VIET NAM Mini-PRESENTATION PEN workshop, Bogor, March 2009

Contents 1. Context 2. Household income sources 3. Income sources and seasonality 4. Key forest and environmental products 5. Income composition and poverty 6. Other patterns 7. Policies and overall findings

1. Context Study located Study area (km2) Viet Nam, Hai Phong, Cat Ba Island, Tropical climate and limestone forest Study area (km2) 17 km2 No. of villages sampled and population of the surveyed villages Six villages. 1,546 households and 5,600 people live in the surveyed villages. No. of interviewed households and average # of people per household 155 households. Average # of people per household is 3.8 Key sub-dimensions dividing the sample in terms of livelihood strategies closeness to the Cat Ba National Park Currency equivalents VND 16,000 = US$1. All currency value is in US$, otherwise it will be mentioned. Survey period March 2007– December 2007. Quaterly data cover from January 2007 to December 2007

2. Household income sources Table 1. Average income per household per year separating the subsistence and cash components Figure 1. Contribute to household income by main categories

3. Income sources and seasonality Figure 2. Five bar charts show the household income per year and each Q1-Q4, each with mean and SD intervals for: total income, forest income, other environmental income (Fisheries, Env), agriculture (crop and livestock), other (Aquaculture, wage). (Mean income in VND)

4. Key forest and environmental products

4.3 How the main subsistence forest/environmental goods were priced 4. Key forest and environmental products 4.2 “forest” vs. “other environmental income” sources…. Income from forest and fishery are very important during the first quater. It contribute more than 20 percent of income during this period, in which from direct forest products contributed 17%). Cropping is major economic activity 4.3 How the main subsistence forest/environmental goods were priced In this study, we used the PEN “farm-gate (local) prices” method to calculate the value of goods which traded by a given household.

5. Income composition and poverty The contribution of forest income to the total household income is more important in the lowest income group than in the higher income group even the actual value of the forest income in the lower group is lower.

6. Other patterns 6.1 How households cope with crisis Sixty four out of 155 households reported that, they faced with major cirsis and and unexpected expenditures. However, no households reported using forests particularly to cope with cirsis and and unexpected expenditures. The most common alternatives to mitigate shocks such as any major income shortfalls or unexpectedly large expenditures during the past 12 months is showed in below table.

6. Other patterns 6.2 Evidence that forest income is used, directly or indirectly, as a stepping stone out of poverty Overall, forest income contribute 7.73% of total net income for the survey household, and it contribute up to 17% of total income during the first Quater of the year. The forest income is more important in the lowest income household group than in the higher income household group. It contribute upto 18% of total income per year (Table 3). No households reported using forests particularly to cope with cirsis and and unexpected expenditures (Table 5). 6.3 Correlation between forest extraction and closeness to roads and markets Small positive correlation between net direct forest income with distance to road (a correlation of 0.24). However, small negative between net direct forest income with distance to district market and distance to market where forest products are sold (a correlation of -0.17)

7. Policies and overall findings Major impacted projects to the study area Supports from Government, social organizations and NGOs on rural development allowed to develop a significant ground-level working presence in communes to successfully address several initial and key income generation, and agricultural diversification issues... Finding Lower income household group depend on petty agricultural activities. Rice productivity is limited due to lack of water. The livestock husbandry, especially goat raising and beekeeping could be able to bring a high income source but they are coming to constrain due the lack of finance and technology, likewise regarding to fishery. Income from on-farm is not enough for family demand induced seeking income sources from off-farm and non-farm activities and these activities importantly contributed into cash income of household. Nevertheless, income from every sources vary among communes and the lowest income fall into communes that is inside the national park. Poverty is one of the main causes that led the people to collect forest products even if the ban of National Park Management Board. Further data analysis and interpretation needed Need further finding in comparing income source for 3 villages located within the National Park together with other 3 villages which located outside the park to learn more the role of national park to the livelihood of the people and CBNP protection and conservation.

will be updated when with the result from data analysis

will be updated when with the result from data analysis

will be updated when with the result from data analysis