Toolkit for the Identification of High Conservation Value Forest in Viet Nam

Transcription

1 Toolkit for the Identification of High Conservation Value Forest in Viet Nam DRAFT 1.2 Edited by Edward H B Pollard Hanoi May 2005

2 Acronyms and Glossary AAC ARCBC Basic Need Biodiversity Buffer zone CITES Centre of Plant Diversity Corridor DARD DONRE Ecoregion Annual Allowable Cut ASEAN Regional Center for Biodiversity Conservation Requirements for the economic or bio-psychological survival of an individual or a group The variety among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species and of ecosystems. Area surrounding a national park in which development is controlled to minimise impact on the park, and to support the conservation of biodiversity. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Areas identified by IUCN as having globally important concentrations of plant species. A forested link between two larger blocks of forest along which wildlife can travel Department for Agriculture and Rural Development Department of Natural Resources and the Environment Or ecological region is large area of relatively uniform climate that harbor a characteristic set of species and ecological communities. Endemic Bird Area Endemic species FLMEC FSC Global 200 Fundamental Importance HCV HCVF IBA IUCN KBA Keystone resources Keystone species MARD Natural Forest Areas that contain a concentration of endemic bird species. Specifically areas that contain the entire breeding ranges of two or more restricted-range bird species (those with a breeding range less than 50,000 km2) Species that are considered as those species that are geographically confined to one or more areas, large or small, within both Viet Nam and the Indochinese sub-region. Forest of the Lower Mekong Ecoregion Complex Forest Stewardship Council A list of the world s most biologically important ecoregions as defined by WWF. A forest service which, 1) contributes in the range of 15-20% to either the family monetary economy or the family diet and which can not be replaced by an easily implemented alternative, i.e., the use is not discretionary and/or, 2) whose loss or degradation would seriously impact the health and well-being of the users. High conservation value High conservation value forest Important Bird Area (sites of international importance for bird conservation) The World Conservation Union Key Biodiversity Area. (sites of international importance of conservation, defined because of their importance for species; KBAs include IBAs plus sites important for other taxonomic groups) Those resources that play a unique and important role in the ecosystem function and that their removal will result in a fundamental change in that system. Those species that play a unique and important role in the ecosystem function and that their removal will result in a fundamental change in that system. Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development Forest areas that are still made up of native species not artificially planted by man. They can be heavily degraded but still considered natural (as compared to plantation forest) i

3 NGO NTFP PA Plantation forest PRA ProForest Protection Forest RAMSAR Red List RIL RRA SFE SmartWood Special Use Forest Stakeholder TFT Umbrella species WCS WWF Non-governmental Organisation Non-timber forest product Protected area (National Park, Nature Reserve, Wildlife refuge etc) A man made forest usually planted with fast growing non-native species, eg Pinus spp, Eucalyptus spp. Participatory Rural Appraisal Forestry consultancy from England that produced the first global toolkit on HCVF Vietnamese forest use category with the principle objective of watershed protection. Internationally important wetland sites (defined according to global criteria set at the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance and named after the town in Iran where the convention was signed) A list of rare, threatened and endangered species created by national governments or the IUCN Reduced impact logging Rapid Rural Appraisal State Forest Enterprise A US based organisation that carries out FSC certification assessments and drafted the Indonesian HCVF toolkit Vietnamese forest use category including that includes National Parks, Nature reserves and other terrestrial protected areas Any person, group or agency that has interest in a forest area. Eg government agencies, local communities, international NGOs Tropical Forest Trust (an NGO) Those species whose needs may encapsulate the needs of the most other species Wildlife Conservation Society World Wildlife Fund i

4 Contents Acronyms and Glossary... i Introduction...1 What is High Conservation Value Forest?...1 High Conservation Value Forest and landscape planning...2 High Conservation Value Forest in South East Asia and Viet Nam...3 Development of a toolkit for Viet Nam...4 What is the toolkit?...5 How to use this toolkit...5 Resources...8 Precautionary Approach...8 HCV 1 : Forest areas containing significant concentrations of biodiversity values Protected Areas Threatened and Endangered Species Endemic Species Critical Temporal Use...15 HCV 2 : Forest areas containing significant large landscape level forests...16 HCV 3 : Forest areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems...18 HCV 4 : Forest areas that provide basic services of nature in critical situations : Forests critical to the maintenance and regulation of water sources : Forests critical to the prevention of erosion and sedimentation HCV 5 : Forest areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities...23 HCV 6 : Forest areas critical to local communities traditional cultural identity...26 Management of High Conservation Value Forest in Viet Nam...28 Monitoring of High Conservation Value Forest in Viet Nam...34 Appendices... I Appendix A : Sources of Information... I Appendix B : Method for the identification, management and monitoring of HCV5...V Appendix C : Drafting team & list of people contacted...xviii Maps...XX Tables Table 1 Thresholds for rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems...18 Table 2 List of basic needs and thresholds...24 Table 3 Possible cultural traits and thresholds...27 Table 4 Example threats and possible management strategies...32 Table 5 Identification of sub-groups within one village community...v Table 6 Fulfilment of basic needs... VII Table 7 Identifying fundamental forest resources... XI

5 Introduction What is High Conservation Value Forest? The concept of High Conservation Value Forest was developed initially in the context of forest certification. Principle 9 of the Forest Stewardship Council s principles and criteria for forest certification is used to give special recognition to forests that have a high conservation value and need special protection due to one or several features related to the attributes of the ecosystems, their environmental services and social values. Principle #9: Maintenance of high conservation value forests Management activities in high conservation value forests shall maintain or enhance the attributes which define such forests. Decisions regarding high conservation value forests shall always be considered in the context of a precautionary approach. 9.1 Assessment to determine the presence of the attributes consistent with High Conservation Value Forests will be completed, appropriate to scale and intensity of forest management. 9.2 The consultative portion of the certification process must place emphasis on the identified conservation attributes, and options for the maintenance thereof. 9.3 The management plan shall include and implement specific measures that ensure the maintenance and/or enhancement of the applicable conservation attributes consistent with the precautionary approach. These measures shall be specifically included in the publicly available management plan summary. 9.4 Annual monitoring shall be conducted to assess the effectiveness of the measures employed to maintain or enhance the applicable conservation attributes. (FSC 2004) In order to provide further guidance to forest managers FSC further went on to define High Conservation Value Forests as: those that possess one or more of the following attributes: HCV1 Forest areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values (e.g. endemism, endangered species, refugia). HCV2 Forest areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant large landscape level forests, contained within, or containing the management unit, where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution and abundance. HCV3 Forest areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems. HCV4 Forest areas that provide basic services of nature in critical situations (e.g. watershed protection, erosion control).

6 HCV5 Forest areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities (e.g. subsistence, health). HCV6 Forest areas critical to local communities traditional cultural identity (areas of cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance identified in cooperation with such local communities). Therefore a forest is an HCVF if it contains one or more of the above values. The key to this principle is the concept of values. HCVF is not concerned with the conservation of a single rare species or of community rights. The concept is more general than that and consequently harder to define. Values are more related to the function of a forest at a local, regional or global scale. These may be clear functions such as watershed protection or the maintenance of a food resource for local people. But it also includes more intrinsic elements such as a community of endemic species which may have no clear economic value but are important for the maintenance of the diversity of life. This has large consequences for management options. Management has to maintain or enhance the value, not preserve it. Therefore, for example, timber harvesting may be allowed on a critical watershed as long as it is done in a manner that does not affect the water control function of that area. Similarly operations may continue in areas of social value but the management must not negatively impact on the values deemed fundamental to the local communities. The ideas covered in HCVF are not new, there are many other tools for prioritising land for conservation or social importance but one of the reasons that HCVF has gained popularity is that in a relatively simple way it combines both environmental and social factors into one notion. The HCVF toolkit (ProForest 2003) puts it thus : This reflects the elegance of the concept, which has moved the debate away from definitions of particular forest types (e.g. primary, old growth) or methods of timber harvesting (e.g. industrial logging) to focus instead on the values that make a forest particularly important. By identifying these key values and ensuring that they are maintained or enhanced, it is possible to make rational management decisions that are consistent with the protection of a forest area s important environmental and social values. High Conservation Value Forest and landscape planning Although initially developed as part of forest certification HCVF is now also being used more widely as a tool for conservation planning. The values that are used to identify important forests in production forest are just as valid for identifying important forests at a landscape level. The toolkit has been amended slightly to accommodate this, principally by including values or issues that have are covered elsewhere in the FSC P&C. ProForest has also produced guidelines for the identification of HCVFs by conservation practitioners (ProForest 2004a, 2004b).

7 The ProForest guidelines HCVF for Conservation Practitioners (2004a) explain this approach most clearly : The HCVF approach provides exciting opportunities for conservation. It has been used both within the FSC system and more broadly. For example, the approach is increasingly being used for mapping and in conservation advocacy and natural resource planning. It is also being used in purchasing policies and recently has begun to appear in discussions and policies of government agencies. There are several reasons for this: It provides a way of ensuring that the world s most outstanding or critical forests are adequately maintained by sustainable forest management systems. Providing assistance to people who want to implement the concept is therefore a critical part of supporting sustainable forest management, especially FSC certification. The concept is widely acknowledged within the timber industry. As the concept derives from forest management standards it is becoming increasingly well known throughout all parts of the timber supply chain. Importantly, it is a concept that is applicable to all countries (although the details of exactly what an HCVF is will vary from country to country, depending on biological resources and social circumstances). This means that it is an effective communications tool that can be used to lever action on the ground. Timber retailers, manufacturers, suppliers (as well as donor and investment institutions) can all influence adoption of the HCVF approach by forest managers. HCVF provides a means of integrating a range of conservation approaches into a unified whole. Perhaps the most exciting feature of the concept of High Conservation Value Forest is that it is inclusive, and can provide a framework for applying the results of the many other important initiatives that seek to define key forest values. Conservation plans, studies or processes that identify forests of outstanding importance for biodiversity, environmental protection or for social and cultural values can be integrated in an over-arching process to define the High Conservation Values for a particular country or locality. At the same time, the HCVF approach has a strong emphasis on consultation and consensus, and so people and institutions can also be brought together through the process. The strong emphasis on consultation also means that decision makers can be reassured the HCVF approach will have a wide degree of support from different sectors of society. HCVF is consistent with many existing policies. These include the purchasing policies of individual companies (e.g. IKEA), the new World Bank forest policy and the commitment of EU countries with respect to protected areas. High Conservation Value Forest in South East Asia and Viet Nam To date (November 2004) there have been limited attempts to define local standards for HCVF in South-east Asia. There are currently only two country specific toolkits, for Indonesia and Lao PDR, both of which are still in the process of drafting, testing and

8 refining. Additionally an HCVF assessment has been carried out in the PITC forest management unit (FMU) in Malaysia. This was, however, carried out independent of the ProForest toolkit. HCVF is of relevance to Viet Nam where the ecological, environmental and social context warrants that most users of natural forest are operating in a HCVF. The concept, however, is new to Viet Nam and may lead to some confusion. This toolkit is designed to help stakeholders identify whether HCVF is present, and provide some guidance to how these areas can be managed and monitored. Development of a toolkit for Viet Nam. The HCVF toolkit (ProForest 2003) outlines 2 approaches to developing a national standard. A mutli-stakeholder, consensus based approach and a technical adaptation. The former is an in-depth process designed to develop a definitive standard using a wide range of stakeholders. The later is a more rapid approach using a smaller representative team to produce a practical working standard, but one that is not yet seen to have the status of a national standard. In Viet Nam there is currently need for any guidance, the technical adaptation was therefore considered an appropriate approach. At a later date this may then lead to a more thorough national standard. To create a working toolkit the first stage was a consultative workshop with diverse experts. ProForest (2003, part 2) recommend that a drafting team has the following attributes : Expertise: the expertise of the members of the group or team needs to cover the full range of topics included in the HCVF definition, including biological, environmental services and social aspects. Range of views: defining HCVF should always be based on the best available scientific information, but deciding on the threshold level at which a value becomes a High Conservation Value is inevitably a value judgment. The outcome will depend on the membership of the group. As a result, it is important to try to make sure that the membership represents an appropriate range of views and perspectives. Practical experience: it is very important that the group or team includes people with real, current, practical experience to ensure that the interpretation and accompanying guidance are appropriate, implementable and accessible to forest managers. This workshop took place in Hanoi on 15 th to 18 th November A list of participants is included in Appendix C : Drafting team & list of people contacted. Following the first drafting the toolkit was reviewed further by other experts and their input included. The toolkit was field tested in So Pai and Ha Nung SFEs (K Bang District, Gia Lai Province) from 8 th to 14 th May The results of this field test led to several more changes to the toolkit.

9 The Viet Nam toolkit is closely based on the Generic toolkit developed by ProForest (2003). The Indonesia and Laos PDR toolkits were also consulted as examples of working country standards, and many elements of them have been included in this toolkit. It is import to note that this is a living document. Many of the criteria are still in the process of being developed. As more information is obtained the criteria can be improved and made more specific. This toolkit will be continuously updated through several more iterations before a national standard is improved. Feedback and comments are actively sought on how this toolkit can be improved. Please send them to the editors, Edward Pollard (ehbpollard@gmail.com) and Fergus MacDonald (fergus@wwfvn.org.vn ). What is the toolkit? The Viet Nam HCVF toolkit is a guide book for the identification of HCVF in Viet Nam. This document provides a simple but robust framework to be used for the identification of High Conservation Value forest. It can be used by any stakeholders interested in determining where there is HCVF present in a given area. There are a number of potential uses for this toolkit (adapted from ProForest 2003): 1. Use by forest managers and certifiers and purchasers Forest managers can carry out evaluations on their forest areas to determine whether any of the defined HCVs are present within their production forest area. Forest managers can integrate HCV identification and management into their overall forest management planning and activities. Certifiers would also utilise the defined national set of HCVs for carrying out assessments in their evaluation of compliance with certification requirements on specific forest management units. Purchasers implementing HCVF policies can utilise landscape-level and SFE level information about the presence of HCVs in setting precautionary purchasing policies. 2. Use by landscape planners trying to prioritise different land uses Defined HCVs can be used to draw up landscape-level plans and maps to show actual or potential HCVF. Such maps could then be used to inform and prioritise land-use planning decisions and conservation planning. 3. Use by investors and donors Investors and donors are increasingly concerned to provide safeguards to ensure that investments or donations do not promote socially or environmentally irresponsible actions from potential recipients. By concentrating on the most critical environmental and social values, the HCVF framework provides a potential mechanism for ensuring that donors and investors fulfil their own environmental and social policies. 4. Policy Development The definition of national HCVs can guide policy restructuring for forestry or land use planning. The HCVF concept can form a simple but robust framework for the future planning on Viet Nam s forest resources but for this to happen it will need to be included in national or local legislation. How to use this toolkit. The toolkit is designed to be used in any landscape or forested area. It is based on the biological and sociological situation and need not be strictly limited by current land classifications in Viet Nam. The main uses that are foreseen are in Production Forest areas

10 for the purpose of meeting P9 of FSC, and for analysis of a landscape to set priorities and rationalise land use. It could however be used in any forest area, at any scale, from a small community forest to a large Special Use Forest or Protection Forest. The first stage in any HCVF analysis is to define the scale you are working at. If this toolkit is being used to identify HCVF in an SFE, for the purposes of FSC P9, this task is relatively easy. The scale of assessment is the SFE, the bordering land, and the neighbouring communities. The assessment determines which HCVs are present in the SFE. If the toolkit is being used as a landscape analysis tool, however, defining the scale and using the toolkit can be harder. The landscape scale may be defined by a large matrix of forests, or by political boundaries. It is vitally important that this is clear before the assessment is started. Where possible maps should be available of the landscape in question. Ideally maps should show forest cover, land use, rivers, infrastructure and villages. This graphical representation of the landscape will be a great aid. Whilst performing the HCVF assessment at a landscape level one must ask the questions outlined below for the whole area, and then specify in greater detail which HCVs are present where within the landscape. This may involve assessing HCVF in each forest block in the landscape. In the sections below each of the 6 values are covered in greater detail. A description of the value is provided, along with a rational as to why it should be considered important. For each value there is a series of questions that should be asked by users of this document when assessing whether HCVF is present. Where possible these take the form of yes/no questions that lead users to determine whether defined thresholds have been met. These thresholds are key to the identification of HCVF. They are the point, or level at which a value becomes important enough to be considered of high conservation value. Only if this final threshold is reached will the area be considered HCVF. Previous toolkits have provided a 2 stage system. A preliminary assessment to determine if HCVFs might be present, and a full assessment to define exactly what values are present and where. The Viet Nam toolkit does not follow this system. This toolkit only provides a full assessment. This single stage process has been adopted for two main reasons : To save time and resources. In many cases stakeholders wishing to identify HCVFs do not have much time, money or expertise. In order to facilitate the activities the process has been simplified. In the course of the workshop and other consultations it emerged that it is highly likely that all natural forest in Viet Nam and especially those that are relatively less disturbed will contain one or more of the values. This is due to the high levels of biological diversity and endemism in Viet Nam s forest, the rapid forest loss in recent decades and current threats to forest, and the high degree of forest resource use by many communities living in or near forest areas.

11 The generic toolkit further sub-divided Values 1 and 4 into several elements. These are distinctive characteristics of the value and each of them needs to be assessed. The presence of any one of them indicates that the area is HCVF. Values 5 and 6 are harder to define. The high ethnic diversity, and great variation in livelihood strategies, in Viet Nam make it impossible to give a definitive thresholds for all situations. For these values the key process is consultation with the local communities. Guidance is provided on what elements of forest use should be investigated, and thresholds of what is critical or fundamental levels of use have been provided in many cases. Appendix B : Method for the identification, management and monitoring of HCV5 provides a methodology developed with the Indonesia toolkit (SmartWood 2003). This is a convenient tool to determine the degree of dependence on forest resources. It is recommended that this tool also be used in Viet Nam to help identify the presence of HCV5. The final sections of the toolkit deal with management and monitoring. It is not within the scope of the toolkit to give detailed instructions on how to manage and monitor HCVF. Some general information on the sort of approach to management is provided. Background is also provided on how to set up monitoring programs and the need for adaptive management. Finally appendices are provided with information and further guidance. Lists of important species, the social values tool and a list of experts is included. In the application of this toolkit it is essential to consult with a wide range of experts and stakeholders. This is clearly most important when dealing with the social values 4 6. It is impossible to know of the importance of these values without consultation with local communities. Similarly ecology and social science experts, government and nongovernmental organisations and local people can, and should be consulted during the development of appropriate management strategies. High conservation values are by definition of local, national and global importance. Local, national and global stakeholders should, therefore, be included in the process. One of the strengths of HCVF and something that distinguishes it from other similar prioritisation exercises is the way that it combines biological, environmental and social values and looks at the area in a more holistic manner. This gives it considerable utility in helping to design integrated plans. It is essential that the users, and assessment team consult with all relevant stakeholders. In order that this tool is not seen as another assessment carried out by outsiders it should be carried out in as participatory nature as possible. Stakeholder groups should be encouraged to carry out their own assessment, independently or as part of the process together with other stakeholders. The team can supply expertise and information to help form decisions and facilitate the process. This should help develop a sense of ownership and encourage take up of the results. This process can catalyse a process where land managers consider the environment as a whole and appreciate the multiple values of forests in Viet Nam. It may also be one of the first times that various stakeholder groups have sat down together and considered these issues.

12 Resources The resources needed to complete an assessment are relatively modest and can depend on the size of the area. In general however some resources will be needed for all analyses. Team : this should consists of both ecologists and social scientists. Preferably these should have expertise in the area of forest in question. This is especially important for the social scientists who should have experience in participatory consultation methods. The team should also include representatives of the land manager or agency who s forest is being assessed ie SFE staff, DARD or DONRE staff, local villagers etc. Additional team expertise that can help, but is not essential would include a mapping/gis expert and a hydrologist. Time : The amount of time needed is dependant on the size of the area, the number of villages, the amount of data already available and the degree of thoroughness one wants to take. Some things will need to be considered however. Time must be spent with stakeholders at the beginning and end of any work to explain the process and the results. The ecology experts will need to spend some time in the field looking for values, but most of this information could be obtained for secondary sources. The social science experts on the other hand will need to visit each community likely to use the forest area. At least one day of consultation will be needed per village to gather the bare minimum of information. Other resources : In the preparation and completion of any HCVF analysis access to written and on-line resources would be a great help. Maps of land cover, land use, villages, infrastructure, topography, sites of socio-cultural importance will also be extremely useful. Precautionary Approach. One important component in the identification, management and monitoring of HCVF is the concept of the precautionary approach. This is a factor in FSC certification, but is also more generally applicable. HCVFs are, by definition, the most important forests from a conservation or social perspective (depending on the HCVs identified). Therefore, it is critically important that the values identified are not lost. But with the current level of knowledge about forests and how they function, it is not possible to be sure in every case that a particular management strategy will work. Therefore, it is essential to use the precautionary approach when dealing with HCVFs. In practice, this means: Planning, management activities and monitoring of the attributes that make a forest a HCVF should be designed, based on existing scientific and indigenous/traditional knowledge, to ensure that these attributes do not come under threat of significant reduction or loss of the attribute and that any threat of reduction or loss is detected long before the reduction becomes irreversible. Where a threat has been identified, early preventive action, including halting existing action, should be taken to avoid or minimise such a threat despite lack of full scientific certainty as to causes and effects of the threat (FSC Principle 9 Advisory Panel, 2000).

13 The Indonesia toolkit (SmartWood 2003) included the following pertinent advice on the precautionary approach. The precautionary approach operates both when identifying HCVs and when managing already identified HCVs, eg: Assessing the presence of HCVFs: where doubt exists as to whether an attribute, or collection of attributes, are sufficient to signify HCVs, then the toolkit user will treat these attributes as HCVs, until information proves otherwise. This should occur when users and regional and national experts lack sufficient information to make an informed judgment. Managing and monitoring HCVs: where doubt exists as to the appropriate management of the HCV, management should include applying treatments to the HCV at a scale and intensity that does not threaten the HCV before applying the management more generally within the forest area.

14 HCV 1 : Forest areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values. This value is concerned with the maintenance of biodiversity. In order to qualify as HCVF however, an area has to contain an unusually high concentration of biodiversity. Since it is often time consuming and expensive to assess what species are present, and whether this constitutes a concentration of biodiversity, several sub elements have been defined that act as indicators of high levels of biodiversity values 1. Previous studies have shown that the forests of Viet Nam have high levels of biodiversity values. The Conservation International Hotspots, and WWF Global 200 ecoregions in particular have both identified all, or large parts of Viet Nam as globally important for biodiversity. Both exercises also noted that natural habitats were under high threat of degradation and species loss. HCV 1.1 : Protected Areas In most countries protected areas (PAs) have been designed to protect biodiversity. This is also the case in Viet Nam. These can therefore be seen as an indicator of this value. A protected areas network is vital for the conservation of biodiversity values. A forest located next to a protected area, that is still in a similar condition to the protected area, is likely to possess many of the traits that make the area special. If biodiversity Values are present in the PA then they are most likely to also be present in adjacent forests. HCV 1.2 : Threatened and Endangered Species Forests regularly supporting significant numbers of threatened and endangered species are generally seen to have high biodiversity values. Forests that contain a great many such species can be used as an indicator of a concentration of biodiversity. In many situations detailed knowledge of what species are present is not available. In these situations other indicators are used, such as previous prioritisation programs (eg Important Bird Areas, Key Biodiversity Areas) In some circumstances the presence of single species is enough to constitute the value. These are species that are critically endangered and their conservation is of vital importance. HCV 1.3 : Endemic Species Endemic species are species that are confined to a restricted geographical range (eg a single mountain chain, island or country). Conservation of endemic species is an important part 1 It is important to distinguish between biodiversity and biological diversity. Biological diversity is a simply a measure of the diversity of species present. It is value neutral and there are several mathematical formula for calculating diversity as a function of species richness and abundance of these species. Biodiversity on the other hand considers more that just species diversity, it considers many levels of organisation, and also factors such as rarity. With biodiversity more is not always better.

15 of biodiversity conservation. The regular occurrence of significant numbers of endemic species constitutes a high conservation value. In may situations a detailed list of all species is not available, indicators such as Endemic bird areas, and the areas of special floristic interest defined by Schmid (1989) can be used. Some areas of Viet Nam are noted for their high levels of endemism, there are many endemic species in one area. The presence of a single known endemic species could be an indicator that many other endemic species may be present that have not yet been noted. Some species are not strictly endemic to Viet Nam alone, but have populations in neighbouring countries. For example the Saola (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis) is found mainly in Viet Nam but there are some populations across the border in Lao PDR. These species are equally important as country endemics. Here these species are termed near-endemics. HCV 1.4 : Critical Temporal Use Many species are dependant on specific locations or habitats at certain periods of their lifehistory. Conservation of these sites is important for the conservation of these species. Sites that are critical to a population are HCVF. If these sites are lost it would have a serious impact on the survival of those species locally or globally. Sites that support important congregations of migratory birds such as the Sarus crane (Grus antigone) or Black-faced spoonbill (Platalea minor) are the most famous examples of this HCV, but it may also include migratory populations of mammals such as elephant (Elephas maximus). Instructions to user. 1.1 Protected Areas Question Answer Guidance : Is the forest area an existing or proposed protected area? Yes If you are conducting a landscape analysis all actual or proposed national and provincial protected areas are HCVF. Protected areas include all Special use forests designated for biological/ecological reasons : Is the forest near a PA? No If no go to question Yes No Go to question Note that protected areas also exist in neighbouring countries. Location next to or near a PA in another country should be evaluated. Near is subjective and needs to be justified This element is not present 2 This does not include special use forest designated for historical or cultural reasons. These however may be considered in HCV5 or HCV6.

16 1.1.3 : Is the forest of a similar character to the PA? : Does the forest area border a PA or located in the buffer zone? : Does the forest form part or all of an actual or potential natural forest corridor between two PAs? Yes No Yes No Yes No For example, is the forest of similar forest types, in nearly natural condition, in the same landscape, of a reasonable size (> 350 Ha). Go to question This element is not present The forest is HCVF This element is not present, go to question The forest is HCVF This element is not present

17 1.2 Threatened and Endangered Species Question Answer Guidance : Are there many species Yes listed as vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered on the IUCN red list found in the forest area? : Is there a population of a single IUCN critically endangered species in the forest area? : Is the forest area in good condition? : Is the forest area located in region previously noted for it s biodiversity importance (or meet the criteria for inclusion as IBA or KBA)? The forest is HCVF. Many is slightly objective. It may depend on the forest type and location. A yes answer will need to be justified. Go to No This element is not present. Go to question Yes The forest is HCVF. Go to No Yes No Yes No This element is not present. Go to question For example natural forest, with low levels of disturbance and fragmentation. If yes go to question This element is not present The forest is HCVF. Look for over lap with Important bird areas, key biodiversity areas, FLMEC priority landscapes. This element is not present Note : each of the criteria for a concentration of rare species (ie international lists, prior assessment) need to be considered. Looking at each category and defining the results will help clarify the situation and is essential to developing management strategies suitable for the area. 1.3 Endemic Species Question Answer Guidance : Is the forest area in good condition? Yes For example reasonable size, natural forest, with low levels of disturbance and fragmentation. A yes answer will need to be justified. If yes go to question and : Has a single endemic or near endemic species been recorded in the forest area? No This element is not present Yes If yes the area is HCVF. Appendix A : Sources of Information provides a list of good sources of information. Justification needs to be given to confirm the record. Eg how long ago and by whom was the record made No This element is not present. Go to question 1.3.3

18 1.3.3 : Is the forest area located in a region previously identified as having high endemism? Yes No The areas is HCVF. Examples include Endemic bird areas, and plant endemic areas as identified by Schmidt (1989). It is also recommended that further work is done to confirm the presence of endemic species. This element is not present

19 1.4 Critical Temporal Use Question Answer Guidance : Are there food resources /salt licks/ wetlands / migratory populations present at some point or time in the forest area? Yes No If yes go to question Information on this can be obtained from local people, employees or previous surveys. This element is not present. Go to : Is the resource critical to survival of a biological population or community? Is the area an actual or proposed Ramsar site? Yes No Yes No question The area is HCVF. To determine whether an area is critical it is important to consult with experts. A list of possible sources is provided in Appendix A : Sources of Information This element is not present The area is HCVF. Sources of information on Ramsar is provided in Appendix A : Sources of Information This element is not present

20 HCV 2 : Forest areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant large landscape level forests, contained within or containing the management unit, where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution and abundance. This value is concerned less with species but more with large scale forests. With recent levels of fragmentation and deforestation in South-east Asia landscape level forests are becoming increasingly rare. This value aims to identify and maintain large forests that may contain viable populations of all (or most) species, but also aims to maintain the forest ecosystem. This includes characteristics such as natural regeneration and succession, and habitat diversity. This value aims to identify forest that are still in a basically forest capable of sustaining full biotic communities. These are forests that are relatively undisturbed by recent anthropogenic activities such as plantations, industrial harvesting of timber, farming encroachment, and road building. In tropical forests it is nearly impossible to know whether an area is big enough to support viable populations of all species. Very little is currently known on what is a viable population of well known species such as tiger, let alone obscure ones such as snails or fungi. In order to define those that constitute HCVF two characteristics need to be considered : actual forest area, AND the presence of umbrella species. These are species that are dependant on large areas of low disturbance forest and are therefore indicators of a landscape level forest. It is important to note two things. Landscape level forests: Are not defined by administrative or political boundaries. They are defined by forest cover. When looking for landscape level forests do not limit your area of analysis to a particular SFE or country. Throughout Viet Nam the landscape is a matrix of forest types. Landscape level forests are concerned with the matrix of natural forest types. For example dry dipterocarp forest with strips of evergreen forest along water ways. Both these forest types should be viewed together as integral components of landscape level forest.

21 Instructions to user Question Answer Guidance 2.1 : Is the forest part of continuous forest area? Yes Go to question 2.2. Information on forest cover can be obtained from maps, and remote sensing 2.2 : Is the whole forest block in nearly natural condition? 2.3 : Is the entire forest matrix larger than 10,000 ha? 2.4 : Is there a population of an umbrella species? No Yes No Yes No Yes No The value is not present Go to question 2.3. This refers to low levels of disturbance from logging, farming or defoliants etc. The forest is relatively un-fragmented compared to other forest in the region. The forest matrix is all natural forest The value is not present. Go to question 2.4. Information on forest area can be gleaned from maps and remote sensing The Value is not present If 2.3 AND 2.4 are yes, the area is HCVF. Information on what may be considered umbrella species and their presence can be obtained from experts, previous surveys, or local knowledge. The precautionary approach must be used when assessing the presence of these species. Justification must be given as to why the species chosen is considered an umbrella species in that location, and what evidence there is for its presence. See below other questions The value is not present Other questions: If the forest is HCVF the toolkit user must ask several more questions. These will not change the status as HCVF but will be important in developing management and monitoring programs 1 Is the forest block across an international border? If yes it may be necessary to develop cross border links to maintain the value. 2 Is the forest you are looking at part of, or the entire landscape level forest? For example many SFEs have forest cover of less than 10,000 Ha. In themselves they will not contain this value. They may however be part of a larger block. Management strategies must consider this. 3 If part of a large block, what proportion of the large block is made up from the forest area you are concerned with?

22 HCV 3 : Forest areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems. This value is also concerned with ecosystems. It is not looking at the presence of specific species or at the scale of the forest. This value is designed to ensure that rare and threatened ecosystems are adequately conserved, even if they do not in themselves contain many rare species, or are on a landscape level. It is important to note that this value considers two things : Ecosystems that are naturally rare, but may not necessarily be under threat. Cloud forests for example are confined to high mountain tops. These areas may be restricted to only a few of the highest peaks in a Viet Nam Ecosystems that are under great threat, globally, regionally or nationally. These are forest areas that are threatened from destruction but may have at one time been very widespread. Lowland evergreen forests in South-east Asia for example are highly threatened from unsustainable logging, and conversion. Limestone forest is relatively well represented in Viet Nam, and under relatively low threat. Globally however limestone karst forest are relatively unusual and in some cases threatened by quarrying or wildfires. Many different forest types have been identified in Viet Nam. Each of these has been assessed to determine how rare and threatened these are. Instructions to user. Question Answer Guidance 3.1 : Is one of forest types listed below (Table 1) found in the forest area? Yes See list below. Knowledge of forest types can be found from maps, and previous surveys. Got to question : Does the forest condition match the threshold below (Table 1)? No Yes No The value is not present If yes the area is HCVF. Consult the table below. Information available from FIPI and other experts. The value is not present Table 1 Thresholds for rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems (If the forest type of is in the listed condition the area is HCVF) Forest type Montane evergreen Natural Coniferous forest Limestone karst forest Mangrove Forest Forest Condition Good condition, large area. NB Fokienia hodginsii Good condition, part of matrix of XXXX Ha All forest of this type regardless of area or condition. All over 100 Ha

23 Forest type Xeric dune forest Lowland evergreen Dry Dipterocarp forest Freshwater Swamp Semi-evergreen Forest Condition All forest of this type regardless of area or condition. All forest of this type in forest wholly or part of blocks of over 2,000 Ha Good condition large area All forest of this type regardless of area or condition. Good condition large area These classifications are based on two criteria. The forest type is based on the phenology, geology, hydrology and elevation of the area, whereas the forest status is determined by the area occupied and the level of disturbance. The latter is used as a proxy for forest condition. For an area to be HCVF the condition of the forest has to be assessed using the forest status data. For example Lowland evergreen forest is considered rare enough in Viet Nam that all of that forest type is considered HCVF assuming that it is part of forest block large enough to remain ecologically viable. Montane evergreen forest on the other hand is relatively widespread and not threatened. For this to be considered HCVF it has to be in reasonably good condition. [NOTE : In this DRAFT the thresholds for value 3 have been only weakly defined. Further consultation is needed to create clearer, more user friendly guidelines. Particularly as to what is considered good, condition, high conservation value forest for these forest type]

24 HCV 4 : Forest areas that provide basic services of nature in critical situations. This value is concerned with environmental services of forests, their role in regulating climate, water flow and other essential services of nature. In recognition of the diverse ways in which forests perform these functions HCV 4 is divided into several elements, all of which need to be assessed to determine whether and area is HCVF HCV 4.1 : Forests critical to the maintenance and regulation of water sources for drinking, irrigation. Forests play a critical role in controlling water flow and supply. This can be on a large scale where whole valleys and catchments regulate the flow of water into river systems. But this element should also be seen on the small scale where a forest area might represent the only source of drinking and cooking water for a community. Loss of the forest cover may irreparably damage the water supply. A key word here is critical. An area is only HCVF if the water supply or catchment is essential. Loss of this water supply will have drastic impacts on a community or communities. HCV 4.2 : Forests critical to the prevention of landslide, flash floods, soil erosion and sedimentation. Forests play a roll in stabilising land. The vegetation cover can reduce the direct erosion from rain fall, and the binding of roots and plant matter can secure soils preventing landslides. This too can be viewed at two scales. A large scale where erosion and the silting up of river and irrigation systems can effect agriculture, fisheries and marine ecosystems. On a local scale forest cover may prevent landslides and the erosion of farming or residential land, the cutting of communications (roads, power, phones, etc), or the filling up of irrigation structures.

25 Instructions to user [NOTE : In this FIRST DRAFT the thresholds for value 4 have been only weakly defined. Further consultation is needed to create clearer, more user friendly guidelines. In this DRAFT suggested indicators are given and much more input is requested] 4.1 : Forests critical to the maintenance and regulation of water sources for drinking, irrigation & power generation. Possible indicators / sources of information : Location of habitation along water course. Yield, quality, regulatory capacity watershed. Number of users. Irrigation capacity. National categories of Watershed importance. Question Answer Guidance : Is the area defined as Protection Forest in Viet Nam Yes All Protection Forest is HCVF. Go to Information on this can be obtained from maps and FIPI : Are any compartments in the SFE designated as protection forest : Does a village or community get > 90 % of it s water for drinking/cooking, household use and irrigation from a single, or few, sources in the forest area No Go to Yes All Protection Forest is HCVF. Go to Information on this can be obtained from maps and FIPI No Go to Yes No Forest for a radius of 200m surrounding the source / spring is HCVF. Information on this can be obtained from consultation with local communities. 4.2 : Forests critical to the prevention of landslide, flash floods, soil erosion and sedimentation. Possible indicators / sources of information : Slope/relief/topography Land cover Geology Water flow distribution Rainfall level, distribution and run off Soil type Frequency of flood Flood peak level Question Answer Guidance : Is the soil type surrounding a village or settlement of a highly erodable nature? Yes No Go to [note, susceptible soil types need to be identified] Go to 4.2.4

26 Question Answer Guidance : Is the land surrounding a Yes settlement on a steep gradient? : Will erosion of this land have a critical impact on the settlement? : Does the river flow out to critical fisheries or coral reefs? : Is the forest area designated as coastal protection forest? No Yes Go to [note, steep needs to be defined. Eg > 40%] The area is HCVF. This may be a subjective decision. It will need to be justified. Go to No Go to Yes Ridges, mountain tops and steep slopes in the river basin are HCVF No Go to Yes All coastal protection Forest is HCVF. Information on this can be obtained from maps and FIPI

27 HCV 5 : Forest areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities. Adapted from SmartWood (2002): HCV5 applies only to basic needs. For example, for a community that derives a large part its protein from hunting and fishing in forests where there is no alternative source of meat or fish, the forests would constitute a HCV. If, in another forest, people hunted largely for recreational purposes (even if they did eat their catch) and where they were not dependent upon hunting, then this would not constitute a HCV. A forest may have HCV status if local communities obtain essential fuel, food, fodder, medicines, or building materials from the forest, without readily available alternatives. In such cases, the High Conservation Value is specifically identified as one or more of these basic needs. Employment, income and products are values that should be conserved if possible, without prejudice to other values and benefits. However, HCVs do not include excessive extraction, even when communities are currently economically dependent on it. Nor do they include the excessive application of traditional practices, when these are degrading or destroying the forests and the other values present in the forest. The following would not be considered HCVs: Forests providing resources of minor importance to local communities. Forests that provide resources that could readily be obtained elsewhere or that could be replaced by substitutes. Forests that provide resources that are being extracted at unsustainable levels by the local community. Forests that provide resources that can only be obtained in a way that threatens the maintenance of other HCVs. HCV5 is determined by actual reliance on the forest of communities (even when this reliance is only occasional, as in the case of forests providing food in times of famine), rather than a future or potential situation. In Viet Nam, communities living in and around forest areas have a varying degree of dependency on forest resources depending on their origin, their history, the influence of external parties such as traders, companies or government, as well as their access to markets and agricultural technologies. Indigenous communities living in isolated areas usually have a high degree of dependency to the forest. However, even migrant communities may become dependant on the forest if, for example, they harvest timber or non-timber forest products and make it part of their livelihood.

28 Instructions to Users Identification of this value is different from the identification of the previous values. Identification of HCV5 is totally reliant on consultation with local communities, and with other experts. A tool for the assessing the importance of forest resources for basic needs is included in Appendix B : Method for the identification, management and monitoring of HCV5. Question Answer Guidance 5.1 : Are there communities living in or near the forest area? Yes Go to 5.2. Guidance on this can be found from maps, local knowledge, Government statistics, NGOs and committee for ethnic minorities. Vietnamese Academy of Social Sciences (Anthropology Institute, Folk Literature Institute). 5.2 : Do the communities use the forest for their basic needs 3? 5.3 : Are the basic needs fundamental 4 for the local communities? No Yes No Yes No This value is not present Go to 5.3. A list of basic needs is provided below (Table 2) This value is not present The forest area containing these resources is HCVF. A tool for assessing importance is included in Appendix B : Method for the identification, management and monitoring of HCV5. Other possible tools include standard RRA or PRA methods The value is not present Table 2 List of basic needs and thresholds Basic Need Food Medicine Fuel Construction Material Income Animal Fodder Threshold > 30% from forest > 80% from forest 100 % from forest > 80% from forest > 40 %. From sustainable sources 3 "Basic needs" is interpreted by FSC as requirements for the economic or bio-psychological survival of an individual or group. 4 Fundamental is interpreted by FSC as a forest use which contributes in the range of 15-20% to either the community monetary economy or the community diet and which can not be replaced by an easily implemented alternative, i.e., the use is not discretionary. It can also imply a symbolic or aesthetic use whose loss would seriously impact the cultural identity of the users.

29

30 HCV 6 : Forest areas critical to local communities traditional cultural identity. From ProForest(2003) As well as being essential for subsistence and survival, forests can be critical to societies and communities for their cultural identity. This value is designed to protect the traditional culture of local communities where the forest is critical to their identity, thereby helping to maintain the cultural integrity of the community. A forest may be designated a HCVF if it contains or provides values without which a local community would suffer an unacceptable cultural change and for which the community has no alternative. This should include both people living inside forest areas and those living adjacent to it as well as any group that regularly visits the forest. Instructions to users Identification of HCV6 is dependant on consultation with communities and other stakeholders. Consultations need to define cultural identity and then determine whether the forest area is critical to this. The difference between having some significance to cultural identity and being critical will often be a difficult line to draw and as with meeting basic needs, the way in which it is established will be highly variable. Ultimately, only consultation with the communities in question will resolve the question of whether any given forest is critical to their cultural identity. Some groups may not be available for consultation, either because of access, or because they refuse contacts with outsiders. If there is clear evidence that the local communities may consider the forest to be of cultural significance, but where consultation is not possible, then the precautionary approach implies that it must be assumed to be a HCV. Question Answer Guidance 6.1 : Are there communities living in or near the forest area? Yes Go to 6.2. Guidance on this can be found from maps, local knowledge, Government statistics, NGOs and committee for ethnic minorities, Vietnamese Academy of Social Sciences (Anthropology Institute, Folk Literature Institute) : Do the communities use the forest for their cultural identity? 6.3 : Is the area critical to cultural identity? No Yes No Yes No This value is not present Go to 6.3. A list of some cultural traits is provided below This value is not present The forest area containing these resources is HCVF. The value is not present

31 Possible cultural characters include : Cultural / religious events / celebrations in the forest Existence of non-object values related to forests : poems, songs, legends, dances etc Cultural activities using forest resources Important historical or spiritual sites and objects in the forest Sacred trees or animals. Traditional customary law regarding the use of forest areas and products Indigenous knowledge of plants and animals Other things to consider when assessing whether a cultural characteristic is critical : Frequency of the activity Which community members are involved and their role in the society. Table 3 Possible cultural traits and thresholds Cultural trait When change to a forest can potentially cause an irreversible change to traditional local culture, then the forest should be designated a HCVF. Critical forest may include areas: - Well established and agreed community protected forest areas (protecting sense of selfgovernance) - Pristine/virgin forest areas where no viable alternative pristine areas exist (protecting sense of remoteness, history of hunting/gathering/travelling in virgin areas) - Specific areas considered sacred or perceived to have spiritual/supernatural connections, such as altars or protected graveyards - Specific areas that have historically been actively governed and regulated - Specific areas with remnants from the past linked to the identity of an ethnic group, such as statues, megaliths, temples, graveyards, etc. Several forests may be culturally important to local communities, but not all will be critical. Non-critical forest areas may include areas: - Recently established (less than 2 generations or 15 years) protected and sacred areas - Forest areas used by recently established villages (less than 2 generations) or communities that frequently move following exhaustion of agricultural land Threshold If forest areas are determined to be critical to a community s culture and when changes to a specific forest can cause irreversible change to culture, then the forest area will be designated as HCVF. When forests are culturally important to local communities, but particular forest areas are determined to be noncritical, the forest area will not be considered as an HCVF.

32 Management of High Conservation Value Forest in Viet Nam The identification of High Conservation Value Forest is only the first stage of the process. In many ways the management of HCVF is far more important. It is beyond the scope of this toolkit to go into great detail about suitable management strategies. This is a large and potentially complex topic. Some information and guidance is given below on the stages users should go through to develop and implement appropriate management of HCVF in Viet Nam Some more detailed guidance is contained in the ProForest toolkit (2003), and The Nature Conservancy Indonesia Program is in the process of drawing up a comprehensive guide to managing HCVF in Borneo, which will contain some information relevant to Viet Nam. 5 The most important factor when designing management strategies for HCVF is that they must enhance or maintain the value. Therefore, it is of vital importance to understand the nature of the values present, what their current condition is, what threats their may be, and to design management regimes that address these issues. Users must always be refer back to the value when thinking of management. For example if the value is HCV 4, and an area is an important water catchment, management must simply maintain or enhance the watershed. It is therefore possible that some resource may take place in the area, as long as it does not alter the water catchment properties of the forest. There are some general stages that should be followed in the development of any HCVF management plan : 1. Detailed understanding of the HCV. Each of the values that have been identified need to be studied and documented in as much detail as possible. Example of the sort if information needed includes : HCV1 : which species are present that constitute the concentration of biodiversity? Where do they live? HCV2 : How large is the forest area? How long is the boundary. Map the landscape level forest. HCV3 : What rare ecosystems are present? Where are they? HCV4 : Where are critical watersheds? How many people depend on them? HCV5 : Which resources are collected? From where? By whom? HCV6 : What cultural links exist? For Whom? This information can be gathered by conducting surveys, consultation with local communities, investigating previous studies and discussion with other stakeholders and experts. 5 Information on this can be obtained from Scott Stanley, The Nature Conservancy East Kalimantan Program Manager. S.stanley@tnc.org

33 2. Assessment of what is the current state of the HCV. As part of a threat analysis you must first understand what is the condition of the value. This is not concerned with what may be the cause of degradation, but more with the actual situation. Examples include : HCV1 : Species loss, population change HCV2 : Forest loss, fragmentation HCV3 : Forest loss, change in forest structure HCV4 : Increased sediment load, more frequent droughts HCV5 : Reduced yield of an NTFP HCV6 : Loss of a spiritually important site. Once you know what is happening to a value it is easier to develop steps to address this degradation. 3. Assessment of the cause of the degradation to the HCV. Once the nature of the change has been determined you must identify why this is happening. What is causing the change, or degradation. The combination of these two factors, what is happening and why, can be considered as the threat to the HCV. These causes are almost always anthropogenic. Examples include : HCV1 : Hunting for food or trade. HCV2 : Road building HCV3 : Clearance for agriculture. HCV4 : Clearance of agriculture, mining HCV5 : Logging damage. HCV6 : Out-migration. With this information you can now develop a management plan 4. Design management strategies to abate the threats. A detailed management plan should be drawn up. This plan should outline the measures needed to be taken and how they should be implemented. Where possible management strategies should be based on previously known and tested systems. It is not necessary to create new and different strategies. There are many well known strategies that may be applicable to the values and situations in question. In general there are 3 main types of management options : Protection : ecological or social values can be maintained by protecting the areas where they are found, from disturbance, or stopping collection. Modifications to current systems : ecological of social values can be maintained or enhanced my altering current management systems to reduce impact, or keep resource gathering at a sustainable level. Restoration : some values can be enhanced by restoring the area or cultural trait to previous conditions.

34 In many cases a single strategy may help abate many threats, and work to maintain many values. Where possible management strategies should be developed that cover multiple values. On the other hand maintenance of a value may require a combination strategies with elements of protection, management modification, and restoration. 5. Integration of plans, and training Finally for the successful implementation of management systems the management plan needs to be integrated with existing plans. If there are any clashes of management strategies these need to be resolved. The management of HCVF needs to become an integral part of general management of the area. In order to facilitate the effective implementation of new management strategies, staff and stakeholders may need to be trained and educated on HCVF. They need to know information such as : what values are present in the forest in question? why they are important? and what the new management strategies are? An example of some of the threats to HCVFs and some possible strategies is given in Table 4, below. Similar tables could be included in HCVF management plans. Extra advice on management of HCV5 is included in Appendix B : Method for the identification, management and monitoring of HCV5 Precautionary approach and management Management recommendations must specifically address the attributes of the HCVF and define the preventive actions that must be taken to enhance them or to avoid degrading them, (e.g., special measures, delay, no activity). A range of alternative approaches should be considered. All assumptions and information upon which decisions rest should be spelled out. Remember that the burden of proof that actions will enhance or at least not threaten one or several attributes is on the manager. In the case of management decisions that potentially negatively affect forest-dependent communities the decision-making process must be explicit and must be transparent and participatory. In order for the management plan to be adaptive there should be procedures spelled out for assessment and review of previous decisions in light of new evidence. In the case of new evidence, the precautionary approach demands that the management plan be altered. (FSC Principle 9 Advisory Panel, 2000) The precautionary approach has been incorporated into the methodology for identifying HCVs and should also form an important basis for any management regime and monitoring program. For example: Forest management practices are altered to include safeguards more stringent than those required by existing forestry law. In HCVF, SFEs may need to reduce harvest intensities, create additional or larger conservation areas, and protect slopes not currently protected.

35 If communities use a forest, or rely upon it for clean water supply or other such use, it is HCVF. Any decisions on forest use will have to be made with genuine community input and may involve co-management and co-monitoring of production operations. Active communities are not restricted to those within the forest area; they may be further downstream. If you are unsure whether a HCVF area should be logged especially carefully or put into a conservation set-aside, put it into the set-aside until you have shown beyond doubt that the logging regime will not harm the future of the forest. This will require detailed study of the area and development of location-specific management rules. (SmartWood 2003) 31

36 Table 4 Example threats and possible management strategies for HCVF in production forest areas Value State of Value Threats Goal Potential strategies HCV1 Biodiversity concentration HCV2 Landscape level forest HCV3 Rare, threatened and endangered ecosystems HCV4 Basic Services HCV5 Basic needs of Communities HCV6 Cultural identity Loss of species Smaller populations Fragmentation Change in stand structure. Deforestation Drought in dry season Less food Fewer medicinal plants Young people not interested in traditional culture. Hunting Destructive fishing Road construction Felling and skidding Clearance Roads Clearance Mining Logging activities Road building Opening of farmland Over-exploitation Deforestation Logging damage. In migration Commercial activities Conserve populations of rare, threatened, endangered and endemic species. Conserve overall high levels of biodiversity Conserve large scale blocks of lowland Maintain connectivity of forest block with other large forest blocks Conserve lowland evergreen forest. Conserve montane forest. Maintain watershed protection values of key the river catchments. Sustainable supply of basic needs : protein, medicine, fruits, fuel. Sustainable supply of monetary income. Maintenance of cultural values. Enforcing the ban on all hunting by staff. Environmental awareness to encourage local communities not to hunt protected species Further improvement of RIL techniques. Special management areas, eg with no thinning or other intensive silviculture. Representative conservation zones including examples of all ecosystems. Well designed conservation zones bordering the protection areas. Working with partners to produce a landscape level management plan for the landscape. A plan that ensures the maintenance of natural forest cover. Further improvement of RIL techniques and skyline use to minimise environmental impact. Special management areas, eg with no thinning or other intensive silviculture. Representative conservation zones including examples of all ecosystems. Further improvement of RIL techniques Well designed conservation zones bordering the protection forest areas. Continuation of village consultations Participatory mapping of natural resource use by local communities. Participatory establishment of village resource use zones and regulations. Conflict resolution. Continuation of village consultations Participatory mapping of natural resource use by local communities.

37 Participatory establishment of village resource use zones and regulations. 33

38 Monitoring of High Conservation Value Forest in Viet Nam Monitoring of HCVF is another vital activity. As with management, however, it is not within the scope of this toolkit to give exhaustive guidelines on monitoring. The ProForest toolkit (part 3, 2003) provides some generic guidance on monitoring. There is to date, however, very little information on how to monitor HCVF. It is an area that needs a great deal more study. What is monitoring? All management plans have a monitoring program, it is something that is always often talked about but usually however they are poorly, if at all, implemented (Kremen et al 1994). One reason for this may be from lack of a real understanding of its importance, but it may also stem from a confusion over the term monitoring. Monitoring in has two, not incompatible meanings: Firstly there is the monitoring of project activities; Have the activities stated in the workplan been completed? Secondly there is the monitoring of the impact of management activities : the periodic collection and evaluation of data relative to stated goals, objectives and activities (Margoluis and Salafsky 1998) Monitoring is an activity that investigates how conditions alter over time. This may be because conditions are predicted/planned to change (either natural or man-made change), or because conditions should remain stable. Thus the key distinction between monitoring and a survey is the factor of time. A survey looks at the conditions at one instance in time, monitoring looks at the conditions at many instances over a period of time. Monitoring is also not research; research investigates the unknown, monitoring assumes we know what might happen. Why monitor? Monitoring is vital to assess the success of management activities. Without monitoring it is impossible to know if activities are having the desired effect. Monitoring can help show which activities are successful and which are less so (Kremen et al 1994) and is therefore an integral part of the classic program cycle and essential for adaptive management. Monitoring of wealth, health and other socio-economic factors is needed to determine the success of farming extension, compatible economic development or other social programs. Ecological monitoring is used to track the condition of ecosystems. Monitoring can also guide research priorities. For example if from the monitoring a pattern is noted, such as the decline in the population of an animal, research can be initiated to find out why.

39 What to monitor? Several factors are important to the successful implementation of a monitoring program. Monitoring programs should be: Given clear objectives what is being monitored and why. Planned in advance and the plan adhered to. Standardised, each monitoring event follows the same, standard method. Repeated on a regular basis. Analysed (monitoring is useless unless the results are investigated) To help increase the successful implementation of monitoring programs they should be: Simple but robust. Given clear rules for when to stop. Cost efficient. In order to achieve this most monitoring programs rely on indicators that illustrate the conditions that are being monitored. Ideally indicators should be: Easy to identify. They can be recognised and recorded in the same way by all observers Easy to sample, therefore analyse in a quantitative or qualitative manner Widely distributed throughout the area being monitored Low in variability, they are the same throughout the area being monitored. Additionally if man-made change is being investigated they should have little natural temporal change. Interesting. Monitoring is hard work and making the indicators more appealing will make it easier to complete. Baselines Typically monitoring should be carried out in comparison to a baseline set of data. A baseline is a snapshot of the site before or during the initial stages of the initiative (Russell and Hasselbarger 1998). Many methods are used to collect baseline data. It is not essential to use the same data collection methods in the baseline and monitoring, and usually much more data is collected during the baseline than is used later in monitoring. The key for monitoring is to ensure that the monitoring protocol is compatible with the baseline. Information gathered during the monitoring exercise must be comparable with the baseline. Examples of tools used in baselines for socio-economic issues are rapid rural appraisal (RRA), participatory rural appraisal (PRA) and formal questionnaires. In ecological monitoring baselines can be determined from, amongst other things, wildlife surveys, remote sensing and permanent sample plots. Adaptive Management Collecting monitoring data with out analysing it or using it is a waste of time, money and effort. Conversely using monitoring results to determine the effectiveness of management strategies can improve efficiency and performance. The use of monitoring results to influence management, to change management strategies that don t work, or to repeat those that do is part of adaptive management (Salafsky, Margoluis and Redford 2001).

40 Adaptive management follows a cycle of developing strategies, implementing the strategies, monitoring the results and then if necessary altering the management strategies. Collect Informatio Develop strategies Monitor results Implement strategies Figure 1 Adaptive management A management team should set up a team specifically for the implementation of monitoring. The duties of this team should include the design of appropriate monitoring programs, their implementation, and analysis. This team should assess annually the effectiveness of the monitoring program, and more importantly the effectiveness of the management strategies. The monitoring team should report any important results, ie indications that strategies are not working, to managers and if possible provide advice on what part of the management is not having the desired effect and how the management can be improved. Examples of where monitoring results can be used to alter management could include : Satellite imagery shows that areas surrounding and within the forest area are being cleared. The stakeholders may have to alter its relationship with neighbouring land users. Permanent plot data compared with harvesting information shows that regeneration is slower than acceptable limits in areas where harvesting intensity is greater than X stems/ha. In order to ensure forest regeneration all harvesting should be at an intensity less than X Wildlife transects in a corridor indicate that it is not being used by large mammals. A new corridor may need to be created in a different location. When suspended sediment in rivers is compared with road density it is shown that above a certain density of roads sediment loads are too high. Roading must be planned to reduce the road and skid trail density. Community monitoring of a non-timber forest resource shows a drastic decrease in quantity. Stakeholders and local villagers need to decide why the resource is decreasing and how to change the resource gathering strategy or forest management. Extra advice on participatory monitoring of HCV5 is included in Appendix B : Method for the identification, management and monitoring of HCV5.

41 Precautionary approach and monitoring The monitoring plan (contained in the management plan) must test the assumptions upon which management decisions rest, as well as the state of the HCVF attributes. Monitoring must be site-specific. When an assumption is not supported in the course of monitoring, the precautionary approach requires a system of adaptive management that halts or alters actions related to those assumptions until a full evaluation is made. Monitoring by certification bodies should include all aspects of the management plan, including the quality and responsiveness of the monitoring plan and the quality of the adaptive management. (FSC Principle 9 Advisory Panel, 2000)

42 Appendices Appendix A : Sources of Information Reference materials Baker, M (2003). Socio-economic scoping report for the Forests of the Lower Mekong Ecoregion Complex. WWF Indochina, Hanoi Baltzer M. et al (2003). Towards a Biodiversity Vision for the forest of the Lower Mekong Ecoregion Complex a) Technical Report, and b) Technical Annex. WWF Indochina, Hanoi BirdLife International (2001). Threatened Birds of Asia : the Birdlife International Red Data Book. Cambridge, UK. BirdLife International and FIPI (2001). Sourcebook of existing and proposed protected areas in Vietnam. BirdLife International Vietnam Program and FIPI. Hanoi, Vietnam BirdLife International (2004) Important Bird Areas in Asia: key sites for conservation. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. Dinerstein, E., Powell, G., Olson, D., Wikramanayake, E., Abell, R., Loucks, C., Underwood, E., Allnut, T., Wettengel, W., Ricketts, T., Strand, H., O'Connor, S., Burgess, N. and Mobley, M. (1999) A workbook for conducting biological assessments and developing biodiversity visions for ecoregion-based conservation. Part 1: terrestrial ecoregions. Washington D.C.: WWF-US Conservation Science Program. Don, G. and Nguyen Van San (1999). Buffer zone management in Vietnam. IUCN publication, Vietnam Don, G., Nguyen Van San and Xiong Tsechalicha (2000) Rehabilitation of degraded forest ecosystem in Cambodia, Loa DPR, Thai Land and Vietnam. IUCN. Eken, G., Bennun, L., Brooks, T., Darwall, W., Fishpool, L. D. C., Foster, M., Knox, D., Langhammer, P., Matiku, P., Radford, E., Salaman, P., Sechrest, W., Smith, M. L., Spector, S. and Tordoff, A. (2004) Key biodiversity areas as site conservation targets. Bioscience 54(12): Fimbel, R. A, A Grajal & J Robinson (2001). The Cutting Edge. Conserving wildlife in logged tropical forest. Columbia University Press, New York, USA. FSC, (2001). Principle 9 Advisory Panel Recommendation Report, Version 1.1. Forest Stewardship Council, Oaxaca, Mexico. FSC (2004). FSC Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship. Forest Stewardship Council, Berlin, Germany. Giessmann, T. Nguyen Xuan Dang, N Lormee & F. Momberg (2000). Vietnam Primate Status Review Part 1. Gibbons. Fauna & Flora International, Indochina Program, Hanoi. Huynh Thu Ba (2003) People, land and resources in the Central Troung Son Landscape. CTSE report 5. WWF Indochina, Hanoi Kremen, C., A. Merenlender and D. Murphy (1994). Ecological Monitoring : a vital need for integrated conservation and development programs in the tropics. Conservation Biology 8, pp Le Tong Tai et al (2003). Hunting and Collecting Practices in the Central Troung Son Landscape. CTSE report 7. WWF Indochina, Hanoi MARD (2001) Standard Document of Silvicultural techniques vol 2, Ha Noi I

43 Margoluis, R and N. Salafsky (1998). Measures of Success: Designing, Managing and Monitoring Conservation and Development Projects. Island Press Myers, N. R Mittermeier, C Mittermeier, G da Fonseca and J Kentet (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403 pp Nader, T. F. Momberg, Nguyen Xuan Dang & N Lormee (2003). Vietnam Primate Status Review Part 2. Leaf Monkeys. Fauna & Flora International, Vietnam Program, and Frankfurt Zoological Society, Hanoi. Nguyen Lam Thanh (2003). Socio-economic issues in the Central Troung Son Landscape. CTSE report 2. WWF Indochina, Hanoi Olsen D. M. and E. Dinerstein (1998). The Global 200: a representation approach to conserving the Earth s most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conservation Biology 12 pp ProForest (2003). The High Conservation Value Toolkit. Vol. 1 & 2. ProForest, Oxford ProForest (2004a). HCVF for conservation practioners. ProForest, Oxford. ProForest (2004b). A Sourcebook for Landscape analysis of High Conservation Value Forest. ProForest, Oxford Putz F. E, K. H Redford, J. G. Robinson, R Fimbel and G. M. Blate (2000). Biodiversity conservation in the context of tropical forest management. Environment department papers, Biodiversity series Impact studies. The World Bank Rundell, P (1999). Flora of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. WWF Indochina, Hanoi Russell, D. and C. Hasselberger (1998). Studying the social dimensions of Community-based conservation. Unpublished report from the Biodiversity Conservation Network. Salafsky, N., R. Margoluis and K. Redford (2001). Adaptive Management : A tool for conservation practitioners. Biodiversity Support Program. Washington DC Schmid, M. (1989) Vietnam, Kampuchea and Laos. Pp in D. G. Campbell and Hammond, H. D. eds. Floristic inventory of tropical countries. New York: The New York Botanical Garden SmartWood / Rainforest Alliance (2003). Identifying, Managing and monitoring High Conservation Value Forest in Indonesia : a toolkit for forest managers and other stakeholders. SmartWood, Jakarta, Indonesia TFT / WWF (2003). HCVF toolkit for Laos PDR. WWF Laos Tordoff, A. W. (2002). Directory of Important Bird Areas in Viet Nam : Key sites for Conservation. Birdlife International Indochina. Hanoi Tordoff, A. W. et al (2003). A Biological assessment of the Central Troung Son Landscape. CTSI report 1. WWF Indochina, Hanoi Trang An Phong (2003). Existing land-use management in the Central Troung Son Landscape. CTSE report 4. WWF Indochina, Hanoi van Dijk, P. P., Tordoff, A. W., Fellowes, J., Lau, M. and Jinshuang, M. (2004) Indo- Burma. Pp in R. A., Mittermeier, Robles Gil, P., Hoffmann, M., Pilgrim, J., Brooks, T., Mittermeier, C. G., Lamoreaux, J. and da Fonseca, G. A. B. eds. Hotspots revisited: Earth's biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. Monterrey: CEMEX; Washington D.C.: Conservation International; and Mexico: Agrupación Sierra Madre. Wetlands International (2002) Waterbird Population Estimates Third edition. Wetlands International Global Series No. 12. Wageningen, Netherlands. I

44 Wikramanayake E, E. Dinerstein, J. L Loucks, D. M. Olsen, J Morrison, J Lamoreux, M. McKight and Prashant Hedao (2002). Terrestrial Ecoregions pf the Indo-Pacific. A conservation assessment. Island Press. Washington. WWF (2002) Position paper : High Conservation Value forests. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland WWF and IUCN (1995). Centres of Plant Diversity: A guide and strategy for their conservation. Vol 2. Asia, Australia and the Pacific. Cambridge. UK Legal Documents Decree 48 Decree 18 Websites ASEAN Regional Centre for Biodiversity Conservation. Gateway to several resources including a species database. Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) homepage. Includes a complete listing of all CITES appendices World Conservation Union s homepage. With links to several resources including Centres of Plant Diversity World Conservation Monitoring Centre homepage. World Database on Protected Areas. A compete listing of the World s PAs. Including those in Viet Nam The IUCN 2004 Redlist of threatened species. An online database Rare Birds of Asia website. Online database of red listed bird species in Asia. BirdLife International homepage BirdLife International Indochina program homepage. BirdLife International Indochina program s source book on PAs in Viet Nam. Provides downloadable documents on each PA BirdLife International Indochina program s directory of Important Bird Areas in Vietnam. Provides downloadable information on ations/publications.html#ibadirectories I

45 each IBA Conservation International s biodiversity hotspots homepage Extra information on the Indoburma biodiversity hotspot WWF Global 200 Ecoregions. An interactive map. RAMSAR internationally important wetland sites Global Forest Watch homepage Forest Stewardship Council homepage ProForest hompage. Provides links to all the ProForest documents on HCVF Asia Pacific Forest Certification homepage. Gateway to a large amount of information on forest certification in Asia. Lists of experts, downloadable reports etc. Has a Vietnames language section International Institute for Environment and Development homepage. Provides information and publications on links between environment and development. Including tools such as PRA and RRA Overseas Development Institute homepage. NGO concerned with environmentally sustainable development. Provides information on social science tools and experiences ts/indo_burma coregions/global200/pages/mainmap.htm

46 Appendix B : Method for the identification, management and monitoring of HCV5 STEP 1 : Identifying sub-groups in each village based on their livelihood pattern Villages in Viet Nam may be comprised of several sub-groups with different ethnic origins and livelihood patterns. Before starting identifying the importance of each value, the interviewers need to make a classification of each village in sub-groups according to their livelihood pattern, like in the following table. This information can normally be obtained from the village leaders or other key informants. Table 5 Identification of sub-groups within one village community # Ethnic group/origin Main sources of livelihood Other key characteristic (i.e. date of arrival, location of dwelling, etc.) Approximate # of Households % of village population Any group which belongs to Indigenous people groups and/or represents at least 15% of the village population should be considered as a significant sub-group and should be interviewed separately either through individual interviews or through group interviews in which care is taken to make sure that only one sub-group is represented. STEP 2: Identify how each sub-group meets their basic needs For each sub-group, the following table is proposed as a guide for individual or group interviews. The purpose of this table is to identify how each basic needs of the sub-group is met by different types of sources, including the forest and alternative sources such as agriculture, the sea, the market, or aid by the government, forest company development program or other third parties like NGOs for example. This table was tested in several communities in East Kalimantan with different levels of dependency of the forest, and proved to be easy to understand, enabling a good, active participation of the people and a good group interaction. About one hour was usually enough to fill the table with a small group of participants (5 to 15). Local groups, however, are encouraged to design their own variations of this model depending on their habits and local conditions. This table can be used in individual interviews. However, conducting such interviews can take a long time. It is more efficient in terms of time to use the table with small groups of villagers gathered for a group consultation. The ideal size would be between 5 to 15 people. Then this can be repeated with different small groups representing different sub-communities depending on ethnic group, livelihood pattern, age and gender. Regarding gender, it is important to obtain the participation of women, since they usually have a different share in the resources use. Women may be more involved in the gathering of particular forest products, such as medicines, and may then have a different perspective on how fundamental they are. In Viet Nam, mixed gender group discussions may tend to be dominated by men. In order V

47 to get an appropriate representation of women s point of view, separate group discussions with women only can be organized. A-VI

48 Table 6 Fulfilment of basic needs Village:. Sub-Group (based on table 1):. Needs Sources Forest Cultiva tion Purchased Aid Other (ex: sea) Explanation, remarks SFE Other Food: - Carbohydrates - animal protein (meat, fish) - fruits, vegetables Materials: - housing - boats - furniture, household equipmt, tools - fibers, clothing, dyes Fuel Medicines Animal Feeds Water for drinking and daily needs Cash income I

49 Others: A-VIII

50 Instructions for filling the table The table can be reproduced on a large piece of paper and put on the wall of the house of shelter where the consultation is taking place. The facilitator then explains the purpose of the consultation and proceeds to ask villagers where they derive each of the main resources in the table below, and the respective importance of each source. For example, the facilitator will start asking the community what is their staple food, i.e. their main source of carbohydrate such as rice, potato, yam etc. Then they will ask them where they obtain it. Villagers will usually list the most important source first, and then other sources. For each source (for example : shifting cultivation), the facilitator then asks the villagers whether they derive all their rice from this source (ranking : 4); most of their needs from it (ranking : 3), a significant part of their needs (2), only a tiny, marginal part of their needs (ranking : 1), or none at all (0). In each cell, the facilitator then indicates its ranking from 0 to 4 as explained below, and list the corresponding resources, e.g. river fish, well, rice, rattan, etc. The determination of the importance of each source for each need is done using the following levels: 4 - Essential = 100% of a given need is fulfilled by one source (for example, if all the water used by the community comes from the forest s rivers, put 4 (all) in the forest column in the water row). 3 Critical = more than 50% of a given need is fulfilled by one source 2 - Important = between about 15% and 50% 1 - not important = less than 15% 0 non existent = 0% Not all the cells need to be filled, but at least all the ones with a value above 2 should be filled. Likewise, all cells in the column forest should be filled to make sure that the importance of the forest is carefully evaluated. Depending on the circumstances, the column forest can be split in two or not. If the group interviewed leaves in the middle of the production forest area under evaluation, then everything they derive from the forest may be from the SFE. If the community is near the border of the SFE or often moves beyond its borders, then it may be necessary to clarify which percentage of their resources they draw from the SFE and which ones from another forest. It is important to realize that it is not necessary to ask the communities for percentages. If they are ready to give such percentages, they can be used to classify the importance of each resource in the categories 0 to 4 above. However, it should be remembered that communities are not used to keeping quantified records of their needs and resource uses, so percentage given during interviews can be very misleading. Rather than trying to obtain figures, which would require months of data collecting, it is recommended to base the identification of fundamental resources on the qualitative perception of the people, which will be a more adequate indicator. The levels 0 to 4 above can easily be obtained during individual or group discussions. The following could be used by farmers to qualify the importance of a source to fulfil a particular need, for example the following questions can be asked: For example, the following questions can be used to qualify the different levels: X

51 Do you get all your fruits from the forests or are there other sources? if the answer is all then the level is 4 for the forest in the line fruits If there are other sources, like for example a garden, then the question can be asked as such: Do you get more fruits from the forest or from the garden? if the answer is more from the forest, then the level is 3 If the answer is more from the garden then the following question can be asked : Do you get a significant portion of fruits from the forest or just very little, seldom, and not in an important way?. If the answer is significant, rather important then the answer is 2, if the answer is marginal, occasional, or not important then the answer is 1. Some resources may become critical only at certain times of the year, or during crop failures, as replacement. For example, tubers collected in the forest may replace rice during shortages between two seasons. If the community qualifies a certain forest resource as marginal, always check that this applies all year long and all the time, for example by asking are there certain times when this becomes more important? If the answer is yes, then the importance of the resource should be moved to 2 (significant) and if there is no replacement during that period, it is an HCV. If there are no fruits at all from the forest then obviously the level is 0. For each need, if the forest is considered as not important or non existent (value 0 or 1) in fulfilling it, then it is not fundamental and will not be qualified as an HCV. STEP 3. Identifying fundamental forest functions For any need for which the forest has been ranked between 2 and 4 as a source (important, critical or essential), the consultation needs to be pursued more in detail by filling the next table below, which will establish the readiness of alternatives and whether they are within the reach of the people. Changes are important to consider. Communities livelihood patterns evolve. If a given resource from the forest is being less and less used and more and more replaced by alternative uses, this may disqualify a resource as fundamental. This is especially true when people are investing in alternative sources, for example if they are developing cash crop plantations that will make them less dependant on NTFP for cash needs. This criterion is especially important for ambiguous cases where it is difficult to decide whether the resource is fundamental or not. Questions in the table below will help to find out whether the resource is fundamental or not. It provides indicator of whether the community has access to satisfying replacements to the forest resources or not. Each resource for which there is no access to satisfying replacement is an HCV. Again, this table is proposed as a guide; local groups or researchers may develop their own model to suit their needs. X

52 Table 7 Identifying fundamental forest resources Village: XXX. Sub-Group: (based on table 1) 2 Resource from the forest (e.g. timber for Ranking of importance of the forest in housing material, spring water, etc) as in table meeting this need (2 to 4), based on table 2: 2 If this need cannot be met from the corresponding forest resource, are there available alternatives? List the alternatives here. If there are none, this resource may be an HCV. If there are some, continue with rest of table. Are these alternatives available - all year long every year, - in sufficient quantities to replace the forest resources - and in an accessible location by available means of transportation If yes, can they be obtained for free or would there be a cost involved? (for example / cash needed to buy and transport a replacement, labor and land needed to start new agricultural activities?) If there is a cost, is it within the reach of all the people (for example do they have enough cash to buy it, or do they have enough labor and land to start a new agricultural production as replacement?) Is there a trend of change in the dependency of the people over this resource? For example, are they less and less using the rivers for water, or is the collection of NTFPs declining? If there is a trend of change, are the people investing in substitutes (e.g. developing cash crops, animal husbandry, etc.) Are they actively trying to protect the existing resources? If the answer is no to one of these questions: there may be an HCV. If the answer is yes to all questions : continue below. If the replacement is available for free (for example, free medicine at village dispensary), this is not an HCV. If there is a cost, continue. If no: Fundamental/HCV; If yes: not fundamental In case of hesitation over the importance of a resource, obvious declining trends in the use of the forest, affecting the community as a whole may disqualify the forest from being considered as fundamental, especially if people are actively investing in new, alternative resources such as agriculture. On the contrary, if the community is actively protecting the forest resources, then it is an HCV. Are all the members of the community concerned by these trends or just a minority? IMPORTANT : if the forest is fundamental in needing even only one of the basic needs mentioned in the table 2 above, this is sufficient to qualify the corresponding resource as an HCV. STEP 4. Identifying sustainable uses of the forest compatible with other HCVS As mentioned above, HCVs do not cover excessive use of the forest resources beyond sustainable levels, or uses that are not compatible with the maintenance of other HCVs. Such uses of the forests by communities, once identified, have to be dealt with under other principles of certification. However, it is important to remember that the focus here is the lifestyle of local I

53 communities. If a forest usage is being made non sustainable by the local communities themselves, this usage is not an HCV unless the communities are expressly hoping to reverse this trend. If the communities are using the resource in a sustainable way, but the resource is endangered by external parties, then the use of the forest by the local community is still an HCV that needs to be protected from external threats. Table 4 - Identifying sustainable uses of the forest compatible with other HCVs Village: XXX. Sub-Group: (based on table 1) 2 Resource from the forest (e.g. timber for Ranking of importance of the forest in housing material, spring water, etc) as in table meeting this need (2 to 4), based on table 2: 2 For how long has this resource being used by the local community? Are these resources used in a sustainable manner, i.e. do the villagers think that they can continue to sustain present use/ harvest level indefinitely? Has there been a declining trend in the availability of this resource during the last 5/10 years? (for example, hunted animals getting more rare, timber sources more far from the village ) Is this change due to external parties, or to the activities of the community itself (for example increased levels of extraction, conversion of the forest )? Recent uses of the forest compelled by market development and not bound by traditional regulations may not be sustainable. Uses that have existed for at least a generation have a chance to be sustainable, unless there has been changes in availability and extraction levels (see next questions) If the answer is yes, and unless there are indications of the contrary from other questions, then the resource use is probably sustainable. Always use the questions below to confirm. If the resource availability is significantly declining because of the activities of the communities themselves, and/or if they forecast its exhaustion, this may not be an HCV, unless the communities express the will to change this trend. For how long do they think they can sustain present levels before the resource will be exhausted? Is the use of the resource by the community threatening other HCVs (such as endangered species for example?) Is the community hoping, planning or wanting to reverse this trend? Are there some rules that are followed by the community to regulate the use of this resource? Besides consultation with communities, this will require discussions with an ecologist. If the resource is declining or threatening other HCVs but the communities are ready to do something to counter this trend, then this may still qualify as an HCV. Are the villagers ready to introduce such rules, and/or enforce old/existing ones? I

54 These questions should not always be asked straightforward, the best is to engage in an informal discussion. The first indicator in the exhaustion of a resource is not usually the fact that higher levels of inputs are needed to sustain the same level of output. For example, villagers may have to walk longer distances to find the fruits they need. Other indicators are a reduced quality of the resource harvested, for example people are logging trees of smaller and smaller diameter. I

55 Management and monitoring of HCV5 Management Activity 1. Identify a number of stresses and sources of stresses (i.e. threats) to identified HCVs a. Evaluate the potential harmful effects of forest operations on these resources. b. Identify other threats to the people's fundamental forest resources 2. Identify possible conflicts between ecological aspects and social aspects of HCVFs 3. Define strategies to mitigate those sources of stresses a. Develop maps indicating the location of forest resources needed to meet their basic needs b. Work with communities to determine if particular areas should be excluded from SFEs operations because they harbour a high density of fundamental resources. c. develop mitigation strategies (i.e. Reduced Impact Logging, etc.) to minimize the impact of forest operations on the peoples forest resources. d. Develop a set of standard operational procedures (SOPs) to make sure that staff intervening in forest operations are aware of these decisions and know what to do to implement them. e. Design strategies to approach other stakeholders involved practices threatening Guidance Identification of stresses and sources must be in collaboration with communities. In areas where logging activities has not occurred, people may not be able to identify logging activities as a threat to their HCVs. Thus during identification, toolkit users needs to discuss with the communities about the possible impact of logging activities and other forest management activities (roading, cruising, etc.) on the forest resources used by the people. Conduct consultations with forest operations staff, village community members or other relevant sources (e.g. academic, government) Conflicts should be identified with local communities. Identify the stakeholders involved directly (those who perform the threatening activities) and those involved indirectly (those who regulate, finance or influence those activities). Map development should be in collaboration with location people. These maps should be developed prior to any intervention in a forest area. It is important to realize that they will likely cover much more than enclave areas. The maps should indicate key areas needed by the people to access or conserve certain resources, and individual trees of particular importance. The strategies should as much as possible be consistent with traditional rules and institutions. If possible, the local government should be made to endorse such decisions to make sure that they will be responsible to protecting these areas too against other threats as mentioned just before. V

56 Management Activity forest resources and reach agreements leading to a significant reduction of the threats to those resources. 4. Develop a conflict resolution mechanism for cases when community members think that their resources have been damaged or when mutually agreed conservation areas or rules are violated. It should include: representatives of the community and the company in case of a conflict. standard compensation procedures and amounts for cases that are likely to occur (i.e. damage to a fruit tree, a honey tree, etc.) arbitration mechanisms and authorities. 5. If necessary, develop a strategy and rules for community participation in the conservation of other identified HCVs. Guidance The conflict resolution mechanism should be developed with local communities. Rules for conflict resolutions should be written down, signed by representatives of both parties if possible. Records should be kept regarding all conflicts and steps taken to solve them. An environmental awareness program should be developed and implemented to help local communities identify the stresses and sources of other identified HCVs. Guidance and support from NGOs and academics may be necessary to develop agreements with local communities.

57 Monitoring Activity 1. Determine the current condition of high conservation values identified and perceptions of trends in their conditions (including changes from the past to the present and likely future trends) Guidance This can be accomplished by asking community members to rank the past state (15-20 years ago) present state, and future health (15-20 years from now) of each HCV or forest resource from very good, good, poor or very poor. Specific ( if possible measurable indicators) of the State of the HCV or forest resource should be developed to define thresholds of "Very good, etc." for each of these indicators. The ranking (from Very Good to Very Poor) is done based on these indicators. These results can be presented in tables, as in the following examples: Resource: River Parameter Depth / flow Ranking Very Good Good Poor Very Poor Indicator "number of months a year during which the river can accommodate a 20-CV-engine boat". Level All year long (12 months) Not all year long (more than 3 months, less than 12 months) 3 months or less Never Resource: Fruits Parameter Quantity of fruits Ranking Very Good Good Poor Very Poor Indicators Time of walk needed from the village to harvest fruits Level less than 30 minutes minutes 1 2 hours More than 2 hours or no fruits at all Other indicators can be developed by each local community to monitor the condition of their priority resource systems. In all cases, these indicators must be simple enough so that they can be measured by the community members themselves. This will enable the people to participate in the monitoring and lead to a better appropriation and use of the results. I

58 Monitoring Activity 2. Develop and implement a participatory monitoring plan including the following steps: a. Definition of the parameters to be monitored for each HCV b. Develop a participatory monitoring program (including indicators and methodology) c. With local communities, identify a person or a small team of community members to be responsible for implementing the monitoring program. d. Analyze and socialize results of monitoring 3. Incorporate the results of monitoring to revise and adjust conservation strategies, Guidance For example, river depth can be measured using a simple stick marked with divisions of height, which can be left in a place visible by all, with measurements taken at regular intervals, always at the same time of the day, by one member of the community and then marked on a board visible by all. Turbidity can be measured using a simple stick marked with centimeter divisions, and terminated by a small marble. The depth at which the marble is not visible anymore is an indicator of turbidity. This should be conducted based on the results of consultations with local communities. Additional consultations with community members, academics or relevant NGOs can help the company determine acceptable indicators. For each indicator, there should be a simple methodology to measure it at defined intervals and time periods appropriate to the indicator, taken into account natural seasonal variations. Consistency of the method is key. The method should be simple enough and not too demanding in terms of work to be sustained over a long time. Discuss the proposed methodology with community members to validate its feasibility. Follow-up should occur to ensure proper implementation of the monitoring program at regular appropriate intervals Develop a method to feed-back the results to the community. An annual or semi-annual meeting is a good idea. Write a report on the results and feed it back to forest management. In case the monitoring indicates a degradation of forest resources, strategies need to be designed to protect the resource. Consultative meetings should be conducted once a year to: present and discuss the results of participatory monitoring develop conservation strategies if HCVs are threatened evaluate the effectiveness of implemented conservation strategies evaluate the conflict resolution mechanisms I

59 Appendix C : Drafting team & list of people contacted HCVF Toolkit Drafting Workshop. Hanoi. 15 th 18 th November 2004 Individual Institution Nguyen Huu Dung FPD parc@hn.vnn.vn Vu Van Dung FIPI Nguyen Van San IEBR vansan@hn.vnn.vn Nguyen Lam Ethnic lamthanh@hn.vnn.vn Thanh Committee Dinh Trong Thu Sociology dinhtrongthu2003@yahoo.com Institute Pham Van Dien FUV vdien100@mail.ru Nguyen Nghia FUV bien_forest@yahoo.com.au Bien Sumiko Morino TFT s.morino@tropicalforesttrust.c om Ho Van Cu TFT hovancu@dng.vnn.vn, h.vancu@tropicalforesttrust.co m Pham Quoc Tuan GTZ (REFAS) tuan@mard-refas.org.vn Maurits Servaas NTFP Project maurits.servaas@ntfp.org.vn mauritsservaas@yahoo.com Mai Ky Vinh WWF Vinh@wwfvn.org.vn Edward Pollard HCVF e_h_b_pollard@yahoo.co.uk Consultant Le Cong Uan WWF VN Uan@wwfvn.org.vn Le Thien Duc WWF VN duc@wwfvn.org.vn Nguyen Bich Hang WWF VN HangB@wwfvn.org.vn Other consultation Individual Institution Tim Dawson Viet Nam Forest Sector Support Program Fergus MacDonald WWF - VN Barney Long WWF VN Chris Dickinson WWF VN Benjamin Hodgeson WWF Laos Dr Ramesh Boonratana Independent consultant Marc Hiller Yale FES Dr James Jarvie Independent consultant Andrew Tordoff BirdLife International Indochina I

60 programme X

61 Viet Nam High Conservation Value Forest Toolkit 31st May 2005 Maps A-XX

62 I

63 I