency on natural <strong>for</strong>ests, to more sedentary activities. Khe Tran is now situated in the<br />
buffer zone of a planned nature reserve and the government has encouraged the villagers<br />
to plant economic crops in the bare hills around the village. The people’s dependence on<br />
<strong>for</strong>est resources has significantly decreased, and most of the local knowledge about natural<br />
<strong>for</strong>ests may soon be lost. The main land covers around the village are now Acacia and rubber<br />
plantations, bare lands, and lands <strong>for</strong> agriculture.<br />
Local knowledge and perspectives are rarely taken into account by state institutions<br />
when implementing land allocation projects or making decisions on natural resource<br />
management and land use at the landscape level. There is opportunity to better in<strong>for</strong>m<br />
development agencies and involve local level stakeholders so that more sustainable<br />
decisions can be made. This book reports on what Khe Tran villagers find important in<br />
terms of environmental services and resources in their landscape. Our approach integrates<br />
multidisciplinary activities - through human and natural sciences- and explains the relative<br />
importance of landscape components, products and species <strong>for</strong> local people. It aims to<br />
better articulate local people’s priorities <strong>for</strong> the future, their hopes and values as well as<br />
their relationship with the conservation area.<br />
VIETNAM