Contribution of Forestry to Poverty Alleviation - APFNet

the contribution of forestry to environmental services (such as protection of soil, water, and carbon
absorption and other services) is fully calculated, the value is much higher, estimated at about US$ 29.7
billion (ADB 2009), accounting for 4-5% of the national GDP.
Nevertheless, poverty in the key forested regions has not reduced substantially. Therefore, the
contribution of the forestry sector to poverty reduction is still limited. Household income generated
from forest activities is still modest despite government’s efforts.
Poverty reduction is a complex issue and requires cross-sector coordination and collaboration. The
government of Viet Nam has increasingly paid attention to the abolition of hunger and poverty and to
economic development, since 85% of protected areas are located in regions where poverty incidence is
highest (ICRAF Viet Nam 2009). The government has also emphasized the tight links between poverty
alleviation and forestry conservation by setting a goal to reduce poverty in the country to below 40%
and to increase the country’s forest cover to 43% in 2010 and to 47% in 2020 (Ibid.). This suggests that
policy makers view the forestry sector as one mechanism for poverty alleviation.
Nevertheless, there has never been any thorough research on the contribution of forests to poverty
reduction, although there are minor studies done by Sunderlin and Huynh (2004) and Dinh Duc Thuan
et. al. (2005).
Poverty Reduction and Forestry in National Policy
National Poverty Reduction Strategy
Based on a cost-based method to calculate poverty indicators and an international poverty line, Viet
Nam is seen to have successfully reduced poverty. In the 10-year socio-economic development strategy,
the government expressed its commitment to job creation, poverty reduction, and social equality. The
development strategy toward poverty reduction was integrated in socio-economic development plans
for 2006-2010 with the following goals: (i) reducing the households considered poor from 32% in 2000
to 15-16% in 2010 (based on the General Statistics Office or GSO); and (ii) reduce 75% of households
that are poor in terms of food (from 11% in 2000 to no food poverty in 2010).
In the 1990s, Viet Nam’s poverty rate was around 75%, which was unacceptably high. It was reduced
to 58% in 1993 and 37% in 1998, 29% in 2002 and 24.1% in 2004 (Socialist Republic of Viet Nam
2005b). This was further reduced to 19.5% in 2005, 14.8% in 2008, 12.3% in 2010, and 10.6% in 2011
(Index Mundi, retrieved 2011).
Doi moi has had a remarkable impact on Viet Nam’s rapid economic growth, hence the eradication of
hunger and poverty in Viet Nam (World Bank et al. 1999). However, the question put forward now is
whether rapid growth can improve this in the near future. A report, Viet Nam Poverty Analysis, by the
Centre for International Economics (2002) noted that doi moi seemed to have led to structural changes
in the economy in which some sectors could expand and develop while some will still contract. It opens
up the possibility that unemployment will increase and incomes will fall below the poverty line.
The socio-economic development plan for 2011 to 2015 on the implementation of the associated strategy
shows the direction toward fast and sustainable growth, as well as increasing the country’s potential
to develop. The plan also mentions improving the quality, efficiency, and competency in international
integration to make strong changes in the economic structure and promote industrialization and
modernization. The plan targets the goals of increasing the average economic development rate at
around 7-8% per year from 2011 to 2015, decreasing the average poor household rate based on the new
standard to 2-3% per year, and increasing the forest cover to 42.5% (Decision 09/2011/QĐ-TTg).
UNDP (2011) stated that of all the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), Viet Nam has made the
most impressive progress on MDG 1 on poverty reduction. From a poverty rate of 58.1% in 1990, the
country successfully reduced poverty by 75% in 2008 (14.5% poverty rate).
329