How Does Forest Decentralization Influence Property Rights in Community Forest Management? Case Study from Upland in Thua Thien Hue, Vietnam

Abstract

"Allocating forest to village/community is pilot in process of community forest management (CFM) institutional in Vietnam. After forest allocation, villagers become forest owners. In this context, the study’s conceptual framework views the allocating forest to community as political decentralization- a form of decentralization in forest management and changes in property rights under forest decentralization as transfers of 'bundles of rights'. This study was conducted in two villages in Hong Ha commune, A Luoi district, Thua Thien Hue province, Vietnam. Kan Sam village was selected as representation of community that is allocated forest by state and Pahy village was selected as representation of community that manages forest by customary law. Through two villages in Thua Thien Hue’s upland, the study found out three key findings as follows: The first finding argues that allocating forest to community was derived from outsiders (local authorities and sponsor). Due to lack of external supports after allocated forest to community, so state indirectly shifts the burden of cost of natural forest management to community through natural forest allocation. The second finding point out that changes in formal rights (legal rights) in the two villages vary, while informal rights (rights in practice) are similar. The forest decentralization has significantly changed formal rights over community forest. Before allocating forest, both villages just have formal rights of access. After allocating forest, Pahy’s villagers are the same formal rights, while Kan Sam’s villagers have formal rights of access, withdrawal, management and exclusion. Contrary to formal rights, informal rights over community forest seem to be unchangeable under forest decentralization. The third finding makes a proposition that gaps between formal rights and informal rights over community forest always exist. There are three main causes lead to these gaps: lack of legal environment and support from local authorities; social and power relations (kinship); and differences of perception between old and young generations."