42
Variations in the Implementation of Forest Tenure Policies
6
his section discusses research question three, concerning variations in the implementation of forest tenure policies between the two provinces. We focus on two major policies: FLA policies and forest beneit-sharing policies. Based
on primary data from the eight study villages and secondary data at the provincial level, we draw a comparison between the two study provinces and relate it to the national policy framework.
6.1 Forest Land Allocation Policies
As presented in Sub-Section 5.1, FLA policies appear to have difered signiicantly between the two provinces. Although national legal documents provide a framework for FLA throughout the country Box 1, these documents
were not referred to during FLA processes in the study villages of Hoa Binh province. Instead, the FLA process in these villages was based on Decree 64CP dated 27 September 1993, which concerned the allocation of agriculture
land to individual households.
Furthermore, the approaches applied during FLA were not entirely clear. Local households were given not only production forest and bare land for plantation, but also protection forest and natural forest. However, it was not
clear to the local people what legal rights they were entitled to, as there was a contradiction between the rights vested in the RBC and the word “contract” written on it see Sub-Section 5.1.1.
Box 9: Policy Ambivalence Regarding the Allocation of Natural Forests
Despite extensive eforts to allocate forest areas to local people, FLA policies of the 1990s were still ambiguous on what to do with natural forests with standing volume. While forestry land without forest cover i.e. bare land could be allocated to
local households with RBCs, it was unclear whether the same could be done with forestry land with forest cover or whether this land could only be contracted out. According to Article 3 of Decree 02CP, the allocation of state forestry land with
natural or plantation forest to households and individuals must be in accordance with the forest use and management plan approved by the competent state body. Article 12 of the decree, however, reads that forestry land without forest cover is
to be allocated with long-term land-use titles, while households receiving land with natural and plantation forest would be bound by contracts. Furthermore, Decree 01CP added to the ambiguity by emphasizing the allocation of forest land to local
users through contracts. With no clear and speciic direction given on granting land-use titles for forestry land with forest cover, state policies of the 1990s left much room for interpretation as to whether standing forests could be allocated with
titles to local users or should only be contracted out.
FLA in Dak Lak was quite diferent from Hoa Binh. Prior to the start of forest devolution programs, top country leaders visited the province. During the visit, provincial authorities received a “green light” to test the allocation
of natural forest to local people. Between 1998 and 1999, Dak Lak’s FLA program was based on Decree 02CP on allocation of forest to individual households. his initial phase of FLA also added an experimental element of issuing
RBC to natural forests to recipient households and had signiicant impacts on national FLA policies. Based on empirical evidence from Dak Lak, Decree 1631999ND-CP was issued, replacing Decree 02CP. Consequently, the
second phase of forest devolution in Dak Lak from the year 2000 followed the framework of Decree 163. During this phase, Dak Lak also added an experimental element of allocating forest land to household groups and whole
villages that did not exist under Decree 163. In 2005, the Government issued Decision 3042005QD-TTg. Since then, the forest devolution program in Dak Lak has also been based on this decision. In general, FLA processes in Dak Lak
served as a pioneer in devolving rights to natural forests with timber stock and granting forest land RBCs to local
43 people. his was quite an advance, as the national policies during the 1990s were ambivalent on what to do with
natural forests Box 9.
6.2 beneit-Sharing Policies
