58
LAO PDR
8 PFAs, 429,000 hectares; Bolikhamxay 11 PFAs, 359,000 hectares; and Xayaboury 13 PFAs, 350,000 hectares. Almost half of these ~1.55 million hectares have been
the subject of some kind of management planning with the largest areas in Savannakhet 7 PFAs, 327,000 hectares, Khammouane 6 PFAs, 309,000 hectares, Oudomxay
5 PFAs, 148,000 hectares and Xayaboury 7 PFAs, 105,000 hectares.
Without a clear legal basis for boundary location and management planning, these forests, with the exclusion of a few in Savannakhet and Khammouane, are not
under systematic management and there is little specific information available about them. It is known that forest fragmentation has increased, density has decreased
drastically and areas dominated by large trees and pole size trees have decreased, while areas containing only small trees have increased. In general the rate of
deforestation is high and seems to be accelerating. However, eight production forest areas are now in the process of official establishment according to PM Decree 59.
3. Brief History of Community Forestry in Production Forest
Management of Community Forestry or forest management based on local people’s participation has been tried in many countries over the past two decades.
The idea that the best way to attain sustainable forest management is by involving villagers is also catching on in Lao PDR. Altogether there are about ten projects in
Lao PDR dealing with community forestry not only with production forest but with conservation and tree plantations as well including small projects and case studies.
However, this paper focuses only on community forestry in production forest and the most important community forestry related activities and projects in Lao PDR are
briefly described below.
Overview of Villagers’ Participation in Production Forest Management
Villagers’ involvement in production forest management has already been piloted in Lao PDR in two major projects. The first project was the Lao-Swedish Forestry
Programme LSFP, which piloted in 1992-2000 for the first time with Lao PDR villagers’ participation in production forest management referred to as Joint Forest Management
JFM in Dong Kapho PFA 9,500 hectares in Savannakhet Province. The second project was the Forest Management and Conservation Project FOMACOP, which
piloted community forestry in production forests at a much larger scale 1995-2000 in the Dong Sithouane PFA 150,000 hectares in Savannakhet Province and in the
Dong Phousoi PFA 110,000 hectares in Khammouane Province and was supported by International Development Assistance IDA credit and a grant for technical
assistance from Finland.
For these two projects villagers were involved in many aspects of forest management including boundary demarcation, land use mapping and planning, forest
inventory work, management planning, harvesting, and selling products. Both projects trained personnel and produced a range of technical manuals and guidelines including
forest survey and management manuals.
Bouahong Sousath
59
Joint Forest Management JFM
Since 1992, the Lao-Swedish Forestry Program LSFP has been testing joint forest management JFM. LSFP intended to develop models for sustainable
forest management in the villages surrounding Dong Khapo Production Forest in Savannakhet. Its main concerns include the sharing of management
responsibilities, development of institutional capacity, mechanisms for involving local people in forest planning and management, and policies and procedures
for sustainable forest management. Also it concerns the implementation of forest management, including protection activities in the pilot forest areas. The joint
forest management component of the program cooperated with the forest extension and land-use planning components in undertaking land-use zoning,
forest land allocation, the preparation of village development plans, and forest and agricultural land management agreements.
JFM tested two different models. In Model 1, villagers were contracted to form a Joint Forest Management Association JFMA, which managed the forest
according to a management plan prepared by the Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office PAFO. The association organized the villagers for harvesting
activities. Under this model royalties and other taxes are paid to the Government. The District Forestry and Agriculture Office DAFO provides technical assistance
in the implementation of the plan.
In Model 2, the arrangements and involved parties were the same, but PAFO organized the harvesting and sale of timber, while villagers were contracted to
protect the forest and received an annual fee for their services in the form of a village development fund. Villagers were hired as labor for harvesting, nursery,
and enrichment planting work.
The JFM project adopted a learning-by-doing approach, which means that the JFM concept and its implementation are evolving all the time. Originally the
JFM experiment covered only state-controlled high forest. However, the village forests or village-used forests were not included in the production forest of Dong
Khaphor. The management of so-called village-used forests is closely linked to land allocation. Also, the focus is not only on the management of village forests,
but on all the land-uses within the village area as well as on general village development work, which is planned to be funded through timber revenues.
In terms of forest management systems, short-cutting cycles ranging from 5 to 10 years were used in the Forest Management and Conservation Project
FOMACOP with harvesting levels calculated based on forest inventory and forest stand growth studies, whereas a cutting cycle of 50 years was used in
Joint Forestry Management project of the Lao-Swedish Forestry Programme LSFP. The cutting cycle of 50 years was arrived at based on the planning
assumptions that 25 m
3
ha is the economical level of harvesting and that commercial trees in the stand would grow at 0.5 m
3
ha each year.
Forest Management and Conservation Program FOMACOP
FOMACOP was the largest project dealing with community forestry in production forests in Lao PDR in terms of resources and coverage. FOMACOP
was a national program that was implemented by the Department of Forestry of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, provincial and district forestry offices
and organized villagers. It had two sub-programs, Forest Management and National Biodiversity Conservation Area NBCA management.
60
LAO PDR
The objectives of the Forest Management Sub-program during the first phase in 1995-2000 were:
• To develop village forestry at the time of FOMACOP this type of
community forestry in production forest management was called village forestry systems and national guidelines for sustainable forest
management; •
To improve villagers’ and forestry staff’s ability to manage forests through comprehensive training at provincial, district and village levels;
• To assist in the allocation of forest lands to villagers and promote
sustainable village-based forest management in about ninety villages, covering more than 200,000 hectares in the Savannakhet and
Khammouane Provinces; •
To improve the living standards in the pilot areas through village forestry and village development projects; and
• To assist in developing a policy, legal and organizational framework for
village forestry and sustainable forest management. In the adopted village forestry model villagers organize themselves and
mobilize their resources and capacities to manage the designated forests in a sustainable manner in partnership with forestry staff. Villagers are the partners
of forest managers and government staff; they collect information needed for planning, as well as plan and implement within the regulatory framework. Forestry
staff members provide technical assistance and assist villagers in decision- making.
FOMACOP operated for five years and achieved the milestones listed below. •
Village forestry was introduced in 60 villages covering a total area of 145,000 hectares. All villages had production forests, but only 41 villages
had commercial production forests. •
In the 41 villages a total of 33 village forestry associations VFA were established; 29 of these associations were single-village village forestry
associations; three associations were multi-village village forestry associations.
• Forest management plans were formulated by the 33 village forestry
associations based on a model and training provided by forestry staff. The forest management plans covered an area of about 100,000 hectares
of both commercial and non-commercial production forests as well as other forest categories.
Lessons Learned from Trials Capacity Building and Successful Implementation
• Trained and motivated forestry staff demonstrated the capacity to work
with villagers in training them to conduct different forest management operations. Training proceeded in a series, with progress in successive
operations held only after the knowledge and skills learned during the preceding training operations were applied successfully.
• Trained and motivated villagers demonstrated a capacity to combine
indigenous knowledge with new knowledge and skills enabling them to conduct different forest management operations.
Bouahong Sousath
61 •
Villagers’ involvement in decision-making in all significant issues that relate to their participation in forest management operations, sharing of
benefits, and generation of livelihood provided a strong motivation for participation and performance.
Contribution to Revenue Collection and Rural Development
• Village-based forest management was seen to benefit, not only the rural
communities, but also the government, through more efficient collection of royalties and taxes, improved forest protection and sustainable
management, and enhanced economic development. •
Empowerment and accumulation of village capital from benefit-sharing has contributed to rural development through access road building, school
construction and so on.
Equity Issues between Villages and Conflict within Villages Over Fund Control
• The system produced more benefits for the villages with access to larger
and better forests and disputes occurred between villages concerning equitable allocation of forests.
• Conflicts occurred within villages as different sub-groups fight for control
over the association and its financial resources. •
Villagers paid most of their attention to harvesting logs and gaining revenues, and little to non-timber forest product management and tree
planting. •
Villages must be responsible for planning and use of village development funds and village forest revenue, but appropriate and transparent systems
must be in place for fund administration, accounting, and auditing.
Lack of Clear Legal Framework
• Lack of a clear legal framework concerning village participation in
production forest management in these pilot projects often led to frequent changes in policy matters log sales and so on. Local interpretation of
various rules and regulations set out in project documents also lead to disputes between concerned parties. There must be full understanding
by all parties of the nature of approved forest management plans and forest management agreements. These documents must have a legal
standing; specifying the rights, roles, responsibilities, and obligations of all participants, e.g., in participatory land use planning, forest inventory,
forest management, annual operational planning, timber sales, forest conservation, and participatory monitoring. These plans and agreements
may only be changed by negotiated consensus.
• Compliance monitoring programs must be established that can neutrally
evaluate the performance of all participants – government, villagers, and contractors – and can lead to enforcement of compliance with plans and
agreements by all participants. •
Equitable, fair and transparent conflict resolution mechanisms must be established to deal with complaints and grievances from all participants,
and must incorporate the legal authority to halt any disputed activity while the issue is being resolved.
62
LAO PDR •
The management agreement must specify how the partners will undertake annual negotiations on the net benefits to be shared, and what conflict
resolution mechanisms are to be used if the need should arise. •
Once the forest management plans and annual operational plans have been approved, they should not be subject to further interference or
change. Harvesting levels should be based on management plans and not on separate administrative quotas or permits.
Replicability Issue; High Costs of Village Forestry
• It was difficult to replicate village forestry in other villages even within the
project area without continued financial and technical assistance from outside. Costs for replication in other production forests would be
astronomical.
4. Participatory Sustainable Management of Production Forest
