 |
 |
||
|
Protected Areas & Biodiversity Conservation in Vietnam Forests in Vietnam, as in much of South East Asia, have long been viewed as economic resources both for individual livelihoods and for the state. Forest resources such as timber, fuel-wood, medicinal plants, foods and animal fodder have been exploited with relentless speed in tandem with the region's inexorable economic and population growth.Vietnam is becoming increasingly aware of the intrinsic value of its forests and the rate of forest loss has slowed considerably, in part due to Government policies encouraging afforestation (eg. 327 and 661 programmes) and the rapid development of the protected area network. However, a critical problem has not been addressed: the loss of wildlife from the remaining forests. Vietnam is beginning to exhibit the ‘empty forest syndrome', as people remove wildlife from forest areas much faster than they do the trees. Trees can be replanted, but it is very difficult to replace the multitude of wildlife species without which the forest will deteriorate and eventually change into a less diverse, less valuable resource. It is therefore a priority to address the issue as to why , despite legislative reform and the clarity of Vietnam's forest laws the situation is still deteriorating . Development Does Not Equal Conservation: Traditionally, donors and governments alike have responded to the problem of biodiversity loss by addressing poverty alleviation through livelihood improvement programmes. It is envisaged that biodiversity depletion should proportionally decrease, especially when augmented by environmental education schemes. In fact, there is no evidence that this linkage exists. In Vietnam the rise of the market economy has created increased demand for forest and wildlife products, which fuels increased destruction of wild resources. Local people rising from poverty either join in the market economy through involvement in the commercial exploitation of forests and wildlife or allow professional forest and wildlife exploiters from elsewhere to do so (often supplying services to these forest exploiters). The authorities charged with maintaining the forest and its wildlife lack financial and material resources, lack the support of all levels that would allow them to uphold the law, and are powerless to control market forces. The affluent and well-educated urban population that forms the market ignores regulations, ignores the damage to Vietnam's natural heritage and demands more and more resources from the forests that were once affordable only by the elite. Vietnam's rising economic prosperity is acting not to assist the protection of its natural resources, but to worsen an already critical situation. Vietnam's wildlife has ceased to be a subsistence commodity for remote communities and has instead become a luxury commodity for wealthy urban people. Legislative Reform : The Government of Vietnam is already a signatory to the CITES agreement as well as the Convention on Biological Diversity and has tacitly recognised the urgent need to address the illegal trade in wildlife. Directive 12/2003/CT-TTG stipulates that provincial law enforcement agencies are instructed to cooperate in order to enforce national forest law. The National Action Plan on ‘Strengthening the Control of Trade of Wild Fauna & Flora' (Directive 1021/2004) also sets forth a commitment to combat the illegal wildlife trade through a strategic approach encapsulating awareness raising, capacity building, strengthening of the legal framework, scientific research, captive breeding and international cooperation. Unfortunately the implementation of Directive 12 has thus far, proved to be ineffectual within most of Vietnam's protected areas and buffer zones, where the illegal trade in fauna and flora persists unabated. The Management Strategy for a Protected Areas System in Vietnam until 2010 approved by Decision 192/2003, and the recent revision of the Forest Protection Law (Decision ) both highlight the importance of Vietnam's wild resources and provide directions for its conservation. Unfortunately the capacity to implement these decisions is lacking.Unless changes occur quickly, Vietnam's forest and wildlife are doomed to destruction, a long-term economic resource for the whole country will be lost and environmental consequences will be severe. Obstacles to Effective Conservation: Financial Investment: Frequently conservation in developing countries is principally constrained by financial resources. However, this simply is not the case in Vietnam where protected areas are amongst the best-financed in the world. There are problems relating to financing protected areas though, namely that there are complex restrictions on the expenditure of government funds. Protected areas funding is tied to expenditure and accounting norms primarily designed for infrastructure development. Consequently there is minimal funding for capacity building, monitoring and other 'on the ground' management costs (such as law enforcement) even though there is plenty of money for roads and buildings. This approach is clearly ineffective and needs to be addressed urgently. Lack of Capacity: The lack of appropriate financing mechanisms in turn affects the capacity of enforcement agencies and protected area management staff to implement existing government policies and legislation. Almost all protected area managers are trained as foresters with no specific knowledge of the difference between managing a production forest or a plantation and managing a protected area. Without the specialised knowledge required to address the myriad of threats to protected areas and methods to maintain the ecological integrity of a given habitat, ‘on the ground' staff are often deployed ineffectively. There are no training courses or standardised curricula for managers at the present time. Rangers, who are tasked to uphold the law and protect forest resources are in the main poorly trained and insufficiently equipped to fulfill their duties. FRR has conducted a comprehensive ranger needs assessment of 10 protected areas in Vietnam. The results were alarming to say the least. It was established that the knowledge base of rangers in certain key skill areas was so low that they could not in any way be effective. In no protected area has there been a coherent structured approach to ranger training and deployment. Political Will: Despite the significant legislative reform of recent years with regard to forest and wildlife laws, there is an apparent lack of political will or at least institutional confusion which impedes implementation and thus effective protected area management and the achievement of biodiversity conservation goals. For example Directive 12 states that law enforcement bodies are instructed to cooperate in order to uphold forest law, but just how they should cooperate is not specified. This is compounded by the fact that in general law enforcement agencies do not react because they do not deem forest and wildlife offences to be serious enough. On an individual basis they may be right but the cumulative effect of fuel-wood collection or wildlife-trapping, for instance is very significant. Currently the level of punishment is not clearly stipulated for each offence- the result is a lack of prioritisation, confusion and ultimately a lack of action. The Failure of Integrated Conservation and Development Projects: There are a number of inherent weaknesses within the ICDP concept. FRR has had considerable experience of implementing ICDPs in Vietnam and it is evident that linkages are rarely established between rural development, income generating opportunities and conservation objectives in Vietnam, as is perceived by conventional wisdom. Many such projects aim to link development support to villages/communes/districts to the achievement of conservation targets. In reality rural development programmes proceed according to the agendas of one g overnment department, and conservation programmes according to the agenda of another , and these agendas are often conflicting. Secondly, the success of integrating conservation and development objectives is dependent upon the level of political will to do so. If the enabling environment is not conducive to the adoption of policies developed at national-level then it leads only to apathetic implementation. This has been particularly evident in the introduction of interventions to tackle the illegal trade in wildlife. Thirdly, ICDPs are intrinsically an area-based approach, rather than focusing on strategies and institutions and consequently the framework for real change. An area-based approach has no capacity for dealing with external influences such as the illegal wildlife trade network. The assumption that poverty is the root-cause of market-driven environmental degradation is demonstrably false. The market is the ultimate driving force of the wildlife trade and both the international market (primarily China) and the Vietnamese urban markets are booming. Indeed, the rising affluence of urban Vietnamese and the higher numbers of people with disposable incomes, has led to a recent upsurge in the market, especially for luxury wildlife foods . The crucial need therefore is to address the principal cause of biodiversity loss, which is not rural poverty but the urban and international markets which are driving it. Creating An Enabling Environment: In conclusion what is clearly required is the creation of an enabling environment for on the ground change with regard to the implementation of government forest and protected area legislation and policies at national and provincial levels. A priority of FRR's work in Vietnam is to assist in changing the rules of the game and in making the rules operable at the field-level through: • Developing curricula to international (ASEAN) competence standards for both protected area managers and rangers • Standardising & institutionalising the recruitment process for protected area staff in Vietnam to emphasise the need for specialised skills • Conducting provincial-level training of trainers courses for ‘on the ground' protection of areas of conservation importance • Advising the government of Vietnam on the establishment of inter-agency task forces for the implementation of Directive 12 •Developing an enforcement economics wildlife trade study in collaboration with TRAFFIC to assess the incentives/disincentives to commit forest and wildlife crimes • Addressing the issue of policy change with the government of Vietnam at national-level regarding the way in which Vietnam's protected areas are financed and managed Overall, FRR has gained significant experience of the unique socio-economic and political context of protected areas and biodiversity conservation in Vietnam and has a reputation for promoting forward-thinking and practical solutions in a complex environment.
|
|
|
 |
|||
