Contribution of Forestry to Poverty Alleviation - APFNet

Viet Nam’s forestry development strategy 2006-2020 lays down the goals for up to 2020 as follows:
(i) establish, manage, protect, develop, and sustainably use 16.24 million ha demarcated for forestry;
(ii) increase the country’s forest cover to 43% in 2010 and to 47% in 2020; (iii) ensure the more active
participation of economic sectors and social organizations in forestry activities. These goals are
intended to make forestry contribute more to the socio-economic development process, environmental
protection, biodiversity conservation, poverty reduction, and livelihood improvements in mountainous
areas and to national security.
In short, the forestry sector is committed to focus on three areas: (i) ensuring forest protection and
development to increase forest cover to 47% in 2020 as well as forest quality; (ii) increasing the gross
forestry output value, including forest-product processing and environmental services to contribute
more to the national GDP; and, (iii) increasing the poverty alleviation potential of community forestry,
environmental services, household farms, the furniture industry, and afforestation projects.
The potential for forestry and poverty alleviation in Viet Nam looks very bright. It is hoped that
implementation of the strategies and policies mentioned above will be carried out in a well-coordinated
manner in contiguous areas, rather than in piecemeal and isolated instances so that poverty reduction,
forest protection and development can all take place in ways advocated in this report.
Recommendation to Improve the Contribution of Forestry
to Poverty Alleviation
As the case of Viet Nam in this study illustrates, the level of contribution of forestry to poverty is
differentiated depending on the macro-structures of state and economy, and forms of management
of natural resources. The study assessed the contribution of forestry to poverty alleviation over the
country’s history as far back as the cooperative period. The research findings show that the contribution
of forestry to poverty alleviation tends to be increasing, especially after the doi moi era.
During the doi moi period, the forestry sector attained important achievements, the most important
being the shift of the forestry sector development approach from State-based forestry development to
social forestry development with the participation of a wide range of stakeholders, including households
and private enterprises that play major roles in forest plantation and forest product processing. From
2005 to 2009, many breakthrough policies were put in place in the forest sector. Forestry projects were
effectively implemented. Program 661 and ODA projects played very important roles in raising the
awareness of government agencies as well as the entire society on the important roles of forests and
their resources. In addition, the country’s forest cover and the total forest areas remarkably increased in
the period 2005-2010. The goals of poverty reduction and improved livelihoods of the rural population
in mountain areas were largely met, with a significant decline of the poverty rate from 2006 to 2009 in
provinces where forest resources are abundant. Environmental protection, biodiversity conservation,
and environmental service were also pursued.
However, the contribution of the forestry sector to poverty reduction is still limited. Forestry growth is
still low and unsustainable. Forest potential is not properly exploited, particularly in the case of timber,
NWFPs, and environmental services. Plantations and natural forests have very low yields and low
quality that cannot meet the demands for socio-economic development. Poverty in key forestry areas
is still high. Household income generated from forest activities is still modest despite a great deal of
effort made by the government.
For forestry to further contribute to poverty alleviation, government should continue to focus on
poverty reduction. Community forestry, eco-tourism, NWFPs, industrial forestry, and PES should all
be pursued equally. This is due to the fact that Viet Nam’s forest land is fragmented and people who live
in and near forests are ethnic minority groups and are poor. They have limited access to capital sources
and technology. Therefore, one single initiative will not work for specific communities.
354