Rural Development Project Dak Lak (RDDL) Vietnam REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF LAND CONFLICTS IN PILOT AREAS

Transcription

1 Rural Development Project Dak Lak (RDDL) Vietnam REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF LAND CONFLICTS IN PILOT AREAS FOR COMMUNITY-BASED FOREST MANAGEMENT AND LANDUSE PLANNING / FOREST LAND ALLOCATION Short Term Consultancy Report No.6 Vitoon Viriyasakultorn Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH June 2004

2 Your contact person with GFA Terra Systems is Gudrun Krause Rural Development Project Dak Lak (RDDL) Vietnam Report on Assessment of Land Conflicts in Pilot Areas for Community-based Forest Management and Landuse Planning/ Forest Land Allocation Short term Consultancy Report Vitoon Viriyasakultorn Address GFA Terra Systems GmbH Eulenkrugstraße Hamburg Germany Telephone Telefax

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVATIONS ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 2 2 THE CONFLICT ASSESSMENT PROCESS 3 3 GENERAL FINDINGS Conflict Situation Stakeholders Key Issues 9 4 PROPOSED CONFLICT ASSESSMENT AND RESOLUTION PROCESS AND THE ROLE OF STAKEHOLDERS Conflict Assessment Process Conflict Resolution Process 19 5 PROPOSED TRAINING, COURSE OUTLINE AND ACTION PLAN 21 TABLE OF FIGURES Table 1: Assessment of Conflict Situations 6 Table 2: Opinions from Villages on Why and How Forest Land should be Allocated 9 Table 3: Opinions from Government Agencies on Why and How Forest Land should be Allocated 12 ANNEXES Annex 1: Annex 2: Annex 3: Annex 4: Annex 5: Annex 6: Annex 7: Annex 8: Annex 9: Terms of Reference Mission Itinerary List of Persons Interviewed Questions for Officials Questions for Villagers General Information of Villages Interviewed Proposed Agenda for Training 1 on Managing Conflicts in Community-based Forestry Proposed Agenda for Training 2, Train the Trainers on Managing Conflicts in Community-based Forestry LUP/FLA Steering Committee and Working Group Members, Ea H Leo District i

4 ABBREVATIONS ACO Agricultural and Cadastral Office CBFM Community-based Forest Management CPC Commune People s Committee DARD Department of Agriculture and Rural Development DFP Department of Forest Protection DNRE Department of Natural Resources and Environment DPC District People s Committee DPI Department of Planning and Investment EFE Ea H Leo Forest Enterprise FE Forest Enterprise FLA Forest Land Allocation FMP Forest Management Planning FPU Forest Protection Unit at district level GTZ German Agency for Technical Cooperation LA Land Allocation LUP Land Use Planning MPI Ministry of Planning and Investment NTFP Non-Timber Forest Products PC People s Committee PPC Provincial People s Committee RDDL Project on Rural Development Dak Lak RECOFTC Regional Community Forestry Training Center SC/FLA Steering Committee on Forest Land Allocation ToT Training of Trainers VDP Village and Community Development Planning WG/FLA Working Group on Forest Land Allocation ii

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The RDDL overall project goal is to contribute to the National Hunger Eradication and Poverty Reduction Program through sustainable and participatory natural resources management. The project applies participatory approaches to village and community development planning (VDP), forest management and land use planning (FMP/LUP) and land allocation (LA) activities. RDDL is currently preparing 2 pilot areas on community-based forest management (CBFM) and 1 pilot area on participatory land use planning and forest land allocation (LUP/FLA). Assessment of conflict situation among stakeholders involved in LUP/FLA process is crucial to ensure acceptance and sound implementation of the management strategies and forest protection regulations that will be developed in the course of the LUP/FLA and CBFM planning processes. This report presents findings from a conflict assessment exercise in the pilot areas of LUP/FLA and CBFM in Ea H Leo and Lak districts. It proposes a collaborative problem-solving/ conflict resolution process and training agenda for training of trainers for conflict resolution for staff involved in LUP/FLA and NRM issues at both provincial and district levels. It was generally found that conflict situations for the LUP/FLA and CBFM pilots both in Ea H Leo and Lak districts are not at the level of manifestation, perhaps because most villagers are not yet aware of LUP/FLA plan in their areas. The government staff, village committees, and villagers interviewed, based on their interests and values, have different opinions on who should be allocated forest land and how it should be allocated. It is recommended that the different opinions and views be seriously taken into consideration in the decision making through consensus building approach. Stakeholders who are likely to be affected from the decision made on LUP/FLA should be consulted and agreed on the criteria for forest land allocation from the outset to prevent the escalation of tension into conflict. Issues on priority in national forest policy, communal/collective versus private ownership, stakeholders rights and responsibilities, and equity should be carefully examined in the decision making process. It is recommended that RDDL takes the lead in setting up a working group using consensus building approach to agree on LUP/FLA criteria to reduce tension and prevent conflict among the stakeholders who may be affected by the implementation of LUP/FLA and CBFM. The consensus-building approach will be an educative process for all stakeholders that can also be used at a later stage to resolve conflicts in the future if occurred. Training of trainers for conflict resolution in natural resources management is an important strategy to build capacity of staff involved in LUP/FLA and CBFM. It is proposed that such training is conducted at 2 different times for one week each. The first training deals with subject matters relating to natural resources conflict management. The second training deals with skills for trainers, facilitators and mediators. It is expected that participants trained in both training will become a core group of provincial and district trainers in natural resources conflict management and assist RDDL in training other staff involved in LUP/FLA and CBFM at different levels. 1

6 1 INTRODUCTION Under the joint responsibility of the Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) and the People s Committee of Dak Lak, the project on Rural Development Dak Lak (RDDL) is implemented by the Department of Planning and Investment (DPI) at provincial level with assistance of the German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ). Project implementation is anticipated in three phases over seven years between 2003 and The first phase runs for 36 months from 1 January 2003 to 31 December The overall project goal is to contribute to the National Hunger Eradication and Poverty Reduction Program through sustainable and participatory natural resources management. The project objectives are to alleviate and improve livelihoods of the rural population through development and/or adjustment of participatory planning procedures, which enable community and social organisations as well as government institutions to support sustainable natural resource management systems. The project applies participatory approaches to village and community development planning (VDP), forest management and land use planning (FMP / LUP) and land allocation (LA) activities. With regard to results 3 and 6 of the project plan of operation, RDDL is currently preparing 2 pilot areas on community-based forest management (CBFM) and 1 pilot area on participatory land use planning and land allocation (LUP/FLA). In this context, assessment of conflict situation among forest users, communities and officials involved in LUP/FLA is a crucial first step to ensure acceptance and sound implementation of the management strategies and forest protection regulations that will be developed in the course of the LUP/FLA and CBFM planning processes. The objectives of this short-term assignment are to: Assess the conflict situation in the project pilot areas for CBFM and LUP/FLA Design a process for participatory conflict assessment and resolution Develop an action plan for conflict resolution process in the 3 project pilot areas CBFM and LUP/FLA Develop an action plan including a course outline for the development and implementation of a training of trainers for conflict resolution The assessment of conflict situations under this assignment was conducted in 2 districts, i.e., Ea H Leo and Lak districts. In Ea H Leo district the LUP/FLA pilot areas are in Ea Hiao and Ea Sol communes, where the CBFM pilot area is aimed only at Tali village in Ea Sol commune. In Lak district, the CBFM pilot area is aimed at Jol village in Dak Nue commune. 2

7 2 THE CONFLICT ASSESSMENT PROCESS Conflict assessment is an information gathering exercise that produces recommendations regarding: Who has a stake in a conflict or proposed consensus building efforts to resolve conflict What issues are important to those stakeholders Whether or not it makes sense to proceed, given the institutional, financial, and other constraints, and If so, under what circumstances the key parties will agree to participate. The duration of the assignment for this exercise was 16 days in total including traveling and reporting. Field visit to different villages and interviews with officials took 7 days and one day for the workshop at the end. The assignment was undertaken from 7 22 March The project NRM Planning Expert, Mr. Dang Thanh Liem, prepared a visit schedule and arranged all the meetings with the key officials and stakeholders involved in CBFM and LUP/FLA at different levels. Two lists of guideline questions, one for officials and one for village meeting, were developed to facilitate the discussion during the interviews (see Annexes 4 and 5). The list of persons interviewed is attached in Annex 3. Throughout the whole assessment exercise, the project NRM Planning Expert accompanied the consultant to help introduce the people met, explain the objectives of the exercise, and clarify the issues unclear to the consultant. The interviews were conducted through a translator from the project, Mr. Hoang Thanh Hai. Most interviews were conducted in groups both in the offices and in the villages. The following is a list of government agencies involved in LUP/FLA in the interview plan: Forest Protection Unit (FPU), Ea H Leo Agriculture and Cadastral Office (ACO), Ea H Leo Ea H Leo Forest Enterprise (EFE) Ea Sol Commune People s Committee Ea Hiao Commune People s Committee Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) Department of Forest Protection (DFP) Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) For village interviews, the following villages could be included in LUP/FLA and planned villages for CBFM: Potential villages for LUP/FLA in Ea H Leo district; Kara, village 10, Hiao 1, Hiao 2, village 9A, village 9B, village 8A, village 8B, and Cham. 3

8 Planned villages for CBFM are Tali village in Ea H Leo district and Jol village in Lak district. For village meetings the interviews were centered on the issues of village history and settlement, livelihood, use and management of forest resources, and awareness of LUP/FLA, to gain understanding on how changes had taken place and how different ethnic groups dealt with changes over time. For the officials concerned the interviews were geared to understand their roles and responsibilities in relation to LUP/FLA, their awareness on what is happening on the ground in relation to forest resources and land use conflicts, and their opinions on how LUP/FLA should be implemented. Nine village interviews were conducted. Six villages visited namely Kara, village 10, Hiao 1, Hiao 2, village 9A and village 9B belong to Ea Hiao commune, and Cham and Tali belong to Ea Sol commune of Ea H Leo district. One village namely Jol belongs to Dak Nue commune of Lak district. At the end villages 8A and 8B were dropped from the visit schedule because it was confirmed from various sources that most people of these 2 villages have no cultivation area and are not using forest resources in the forest land planned for LUP/FLA in Ea Hiao commune. It is important to note that the respondents in all village meetings were mainly village leaders and representatives from different mass organizations at village level, and that the information and opinions gained from the interviews were limited to this group of people only. In some village meetings there were also one or two villagers who did not have any position, and hardly said anything. The interviews with officials mostly went well as planned, except for DARD, which has a major responsibility for LUP/FLA, but an appointment could not be arranged with them due to their busy schedule. A list of officials and villagers interviewed is attached in Annex 3. At the end of the assignment a workshop was organized with a group of 12 officials concerned from Ea H Leo district with 3 RDDL staff at Ea H Leo PC office. The 12 officials in the workshop are members of the Steering Committee (SC) and Working Group (WG) for LUP/FLA. The purpose of the workshop was to share the findings from the interviews with different stakeholders with the SC and WG of LUP/FLA and gain their feedback. 4

9 3 GENERAL FINDINGS As mentioned earlier RDDL is currently preparing 2 pilot projects on CBFM and 1 pilot project on LUP/FLA. Thus the assessment of potential conflicts among the stakeholders who might be affected by the implementation of the pilot projects is crucial to ensure that all stakeholders views are taken into consideration before any decision is made. The RDDL, in this context, is considered as convenor of the process who initiated the conflict assessment exercise by commissioning a consultant (assessor) to help assess the conflict situations, identify stakeholders and key issues and design an action plan for proceeding. This section presents the findings from the interviews with various stakeholders based on their own perspectives in relation to CBFM and LUP/FLA. 3.1 Conflict Situation The word conflict is interpreted differently by different people across the cultures. In order to assess the situation more realistically it is important to clearly define the term from the outset. In general, a conflict is defined as an expressed competition between at least two inter-dependent parties who have perceived or have actual incompatible goals or interests. Conflict can also be classified into 3 different levels. Latent conflicts are characterized by underlying tensions that have not fully developed and have not escalated into highly polarized conflict. Often, one or more parties, usually the stronger one, may not even be aware that a conflict or the potential for one exists. Emerging conflicts are disputes in which the parties are identified, the dispute is acknowledged, and many issues are clear. However, a workable cooperative negotiation or problem-solving process has not developed. Emerging conflicts have a potential for escalation if a resolution procedure is not implemented. Manifest or open conflicts are those in which parties are engaged in an active and ongoing dispute, may have started to negotiate, and may have reached an impasse. Any development intervention (LUP/FLA in this case) may provoke tensions in situations of the level of conflict mentioned above. These tensions, if not well managed, may contribute to hostility and violence, possibly damaging the environment within which an intervention is taking place. The conflict situations for the LUP/FLA and CBFM pilots were assessed based on the above definition and levels of conflict. Table 3 describes the different conflict situations from the consultant s impression from the interviews with groups of village leaders. 5

10 Table 1: Assessment of Conflict Situations Location Conflict Situations Kara - No open conflict between villagers at the moment. - Villagers expressed different opinions on how forest land should be allocated to them. - The forest land allocation process should be well facilitated to prevent potential conflict. Village 10 - There is a strong opinion on ownership of the land the - villagers are using now, and they will not agree if the land were allocated to outsiders. - There is an issue on legal ownership of land as the villagers - stated that they received written permission from the commune before they moved here. - There is a need to verify the written permission as indicated by the villagers whether it is a legal ownership document. Hiao 1 - No open conflict at the moment - Villagers seem to have a very positive view on sharing of forest land and resources among themselves. No matter who among them were allocated forest lands. - This kind of situation where people seem to be too positive and are not aware that others may not necessarily take the same view as they do, they may end up loosing. Tension among villagers could be developed, accumulated and leads to open conflict at the end. - It is important to help these people understand what consequences would happen to them if they were not allocated land. Hiao 2 - Villagers seem to have a negative attitude towards Kinh people living in the same village. However, the headman who is Kinh seems to be well accepted by villagers. - The ethnic group (J Rai) who is the majority in the village use traditional law among them. But this does not work very well with Kinh people. - It seems that the ethnic minorities and the Kinh in this village get along well in general. However, some tensions among them are there as also found in other places on the ethnic minorities attitude towards the Kinh. - What is interesting about this village is that the J Rai people are still using their traditional law for many hings including forest protection, but the Kinh don t. If forest land were allocated to this village (both J Rai and Kinh) in a communal form, rules and regulations concerning forest management and conservation must be negotiated and agreed to prevent conflict that might arise. 6

11 Village 9A - No open conflict at the moment. - Village 9A is not the targeted village of working group for FLA, but 20 households were found cultivating crops in the forest land to be allocated. - It is important that these 20 households are not excluded from the FLA process. - They should be consulted and be part of the negotiation. Village 9B - No open conflict at the moment. - 2 households from village 8A bought land from 9B, which is in the FLA plan. - The 2 households in 8A should be informed and consulted in the FLA process Cham - No open conflict at the moment - Not all villagers who applied for forest land in the previous allocation received land. Now everyone also wants land to be allocated to him or her. - There seems to be a strong traditional mechanism in conflict management in the village, as there are only 2 major clans. - This village already has experience in FLA in There should not be a problem for future FLA activities. - However, it is important to ensure that every household in the village takes part in the decision. Tali - No open conflict at the moment - The villagers have a strong sense of community and will not agree if their land were given to outsiders. - FLA already took place in Tali village in communal form in 2003 and it is now under CBFM pilot. It seems that they are quite happy with their present situation. Jol - There is dissatisfaction among villagers who did not receive forest land in These people have many times complained and even sent letters to the commune. - They prefer that the whole forest land previously allocated to 16 households be reallocated again to cover every household. - It was clear in this particular village that the nonforest land receivers are not very happy with their situation. Action should be taken by agencies concerned to address and solve the problem. This is a good example that if people do not get involved in the FLA process in the beginning, this can cause problems later. As presented earlier that different state agencies involved in LUP/FLA also have different opinions on to whom and how forest land should be 7

12 allocated. Although conflict has not yet arisen from these different opinions, as soon as a decision is to be made, conflict may arise. It was reported that the Chairman of District PC has the authority to make the final decision concerning LUP/FLA. It is important that he/she is provided with all information needed and different opinions from different stakeholders to help in his/her decision. 3.2 Stakeholders There is no agreed concept and definition of stakeholders as people have different views on the extent up to which the individuals or groups can or should claim their stakes. The consultant s preferred definition of stakeholders in a dispute is to include those individuals or groups who have decision-making authority, who have enough formal or informal power to block or delay a decision, or who may be affected by the decision. Primary stakeholders are those who, because of power, status, position, or responsibility, are central to making the consensus work. The outcome will affect them directly, so their participation is critical. Secondary stakeholders are those with an indirect interest in the outcome. They need to be involved in the process, but their role may be peripheral to the central role of those with the most at stake. Based on the above definition, the primary stakeholders in LUP/FLA process in Ea H Leo district include: Members of Steering Committee and Working Group on LUP/FLA in Ea H Leo Forest Protection Unit (FPU), Ea H Leo Agriculture and Cadastral (ACO), Ea H Leo Ea H Leo Forest Enterprise (EFE) Ea Sol Commune People s Committee Ea Hiao Commune People s Committee Department of Forest Protection (DFP) Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) The mentioned government agencies or organizations are involved in the decision making process for LUP/FLA and CBFM in one way or another. Another group of primary stakeholders are the potential villages for LUP/FLA in Ea H Leo district, which include: Kara, village 10, Hiao 1, Hiao 2, village 9A, village 9B, village 8A, village 8B, Cham, and Tali. The mentioned villages are considered primary stakeholders because they are the ones who may be affected by the decision on how LUP/FLA should be implemented. It is important to note here that not all villages interviewed are homogenous. Some villages comprise more than just one ethnic group. For example village 9B and village 10 comprise 4 and 5 ethnic minorities respectively. Assuming that all villagers in the same village sharing the same view and opinion may be misleading and may lead to the wrong assessment of issues. 8

13 Concerning LUP/FLA and CBFM in Lak district it is assumed that the primary stakeholders are the same types of government agencies or organizations involved as in Ea H Leo district and Jol village, which in this case is a pilot project of RDDL. Other villages under LUP/FLA process in Lak district must in practice also be considered as primary stakeholders. However, they are not part of this assignment. 3.3 Key Issues The key issues in this particular LUP/FLA process are to whom (which villages) should be allocated forest land and how (what type of allocation, i.e., individual households, groups of households or community) it should be allocated. Concerning to whom and how forest land should be allocated, the following table summarizes the opinions from different stakeholders: Table 2: Opinions from Villages on Why and How Forest Land should be Allocated Location Opinions Ea Hiao commune, Ea H Leo district Kara village - Even if they live far from forest area they can still protect the forest. - If forest area is nearby, it is easier to protect it. If it is too far it is better to give it to the State Enterprise to protect. - Forest land should be given to individuals by lottery - Forest land should be allocated to only families who already have crops in the forest and also the landless families. Forest land should be allocated to them, because - They have cultivated crops there already - They use forest products there - They have been living there long time ago - The poor need more land. The poor who do cropping adjacent to the forest should be allocated forest land. Village 10 - Before they moved to this place the Commune gave them a written permission to move here. If the government asks them to move again they will, but if their land were to be allocated to other group of people they will defend it. - Forest land should be allocated to the closest villages and to individual households in the villages. - They would not accept it if the land were allocated to others. If so they will not allow the new land owners to access the land they have been using. - If their land were given to others, they will cause damage to the new owners. But if their land were taken by the government they will accept it. - They feel that they should get this forest land, because they live close to it and this forest belongs to them. 9

14 Hiao 1 - Chu Ka forest area should be allocated to Kara village. - Forest area in the direction of Ea Koa should be allocated to Hiao 1 and Hiao 2 villages. - Forest land should be allocated to individual landless households who do cropping adjacent to the forest, but some may get better land, in that case allocating land to groups of households may be better. - They feel that even though forest land has been allocated to others, they will still be allowed to use land by the new land owners based on their tradition. - They would need an official notice from CPC before they can organize a meeting with their villagers to discuss forest land allocation. - Whatever the result is, they will accept the final decision made by the CPC. Hiao2 - Traditional law can only be applied to the minorities in the village but not for the Kinh living in the same village. - Generally the minorities love forest and they can protect it. - Chi Ka forest should be allocated to people who have already cultivated crops there. - Boundary must be clear and inventory must be made before allocation is made so that they don t get blamed later, if damage caused by others was found. - Forest land should be allocated to Kinh only if they have commitment to not encroach other forest again. Village 9A - Forest land should be allocated to those 20 households in their village who have already cultivated crops there. - There is another area of about 100 ha and about 60 ha of which has small timber, but this area is not in the allocation plan. This area is being used by hh of 9A village. It was suggested that this area should be allocated to villagers of 9A. - If someone were allocated larger and someone were allocated smaller pieces of land, this has to be discussed with all villagers. Village 9B - 2 households of village 8A have purchased land from villagers of 9B, which is close to the forest and this land is in the allocation plan. - Villagers of 9B said they have no problem if that land were to be allocated those 2 families. - Priority should be given to 20 households who already have cultivation in forest land. If others also want land to be allocated to them, but not enough, just do lottery. Ea Sol commune, Ea H Leo district Cham - Give forest land to the whole village to manage it. There are only 2 clans in the village only, there should not be a problem. - If conflict occurred between members from 2 clans, they 10

15 use traditional law or village committee depending on what type of conflict. - If there is conflict with other villages, but the same ethnic group, elderly persons will discuss. Problems with forest land already allocated to villagers/communities - There was no clear understanding among villagers on FLA at the beginning, as a result many villagers did not apply for it. Some applied, but did not get it. Tali - If their land were reallocated again and given to their family members it is acceptable, but not to outsiders. - However they will eventually agree if forced by the government. Problems with forest land already allocated to villagers/communities - No complaint Dak Nue commune, Lak district Jol - If forest land were to be allocated again, they will consider - Capacity of household labor. - More or less equal distribution of land size for every household (forest condition on each plot does not matter, they can always share). - Kinh people should not be considered. Problems with forest land already allocated to villagers/communities - Decision on who should be allocated forest land was made solely by Lak Forest Enterprise from the list of households without consulting villagers. As a result, the non -forest land receivers have not been very happy. 11

16 Table 3: Opinions from Government Agencies on Why and How Forest Land should be Allocated State Agencies Forest Protection Unit, Ea H Leo Opinions - Forest land should be given to Kinh people who do cropping close to the forest and/or landless households, - because they can protect forest better, and to ethnic minorities only if they have their agricultural land in the forest areas. - Forest land should be allocated to every household and organize them into groups because forest protection needs a collective effort. Those who did not get forest land should be paid for their involvement in forest protection such as forest fire protection. - Those were not allocated forest land will just be out and lose their access and have to survive themselves. If they need timber they will have to buy it. District - Forest land should be allocated to ethnic minorities. and Commune PC ACO - Forest land in the mentioned area should be allocated to Kara, Hiao 1 and Hiao 2. - Besides Kara, Hiao and Hiao 2, forest land could also be allocated to 9B village. Criteria/reasons for allocation - Having land near or in forest land (more time for forest protection) - living close to forest land being ethnic minorities - Because this is a national program those who are excluded will also have to accept the decision Ea H Leo Forest Enterprise Ea Sol commune - Forest land should be divided into 2 parts, upper and lower parts. - On the upper part, the right side of Chu Ka mountain should be allocated to Kara, Hiao 1, and Hiao 2 - On the lower part, which is the left side of Chu Ka mountain, should be given to village 9b and village The Chairman of Ea Hiao Commune should first meet with Kara, Hiao 1 and Hiao 2 as they are priority. If they agreed to get land, the Chairman should meet with other villages later and make them accept that they do not have priority. 12

17 Ea Hiao commune - Giving land to the minorities will reduce the gap for development and is politically correct. But if land is allocated to Kinh people they can do 10 times better (both economic and forest protection/management) Suggestion for process - Prefer giving land to groups of households. Village 9B could also be included. Village 9A, 8A and 8B have enough land already. - FLA concerned people should not communicate with 9A, 8A, and 8B at all because they may also say they want land and create problem. To understand why different stakeholders have different opinions on LUP/FLA as presented in Table 2 and 3, the following factors should be taken into consideration. National Forest Policy Forest land allocation has been carried out according to Decree No. 02/CP dated January 15, 1994, with two major objectives, i.e., a) better protection and management of the forest and b) improved livelihoods of the local people. In Dak Lak province the priority for forest land allocation is given to ethnic minority households. It was clarified in the interviews that most interviewees are well aware of this priority, and mostly mentioned that forest land should not be allocated to Kinh people except under special conditions, although Kinh people are more advanced in many things including forest management and conservation. Understanding of Who are Stakeholders It seems that most people both officials and villagers are still used to the top down approach in planning and implementation. The general impression the consultant received from the interviews was that if villagers disagree with the implementation plan of LUP/FLA proposed by the government agencies, they may voice their opinions, but will eventually accept the decisions imposed by government agencies. Government officials, in general, also have tendency to use the laws as the only tool to resolve conflicts with villagers. It was clear from the interviews that the discussion concerning these LUP/FLA took place among government agencies involved only. Most villages interviewed in Ea Hiao commune were not aware of LUP/FLA until we went to interview them. Two villages mentioned that a village meeting was organized some time in February 2003, but the message was not clear to them. It was reported that the Working Group on LUP/FLA has a plan to conduct village meetings in the targeted villages, but it did not happen before this assessment exercise. It is the understanding of the consultant that RDDL promotes participatory approaches in its pilot areas, but the potential benefit seems not to be fully understood by the target groups and the leading organizations. This is particularly true for the concept of stakeholders. One interviewee mentioned that because LUP/FLA is a national program, so those who are excluded should accept the decision. It was also mentioned that villages 8A and 8B should not be informed about LUP/FLA at all because they may cause problems by also asking for forest land. This clearly indicates that 13

18 many people involved in LUP/FLA are not aware of the benefit of getting stakeholders involved in the discussion. It is crucial that major stakeholders are identified and involved in the forest land allocation process from the beginning to agree on the allocation criteria, but not being informed after the decision has been made by the authority concerned. As stated earlier villagers may accept the decision made by the authority, but it could spur their tensions as already happened in Jol village in Lak district where selection of households for FLA was made solely by Lak SFE based on the list of total households. It seemed that the non forest land receivers were not properly explained why they were not selected and they have raised this issue in almost every meeting. Understanding of Common Property Management and Private Ownership Some officials preferred the type of allocation for individual households for reasons that the ownership of land is clear and the land owners will be more willing to invest and take care of the forest land allocated to them. Most villagers responded the same that forest land should be allocated to families who already have cultivated crops in or near forest land or to the landless families. Although private ownership is common for agriculture land in most countries, forest lands are owned by the states in most cases. There are also cases where forest lands are collectively or communally owned in many parts of the world. Cham village is a good example of this. Most officials interviewed did not seem to have an understanding of common property management (they normally referred to open access forests with no management). By introducing private ownership schemes to the communities where forest is collectively owned and managed could erode the villagers tradition and lead to conflict, if not properly planned. This could also lead to the confusion of what rules and regulations should be applied for the use and management of the forests. Common pool resources are normally governed by traditional law or rules and regulations agreed by the members of the communities, like in Cham and Hiao 2 villages. As soon as forest land is given to individual households traditional law may no longer be an appropriate management tool. Relationships among community members may also change. Equity in Forest Land Allocation Most villagers interviewed seemed to be well aware of equity issues in relation to LUP/FLA, in terms of benefits as well as of contributions to the project. Equity in terms of equal size of land allocated to each household is important to make everyone happy. However, the quality of land allocated to each household may be problematic. In such a case, some villagers suggested that forest land should be allocated to groups of households or communities and they can work it out among themselves. Most villagers felt that it is fair to allocate forest land to those who have already have been cultivating crops in or near the forest land planned for allocation as first priority. Landless families should also receive forest land if possible. However, those households should have the capacity to manage and protect the forest land allocated to them. Again, this is another important factor to be considered in deciding what type of allocation is best suited for each community to prevent conflicts that may arise if this issue was not properly addressed in the beginning. 14

19 4 PROPOSED CONFLICT ASSESSMENT AND RESOLUTION PROCESS AND THE ROLE OF STAKEHOLDERS 4.1 Conflict Assessment Process Conflict assessment process, generally, involves the following 6 steps: Step1: Decide to initiate a conflict assessment Step 2: Initiate a conflict assessment Step 3: Gather information through interviews Step 4: Analyze the interview results Step 5: Design and implement collaborative problem-solving process Step 6: Share the assessment with interviewees As mentioned earlier, RDDL is the convenor for this conflict assessment exercise and the consultant is the assessor in this context. During the visit to the LUP/FLA and CBFM pilot sites, all steps, except step 5, have been completed. Ideally, the design for a collaborative problem-solving process should be presented together with the interview results to stakeholders. However, this could not be done due to time constraint. It is important to also mention here that not all major stakeholders were present at the debriefing workshop. There was no representative from the villages where forest land allocation was planned for. Only members of Steering Committee and Working Group for LUP/FLA were invited to the workshop. It is understandable that the convenor seeks to get some kind of agreement from the different government agencies concerned before communicating with the villagers. Ideally, representatives from villages should also be in such debriefing workshop to listen whether the assessor accurately reflected their views. Concerning step 5, which is designing a collaborative problem-solving process, this step is necessary if a conflict were found from the assessment exercise and collaborative problem-solving process appears feasible. As presented earlier, the current conflict situations of all villages visited are not so obvious, although people in some villages expressed their dissatisfaction with forest land allocation implemented during the last few years. It is the consultant s understanding that the decision concerning forest land allocation in Ea H Leo district will have to be made soon. Activities concerning FLA in Ea H Leo district have also been planned for 2004, which include developing criteria of FLA at community level. This implies that the FLA Working Group will pre-determine the villages for forest land allocation using its own criteria, the villages will be informed only after they have been selected. Criteria for FLA at the communal level are only discussed with individual villages, which means the criteria agreed and used within their communities. But the villagers will have no inputs on why some villages should be included in FLA and others should not. 15

20 If that is the case this step may not be possible. However if time allows, it is recommended that the convenor should take the lead and encourage all major stakeholders concerned to take part in this step as a learning process by gaining consensus for the decision to prevent tensions from escalating into conflicts if some stakeholders interests are not met. This will also help legitimize the selection of stakeholders to be involved in the FLA process. It should be made sure that representatives from Kara, village 10, Hiao 1, Hiao 2, village 9A, village 9B, Cham and Tali are part of this process from the outset. Ethnic groups and women from the mentioned villages should also be properly represented. The same consensus-building approach can also be used at a later stage to resolve conflicts in the future if occurred. This would also be an educative process for all stakeholders concerning consensus building, because those in positions of leadership are likely to be familiar with the traditional adversarial approach to dealing with differences, but not with the mutual gains approach. This would also allow the voiceless to take part in the negotiation. The following actions are recommended for Step 5: 1) Identify a host or responsible institution A coordinating institution to lead the process and coordinate the activities has to be identified. It is recommended that RDDL plays this role as it has already initiated this conflict assessment exercise and is seen as neutral. 2) Agree on the objectives of the exercise It is suggested that this exercise aims at formulating recommendations (criteria) for forest land allocation based on different opinions from different stakeholders. This, in fact, is already an activity under result 6 of the plan of operation for of RDDL. What is recommended is that a wider range of stakeholders consultation is needed by using consensus-building approach. 3) Agree on the issues to be discussed Issues to be discussed in this exercise are the issues identified from the assessment. These issues are: - Who should be allocated forest land and why? - How forest land should be allocated and under what condition? - What are the alternatives for non forest land receivers? In order to discuss the issues more effectively, the working group members will need to understand how forest resources in the area have been used so far and by whom. Information on uses of forest resources in the area needs to be collected and provided to the working group members. Again it is recommended that RDDL play the lead role in this activity. 4) Form a working group It is important to get all major stakeholders involved in LUP/FLA participate in the working group so that they understand and see the value of consensus building approach as a tool for conflict prevention. It is important that the working group members understand why a collaborative problem-solving process has to be undertaken. The working group 16

21 members have to agree on the objectives and what they want to achieve as a result of this exercise. A clear role and responsibility of each member of the working group has to be defined and agreed upon to avoid unnecessary overlapped work and conflict among the members. The working group member must be clear on what capacity they represent as a member of the group, as a neutral individual or representative of his/her group or organization. It is recommended that representatives from the following organizations are members of the working group: - RDDL - Forest Protection Unit (FPU), Ea H Leo - Agriculture and Cadastral Office (ACO), Ea H Leo - Ea H Leo Forest Enterprise (EFE) - Ea Sol Commune People s Committee - Ea Hiao Commune People s Committee - Representatives from Kara, village 10, Hiao 1, Hiao 2, village 9A, village 9B, Cham and Tali. This consensus-building working group will have about members from the list above. RDDL as a convenor should play a coordinating role in this process. 5) Set time frame and schedule of meetings If this recommendation is adopted RDDL should, as soon as possible, share this idea with the existing Working Group on LUP/FLA and make them agree that a new working group with a wider range of stakeholders is needed. If agreed with the suggested list of stakeholders, the stakeholders identified should be invited to come to the first meeting. It is understood that a PRA exercise on LUP/FLA was being conducted at the same time when this report was being written. So it would make sense to also present the findings from the PRA exercise in the first meeting of the Working Group. It is proposed that Working Group meeting is organized separately with each commune involved in LUP/FLA twice. The following agenda should be included in the first meeting: - Clear explanation on objectives, process and ground rules of the meeting. - Presentation/discussion of findings from village interviews and PRA exercise with a focus on information concerning uses of forest resources in particular areas. Based on such information, the group should discuss and analyze how different stakeholders would be affected, positively or negatively, if they were or were not allocated forest land. - Formulation of and agreement on criteria for forestland allocation types and for selection of households/villages. - Discussion on potential conflicts and possible mechanism in resolving it. The result from the first meeting will be shared with the LUP/FLA Steering Committee, who may provide comments or suggestions. However, it is important that the Steering Committee is aware of this participatory process 17

22 and will not turn down what has been agreed by most stakeholders. After sharing with the Steering Committee the second meeting can be planned to discuss further action plans with each commune. 6) Establish ground rules In order to assist a collaborative problem-solving process, ground rules should be established and agreed by the working group members from the outset (in the first meeting). Ground rules should address the following: - What is consensus? - Why is a consensus-building process needed? - What form of conflict prevention/resolution is required? - How will the group work toward a solution? - How should participants interact with each other? - What are the roles and responsibilities of working group members, the facilitator, the convenor and the public? - How will the decision be made? - What is the schedule? - Who will receive and act on the final agreements? This is to gain agreement from the working group members that group decisions will be made through consensus, which means agreement by all working group members. With this approach each member of the group can veto unacceptable potential solutions, participants in the collaborative problem solving process must work towards agreements that all of them can support. It may also be ideal to think that all participants will agree with solutions proposed by other group members. So it is useful to think that consensus can be achieved at 3 different levels. a. Group members strongly support the solution. b. Group members can live with the solution. c. Some group members do not support the solution, but they agree not to veto it. Concerning roles and responsibilities of working group members, it must be clear to them that every member has an equal voice and opportunity to put their ideas on the table. Everyone should be encouraged to contribute his/her ideas. Because RDDL will play a coordinating role in the process, an outside facilitator who is capable in facilitating collaborative problem solving process will have to be identified. It is very important that the process facilitator will have to stay neutral and only assist the group to come up with its own solutions. All these different roles and responsibilities must be clearly communicated to the working group members. The group will also have to agree on how the agreements or decisions made by the group will be communicated to people they represent or the public. Other ground rules may be added if the group members feel that there is a need for it. 18

23 4.2 Conflict Resolution Process In theory there are many different options for conflict resolution varying from conflict avoidance to violent actions. In practice, however, we aim to promote the mutual gain or win-win approach in resolving conflict for the reasons that the result would last longer and the relationship among stakeholders would remain positive. Two different mechanisms were found being used at present in LUP/FLA sites in Dak Lak. It was mentioned during the interviews that some ethnic groups in some villages are still using their own customary practices in resolving conflicts in general (this should be further explored in details in the PRA exercise). Another mechanism mentioned was the use of laws in resolving conflicts, as indicated by some villagers that no matter what opinions they would have concerning FLA they will have to follow the laws at the end of the day. The weaknesses of both mechanisms are that the first one may not be effective or cannot be used with the outsiders, while the latter does not necessarily satisfy the needs and interests of all stakeholders, and normally there will be winners and losers. In resolving natural resources conflicts an alternative conflict resolution mechanism is needed to ensure that needs and interests of all stakeholders are satisfied through fair negotiations with assistance of the third neutral party if needed. A consensus building approach is an ideal option to resolve conflicts because it aims to generate agreements and outcomes that are acceptable to all conflicting parties with a minimum of compromise. However, one should look into the following factors in choosing the most practicable strategy or option. - The time and resources available for coordinating the conflict resolution process - The power of the different stakeholders to force through their agenda - The strength of feeling the conflicting parties have towards each other, and towards achieving their own goals - The importance of building or maintaining good relationships between the stakeholders - The consequences if the conflict continues, such as escalation towards violence - The urgency to manage or resolve the conflict - The effectiveness of existing customary, institutional and legal conflict resolution mechanisms. In the opinion of the expert, the legal mechanism may be the most appropriate tool in resolving the immediate conflicts at present, provided time and resources available. It is, however, recommended that an alternative conflict resolution mechanism using consensus building approach be developed as part of staff capacity building through training. This group of people will be trained as conflict mediators to assist in the negotiation between stakeholders when conflict arises. The following action points are recommended: 1) Identify a group of people who play or have potential to play the role of conflict mediator from the CBFM, LUP/FLA areas. 2) Gain commitment from the people identified as well as their bosses for their future role in conflict mediation. 19