Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tran Chi Trung, ME. Dinh Vu Thuy
Vietnam Academy of Water Resources
Summary: Under impact of climate change, coastal erosion and mangrove degradation have been and will continue to cause great economic, social and environmental damage to coastal areas of Mekong Delta. One of issues raised for coastal protection and dyke line is how to prevent degradation of coastal mangroves. Based on analysis of current state of mangrove management, this paper proposes effective community-based mangrove management models for climate change adaptation in coastal areas of Mekong Delta. Proposed models for increasing community participation are: (i) Forest protection group, (ii) co-management of mangrove and natural resources and (iii) mangroves management community. Effectiveness of sustainable management of mangroves of proposed models is evidenced by several pilot models in Mekong Delta.
Key words: Mangrove forest, mangrove degradation, community-based mangrove management
- Introduction
Under impacts of climate change, coastal erosion has seriously affected the safety for more 700km sea dykes in Mekong Delta. According to recent research of VAWR (2017) many areas are regularly eroded with speed of encroaching inland from 5-45m per year, on a total length of about 250km. As a result, protection forests in front of the dyke has been narrowed down, specially in some positions forests in front of dyke are completely lost. Coastal erosion and mangrove degradation have caused huge economic, social and environmental damage. Coastal mangroves have a particularly important role in protecting sea dykes and the lives and livelihoods of coastal communities. Mangroves play a role of blocking waves, preventing wind, erosion for protecting dykes and stabilizing mudflats to provide diverse natural resources including aquatic resources. When natural mangrove forests are protected or planted large enough, almost solid walls will be formed for protecting coastline and sea dikes from erosion caused by storms and rising sea levels. In context that climate change is deeply impacting on socio-economic life, sustainable management and use of mangroves is considered as one of many sustainable solutions. Up to date, several models of community-based mangroves sustainable management are established mainly due to support of international organizations, such as model of integrated mangrove management in form of self-management group in Cangio (UNCN, 2015), several models of mangrove co-management in Soctrang (Richard Lloyd, 2010). Co-management models have become a bright spot in coordination between authorities and people in planting, protecting and sharing benefits from forests without affecting natural environment. These models are both meaningful to livelihoods and culture of local people, and have positive effects on environment and ecology. However, these models are highly dependent on technical and financial assistance from international organizations without long-term legal binding mechanisms (GTZ, 2017). Based on results of assessment of current status of mangrove management (VAWR, 2017, this study proposes models of community-based sustainable management for protection and use of mangroves in response to climate change for coastal areas of Mekong Delta.
- Current situation of mangrove forest management in Mekong Delta
2.1 Mangrove depletion
Mekong Delta has 91,906 ha of coastal mangrove forests, accounting for 49% of national mangrove area, of which special use forests are 12.3%, protective mangroves 56.6%, and production mangroves 31.1 % (Directorate of Forestry, 2012). In recent years, coastal mangroves have been strongly reduced, mangroves decline is complicated and tends to increase both in scope and scale. Statistics show that during period 1980-1995 Mekong Delta provinces lost 72,825 ha of forest, on average, each year lost 4,855 ha at the rate of 5% per year (Directorate of Forestry, 2012). From 2011 to 2016, area of mangrove forests along the lower Mekong coastline is decreased by 15,339 ha (nearly 10%), from 194,723 ha in 2011 to 179,384 ha in 2016 and it is estimated each year of deforestation and followed by land loss is about 500 ha per year (MARD, 2017). Trend of changing mangroves is decreasing over years, especially in lowland areas, many mangrove areas have been wiped out in Camau and Kiengiang provinces. Decrease in area of mangroves also means decrease in width of forest in front of dyke. Survey data from provincial forest protection departments in 2017 showed that width of forest in front of dike in provinces is very different, in many places the average width of forest before dike is as large as 1,000m in Baclieu, Soctrang province is 750m, while in Camau and Kiengiang provinces are only 150m and 300m, even in some places with no forest in front of dykes like in Kiengang and Camau provinces. In areas without protection forests or in areas with little protection forest cover, there will not be enough forest cover to drain wave energy, thereby conditional waves directly impacting shore causing landslides. The fact in strong landslides shows that the more width of protective forest belt is reduced, the faster erosion process will occur.
Mangroves are severely degraded due to various causes, partly due to impact of nature from annual deposition of silt and accretion caused by waves, but partly by impact of economic, social economy activities of exploitation of coastal shrimp farming land. Development of shrimp farming areas in mangroves forest in Mekong Delta provinces is a major factor affecting planning management and sustainable exploitation of coastal resources, including mangroves. Shrimp farming brings about quick economic benefits, but result is reduction of mangrove cover, changes in soil, water and ecological environment. Effective community-based mangrove management is an important solution to mitigate these impacts.
2.2 Mangrove management status
Organization managing protection forests at central level consists of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, which are agencies responsible for the professional and management of forests, forest resources and forest land. Local level People’s Committees at all levels (province, district and commune) are responsible for managing forests and forest land. Depending on type of forest (special use, protection and production), forest owners have different rights and functions for management, protection, and utilization of forests and forest resources. Current organization of mangrove management in coastal provinces of the Mekong Delta is mainly driven by state-owned organizations, including two main forms are the protection forest management boards and forest protection department directly managing or contracting to households for protection, in which forest management board is managing most of mangrove area. In addition, in some localities, forest management and protection is allocated to private enterprises and police organizations. Common mode of contracting for forest protection is that forest owners allot forests to households for direct protection in accordance with forest protection contracting stipulated in the Decree. No. 168 of Government and regulations on protection forests, special-use forests and production forests. Households receive contracts in form of contracts between forest owners and households which is valid for 20 years. As a rule, households are allowed to use 30% of water surface for aquaculture for protection and production forests, not for special-use forests. The households are entitled to a part of above products on contracted forest land. The main income source of these households is from aquaculture under forest canopy, almost no other income from forest exploitation or thinning.
According to mechanism of contracting forest protection for households, there are still major shortcomings in management and protection of mangrove forests. People use more than 30% of area to dig canals and aquaculture in accordance with regulations, even in some areas this percentage is up to 50%. Because profitability of shrimp farming is much higher than income from forest, people tend to expand area of canals for shrimp farming, while there is a lack of management methods associated with building models to stabilize livelihoods and enhance community participation in promotion of natural forest regeneration. Most provinces do not provide funding for contracting for protection of secondary forest belt but just only provide funding for protection of main forest belt leading to contractors’ deforestation to expand aquaculture area under forest canopy to increase income. There are many violations in forest management and protection. Excessive logging and deforestation activities, especially deforestation for aquaculture, coastal fishing in recent decades have severely degraded mangroves. Aquaculture combined with construction of freshwater works, coastal dike has also changed coastal environment causing mangrove degradation. Management of aquaculture in mangrove forest has not been strictly, it has caused many consequences for forest such as deep flooding, leading to death of forest trees. Violations occurred are due to low awareness of forest management of community have led to continued deforestation and encroachment of forest land for shrimp farming.
Recently, localities have established community organizations to participate in forest management and protection. Such as Bac Lieu province has established model of self-governing group for security and order protection in combine with forest protection. Self-governing group is a mass organization established in spirit of people’s willingness to participate in preserving security, defense and forest protection. Kiengiang province established forest protection group model to coordinate with the protection forest management board in forest protection work. Self-governing groups and forest protection groups are a two-way information links between forest owners and people and vice versa. In fact, these groups have partly promoted effectiveness of forest protection such as monitoring violations, supervising strangers into forest areas. However, operation of these groups are not so effective, main reason is lack of community participation while there is no funding or very low allowance (100-200,000 VND/month/person), so forest protection groups has less motivation to operate, less responsibility and also due to lack of transport vehicle to conduct forest protection.
- Community-based mangrove management models
3.1 Community-based forest management
Community-based forest management is sharing of rights and responsibilities with local communities in management of forests that benefit communities. Community participation will promote community support due to gradual awareness of people that will resolve conflict between government and people or between forest owners and people. However, due to diversity of communities, it is not possible to have a common community forest management model, but there are different types of community-based forest management suitable to specific condition. According to approach of community-based resource management, model of community-based forest management has following main characteristics: Self-management, voluntary, consensus, respect, and utilization of traditional knowledge, equality, ecological rationality and sustainable development and conflict resolution based on conciliation. These characteristics are basis to propose models of community-based sustainable management of mangroves for Mekong Delta as below.
3.2 Model of forest protection group
Forest protection group: Forest protection group (FPG) can be set up on a village, inter- village or commune scale representing people who are contracted to protect forest and community in village. Members of group who are elected with decision of commune people’s committee (CPC) may be 3-5 persons, including leader and members. The group develop operation regulation which will be approved through meeting of delegates of members and certified by CPC. It can be says that establishing FPG is an extension arm of the protection forest management board to carry out supervision and inspection of forest protection work (Figure 1).
Forest protection activities: Forest protection groups participate in protection of coastal mangrove forests. For secondary forest belt, FPG has task of coordinating with the forest owners to protect forest. For main forest belt, FPG performs the task of patrolling and protecting forests through contracts on forest protection with forest owners.
Forest protection in association with livelihood development: In order to motivate communities to participate in forest protection, forest protection activities need to be associated with aquaculture under forest canopy in an ecological way to increase product value and income for people, creating incentives for people more attached to the forest. The forms of community linkage to develop suitable livelihoods are interest group or cooperatives to cultivate aquatic products under forest canopy to develop livelihoods but still ensure sustainable management of forests.
Figure 1. Forest protection group model. (a) common form of contracting for forest protection and (b) proposed model
Formation of interest groups or cooperatives will help households to link together, support each other to create strength in production and consumption of products to develop livelihoods in association with sustainable forest protection. Interest groups are formed from households and individuals who are members of the same interests, interested in investing in a livelihood activity such as culturing oysters, shrimp, crabs under forest canopy in which members of the interest group is also members of FPG. For localities where community has management capacity and investment capacity, establishment of aquaculture cooperatives will help to link aquaculture activities with forest protection in which members of the cooperative are also members of FPG.
Finance for forest management and protection activities: Financial guarantee for forest protection activities is a decisive factor to sustainability of FPGs. The groups can have main sources of revenue from contracting expenses for forest protection; revenues from exploited and salvaged exploited timber output, exploited timber according to regulations; income from aquaculture activities under forest canopy; revenue from exploitation of natural resources. According to current regulations of provinces, funding is only provided for protection of main forest belt. In addition, FPG may have other sources of income from payment for forest environmental services and ecotourism.
Effectiveness of proposed model: Establishing FPG will contribute to improve the contractual relationship between protection forest management board (forest owners) and households contracted to protect forests. Effectiveness of proposed models is evidenced by the model of forest protection group in Xeo La A hamlet, Anminh district, Kiengiang province. FPG in Xeo La A hamlet is a model that FPG is attached to aquaculture cooperatives established in May 2019 (VAWR, 2019). In this model, Thangloi cooperative has main business of supplying seed cockles and selling products for the members. FPG consists of 3 persons who are leaders and members of the cooperative, representing households in Xeo La A hamlet. At present the group participates in protecting secondary forest belt with area of 100ha and make plan to contract with forest owner to protect 20ha in main forest belt by 2020. Effectiveness of model of Xeo La A hamlet in comparison with groups established by localities in recent years is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Effectiveness of forest protection group model associated with aquaculture cooperatives in Xeo La A hamlet
| Forest protection groups established by localities | Model of forest protection group
|
| Forest protection group:
– Forest protection group established by the CPC does not involve with community participation |
Forest protection group:
Forest protection group promotes community participation: – Protection and management group is elected from the community and decided by CPC – Establishing operation regulations approved through member delegate meeting, certified by the CPC |
| Forest protection:
Coordination and support for forest management board and forest protection department is ineffective leading to less effective in supervision and inspection of forest protection work. |
Forest protection:
– Propagating community to guide, manage and protect forests; – Coordinate and actively support the forest management board, forest protection department in supervision and inspection of forest protection work. |
| Livelihood development:
Forest protection groups are not associated with livelihood development for the community |
Livelihood development:
– Forest protection and management activities associated with aquaculture of the cooperative (60ha cultivating blood cockle, shrimp and crab under forest canopy) – Cooperative has agreed on plan to receive 100ha of mudflats to breed scallops and exploit natural resources next year. |
| Finance for forest management and protection activities:
There is no funding for protection of secondary forest belt or very low allowance (VND 100-200,000/month/person) in some localities |
. Finance for forest management and protection:
– There are sources of income from contracting to protect main forests belt (current contracting level is 450,000 VND/ha/year) and from activities of exploiting natural resources, breeding blood cockles in alluvial areas from next year. |
Main factors to promote participation of community in forest protection are that forest FPG is elected by community and authorized by the CPC and building operation regulation which is approved through meeting of member delegation and then confirmed by CPC. By representing community, FPG is able to mobilize community to participate in supporting management and protection of forests. Operating regulation is also an important element to carry out monitoring activities as well as promote effectiveness in handling violations. Patrol and protection of forests are carried out regularly, community are more aware and united in protecting forests for maintaining area of digging and trenching aquaculture in accordance with regulations, preventing in time acts of exploiting and using forests illegally, so that there is no phenomenon of violating deforestation. Cooperatives have helped members link and support each other in providing blood cockle seed and blood cockle breeding techniques to improve productivity, build product brands. Implementing aquaculture according to ecological model, households do not use weight gain feed, water taken for aquaculture is strictly controlled to keep water in the forest then no more trees die due to flooding. With average blood cockle productivity of 1.5-2 tons/ha/year, shrimp and crab productivity about 200-300 kg/ha/year, net income of households is 40-50 million/ha/year. Income from blood cockle production is 1.5-2 times than current popular shrimp and crab culture. This income ensures a good life for people contracted to protect forests and stick with forests. From initial results, it can be said that as compared with forest protection groups established by localities, model of forest protection group has contributed to improve contractual relationship between forest protection and management board and households contracted to protect forests due to promoting community participation in forest protection and ecological environment protection. In other words, FPG associated with livelihood development is a model of community-based natural resource management, which develops reasonable ecological livelihoods but still ensures sustainable forest management. Model of FPG can be widely applied to localities, but establishment of aquaculture cooperatives is suitable for localities where communities have production capacity, management capacity and high ability to invest.
3.3 Model of co-management of mangroves and natural resources
Co-management of mangroves and natural resources is part of integrated coastal management. Co-management of forests is a way of organizing and managing forests with many stakeholders including forest owners, village communities, households, individuals and other stakeholders voluntarily involved in forest management through co-management agreements. Co-management is based on a partnership in which decision-making rights, management responsibilities and transparency are guaranteed and shared between local government agencies, communities and other stakeholders. In other words, forest co-management is a management method whereby state forest owners share their rights, benefits and obligations to manage, protect, develop and use forests with local communities and local authorities (commune, village) at different levels depending on capacities of each party, but not losing leading role of state forest owner (Chu Manh Trinh, 2011). Levels of community participating co-management are illustrated in Figure 2. According to recent studies, co-management mainly follows three approaches: (i) coordination in forest management, (ii) community-based forest management and (iii) mechanism to share benefits from forests. This study applies these approaches and considers role of community participation to propose co-management model for mangroves and natural resources management for Mekong Delta as follow.
Figure 2. Levels of community participation in co-management (Chu Manh Trinh, 2011)
Coordination among stakeholders: From status of mangrove forest management in coastal areas of Mekong Delta, forest management in combination with natural resources management includes main stakeholders including co-management group, protection forest management board (forest owner) and CPC. Collaboration between forest management board, CPC and co-management group is performed through coordination regulations. Regulation defines responsibilities and duties of stakeholders as well as responsibilities and interests of community that will mobilize participation of community and mobilize local resources in forest protection associated with natural resources management.
Forest protection and development: The co-management group establishes a management board and protection patrol teams, all members of the community are responsible for protecting forests and natural resources. Establishment of co-management group is same as forest protection group mentioned above. In addition, co-management is also able to mobilize community participation in re-establishment process and development of mangrove ecosystems.
Natural resource management: In many regions, mangrove land resources can be exploited to provide economic benefits to the people. In this respect, local authority plays a role in advising and supporting the community while community owns and together with authority make plans on exploitation of natural resources, developing livelihood models. Community groups develop regulations on exploitation of natural resources, stipulate what is allowed, and prohibited from doing in each forest area. Only members of co-management group can collect, catch resources, other people want to exploit must get consent of community. Establishing co-management group is also convenient for linking households together, supporting each other to create strength to develop livelihood models associated with sustainable forest protection. Community-based livelihood model will bring more economic benefits but still protect forests sustainably are such as raising snails, oysters, etc.
Finance for forest management and protection: Ensuring stable revenue sources for forest protection is a decisive factor to sustainability of co-management group. Through carrying out forest protection in association with natural resources management, co-management group has revenues from contracting budget for forest protection as prescribed by provinces, revenues from aquaculture activities under forest canopy, revenues from natural resource exploitation, artisanal and salvaged exploitation and timber according to regulations. In addition, co-management groups may have other sources of income from payment for forest environmental services and ecotourism.
Effectiveness of proposed model: Co-management model promotes coordination between authorities, forest owners and communities in sustainable management of mangroves and natural resources through coordination regulations and sharing benefit mechanisms from natural resources exploitation. Co-management ensures development of a rational ecological livelihood but still ensures sustainable forest management. Co-management is also capable of mobilizing community participation in process of regenerating and developing mangrove ecosystems without affecting natural environment.
Effectiveness of proposed model is evidenced by the co-management of mangroves and natural resources in Au Tho B hamlet, Vinhchau town, Soctrang province. Previously, with support from GTZ project, the co-management model of Au Tho B was established since 2009 (GTZ, 2010). In begin years, model was effective in protecting and restoring mangrove forests and developing livelihood under forest canopy, bringing positive effects on environment and ecology. However, in recent years operation of co-management has been ineffective due to lack of coordination, role and responsibilities of coordinating parties is unclear. In process of implementing co-management models, community groups has increased their awareness and capacity, but participation of people is still passive and has not fully understood of co-management. Therefore, people still have not created a strong bargaining position for themselves to interact more effectively with authorities and outside people in resource management (GTZ, 2017). Previously, co-management was supported fund to build an ecological model for raising snails on an area of 20 hectares, but no longer maintained up to date, partly because the area of snail rearing on high mounds and forests is too thick causing lack of water and light creating less algae as food for snails. Moreover, due to low economic efficiency, community groups cannot mobilize resources to produce snails. After project finished, co-management is no longer be supported fund for forest protection. Therefore, since 2016 co-management model has been replaced with forest protection group by Vinhhai CPC. Then co-management of mangrove forests and natural resources in Au Tho B hamlet has been strengthened since May 2019 (VAWR, 2019). Co-management is carried out in collaboration with stakeholders including commune people’s committee, forest protection department and co-management group. Co-management group represents 213 members to manage and protect 270ha of mangrove forests. Organizational and operational factors reflecting the effectiveness of the Au Tho B co-management of mangroves and natural resources are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Effectiveness of co-management model of mangrove forests and natural resources in
Au Tho B hamlet
| Form of organization and operation | Factors reflect efficiency, sustainability
|
| Coordination between the parties | – CPC inspects, promotes and supports activities for co-management group to ensure forest is protected and exploited appropriately and effectively.
– Forest protection department coordinates with CPC to develop and implement forest patrol and protection plan; receive information and handle violations – Co-management group represents for community, having a decision of the CPC; being managed by CPC and inspected, guided on professional skills from forest protection department. – Elaborating regulation on co-management activities with certification of parties |
| Forest protection | – Propagating and guiding the community to manage and protect forests;
– Patrol, inspect and prevent acts of deforestation, exploitation of forest products, encroachment of forests and forest land – Promptly report to CPC and forest protection department on situation of forest protection |
| Natural resource management
|
– Owning together with CPC to plan protection, use and development of natural resources through a co-management partnership;
– Regulating only members of the group to enter forest to exploit and catch aquatic products. |
| Financing for forest protection and management activities | – Co-management has revenues from contracted forest protection (current contract amount at 450,000 VND/ ha/year).
– Communities have income from fishing and catching natural aquaculture to improve income |
Factors for sustainable co-management of forests and natural resources of the model are increasing responsibility and coordination between CPC, forest protection department and community in forest protection and natural resource management. Effective coordination between parties is carried out through coordination regulations in co-management. Responsibility and sense of ownership of people creating more solidarity in forest protection is a key element of co-management to prevent timely illegal exploitation and use of forests, violating deforestation. Co-management also enables communities to be directly involved in decision-making through negotiation and agreement with local authorizes on how to manage resources to improve livelihoods. From initial results, it can be said that co-management is model of community-based natural resources management that develops reasonable ecological livelihoods while ensure sustainable forest management. Co-management is appropriate for region with main forest belt or secondary forest belt where have not been contracted to households and regions capable of exploiting natural resources, favorable for aquaculture development to apply integrated management of natural resources and mangroves.
3.4 Model of mangrove management community
Mangroves management community is a form of promoting participation of community so that community is the owner of forest (community forest), deciding activities on management, protection, use and development of forests as well as natural resource exploitation. Communities know how to build groups and mobilize resources to plan, implement, monitor and evaluate forest management, protection, use and development activities as well as exploit natural resources for local socio-economic development. However, for coastal protection forests in Mekong Delta, scope of application of mangroves management community is limited. Management community needs to be associated with land and forest allocation to communities or groups of households, so that communities can involved in forest development investment, exploitation and use of forests. Main forest belts with potential to exploit natural resources or new mudflats can be allocated to communities so that community can involve in investment in forest development, management or joint ventures with enterprises to invest in ecological models.
- Conclusion
Based on analysis of existing shortcomings in forest protection contracting mechanisms, this study proposes three effective community-based mangrove management models in responding to climate change in Mekong Delta coastal region. Models with increasing community participation are forest protection group, co-management of mangroves and natural resources, and mangrove management community. Effectiveness of sustainable mangrove management of proposed models are evidenced by several pilot models developed recently. These models ensure development of rational ecological livelihoods but still ensure sustainable forest management. Forest protection group will improve contractual relationship between protection forest management board (forest owner) and households contracted to protect forests. Co-management promotes coordination between authorities, forest owners and communities in sustainable management of mangroves and natural resources through coordination regulations and benefit-sharing mechanisms from exploitation of natural resources. Community management of mangroves is a form of promoting highest participation of community, but scope of application is limited for Mekong Delta coastal region. Application of mangrove management community should associate with land and forest allocation to communities or groups of households then communities involved in forest development investment, exploitation and use of forests.
REFERENCES
- Vietnam Academy for Water Resources (2017). Report on results of assessing current state of mangrove forest management in Mekong Delta region- Research project “Studying and proposing mechanisms and policies for sustainable management of coastal areas in Mekong Delta”
- Southern Institute of Water Resources (2017). Report on evaluation results of coastal erosion status in Mekong Delta
- Directorate of Forestry (2012). Report on results of forestry work at final conference in 2012
- Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (2017). Report on coastal erosion and mangrove degradation in Mekong Delta
- UNCN (2015). Report on results of Integrated Mangrove Management Project in Cangio Biosphere Reserve, Hochiminh City
- GTZ (2010). Some comments on co-management and forest governance in Vietnam – Report at workshop on co-management held in Soctrang from 17-19, 2010.
- Richard Lloyd (2010). Co-management at Au Tho Hamlet B-A pilot trial for coastal area of Soc Trang Province
- GTZ (2017). Report on mangrove co-management model in Soctrang province
- Chu Manh Trinh (2011). PhD thesis “Building a Model of Co-management of Environment Resources in Cu Lao Cham Marine Protected Area, Quangnam province”, University of Social Sciences & Humanities – Vietnam National University Hochiminh City
- Vietnam Academy for Water Resources (2019). Report on building models of community-based mangrove management in coastal areas of Mekong Delta – Research project “Studying and proposing mechanisms and policies for sustainable management of coastal areas in Mekong Delta”