The key to unlock State-owned forest farm restructuring is the successful management of land funds, said Mr Pham Quang Tu, Deputy Director of the Consultancy on Development Institute (CODE) in an interview with Vietnam Business Forum Magazine. Nguyen Thanh reports.
Mr Tu said 51 provinces and cities have approved the “State-owned forest farm restructuring and development scheme”. After being reshuffled, 256 forest farms and forestry companies were arranged into 136 one-member limited liability companies, 14 joint stock companies and 36 forest management boards; and 14 State forest farms were dissolved.
According to the new findings announced by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, as of December 31, 2011, the country had about 75,600 ha of disputed and encroached forest land, (accounting for 2.7 percent of forest land managed by State-owned forest farms). Could you give more information about this reality?
At present, overlapped management, area miscalculation and wrong positioning still exist. Even, some land plots were handed to forest farms although there were other owners of such plots. This led to conflict of concerned parties.
On the other hand, forest farms are too slow at returning forest land to localities. By the end of 2010, only 490,000 ha were handed to localities, accounting for 44 percent of area planned to be transferred. Therefore, this failed to ensure livelihoods of foresters, especially in densely populated areas where farming competence is limited. Meanwhile, according to a CODE survey, at the end of 2011, 132,000 ha of forestland managed by State-owned forest farms were left unfarmed and unused.
It means the reorganisation of State-owned forest farms has not met the target?
After eight years implementing the Resolution 28/NQ-TW of the Politburo (2003 - 2011) and more than six years enforcing the Decree 200/2004/ND-CP of the Government (2005 - 2011), the process of State-owned forest farm restructuring was almost at a standstill, except for the renaming of State-owned forest farms to Forest Management Board or forestry companies. Meanwhile, the central content - reviewing and reclaiming land to transfer to localities to allocate to interested economic sectors - is left almost undone.
So, do you mean only the surface was changed while the core content of land review of State forest farms was disregarded?
The basis for reorganisation of forest management organs (changed to forestry companies, forest management boards, forestry service companies, etc) is the results of land assessment and review of State-owned forest farms. In fact, land review was carried out but it was based on statistical documents, maps and land reporting data collected by State-owned forest farms while it ignored solution and result of local disputes in forest land. This was the most fundamental cause to stagnancy and obstacle of the implementation process.
On the other hand, the land review lacked participation of stakeholders, particularly local people who expressed their complaints about forest land management. Moreover, concerned parties did not have enough access to policies, especially local authorities and local communities. For example, the land review in Quang Ninh district, Quang Binh province was performed by only State-owned forest farms and authorities but there was no presence of local people and social organisations.
Lack of seriousness is attributed to the surface change in State-owned forest farm reorganisation. So, what is needed to resolve this problem?
Only when land review is done well, there will be a real reorganisation of State-owned forest farms. Hence, we need to review land on the basis of minimum land-use demand of local people and local communities for livelihood and resolve complaints and disputes. From reviewed land fund, we will prepare land handover plans for communities and organisations. Land will be given to farmers and communities first and organisations later.
From assigned land, forestry companies will plan planting, management and other operations.
Vietnamese
