AGROFORESTRY AND

SUSTAINABLE
LIVELIHOODS
DEVELOPMENT:

A Village Case Study in the

Buffer-zone of Bach Ma National
Park (Vietnam)

NGUYET DO VAN
Supervisor: Dr Ir ROB SCHIPPER
 CONTENT
• INTRODUCTION

• THE CONTEXT AND HISTORY OF HA AN VILLAGE

• LIVELIHOODS ASSETS, ACTIVITIES AND STRATEGIES

• AF SYSTEMS AND PRODUCTS

• INSTITUTIONS FACILITATING SUSTAINABLE

LIVELIHOODS

• CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

 INTRODUCTION (1)

– 2 billion people live on less favored or

marginal lands, face increasing poverty, food
insecurity, and environmental degradation.
– Agroforestry (AF) has great potential as a
sustanable livelihood (SL).
– However, in reality AF interventions failed in
low adoption rate

– Main objective: to investigate the

opportunities for promoting sustainable
livelihoods of farmers through
Agroforestry in the buffer zone of BMNP
 INTRODUCTION (2)

• Specific Objectives:
– to assess the current socio-economic-ecological situation
– to describe household livelihood assets, activities and
strategies
– to analyse the development of AF systems and AF products
– to analyse the role of institutions in promoting AF and
sustainable livelihoods, and
– to give recommendations for promoting AF as a sustainable
livelihoods

• Research strategy: Case study.

– Both qualitative and quantitative research methods
– Field research in Ha An village, in-depth households survey
with 23 households
 INTRODUCTION (3): Conceptual framework

Institutions:
Institution environment + Institution
arrangements

Context
- Risk and
Uncertainties Sustainabl
- Shocks Livelihoods
- Seasonality e
strategies livelihoods
•agriculture
intensification/ outcomes:
Assets and
extensification •
resources: •livelihoods
- Human capital diversification economical
- Natural resources • social
- Physical capital •migration
- Financial capital • ecological
- Social capital

Institutions:
Institution environment + Institution
arrangements
THE CONTEXT AND HISTORY OF HA AN VILLAGE (1)
 THE CONTEXT AND HISTORY OF HA AN VILLAGE (1)

• in the context of Nam Dong an upland district:

– very poor, backward, high population, low crop productivity, food
shortage, natural disasters
– Belongs to 1,870 especially disadvantaged communes: insufficient
production facilities and the inability to access social services
– Local GDP: US $160-170 vs national GDP ~ US$470
– Recent infrastructure investments and development support

• in the context of Huong Phu, one buffer zone commune of

Bach Ma NP:
– rich tropical forests and a very poor, disadvantageous
population
– rapid deforestation, unsustainable and illegal resource
exploitation, unsustainable mono agriculture and livelihoods
 THE CONTEXT AND HISTORY OF HA AN VILLAGE (2)

• (1) The migration and cooperative period from 1975 to 1986

– Migration of 232 households. hunger, malaria and very hard-working
situation. 70-80% left
– Cooperative work: Low productivity, low incentives. That pushed “the
new local” to exploit forest for food

• (2) The “Doi Moi” reform period from 1986

– 1986: Doi Moi reform. Cooperatives collapsed, replaced by household-
based economy. Land was allocated.
– High population growth, lack of agricultural land. Exploited forest and
NTFP for food and cash.
– 1986 – 1996: reforestation programs: PAM and PR-327 to re-green the
barren hills in Vietnam. 1991: BMNP set up
– Gardens started to develop and bring stable incomes to some villagers
 THE CONTEXT AND HISTORY OF HA AN VILLAGE (3)

• (3) An emergence of fruit trees – based livelihoods from 1996 until now
– every household developed fruit trees in home gardens, perennial fruit trees mixed
with short-cycle agricultural crops in hill gardens.
– Tried different trees/crops. Now interested in forest gardens
– Investments in infrastructures, social services since 1999. Lives improved

Nam Dong Huong Phu Ha An

Population (persons) 22.082 2.907 350

No of households 4.195 564 70
GDP per capita (VND/person)2,621,000 2,660,000 3,000,000
Economic growth rate (%) 8,2 11.2
Poverty rate (%) 11.5 8.6

Total Land (ha) 65,052 7,948 538.07

Forestry land 41,799 5,072 470
Agricultural land 4,019 1,019 56.02
LIVELIHOODS ASSETS, ACTIVITIES AND STRATEGIES (1)
LIVELIHOODS ASSETS

Land Fertile and diverse soil Small, fragmented land

Other Wet climate and good Big rains cause soil erosion
natural source of water for Pest and diseases
capital plantations Natural forest is poor

Physical Good, new-built road, Infrastructure recently developed

capital electricity, post office Difficult to travel to hillside lands

Financial Many sources of credit Lack of long-term, big-scale

capital credit
LIVELIHOODS ASSETS, ACTIVITIES AND STRATEGIES (2)

LIVELIHOODS ASSETS
Human Good education for Lack of technical skills
capital children Education level of people in 1975
Hard working. is low
experience in
gardening

Social Good cooperation and Came from different places with

capital close network different cultures, farming
Open to share practices
experience and help Bad experience from cooperative
one other with and collectivization prior to 1986.
nurseries, inputs. Low motivation and trust in GoV
services and programs
LIVELIHOODS ASSETS, ACTIVITIES AND STRATEGIES (3)
“There is a lack of arable land in the uplands but an abundance of forest
land.”
“The biggest constraint in our village is land. Agricultural land is limited
while forestland belongs to rung cam Bach Ma National Park”
60000
55000
(m2)

50000
45000
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
05000
00000
Young group Middle-aged group Elder group

Average agricultural land 700 3855 3757

Home garden 700 1745 2043
Plantation forestland 3000 7818 13000
Natural forestland 0 5909 42857
Total average farm size 4400 19327 61657
 LIVELIHOODS ASSETS, ACTIVITIES AND STRATEGIES (4)
• Livelihoods are diversified: within agricultural production (crops, trees and
livestock), within land uses (rice fields, home, hill and forest gardens), and
within income sources (non-farm, off-farm, on-farm)
• Income sources: the majority have stable income source from gardening, And a
number of households have job salaries. Opportunities for non-farm and off-farm
activities are limited, mostly low-skilled work. Only 2-3 families collect NTFPs.
• Livelihoods strategies: diversification, agriculture extensification/ intensification,
migration

• There is a linkage between growth in the farm and non-farm sectors

– Poor households could 40

benefit from increased 35

Agiculture

demand for labour, services 30

No. of households

Salary
25
from the better-off farmers. 20
Self-employment
and home industries
– influences the migration 15
Small trades

phenomenon of Ha An village 10
Hired Labour

5
Others

0
1st main source 2nd main source
 LIVELIHOODS ASSETS, ACTIVITIES AND STRATEGIES (5)

• The villagers are characterized with 3 Income Young Middle- Old

1groups:
00% from: group aged groups
9% 14% group
– the elder group (over 50 year old): hold Agricultur 60.7% 60.9%
29.9%
18% e
75%largest land size. Experience
i n c o m with
e s h a r gardens.
e < 30%
60%
Best-developed 2 9 %
home gardens 41.8% 42.3%
Plantation 17.2%
– The middle-aged groups (40 – 50): high
3 0 ≤% I n c o m e≤ s5h0a%r e
5 0 %diversified income sources, mostly from Livestock 12.7% 18.9% 18.6%
home and hill gardens, and then from hired
73% Forestry 0.0% 4.4% 0.5%
labour,
2 0 % small trade, home i n c oindustry.
m e s h a r e Invest
> 50%
57%
2 5 %extensively and intensively in hill gardens
Fisheries 0.0% 0.0% 1.5%
and forest gardens
20%
– The young group (30-39): have the Home 41.4% 10.2% 5.1%
0%
smallest landholding and family size, and industries
Y o u n g g Mr mostly
depend o iud pd l e - aE gl don
e de r gwage
r o u p employment, hired Trade, 0.0% 6.5% 6.1%
labour org home ro u p industry. A small number services
have job salaries. Hired 10.0% 0.0%
28.7%
labor

Salary 0.0% 5.4% 19.5%

Other 0.0% 2.8% 6.5%

 AF SYSTEMS AND PRODUCTS (1)

Gardens and Plantation and

Agriculture land (Rice field, homesteads Agriculture land natural forests
food crops) and homesteads (Home garden) (Hill garden) (Forest garden)

Past barren hills and

In the past, mainly
fallow areas with high
Longest history used for food crops,
slope were reforested
for fruit trees and then mixed with
under government
plantation, some longer cycle crops
programme, such as
History started after and commercial
PR-327 and PAM in
1975. Most trees after 1986.
1993-1996.
developed in Fruit trees gardens
Since 2001-2002,
1996 started strongly in
farmers have been
late 1990s.
interested in planting
in forestland
 AF SYSTEMS AND PRODUCTS (2)

Very-well
developed
Diverse and
miscellaneous
Level plants, trees Poorly-managed.
of Many trees Lack of technical AF
Better- planned and
devel reduced integration models
technical application.
opme productivity Farmers start to re-
nt because of plant forest trees.
diseases, life-
cycle, weather
change, soil
fertility
 AF SYSTEMS AND PRODUCTS (3)

Advantages and disadvantages of each garden:

Highest
Easy to plant. Not
productivity
require a lot of labour.
Easy to manage,
Large areas
Ad and transport Larger land capacity
Have potential for
Require less
expansion and high
labour and less
profitability
investment
Lower productivity. Far, difficult and costly
Vulnerable to big to transport
rains, soil erosion. Trimming and cutting
Small Located in different must follow strict and
landholding size places. Difficult to rigid regulations:
Dis
Price fluctuates transport difficult to harvest
Hard to manage: Unclear land
distance, bad ownerships and lack of
weather, wild incentives for forest
animals destroy plantation in the past
 AF SYSTEMS AND PRODUCTS (4)
History of trees/crops plantation

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 – now

The main production and

Cassava,
main food crops for the 1 Inter-cropping with other perennial trees/crops, domestically used for household and
corns,
cooperative and for animals
potatoes
familly’s use

Bananas 1985: the main cash-

Started generating fruits Since 1992, reduced plantation. The disease started to attack

1996-97: price peaked at 2003: price

Lemons Started Planted widely 8-9,000/kg. Highest decreased
profitable. rapidly

98: become main

Started cash fruit tree.
Orange 1995: planted widely
Income and
s
market are
stable.

Betel nuts Started

the commune
1976-77: started. even encouraged
Supplied to the district 1997. 98 farmers to cut
Pineapple
pineapple cooperative rubber and plant
pineapple
instead.
 2000 –
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
now

80-85: started. Supplied to the

1992-1995: reduced tea
district tea cooperative
plantation and grew rubber
Tea (changed name from pineapple
from PR-327 instead
after getting loss)

1995: grew
strongly.
Pepper
Supported by the
district.

94, 95: grew

Coffee
coffee

1983-84: planted in
2003
Ginger 1-2 years, exported
contract
to former Soviet
farming
Union
2003:
Wood-oil tree 1986: PAM – being cut
WFP down

1993-96: wide scale rubber plantation

with loans in PR-327
Rubber

1993-96: funded by PR- 327

Eucalyptus

Acacia 1993-96: funded by PR- 327

1993-96: funded by PR- 327 (huynh, tro,

Native trees
uoi, boi loi)
 AF SYSTEMS AND PRODUCTS (5)

• Villagers are good at farm-based AF. They are not good at forest-based AF
• High diversity in number of trees and crops. Farmers are market followers,
with small-scale and mixed-cropping production. The productivity is not high,
the quality is on average, the market and prices fluctuate.
• Many trials and errors with fruit trees, industrial crops and with forest trees.
Favorite trees to plant are citrus, acacia, rubber
• Most of successful trees have been spontaneously tried and developed by
local villagers themselves. While crops/ trees promoted by the outsiders,
failed to grow well.
• Forest gardens have showed economic benefits. Villagers are lacking
technical knowledge and experience in developing this AF system.
 AF SYSTEMS AND PRODUCTS (6)
How sustainable is AF?
• Economically...
– get out of poverty and stop unsustainable forest exploitation activities.
– In their livelihood portfolio: Home garden + Hill garden = daily expenses;
and Forest garden = saving + long-term investment..
But:
– small-scale, fragmented, mixed farming
– market follower positions

• Socially...
– increased living standards, the improvement of education for children,
the reduction of heavy workload for women and more access to
necessary social services
– Strengthen social capital
But:
– concern about land constrains as well as difference in landholding size,
which could contribute to the income disparity among villagers in the
future
 AF SYSTEMS AND PRODUCTS (7)
How sustainable is AF?

• Ecologically...
– forest coverage increases in Nam Dong district, less land erosion
– improved conservation awareness of local people
But: with what level of quality and diversity
– most of newly planted forest are monoculture, exotic species.
– native trees are still of low priority

Single crop Fruit-tree Hill garden Forest garden Natural forest

agriculture home garden
 INSTITUTIONS FACILITATING SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS (1)
A tale of two irrigation works

Irrigation work funded under PR-135 Irrigation work supported by DED

- using more than VND90 million
- managed by the commune
- constructed it as lowland model, only
suitable flat areas
- hard to use, could only provide water
for 4-5 farms.
- costly, not of good quality, top-down
managed, not-suitable technology
(VND 25 million)
- partly funded by the commune (VND
5million) and villagers by labour
(equal to VND 5 million).
- Take advantage of natural stream
from a high mountain, as they
learned from other neighboring
places.
- the source of water is strong and
could provide water for the whole
 INSTITUTIONS FACILITATING SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS (2)
A tale of two plantation forests

Forest garden under PR-327 in

Ha An – Forest garden on a privatized
- Acacia planted in 1996: land in Huong Loc commune, Nam
miscellaneous, poorly developed. Dong district – Acacia forest after 5
- Villagers thought they were selling years of plantation with good care.
labor to plant tree for the
government. They just got the
money, received the nurseries and
on the way to the upland hills, they
threw away the seedlings. They
continued to exploit forest.
- Now, with clear land tenure and the
 INSTITUTIONS FACILITATING SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS (2)
Can institutions make a better change?

YES
• commitments, efforts in eliminating hunger and prioritizing
upland development.
• a number of small-scale community-driven programs, practical,
responsive to local needs and of good accountability.
• The reasons:
– the change to more farmer-centered, participatory and
collaborative management approaches. Development
agencies and stakeholders work for and with local people.
– good institutional design, clear incentives and motivation,
flexibility, coordination
– capacity-building
 INSTITUTIONS FACILITATING SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS (2)
Can institutions make a better change?

NO
• the majority + large scale projects, programs and policies: low rates
of successful implementation and adoption. The quality and
effectiveness of the field implementation and management of
activities remain low
• not reach the 3 sustainables “economic, social and ecological”.
Institutional factors: were problematic and not sustainable
– large-scale, top-down approaches, not considering the diverse, realistic
needs, contexts.
– institutions and personnel focus on specific technical tasks. Extension
what they know, not what farmer wants. Introduce “models” technically
more than support farmers to adopt and adapt
• lack of critical learning and sharing forum. overlapping interventions
and responsibilities
 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

• AF has become a popular livelihoods among many limited options in Ha AN:

– Home gardens and hill gardens has helped local people get out of
poverty and forest gardens are showing economic benefits:
– Among different types of trees/ crops, farmers’ main plantations have
changed from short cycle trees and food crop to fruit trees and they are
investing in perennial forest
• AF, especially forest garden could offer the 3 sustainables, but there are a
lot of constrains to solve with the market, land tenure and finding the
appropriate ecological crops
• The history of Ha An is the history of planting, cutting and replanting trees. It
is required to:
– Support the development of true integration AF systems:
– Improve the sustainability and effectiveness of project, programs and
other institutions
AF development is not a purely technical or scientific matter but a skill, an art, and a
feeling about fostering opportunities for farmers!

Thinks of community as a river which flows on and on. It has flowed for generations, and
will continue to flow. As outsiders, we enter the flow of the river (community) at a certain
point, and exit at another point. Hopefully, we leave something positive and lasting with
the community. That is sustainable development! (Davis-Case, 1990)