Filename: CARD-CFM, Milestone 3, Output 1, Baseline Survey, FINAL VERSION, 6 August 07.doc Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development Project Report MILESTONE 3, OUTPUT 1 THE BASELINE SURVEY Sustainable community-based forest development and management in some high poverty areas in Bac Kan Province Project No: 017/06 VIE Report prepared by Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry Department of Forest Protection in Bac Kan Province and Ensis – the Joint Forces of CSIRO and SCION 6 August 2007 2 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 2. THE REQUIRED OUTPUTS AS IN THE TABLE OF MILESTONES AND OUTPUTS 3. PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BASELINE SURVEY 3.1 Terms of Reference 3.2 Training 3.3 Implementation 3.4 Data Processing 3.5 Draft Reports 4. ANALYSIS OF DATA IN RELATION TO THE REQUIRED OUTPUTS 5. PROJECT RISK ASSESSMENT 6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ATTACHMENTS 1. The Terms of Reference for the Surveyors 2. The Survey Report 3. The Detailed Risk Assessment 3 1. INTRODUCTION The substantive part of the Baseline Report will be found in Attachment 2, which is the full (Second Draft) Report of the Baseline Survey. This Attachment should be read in conjunction with Attachment 1 (The Terms of Reference for the Surveyors). The following notes will amplify some aspects of the Report. In addition, the Project Table of Milestones and Outputs requires that the Project Risks should be assessed and a Risk Management Strategy detailed. These are presented in Section 5 below and Attachment 3. 2. THE REQUIRED OUTPUTS AS IN THE TABLE OF MILESTONES AND OUTPUTS The Baseline Survey is required to obtain quantitative and qualitative measures to include data from four pilot villages including, but not limited to: • Information on knowledge, skills attitudes and practices including areas bio-diversity, management practices, ownership and access status • Attitudes and practices of local authorities to allocation of land for Community Forestry Management (as distinct from household allocation) and areas of forest land not yet allocated • Socio-economic and environmental issues identified and opportunities for project interventions to provide economic, social and environmental benefits detailed This information and analysis is presented in Section 4 below, and in Attachment 2. In addition, the Report for Milestone 3, Output 1, is required to present an Assessment of Project Risks and Risk Management Strategies. 3. PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BASELINE SURVEY 3.1 Terms of Reference The Terms of Reference for the Baseline Survey were prepared by Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry, and are presented in Attachment 1. The Objectives of the Baseline Survey were: 1. To assess basic information relating to socio-economic status, community forest management status, community forestry quality, experiences of local communities on forest management and potential livelihood interventions of target villages. 2. To develop the indicators that can be used to monitor the progress and impacts of the project interventions. The Baseline Survey Questionnaire was prepared by Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry, and is to be found as Appendix 1 to Attachment 2. 4 3.2 Training The Survey Team included four staff members from Thai Nguyen University of Agriculture and Forestry and four from the Department of Forest Protection in Bac Kan Province. Before proceeding to the field, the Survey Team discussed and modified several successive versions of the questionnaire, and tested each other in pairs in “play acting” as if one person was the surveyor and the other the respondent. The final version of the Questionnaire is included as Appendix 1 to Attachment 2. The participatory tools used included: • In-depth discussions with key stakeholders; • Focus group discussions; • Cause-and-effect diagrams; • Venn diagrams; and • Semi-structured interviews with group members and leaders 3.3 Implementation The Baseline Survey collected and assessed information from a variety of sources, including: (i) project participants; (ii) field observations; (iii) project documents and other records, including secondary data; and (iv) counterparts and other local stakeholders. Field work to implement the Baseline Survey was undertaken in early April 2007, with several follow-up visits to check on various matters. In addition to the four project villages (Na Muc, Khuoi Lieng, To Dooc and Ban Sang), two more non-target villages (Na Ngoa and Khau La) were selected for study under the Baseline Survey as control villages for monitoring and evaluation during project implementation. People within 146 households in six villages were selected for interview. There were 80 households in Van Minh Commune and 66 households in Lang San Commune. Both men and women, representing the very poor, poor, medium, good and rich households, participated in the survey (Table 1). Table 1. Selected villages and households for basic evaluation Commune Villages Number of interviewees % Na Ngoa (control) 18 12.3 Na Muc 25 17.1 Van Minh Khuoi Lieng 37 25.3 Ban Sang 37 25.3 Tu ðoc 18 12.3 Lang San Khau La (control) 11 7.5 Household economic ranking No information 11 7.5 Rich 1 0.7 Above average 17 11.6 Average 41 28.1 Poor 68 46.6 Very poor 8 5.5 Total 146 5 Forty four women participated in the Baseline Survey, representing 35.5% of total respondents. 3.4 Data Processing The voluminous information from 146 questionnaires and other information was compiled into a comprehensive database. The information was filtered for outliers and then analyzed using standard social science statistical packages, including the SAS 8.1 software program. 3.5 Draft Reports The First Draft of the Baseline Report was prepared in April, with some subsequent delays due to translation problems. A Second Draft, to correct some inconsistencies in the presentations, was prepared in July and is included here as Attachment 2. 4. ANALYSIS OF DATA IN RELATION TO THE REQUIRED OUTPUTS The main parts of the Report (Attachment 2) present voluminous data in Sections 4 and 5, and discuss: • Section 4.1: The background to the project area; • Section 4.2: Basic information about households (population and ethnic minority groups, ethnic minority structure of the respondents, educational backgrounds and household wealth rankings) • Section 4.3: Income generation activities (livelihood activities) • Section 4.4: Forest production (forest areas of households, the difficulties of forest production, the solutions to overcome difficulties for forest production, people’s awareness of the politics of forest management and protection and the actualities of forest use) • Section 5.1: Household expenditure in 2006 • Section 5.2: General information on income and land ownership All this information addresses, in various Sections of the Baseline Report, the required topics: • Information on knowledge, skills attitudes and practices including area biodiversity, management practices, ownership and access status • Attitudes and practices of local authorities to allocation of land for Community Forestry Management (as distinct from household allocation) and areas of forest land not yet allocated • Socio-economic and environmental issues identified and opportunities for project interventions to provide economic, social and environmental benefits detailed The Baseline Survey employed a range of social survey methods, and a high respondent rate was reported. Data was collected from six villages, using two (non-project) villages as controls. Forty four women, or about 35% of respondents, were women. All ethnic groups participated. The Baseline Report provides a great deal of useful quantitative and qualitative data about most aspects of village life, and confirms the predominant poverty (poor and very poor) of about 60% of the villagers, although no household is completely landless. There are virtually no “rich” villagers. Considerable information was collected about crop production and its difficulties, animal production and its difficulties, household incomes and expenditures, and possible methods for improvement of crop and animal production. 6 The areas of household forests are of interest. There about 800 ha of household forests in the six villages, with average areas per household divided among household divided among good, medium, poor and very poor wealth categories as 4.4 ha, 2.4 ha, 1.8 ha and 2.3 ha respectively. Many requirements for overcoming problems with forest protection were stated by respondents: the main ones being “more capital”, “increased afforestation” and “better forest protection”. “Boundary definition and demarcation” is a problem. Most respondents stated that they are aware of village and Government regulations on forest use, and of course most stated that they have not been violating those regulations. Judging from recent village-based discussions and from the expressed wishes of villagers to allocate a very high proportion of their (soon to be) Community Forestry land to “protection forest”, there is a very high awareness of the importance of well protected forests to maintain the quantity, quality and reliability of both potable and irrigation water. Villagers will be prepared to develop and enforce their own regulations on the protection and use of the Community Forests. The only problems with the Baseline Survey are in the high proportion of respondents who were not able to give possible solutions to the expressed problems. This was no doubt partly due to the pressures put upon them to provide immediate answers during the limited time for administration of the questionnaire – these are important problems and the answers cannot be extracted under pressure but need to be evolved during village discussions. Secondly, some of the “no answers” were in fact indicating “not my concern”. This misconception has been corrected in the Second Draft of the Baseline Report. (Attachment 2). However, the phrase “not my concern” should be interpreted with care, remembering the difficulties villagers have in thinking far ahead – they are primarily concerned with their day to day problems rather than the long term problems and solutions and need time to focus on such problems. 5. PROJECT RISK ASSESSMENT During the Inception Meeting a Vietnamese translation of a detailed Risk Analysis, originally prepared by Dr P.R. Stevens, was discussed by all participants. Some adjustments to the main Risk Items, the Ratings for “Likelihood of Occurrence” and the “Severity of Impact on Project Success if the Risk does Occur” and the Combined Ratings were made. For those Risk Items with Combined Ratings of 10 or above (and some other items), some actions to be taken by nominated stakeholders to mitigate and/or manage the risk, if necessary, and timing of action, were described. The Detailed Risk Analysis is presented as Attachment 3. 6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Points 1. The Baseline Survey employed a range of social survey methods, and had a high respondent rate among the six villages in two Communes which were the subject of the Survey. Forty four women, or about 35% of respondents, were women and all ethnic groups participated. 2. The Baseline Report provides a great deal of useful quantitative and qualitative data about most aspects of village life, and confirms the predominant poverty (poor and very poor) of about 60% of the villagers, although no household is completely landless. There are virtually no “rich” villagers. Considerable information was collected about crop 7 production and its difficulties, animal production and its difficulties, household incomes and expenditures, and possible methods for improvement of crop and animal production. 3. There about 800 hectares of household forests in the six villages, with average areas per household divided among good, medium, poor and very poor wealth categories as 4.4 ha, 2.4 ha, 1.8 ha and 2.3 ha respectively. Many requirements for overcoming problems with forest protection were stated by respondents: the main ones being “more capital”, “increased afforestation” and “better forest protection”. “Boundary definition and demarcation” is a problem. 4. Most respondents stated that they are aware of village and Government regulations on forest use, and of course most stated that they have not been violating those regulations. 5. The villagers in the four project villages wish to allocate a high proportion of their (soon to be) 560 hectares of Community Forestry land to “Protection Forest”, because there is clear awareness of the importance of well protected forests to maintain the quantity, quality and reliability of both drinking and irrigation water. They will certainly be prepared to develop and enforce their own regulations on the protection and use of the Community Forests, as they are well aware of the importance of the environmental and amenity values of the forests. 6. The main sources of household income are from crop and animal production and, while there are large areas of forest land (both household and Commune, and soon-to-be Community), these are not currently producing much household income. Off-farm activities currently contribute little household income. 7. Poor maintenance and operation of the village irrigation systems is the main constraint on crop production, and should be improved. 8. A detailed Risk Analysis is presented. Mitigation of those Risk Items with Combined Ratings of 10 or above (and some other items) is discussed, and some actions to be taken by nominated stakeholders to mitigate and/or manage the risk, if necessary, and the timing of action, were described. Recommendations 1. Immediate support is needed (in terms of improved techniques, nurseries and seedling production) for reforestation, agroforestry systems and enrichment of forests. 2. Villagers and other project partners should develop and implement effective methods of forest protection in those areas of the Community Forests which are allocated to “Bao ve” (forest protection). 3. Training on forest protection, Community Forest management and improved techniques for forestry and agricultural production is needed. 4. The land allocation process – for the new Village Community Forestry areas – should be completed as soon as possible so that villagers can then confidently proceed with their programs for improved protection, management, reforestation and income-generating activities. 5. Village irrigation systems, maintenance and operation need to be upgraded. 8 6. Actions should be taken at certain times by nominated stakeholders to mitigate and/or manage various Project Risks, as set out in Attachment 3. ATTACHMENTS 1. The Terms of Reference for the Surveyors 2. The Survey Report 3. The Detailed Risk Assessment 9 ATTACHMENT 1 CARD 017-06 VIE PROJECT Terms of Reference Survey Team for the Baseline Survey 1. Introduction The CARD 017-06 VIE project aims to empower ethnic minority people in four pilot villages in Van Minh and Lang San communes near Kim Hy Nature Reserve, Na Ri district of Bac Kan Province of Vietnam to manage forest and forest land. This will be achieved through strengthening the capacity of local and provincial government authorities in participatory forest land use planning, land allocation and extension services as part of community based forest management. It includes capacity building activities at community and government levels, and provides technical and institutional support. The project will provide support to improve local livelihoods of disadvantaged men and women, the majority of whom are ethnic minorities to share equal access to forest land, better manage their resources and benefit from these resources. Systems will be put in place to support the prevention of forest land degradation and support forest development and conservation. The development of information systems, experiences and training methods will be shared with other communes in the district and extended to other relevant parts of the province and northern mountainous regions through stakeholders and other information dissemination methods. The project Goal is Sustainable improvement in livelihood security of disadvantaged forest-dependent people in northern mountainous areas, through empowerment of access to forest and forest land, influence over forest land management, conservation of the natural resources and development of relevant skills. It is necessary to conduct the Baseline Survey in order to assess initial information relating to socioeconomic status, community forest management status, experiences of local communities on forest management, potential livelihood interventions that can be used to define the interventions and monitoring of CARD project during project implementation. 2. Objectives The objectives of the survey are: 1. To assess basic information relating to socioeconomic status, community forest management status, community forest quality, experiences of local communities on forest management and potential livelihood interventions of target villages 2. To develop the indicators that can be used to monitor the progress and impacts of the project interventions. 3. Detailed Scope of Work In order to achieve these objectives, the survey team should take into account but is not limited to the following considerations: 10 1. To assess socioeconomic status of target communities (wealth ranking, main income generations, percentage of income from forest, level of dependency on forest resources) 2. To define the potential livelihood activities that can improve livelihood of local communities who are depending on forest resources. 3. To review the current community forest management status (local forest management regulations, forest user groups, local policies, boundaries etc.) 4. To assess the quality of current community forest and allocated land forest (species, biodiversity, yield, production, land cover etc.) 5. To review the experiences of local community on forest management 6. To identify the training needs of local communities and forest management agencies 7. To review the current forest management organization structure 8. Base on the logframe of the project to develop the indicators that reflect the progress and impacts of the project 4. Methodologies and tasks 4.1 Methodology The Baseline Survey will require information from a variety of resources including: (a) Project participants; (b) Field observations; (c) Project documents and other records including secondary data; and (d) counterparts and other local stakeholders. This information should be gathered and reported using methods that provide accurate, representative and appropriately detailed information. Conclusion and recommendations must relate clearly and directly to the data and analysis presented in the body of survey report. The survey report should include both quantitative and qualitative information. Emphasis should be given to information gathered from field interview and observations. The choice of specific field methods and sampling procedures will be determined by the Survey Team in conjunction with the project management team of TUAF and Ensis. The main tools of the assessments will be participatory tools, including such as: • In-depth discussion with key stakeholders • Focus group discussions • Cause-and-effect diagrams • Venn diagrams • Semi-structured interviews with group members and leaders • Field spotting surveys • Case studies 4.2 Key tasks 1. The Survey Team will be responsible for the following sequence of tasks 2. Design the Team's working approach, including data gathering procedures, field schedules and processes in conjunction with the project team. 3. Review all necessary project documents, including the project proposal and secondary data. 4. Conduct interviews with project counterparts, district and provincial authorities and other local partners. 5. Conduct field surveys in 4 target field survey and at least 2 other neighbouring villages 6. Draft report [...]... 26 83 309 430 32 55 2 733 39 7 479 655 1 83 309 125 88 121 52 25 9 135 10765 27 Very poor 3 767 292 433 35 7 900 30 1 0 0 0 0 2 139 Above average 3 533 250 533 30 0 5000 35 3 0 0 0 0 7210 29 Poor 6 10 83 439 1417 33 8 2050 38 5 1 83 110 17 5 5979 30 Very poor 2 0 0 1000 900 0 0 0 0 34 50 Above average 1 1600 7 13 1600 750 2000 419 200 120 200 50 115 43 32 Average 14 2 236 461 33 07 402 5107 424 1 036 550 33 9 41 165 23 33. .. 2455 38 7 238 2 33 2 82 36 45 6 837 7 (1) (2) 1 Total 2 Van Minh (10) (11) (12) ( 13) (14) Classified by commune and village 3 No of reviwers 6 9 Lang San Classified by commune and ethnic groups Kinh 8 1 238 416 2 238 489 1425 35 9 38 8 2 13 338 47 7 833 11 Tay 60 1545 425 2772 4 13 2642 454 4 13 195 133 29 1 033 2 12 Dao 8 700 34 0 700 32 5 26 63 367 138 83 13 4 5159 13 Nung 4 1850 39 0 235 0 36 7 4400 38 7 0 0 250 36 10578... 5. 43 30 23. 26 12 9 .30 No concern 70 54.26 37 28.68 98 75.97 109 84.50 121 93. 80 48 37 .21 96 7 27. 13 74.42 7.75 2 .33 3 10 Rate (%) 35 0 Num 5. 43 36 27.91 30 23. 26 4 3. 10 2 1.55 20 15.50 3 2 .33 12 9 .30 7 5. 43 1 0.78 8 6.20 2 1.55 8 6.20 3 2 .33 0 7 5. 43 2 1.55 1 0.78 2 1.55 0 3 2 .33 7 5 5. 43 3.88 61 47.29 12 9 .30 6 11 4.65 0 8. 53 7 0 5. 43 5 3. 88 * Solutions for development of animal husbandry The interviewed... 19.0 38 75 27.9 6589 47.4 559 4.0 2 43 1.7 139 11 8 Khau La 11 2 431 29.0 32 61 38 .9 2610 31 .2 36 0.4 39 0.5 837 7 9 Classified by commune and ethnic groups 6 Lang San Kinh 8 17 53 22.4 4 034 51.5 1946 24.8 2 13 2.7 281 3. 6 7 833 11 Tay 60 2290 22.2 38 80 37 .6 4101 39 .7 1 83 1.8 133 1 .3 1 033 2 12 Dao 8 831 16.1 757 14.7 34 66 67.2 83 1.6 23 0.4 5159 13 Nung 4 2622 24.8 30 54 28.9 4690 44 .3 0 0.0 2 13 2.0 10578 Kinh... groups and household economic ranking in 2006 19 (6) No information 4 1075 298 1875 404 1000 33 0 0 0 0 0 4 935 20 Above average 2 1200 600 35 00 684 2550 488 1550 850 1250 178 17155 21 Average 3 1567 444 2 133 400 34 33 221 33 3 200 167 23 6902 No information 7 9 43 467 234 3 472 6286 38 3 257 100 2 43 38 14172 23 Rich 1 800 433 1400 414 600 419 0 0 0 0 4121 24 25 Above average Average 11 24 134 5 1879 36 8 410 34 00... 7.8 38 65.4 7 Tu Doc 18 4.6 230 5.6 36 .1 4.4 2194.4 34 .4 0.7 33 3 .3 5.2 32 .8 655.6 10 .3 888.9 13. 9 637 7.8 8 Khau La 11 2.9 1454.6 39 .9 3. 6 1818.2 49.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.5 36 9.1 10.1 0.0 0.0 36 41.8 6 9 10 Lang San Classified by commune and ethnic groups Kinh 8 2.6 131 2.5 22 .3 6 .3 3125.0 53. 1 0.9 437 .5 7.4 42.5 850.0 14.4 162.5 2.8 5887.5 11 Tay 60 3. 9 1958 .3 31.6 3. 4 1675.0 27.0 1.8 875.0 14.1 67.2 134 3.0... 19.2 38 3 .3 10.6 0.0 0.0 36 33. 3 30 Very poor 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1000.0 78.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 13. 5 270.0 21 .3 0.0 0.0 1270.0 Above average 1 2.0 1000.0 25.6 5.0 2500.0 64.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 400.0 10 .3 0.0 0.0 39 00.0 32 Average 14 3. 7 1857.1 29.7 4.9 2464 .3 39.4 0.6 32 1.4 5.1 48.6 971.4 15.5 642.9 10 .3 6257.1 33 Poor 20 3. 0 1500.0 44.8 2 .3 1125.0 33 .6 0.4 200.0 6.0 26.1 521.0 15.6 0.0 0.0 33 46.0 34 Very poor 3. .. Kg (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 146 1488 429 2524 412 31 77 420 35 5 179 151 29 10 438 Na Ngoa 18 1556 477 2622 475 2 239 480 222 128 32 8 57 10741 4 Na Muc 25 1452 457 2484 448 32 92 515 908 428 63 26 1 132 1 5 Khuoi Lieng 37 138 7 35 8 2 430 35 8 233 0 36 0 62 28 116 17 7 833 Ban S n 37 138 9 446 2511 4 13 3959 422 70 46 86 13 11222 7 Tu Doc 18 1622 472 2744 427 4578 39 7 1078 559 36 9 74 139 11 8 Khau La 11 1911 39 9... 1000 ñ (12) % ( 13) Total incom e 1000 ñ (14) Classified by commune and village 3 (4) % Summer rice 146 2170.9 21.1 35 47 34 .7 4542 42.6 174.7 1.5 129.0 1.2 10 438 Na Ngoa 18 2654 24.7 436 5 40.6 34 26 31 .9 128 1.2 34 4 3. 2 10741 4 Na Muc 25 2277 20.1 36 90 32 .6 5512 48.7 400 3. 5 53 0.5 1 132 1 5 Khuoi Lieng 37 1725 22.0 30 42 38 .8 2 937 37 .5 28 0.4 101 1 .3 7 833 Ban S n 37 2002 17.8 34 85 31 .1 5615 50.0 46 0.4 75... 14 Interviewed household information on forest land and forest production in 2006 Natural Forest Reforest No of reviwers Area Income Area Income Total income ha 1000ñ ha 1000ñ 1000 ñ 146 2.0 1022.9 0.05 0.0 10 23. 0 Na Ngoa 18 2.8 688.9 0.0 0.0 688.9 4 Na Muc 25 1.8 680.0 0.0 0.0 680.0 5 Khuoi Lieng 37 3. 1 1025.7 0.2 0.0 1025.7 Ban S n 37 0.9 594.6 0.0 0.0 594.6 7 Tu Doc 18 1.4 33 33. 3 0.0 0.0 33 33. 3 8 . MILESTONE 3, OUTPUT 1 THE BASELINE SURVEY Sustainable community-based forest development and management in some high poverty areas in Bac Kan Province Project No: 017/06 VIE Report. forest management and protection 36 4.4.5. Actuality of forest using 36 5. Household expenditure and income in 2006 38 5.1. Household expenditure in 2006 38 5 .3. General information on income. OUTPUTS AS IN THE TABLE OF MILESTONES AND OUTPUTS 3. PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BASELINE SURVEY 3. 1 Terms of Reference 3. 2 Training 3. 3 Implementation 3. 4 Data Processing 3. 5 Draft