Regional Environmental Technical Assistance 5771
Poverty Reduction & Environmental Management in Remote Greater Mekong Subregion Watersheds Project (Phase I)

RRA REPORT OF TWO COMMUNES IN THE
SE SAN WATERSHED

Watershed Profile

By

Greg Booth

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

This research has been conducted as the final field research analysis component of the ADB RETA 5771 Project, "Poverty Reduction and Environmental Management in the Remote Greater Mekong Sub-region Watersheds", Phase I.

During the mid-term RETA 5771 workshop in Vientiane Laos, the Se San Watershed in Vietnam was chosen for further analysis. The Rapid Rural Appraisal undertaken focuses on the relationship between resource use and environmental degradation. A foundation of this research activity was to examine the situation of poverty in regards to resource use and environmental degradation.

The Rural Rapid Appraisal was focused on two communes in the southern Se San watershed. Broader analysis and secondary sourcing of information was required to accurately identify the relationship between the local level and trends in the watershed region.

The multi-disciplinary research team – Agro-forestry, Agriculture and Land Use Planning, Economics and Institutions, and Gender and Environment, Anthropology and Health and Education – that conducted this field research focused continuously on cross examining research findings. This process often led to a much more comprehensive understanding, but also controversy on the development process and the relative weight and importance of different factors causing environmental degradation, and poverty.

The research finding are organised by beginning with the foundation of resources and people, land classification and tenureship. From this foundation agricultural systems, economic development, health, and education are discussed. The final section examines the situation of poverty, development priorities and recommendations for Phase II.

DESCRIPTION OF SURVEYED VILLAGES

Location

The surveyed villages are located in two Communes of Chu Pah District, Gia Lai Province. Chu Pah District is located in the southern part of the Se San Watershed.

• Kon So Lang Village, Ha Tay Commune
• Tuek, Mo, Om and H’de village, Dak Tower Commune

The villages are located from 7 to 30 kilometres from Highway No. 14 along dirt roads. The Communes are vehicle accessible during the dry season and occasionally during the rainy season. Both communes are located in Upland valleys and mountains. There is no electricity and well or stream sources for water.

Population

The populations of these communes are almost exclusively indigenous Gia Rai or Ba Na people. The total population of both communes is 3,647 people. Kon So Lang village has 584 people and Tuek village has 416 people. Upwards of 50% of the population is 15 years of age or less. The population growth rate is above 2.5%. The Kinh population is less than 100 persons, mainly composed of traders, Government officials (including teachers) and their families, and recently in-migrating farmers.

History

The villages have been established for generations. In 1966 the villages were forced to move to a concentration village (camp) under the former southern government. After 1975, the villages returned to their previous location. Since 1985 resettlement of villages has occurred in the two communes. Resettlement of villages is continuing to occur, currently in Ha Tay Commune.

Resources

These communities have traditionally practice rotational swidden farming. Since 1995 the banning and enforcement of government decrees aimed at ending swidden has greatly reduced the available land for swidden agriculture.

There is currently a transition from traditional self-sufficient Upland crops to growing cash crops. Forest resources are primarily for self-sufficiency hunting and gathering. There is limited employment opportunities available within the communes. Men out-migrate during the fallow season for agricultural labouring work, primarily planting and cutting sugar cane. A small fraction of the men weave basketry for the tourist market in Pleiku town, Gia Lai Province.

Services

Health services are available in the commune centres. In Dak Tower Commune the Health Station is staffed by part-time male nurses. In Ha Tay Commune the Health Station is staffed by a male Doctors assistant and a male nurse. The health services available are for simple diseases and there is a limited amount of medicine.

Education is provided by elementary schools up to grade 5 in every village, to grade 9 in the Commune Centre and a Boarding School in the District Centre. Kinh is taught in the schools as the national language and the teaching materials are the national standardised curriculum.

Veterinary Services are not available although there is a Commune Agricultural extension officer.

RESOURCE BASE

Overview of the Se San River Basin

There are 4 main river systems in Western (Central) Highlands, namely the Se Sa, Ba, Srepok and Dong Nai River. The Se Sam River system is located in the northern part of Kon Tum province and northern part of Gia Lai province, covering a total area of 740,100 hectares. As a main tributary of Mekong River, Se San springs from Mount Ngoc Linh which is 2598 metres high and flows southwest in the mountainous and plateau area of western Truong Son at 800 - 1000m above the sea level. The section that flows through Western Highland is 230 km long with its basin of 114,500 hectares. The river comprises two tributary rivers; the Dak Poco, which is 121 km long with a basin of 353,000 ha, and the Dak Bla, which is 145 km long with a basin of 350,700 ha. River and stream density of the basin is 0.38 km/km²; Ku=1.84 and riverbed sloping is 6.5%.

The eastern boundary of the basin constitutes a waterway that flows on top of the Truong Son Range which separates the basin from that of other rivers that flow toward the Eastern Sea; the western boundary of the basin are Chu Monray and Chong Go Lui mountain ranges that separate it from Sa Thay river basin; and the southern boundary is Pleiku plateau which separates it from Ayun river basin.

From where it gathers at the Yaly waterfall on the edge of the Cambodian border, the Se San river has three main tributaries, namely: Poco, Dak Psi and Dak Bla. The following table shows their characteristics:

The total basin area in Vietnam is 740,100 hectares.

Topography

The basin is located southwest of Mount Ngoc Linh in the Upper Kon Tum geomass. This is the highest and largest mountain in Northern Western Highland that is composed of gneiss, granite and mica with 4 main types of topography:

1. The medium Ngoc Linh Mountain with a height of 1600-2000m, sharp peak, sloping over 30 degrees with strong division;
2. The low south-west of Ngoc Linh Mountain: strong division, average height of 1,000- 2,000m, the highest peak is Kon Ka Kinh (1,748m), gradually sloping from north-west toward south-east and from north-east to south-west. The rivers and streams often have sloping riverbed, narrow valley and strong current;
3. The hollow Kon Tum topography is the expansion of the Dak Bla valley in the lower basin and the Poco River in the northern part of Kon Tum (downward from Dak To District): it is a relatively even terrain, average height of 500- 550m, has an abundant surface water reserves although not very deep underground water resources;
4. The plateau areas including a small part of the northern Pleiku Plateau where the Dak To River originates and strings into Dak Bla River: characteristically, it is an young basalt plateau, divided averagely toward weakly, average height of 700- 800m.

Climate and Hydrology

The basin has a tropical and seasonal climate affected by several high mountain ranges. A typical feature is temperature variance accordance to altitude. The average temperature in the coldest month (January) does not fall below 16⁰C, and in the hottest month (April), often above 26⁰C. Average humidity is above 85%, primarily in the Summer months. Total yearly rainfall ranges between 2,000- 3,200 mm, averaging 2,400- 2,800 mm primarily falling during the monsoon season from May to October in the Upper Watershed. Because the basin lies in the high altitude of the western Truong Son Range, wind in the areas is in the south-west direction. The river and stream network spreads out like a hand fan with the widest part is 140 km across the Mang Yang Pass. This equates to ample rainfall and diverse waterflows. The Poco River runs falls across several plateaux, creating several waterfalls. For example, the 40m high Yaly Waterfall is the highest waterfall in the Central Highlands.

The Tay Nguyen (Central Highlands) has been endowed with rich forest resources. During 1976-90, forest cover declined yearly by 30,400 hectares. The period 1991-95, the deforestation rate was halted but still at alarming level that amounted to 25,200 hectares of forest and more than one million cubic meters of timber were lost every year. One survey results show that 48% of forest area decline can be attributed to slashes and burns (swidden and clearing for new agricultural land), and the rest caused by including fires, over-logging, industrial plantation, and infrastructure development. The forest area converted from 1976 is now accounting for 46% for farming, 51.6% for unoccupied lands (swidden or fallow swidden), and 2,4% for residential and road developments.

Forest area changes in Gia Lai province is presented in the following table.

Table 2: Changes in Gia Lai Forest Resources from 1987 to 1997

Source: Gia Lai Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, 1999

During ten years from 1987 to 1997, the provincial forest area decreased by 20% and its timber reserve had declined by 13%. Plantation area has increased not very significantly to 19,521 hectares or averagely 1,952 hectares per year. Now the forest cover is around 45,8%.

In Kon Tum province, natural forests has declined by 13,176 hectares during 1983-94 or averagely 1,300 hectares lost every year, while the plantation area during the same period accounted for 7000 hectares. According to statistics of the provincial Department of Agriculture and Rural Development that 9,438 hectares of forest area has been lost during the past five years due to slashes and burns, and 185,2 hectares were lost because of other reasons (making up a total decrease of 9.623,2 hectares). The provincial farming area has been increased from 34,484 hectares in 1990 to 51.317 hectares in 1995 and to 60.000 hectares in 1997, or average increase by 10,6% per year. The perennial tree areas have tended to be rapidly increased, making up 70-80%.

Water Supply

Every year, the Se San watershed receives an average amount rainfall between 2,400-2,800 mm. In the upper tributaries (in the high and medium altitude Ngoc Linh Mountain) areas, the high rainfall of between 2,800-3,000 mm, gradually dropping to 1,600- 1,800 mm in the Kon Tum valley. Rainfall primarily occurs from May to October (from 90- 95% of the total annual rainfall. It is estimated that each sq. km of soil in the watershed supplies a flow of 26 l/s a year. With this supply, a 100 sq. km can irrigate about 1,500 ha of two-cropped wet rice even under unfavourable conditions (Nguyen Sinh Huy, 1985).

The total surface waterflow in the entire Central Highlands every year is about 50 billion cu. m. The lowest volume is about 30 billion cu.m. During the monsoon season, floods often occur in September and October. The river flow during this time is from 25- 30 l/s.sq.km. From December to April is the dry season. The average waterflow in this season is from 2- 2.5 l/s.sq.km. February, March and April are the driest with the river flow averaging only 8% of the whole year.

For the past two years, the rainfall in the region declined significantly (equal to only 60% of the average rainfall level). Drought and crop failure have occurred and the streams were drier than normal.

Clean water supply for household use in the region remains an issue. Most of the communities in the region use water from the rivers and streams (or colloquially called "water drops") for their daily needs. Only some areas use water from wells.

Fisheries

There are no commercial fisheries active in the watershed region. Household fishponds or aquaculture has not been substantively developed. According to informants in the research site, there is definitely a decline in the wild stock due to the silting process and lack of rain. They used to catch fish in the Dak Bla river weighing from 10 to 20 kg. Now only small fish of 2 kg are left in this river.

DEMOGRAPHICS

Demographics: Central Highlands

During the first decades of the 20^th century the Central Highlands was sparsely populated. There was approximately 300,000 people living in the Central Highlands prior to 1945. The Kinh ethnic group made up less than 10% of the population.

In 1956, the population increased to 530,000 people; in 1976: 1,226,000; and in 1996: 3.2 million- 10 times higher than that before August 1945, and triple the number since 1975. The reasons for the rapid increase in population was the steady increase of in-migration of the ethnic majority Kinh people since Liberation in 1975. A very small in-migration of ethnic minority groups from the northern mountainous provinces is also a factor. The most recent population growth rates in the Central Highlands is 7.32%.

Currently, Kinh people have become the ethnic majority in the Central Highlands. Spatial composition is Kinh living in the cities, towns, townships and along the main roads, whereas the local indigenous people live in remote and mountainous rural areas.

Demographics: Se San Watershed Provinces

Prior to 1975 the percentage of Kinh in the Se San watershed was minor compared to the indigenous people. Recent estimates of the population composition of the two provinces in the Se San watershed are as follows.

Population and Ethnic Composition in the Provinces of the Se San Watershed

Source: Gia Lai and Kon Tum Provincial Statistics

Total population growth rates are specific to each provincial. In Kon Tum province, a composition of in-migration (spontaneous and planned) is 5.6%, plus natural population growth rates of 2.85%, totalling 8.45% per year. In Gia Lai province spontaneous migration is statistically not available, although unofficial reports point to upwards of 5% per year, planned migration is limited 0.2% and the natural birth rate of 2.61%, totalling 7.62%. It should be noted that the planned migration growth rate in Gia Lai province is increasing at 10.4% per year. The development of new District Towns and new Economic Zones will allow substantial population in-flows.

Demographics: Chu Pah District, Gia Lai Province

Chu Pah district was established in 1997 by government decree. A new district township is currently under construction. This district township will have substantial population increase over the next five. Official township statistics of projected population growth were not available although average district township population in Gia Lai Province is 11,458 persons. Population density for townships suggest a higher figure of approximately 18,000 persons. The official estimated natural growth rate from 1997 to 2000 was 2.5%, 48. 43% of the population is under 15 years of age. Population growth figures do not include in-migration or non-registering population ^,.

Population and Ethnic Composition of Chu Pah District 1997

Source: Gia Lai Province Statistics Department, 1998, Chu Pah District Statistics, 1999

Spatial Composition: Chu Pah District, Gia Lai Province

Kinh are primarily living are living along Highway 14, provincial Road 673 that leading to the Yaly Hydro-power townships. Their livelihoods are trading, services and planting coffee, boi loi (a cash crop growing easily with the region’s soil and climate), sugarcane. Substantial tracts of lowlands in the district are rubber and coffee plantations. As well, it is common for Kinh to buy or gain access/use of land along the highways and main roads, and the lands that are suitable for planting cash crop.

Ethnic minorities are primarily grouped in the higher elevation and remote communes in the district. The common reason given for out-migration from the lowlands to higher elevation and forested areas the sale of land for their immediate food needs because of poverty..

Demographics: Dak Tower and Ha Tay Commune, Field Sites

Both Communes populations are almost exclusively ethnic Ba Na and Gia Rai People. Established traders in all communes are predominantly Kinh and amounts to less than 100 people. In Dak Tower Commune, several Kinh families are establishing farms, it was unclear how these families had gained access to this land, especially as permission for tenureship rests with the District Peoples Committee. The natural birth rate in both communes is given as 2.85% and the 15 and under population is approximately 50%. In-migration of Ba Na and Gia Rai people to Dak Tower Communes from other parts of Chu Pah district, Gia Lai and Kon Tum provinces have increased the population to 1249 villagers, a total population growth rate of 10.8% from 1998 to 1999. The reasons given for in-migration were the lack of land, and limited employment opportunities in other areas.

Source: Chu Pah District Programme of Resettlement and Dry Rice Production (1998)

Spatial patterns are quickly transforming. As stated in other sections of this report, the village resettlement programme is drastically altering settlement patterns by amalgamating villages and re-settlement of villagers, and reducing lands available for swidden cultivation. There is a significant clustering of villagers in re-settlement villages. Spatial settlement patterns will be further discussed in the following section on Ethnicity.

ETHNICITY

The following discussion on ethnicity examines cultural conception of community and community process, tenureship and land use practices. The discussion focuses on the original indigenous inhabitants, the Gia Rai and the Ba Na people.

Ethnicity in the Se San Watershed Region

The original residents of the Pleiku Highland and the Ayun watershed of the Ba River are the Gia Rai people. Over the centuries, the Gia Rai people have migrated to the western and northern districts of Chu Pah, Ia Grai, Chu Se, Ayun Pa in Gia Lai Province, and Sa Thay District and other outskirt communes of Kon Tum Township in Kon Tum Province.

The Ba Na people live mainly in the north-eastern part of Gia Lai (An Khe, Kbang, Cong Cho Ro, Mang Yang, Chu Pah and Chu Se districts) and south-eastern part of Kon Tum (Kongplong District and around Kon Tum Township). These are not only the most populated ethnic minority groups and those who are the most aware of their habitat, but also the communities who have certain impacts on the cultural and social lives of other indigenous peoples in the region.

Apart from these two groups, there are the Xe Dang people, scattered in Dak To, Sa Thay and Dak Glei districts in Kon Tum, the Gie Trieng people living in Kon Tum’s Dak Glei District. The smallest ethnic group, the Brau people and the Ro Mam people are gathering in Dak To District, Kon Tum Province.

Demographic Composition

Source: Tiem, 1998

Spatial Settlement Patterns

In the context of indigenous peoples’ development, the exchange and linkage among different indigenous peoples and between the indigenous peoples and the Kinh are of special interest. Particularly, the roles of the Gia Rai, Ba Na and Kinh ethnic minorities groups will have important impacts on the regional socio-economic development.

The following analysis derives primarily from the field research site in the two communes of Dak Tower and Ha Tay, Chu Pah District.

Settlement patterns are a foundation for understanding community exchange and linkage. This is particularly important for the Gia Lai and Ba Na societies in the Northern Central Highlands. The Ethnological studies have clarified that the village is the highest social organisation and the most direct and basic gathering place for the people. Village is called play (ploi, plei) by the Gia Rai, and also ploi, play or Kon and De by the Ba Na.

Unlike the northern highlands in Vietnam, the geographical conditions of Chu Pah District and Se San watershed does not have a substantial impact on the indigenous peoples settlement patterns. There are two topographical divisions: low and average mountain terrain, and low hill terrain with valleys.

The settlement patterns are show significant distance from one village to another, and significant dispersal of the population. The following figures will show the population division and structure of the Gia Rai, Ba Na peoples and the other six groups in the Central Highlands area in 1991:

Settlement and Dispersion of Indigenous People in the Central Highlands: 1991

Source: Hung, 1994

This settlement pattern demonstrates a high degree of separation between communities. This can be partially explained by the resource patterns that stress long swidden rotational cycles.

However, in March 1999, at the two visited communes of the trip, the Ba Na and Gia Rai population are quite high, than compared to the average number of the past years in the entire Central Highlands areas.

To be specific:

Settlement and Dispersion of Indigenous People in Two Communes, Chu Pah District : 1999

Source: Commune Peoples Committees, 1999

This has partially to do with the population growth. From 1989 to 1997 the population of the Gia Lai people in the Central Highlands has increased from 190,000 to 320,000 (60%) and for the Ba Na from 100,000 to 152,000 (66%). Other important factors are migration of indigenous people from the other areas of the provinces and planned resettlement. These trends have important implications for tenureship and land use issues.

Exchange and Linkage among Indigenous Peoples

Although the distance between villages in a commune or in a region varies, the custom of living close together in a village, or mat tap, is a traditional feature of the Gia Rai, Ba Na and some other indigenous peoples in the Se San watershed. The concentrated residence models in three villages of the Gia Rai, a village of the Ba Na in Dak Tower District and almost other Ba Na villages in Ha Tay commune further prove this feature.

Clearly, the custom of living close together in a village and the mat tap lifestyle show that the conditions for exchange and linkage between the local indigenous peoples in the Se San watershed are more favourable than many other groups in the northern mountainous region of Vietnam.

However, exchange only occurs within the village settlement area or the same family branch. The villages of the Gia Rai and Ba Na exist independently of each other, almost village states. Within each village, self-managed or self-rule is the customary form of governance. The community’s social order is maintained by the strict and democratic customary laws and these laws are supervised by the head of the village, and the oldest person of the village called Taha play. This mode of governance does not transfer to the economic sphere as the village is not an economic community. Each Gia Rai and Ba Na family into an independent economic unit, corresponding to household self-sufficiency. Like the Hmong and Dao ethnic minorities groups in northern Vietnam, poverty or wealth is determined by individual household economy.

The mere feeling-based relationship and the "independent" economy rarely equate to the exchange of experience. Those who know how to get rich keep getting rich right in front of brothers, sisters, relatives and neighbours. The most significant cross-family support that is evident is employment as wage labour and payment in unhusked rice or money. The transfer of economic know-how by example or demonstration, or adaptation among the indigenous community doesn’t occur. Clearly, the most important strategies required for poverty reduction or seeking better livelihood strategies are more significant forms of exchange and linkage.

Traditional Land Ownership and Resource Management

In the traditional society of the Gia Rai and the Ba Na, the village, to its outward boundaries is an entire resource base. Normally, a village consists of land to put up a house, forest for upland rice field and for domestic use (other crops), water sources for drinking and domestic use, rivers or streams for fishing and more recently for irrigation. Each village has its territorial boundaries and the borders of each village are demarcated by rocks, streams, trees or other prominent natural features.

Within the village’s territory, streams, grazing meadows and drinking water sources are considered collective and cultivation land (swiddens included) belongs to individual households. Historically, the Gia Rai’s or Ba Na’s customary laws stipulate that every member of the village has the right to exploit the forest and the forest land for upland cultivation. The first exploiter of a forest will be the owner of that land, called po to nah. Even if the land is left for fallow or deserted, those who want to use that land have to seek for permission from the original owner.. The villagers are only allowed to exploit the land in their own villages. This is the highest principle of Gia Rai and Ba Na communities.

Matriarchal Tenureship and Ownership Patterns

Traditional tenureship and ownership of land of the Gia Lai and Ba Na people is based on a matriarchal system. The landowner is always a woman. Land ownership is handed down from female ancestors to their offspring. Men only communicate with outsiders on behalf of their female relations.

From generation to generation, forest and forest land, including cultivated land, being cultivated or being used for afforestation, belonging to a defined lineage of owners. Land tenureship rights and collective awareness of those rights was through personal and collective memory, or through signs such as markings on trees. Almost all forests and forest lands in the villages are owned. Some families have abundant forest land for cultivation after inherited from their ancestors, while many other families don’t have enough land because their parents had owned little land. This has resulted in a severe imbalance of cultivation land among the families in the village. Field researches in Dak Tover Commune’s villages of the Gia Rai and Ba Na peoples in Chu Pah District have clearly proved this.

The State’s response to customary land ownership patterns is both passive acceptance, and regulatory foreclosure. By passive acceptance, the State did not attempt to enforce collectivisation prior to the development of the land laws in 1993 and continues to neither legitimise nor co-opt local village management systems. Regulatory foreclosure on the other hand is overlaying a land and tenure classification system, and regulatory (i.e., enforcement) bodies that have removed almost all the land from customary management systems.

Upland Rice Field Cultivation and Forest Destruction

Cultivation is the main livelihood of the indigenous peoples in the Se San watershed. Apart from some those who can practise wet rice cultivation, most people’s lives depend on upland rice field cultivation. This simple method of cultivation has four steps: slashing, burning, digging the holes, and putting the seeds into the holes. The method, particularly its cultural significance is further explained.

At the selected forest site, after carrying out a religious practise asking for the permission from the spirits, people fell down trees, clear the grass to expand the site. When the right time of the crop is almost there, they burn the site then use a stick to make holes and put the seeds into the holes. Taking care of the upland rice consists of only weeding and keeping the animals away from the rice. When harvest season come, they use their bare hands to remove the rice and only use tools, such as knife and tongs for harvesting sticky rice.

According to the traditional cultivation practise, only one or two crops were cultivated in a field. The land would be deserted after that and the forest would recycle by itself. Long time later- dozens of years or so on, it would be re-cultivated. In the meantime, people cultivated in new forest sites, and this practice went on. This cultivation method destroyed forest quickly causing forest losses. Because the population was not large and forest was vast then, leaving the fields for many years like that gave the forest enough time to recycle and the soil became rich again.

Thus, for the past decades, the population in the Central Highlands in general and in the Se San watershed in particular had increased rapidly. There was almost no change in the traditional cultivation method, except the field deserting cycle for the forest to recycle was shortened. If it was between 15-20 years before, nowadays, it is from 4- 5 years. Old forest is lost quickly. Newly planted forest which has not had enough time to recycle is slashed and burned. Many young forests were degraded and turned into bushes, not timber forest. The time use cycles for upland rice fields increased.

In many places, shifting cultivation has been turned into settled upland rice fields, but the cultivation techniques remain the same (only making holes and putting the seeds in) and no fertiliser or intensive cultivation methods are applied. Soil is no longer rich and crop productivity is declining. Hence, harvested rice is not enough to feed the family. Poverty, until recently, pushed the people to clear and more forest for rice fields.

Although the State and the local governments have invested a large amount of money and efforts in re-settlement programs for the past years, due to various reason, most of villages which were encouraged to carry out the programs only re-settled their residence, but still kept the shifting cultivation with their own tradition.

LAND USE CLASSIFICATION

Overview

Current land use or land classification categories for the Se San are compiled from several sources. The following data draws a picture of land use classification and a dynamic process of reclassification in the watershed area from 1990 to the present time. To accurately define land, and its specific characteristics is problematic due to the simultaneous use of three classification systems.

• The General Department of Land Classification (GDLA) at the National level is responsible for land classification, land cadastre and overall land use planning.
• The National Institute for Agricultural Planning and Projection (NIAPP) functions as a central agency for agricultural planning and resource assessment.
• Forest Inspection and Planning Institute (FIPI) is responsible for the assessment of forestry resources and the preparation of national forest inventory and forest development plans.

This situation is compounded by the use of different criteria between agencies. FIPI classifies land according to perceived potential or intended use. GDLA and NIAPP use criteria relating to existing land use. As well, planners often have poor information on the actual use of land use, or the appropriateness of classification systems – such as forest land or bare land when it is in-fact fallow swidden land. Furthermore, there are numerous State driven policy and programme objectives that strongly influence how land is classified, and by whom.

According to 1990 data from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Gia Lai - Kon Tum Province, Se San watershed covers an area of 740,100 hectares. The watershed is broken down in to three watershed categories. The standard translation from Vietnamese to English of these categories as degrees of "critical" misconstrues the flexibility of this categorisation system.

Table 1: Se San Watershed Land Classification

Source: Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Gia Lai-Kon Tum province,
"Proposal on Protection Forest of Yaly hydro-power plant", 1990. (FIPI Classification)

A further breakdown of Critical Protection and Protection Integrated with Production watershed categories defines agricultural land as 2.2% of the total area. Swidden cultivation is by far the most widespread agriculture land use category for these categories. Figure 1 below shows that swidden fields are predominant agricultural land use and occupies 64.9 percent of the "agricultural land" or 2.2 percent of the total area of the region (Table 1).

Land-use Allocation by Districts in the Se San Watershed

Administrative boundaries differ greatly from topographical or geographic formations. The total area of districts that are part of the Se San watershed is approximately 1,309,182 hectares, almost double the actual watershed area. The total area of the two provinces containing the Se San Watershed is over three times the area of the watershed. The difference in area between the watershed and administrative units has important implications for policy and programme development aimed at a watershed area. Focusing activities according to watershed boundaries may contradict efficiency criteria of governmental agencies, particularly at the District and Provincial level.

Table 2. Se San Watershed District’s Land-use Allocation

Source: Gia Lai and Kon Tum Provincial and District Land Statistics, 1998 (GDLA methodology)

Chu Pah District Land Use Classification

Chu Pah District covers an area of 98,130 ha, of which 51.1 per cent is classified as unused land. Forestland (with and without forest) occupies 28 per cent of the total districts lands, in which watershed land (protection forest) is calculated at 10.2 percent of total the districts’ land or 36.6 percent of total forest land. The areas used as agricultural land occupies 15.9 percent. The remaining 5.1 per cent of the total land in the district are used for residential areas (329 ha or 0.4%), and for special uses (4,603 ha or 4.7%) such as roads and other construction (Table 2).

Table 3: Land Use Classification in Chu Pah District, 1998

Source: Chu Pah District’s Land Statistic (till October 1, 1998), Cat. 01-TK

The 1998 Land Use Classification demonstrates that long-term industrial crops are predominant agricultural land use categorisation and occupy 54.8 percent of the "agricultural land" or 8.7 percent of the total land in Chu Pah district. These crops include rubber, coffee, tea and Anacardium Occidentale (Agri-Forestry Master Plan period of 1995-2005, Gia Lai Province). Paddy fields make up 16.3 percent of agricultural land or 2.6 percent of the total land in the district, and is the second largest use of agricultural land.

Garden areas occupy 12.5 percent of the agricultural land or 2 percent of the total district’s land. Swidden fields are calculated at 9 percent of the agricultural land or 1.4 percent of the total. The new district town is not substantively included in the categorisation system. The new District town is planned for an area of 26 km² or 2600 hectares.

Land Use Classification in Dak Tower Commune

Dak Tower Commune covers a total area of 3,700 hectares. Of this area, about 766 hectares is natural forest, of which approximately 469 hectares or 61.2 percent of the total commune’s forest land (12.7 percent of total commune land) is protection forest, the remaining "natural forest", approximately 298 hectares (or 8 percent of total commune’s land), is the production forest. Unused land occupies largest proportion of the total at about 2,612 hectares or 70.6 percent of the total land. 81.3 percent of this is unused highland .

Agricultural land occupies about 199 hectares or 5.4 percent of the total land of the commune. Swidden fields are predominant and take up 35.2 percent.

Source: Chu Pah District’s Land Statistic (till October 1, 1998), Cat. 01-TK

Changes in Land Classification Categorisation and Corresponding Land Use

Analysis of land classification systems beginning in 1990 point to a dynamic transformation in land use categorisation and corresponding land use. Several major trends appear:

• The significant growth in land categorised as industrial crop land.
• The high proportion of land that continues to fall under the category of unused or "non-classified" land. This accounts for 51.1% of the land in Chu Pah District and even higher in Dak Tower Commune, 71%.
• Land use categories for swidden agriculture in the district and Commune are 1.8% and 1.4% respectively in comparison with unused land categories of greater than 50%.

Field research and observation in the upland valley containing Mo of Om village pointed out that there are large areas on the valley floor (approximately from 200 to 400 hectares) that are in the processing of being developed into industrial crop land (forests cut down, burning and planting this year) predominantly sugar cane but also coffee depending on the availability of water. Although these recent developments are not included in the categorisation of agricultural land, it points out the trend toward the further development of industrial crop development in the Highlands. "Non-classification" of land acts as a land bank depending on the development interest and plans of State, Provincial and District regulatory agencies and regulatory bodies.

LAND AND RESOURCE TENURESHIP

Introduction

Land and resource tenureship is by far the most important issue in discussing resource use and environmental degradation. Corresponding to land classification, tenureship strongly determines who uses land and for what purpose. The greatest obstacle in defining an accurate picture of land and resource tenureship in the Se San Watershed is the significant lack of transparency at all governing levels in the process of determining tenureship rights and correspondingly granting those (utilisation) rights. In other words, it is not apparent who defines, and what methods are used to define tenureship rights.

From a broad perspective, there are numerous parties focused on gaining or maintaining tenureship rights, such as Provincial and District Peoples Committees and sub-departments, para-statal corporations (such as the General Rubber Company or State Forest Enterprises), other organisations, households and individuals.

Indigenous people have yet to be included in the tenureship process. The current orchestration and implementation of tenureship is strongly focused on an industrialisation/commodification transformation process in the Uplands. It appears that those individuals, organisations or para-statal bodies that have the connections, capacity or potential to fulfil this policy are accruing the greatest tenureship rights.

Overview of Policy, Programme and Regulatory Environment for Land and Land Tenureship

In Vietnam, land is divided into three spheres; ownership, management and utilisation. Fundamentally, ownership of all land rests with the Nation. The Government at the State, Provincial, District and Commune levels determines management and grant utilisation rights to organisations, households and individuals for their use on a long term basic.

Since 1993, the transfer of long-term land use rights has taken place within the framework of the 1993 Land Law and accompanying decrees. According to the land laws, the foundation for forestry and agricultural land allocation is land use planning and plans at the Commune level that is approved by the District People’s Committee. State and Provincial and District bodies also play a significant role in determining which land is to be allocated according to different categories. The following Government decision, decrees or instructions are significant for defining the allocation process.

Decree 64/CP provided the framework for the allocation and tenureship of agricultural land to organisations, household and individuals. Secondly, agriculture land allocation would be combined with the allocation of settlement land (considering the plans for newly developed settlements) or forestland to help households, individuals developing forest farms where possible (MARD, 1997). Households or individuals receiving land are given the rights to exchange, transfer, lease, mortgage, and pass on the land for inheritance.

Decree 02/CP (January 15, 1994) provides detail guidelines for forestry land and forest allocation. It stipulates that the state allocates forestland to organisations, households and individuals for stable and long-term use according to specific conditions of each forest category. Forest land is allocated and contracted to the local population on the basis of those land use plans. While forest land users basically have the same rights and obligations as other land users, the decree stipulates some important exceptions: special-use forests are not allocated but are contracted for protection of forest and reforestation only. Users therefore can not obtain a land use certificate (Morrison and Dubois, 1998). The same applies to the protection of forest in "very critical" and "critical watershed" areas, while the protection of forests in "less critical" areas and production forests can be allocated to users who receive a land use certificate.

Decision 202/TTG by the Prime Minister (May 1994) and Decree 01/CP (January 1995) provide details for "the contracting of forests for protection, regeneration and plantation." Furthermore, this includes land that a state enterprise holds a land use certificate. These regulations also provide state agencies resources for protection, regeneration and planting. The holders of these contracts do not receive full land use rights, but are entitled to receive payment. Decree 202 further mandated that priority in forestland allocation should be given to local people, particularly pioneering swiddeners (Sikort, 1998).

Instruction 286/TTg by the Prime Minister (May 2, 1997) provides details on strengthening measures to protect and develop the forest. All localities have to combine this instruction together with the implementation of Decree 02/CP on forestland allocation. Foremost is the urgent demarcation of boundaries of protection forest, special use forests, and production forests which still have natural forest. These instructions and decrees are the basis for forestry land allocation (MARD, 1997).

Land Classification Category, Administrative Body and Roles

Source: Field Work interviews, Chu Pah District, 1999

Land Allocation in Gia Lai Province

In Gia Lai province, land allocation is based on the current amount of land that households and organisations have registered for their present management. This allocation process has been implemented through the issuance of land use certificates. The allocation of land is not limited by size. For example, Household agricultural land allocation can exceed 2 hectares. Agricultural land certificates have been issued to 30 percent of the total households in the province. However, forest land has only been allocated to organisations and some households have contracts (e.g. according to Programme 327, contracting with state forest enterprises or other organisations), but certificates have not yet been issued to those households (Annual Report from Gia Lai Cadastral Department, 1998). According to Provincial cadastral Department officials, the land tenureship process has significant fee requirements.

Gia Lai Province Land Allocation Tenureship Fees

Source: Gia Lai Province DARD, cadastral Department, 1999

An inventory of agricultural land in the Province last year has showed that for registered land the average amount land for each household is 1.5 ha, in which the lowest is 0.4 hectare and the highest is over 5 hectares. Those who have large areas of cultivable land, have the capacity to hire labourers, obtain finance, and are often non-farmers.

A significant new feature of the Land Tenureship process beginning is the re-orientation from granting tenureship rights to individuals, households and organisations to Provincial and District People’s Committees holding the tenureship rights and leasing the land to households or organisations. As this re-orientation has just begun, the price for leased land was not known but was considered to be competitive.

Chu Pah District

In Chu Pah district, from October 1993 to October 1998, 32 percent of the total district land had been allocated. 2.2 percent (337 ha) of total agricultural land has land used certificates; and 40 percent of total forestland has been allocated to a state forest enterprise and four other organisations. Households in only two of eleven communes in the district have been given agricultural land certificates.

Under the term of the Land Law, all land is supposed to be allocated within the context of Provincial, District and Commune land use plans. The tenureship granting process rests with the District People’s Committee. In practice, these plans have not been drawn up for Chu Pah district. The inaccuracies and weaknesses of forest land classification and land use planning to date is acknowledged. The land use data in the district has been calculated by simply using a map (inaccurate scale). Moreover, the inventory of current forest and forest land mapping has not taken place.

At the commune level in Chu Pah district, most of the communes have not been measured and mapped. Commune authorities have a long way to go before procedures of land allocation are in place to properly manage land under the current Land Law. Agricultural land in Dak Tower and Ha Tay Communes has not been legally distributed to households, nor has forest land, except some households which have been given forest land to protect according to the provincial Programme 327.

In-Migration and Land Tenureship

Illegal land purchases by the Kinh was the cause for indigenous people to move further into the forest. According to Nguyen Van Tiem, from 1994 to 1997, there were 4,876 indigenous households in the Central Highlands that moved to the forest after selling their land. More concern is that Kinh continue to go the remote communities to buy land illegally.

Planned migrants have been settled in the new economic zones to provide labours for state forest enterprises, state farms or other projects. Resettlement projects of lowland farmers fall under programmes 327, 773 with very limited financing to support these households. On the other hand, since 1991, spontaneous households have immigrated rapidly to Gia Lai province due to the cultivation "fever".

Coffee, rubber and sugarcane have become highly sought after crops due to greatly increased market prices. Most of these households have been now settled alternately in available planned residential areas (which are often in planned economic zones or state forest enterprise areas) and in four new resident areas (that were established to deal especially with spontaneous households). These households have been allocated land to cultivate.

However, some spontaneous households have taken over land or purchased land illegally and cleared more forest for coffee and sugarcane. This results in increased competition for upland resources and a fractured regulatory process.

Customary Law and Land Management

Land and resources tenure in the indigenous villages in Dak Tower and Ha Tay Communes continues to be partially and informally managed by customary law (see Ethnicity for a discussion of Customary Resource Management). The reason this is only partial management is the reduction in the amount of land managed under this system. Regulatory agencies, primarily the Forest Protection Department and the Provincial Militia enforce the prohibition of clearing forest or fallow land for swidden fields and exploiting timber for cash.

Customary Management continues to be informal as this land has not been legally recognised according to current official land laws. At this stage, it is dubious whether these fallow areas are recognised as being occupied agricultural land in the traditional system of land tenure.

Fixed Cultivation and Sedentarisation Programme

The Fixed Cultivation and Sedentarisation programme has been implemented through specific projects in Gia Lai Province since 1990. In Ha Tay commune, 120 indigenous households were moved from Kon Bah, Kon Mah and Kon Ho Leng villages to the planned residential area in the commune centre. Further plans are to resettle the remaining villages in the Commune into three resettlement areas.

Each households was allocated 1000 m2 for housing and garden in the resettlement area. Households are allowed to cultivate in fallow areas and "unused" land available around this area. Being used to having access to large areas of forestland, and accustomed to rotational swidden techniques, they are not satisfied with either the residential or the arable land that is allocated. As a result, they leave the zoned areas either to go back to their original customary tenured land (which is far away from the new village) or to continue swidden somewhere else. Land that appeared unused was in-fact in the fallow period by villagers who live around the commune centre (e.g. Kon So Lang villagers). This means that "unused" land is owned.

Experience from the Fixed Cultivation and Sedentarisation program in H’De village (Dak Tower commune) from 1984-1990 had shown that H’De villagers had to move out of Om village where they were resettled with Om villagers. They went back to their old village after six years of resettlement, because they lacked land due to the customary land tenure of Om villagers. A major constraint for these villagers is the constant insecurity of tenureship in H’De village. The villagers are under pressure by administrative bodies to abandon the village and return to Om village. This pressure is also in the form of the absence of investment from governmental bodies. Secondly, the villagers are also under pressure from Kinh in-migrants for access to land or "organisation" attempting to secure tenureship to land for cash crop production.

Commune leaders reported that each household needs at least two hectares. An official from the Sub-department of Resettlement and NEZs expressed his concern, "Despite financial support from the government, people move back to their village is some areas." According to the "Plan for shifting cultivation zoning area" for Chu Pah district, the existing total are for agriculture is 6,248 ha, excluding the real demand for sustainable shifting cultivation which accounts for another 9,123 ha.

Land and Resource Tenureship: Dynamic Transformation

One method of examining the dynamic transformation in land and resource tenureship is by examining the direction and weight of change. As the previous discussion pointed out, the fundamental change that is taking place is the regulatory enclosure of Upland areas by the State bodies and the erosion of indigenous customary laws and swidden practices.

The tenureship process, in accordance with the 1993 land laws and subsequent legislation, has substantially not occurred. When it has occurred, the most important variables is the financial capacity to secure tenureship rights, especially for the production of cash or commodity crops. State regulatory bodies, by absence of determining usufruct rights and the maintaining land categories as "unused," or categorising land after it has been commoditised, demonstrate a strong inclination to maintaining this capitally directed process of tenureship.

Regulatory bodies have been effective in reducing the amount of land under swidden cultivation. This does show that these bodies have capacity, considering the historical pervasiveness of swidden land use practices, to orchestrate regulatory control. Other regulatory bodies, especially District and Commune bodies voiced complaint that they do not have enough personnel to help them carry out the task of providing information about land tenureship for those who need to know. In addition, proper mapping of areas has not been carried out due to the lack of funds and this results in the inability to oversee spontaneous migration leading to further forest degradation.

Examining the weight and direction of change from an indigenous household perspective provides insight into the situation of tenureship.

• As the villages have not been mapped and user rights have not been determined, by default, there is no basis for implementing tenureship.
• Land certificates, if they were obtainable, require a high fee. Poor households cannot afford this fee and therefore do not have legal land rights on lands which they have lived on for generations.
• Although the village resettlement programme is well intentioned in improving the access to State services, is it fundamentally flawed by the limited amount of land that is available to maintain minimum subsistence levels. Secondly, as villagers are required by need to travel between resettlement areas and customary lands for food production, the value of the potential for greater services are significantly diminished. Villagers who have resettled in original villages have no rights to tenureship and face the ongoing possibility of expulsion.
• Enclosure on customary swidden areas has eroded the legitimacy and effectiveness of customary management systems. Also, the enclosure did not take into account existing land distribution patterns and may have inadvertedly exacerbated inequalities in land holding patterns amongst indigenous communities.
• Ethnic minorities are often unaware of a Kinh conception of land use or ownership as they have limited or no access to information. In this vicious circle, poor farmers often rent or sell off part of their land to rich (i.e. Kinh) for nearly nothing and end up working for the new landholder. Kinh farmers have the capacity, knowledge and know-how to proceed to legally tenuring the land.
• Some indigenous farmers are paid to protect allocated forest areas in accordance with Programme 327. Yet, they are powerless to stop those who illegally continue to exploit the forest on a large scale. The amount they are paid is insufficient and provides little incentive for them to continue as protector of the forest.

AGRICULTURAL LAND USE PRACTICES AND PATTERNS

As the previous discussion pointed out, there is a significant shift occurring in agricultural land use patterns and practices from subsistence to industrial crops. This shift is also combined with the increasing effectiveness of regulatory bodies in prohibiting deforestation for swidden cultivation and imposing new land use tenureship patterns. The opening discussion defines soil classification and the suitability of both crops and husbandry. This information attempts to bridge the gap between agricultural land use planning and agricultural practice.

Table 5: Soil allocation in the watershed

Source: Watershed Forest Investment Project of Yaly Hydro-Power Plant, 1990

Classification According to Use

• Forest (R): is the subject for forestry production purpose. Natural forest must be well managed and protected, especially for the special-use forest and protection forest. These are major potentials to allocate and attract the local people to use, manage and protect natural forest to increase their employment and income. The potential forestry land should be planned for reforestation. The main soil types for this class is group 1, 2 and 3(in Table 3):