Thesis Title: Subtitle

Home , Berchtesgaden Alps

Factors influencing the management effectiveness of the biosphere reserve model:

The case of Vietnam

Van Cuong Chu

Bachelor degree of Forestry, 1997

Master degree of Natural Resource Studies, 2008

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at

The University of Queensland in 2017

School of Earth and Environmental Sciences

ABSTRACT

Biosphere Reserves (BR) were set up in the 1970s by UNESCO under the Man and Biosphere Program (MAB) to fulfil three vital functions: Biodiversity conservation, sustainable development and logistical support. The BR concept evolved, as outlined by the Seville Strategy and Statutory Framework in 1995, which established a set of criteria and guidelines for effective planning and managing of the global network. Rapid expansion of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) was expected to provide an excellent opportunity for conservation coupled to sustainable development. However, while BRs are an international initiative, country members are given the right to nominate and implement the model.

This thesis evaluates current management issues and discusses the knowledge and institutional barriers for long-term management outcomes of the BR model in Vietnam. The knowledge gaps and factors contributing to the success or failure of the BR operation and management were investigated from the global to national and site level. Employing the Delphi method of expert opinions, the study identified 90 BRs, including 60 successful and 30 less successful sites in 42 countries across the WNBR. Most successful sites are the post-Seville generation while the majority of unsuccessful BRs are pre-Seville generations that are managed as protected areas (PA) and have not been amended to conform to the characteristics that are meant to define a BR. The study also identified eleven key factors belonging to three main functional groups of designation, participation and delivery. Among the 11 key influencing factors, Awareness and communication, and Landscape planning and zonation (designation with the core, buffer zone and transition area) are preconditions but beyond that Stakeholder participation and collaboration, Governance, Finance and resources, and Management and implementation including Sustainable economic development are sufficient conditions for BR success. Monitoring and evaluation appears to be a less important factor influencing the BR success but it is an important component for adaptive learning and management within the WNBR. Factors identified as influencing management of the global network of BRs were used as a set of “core issues” for comparison with the way BRs are operated and managed at the national and site level in Vietnam.

Despite the designation of the Vietnam’s BRs theoretically following the Seville conceptual model and international criteria, in practice there appears a gap in achieving this model in operation and management. BRs are operating by the lack of nationally legal recognition, no central government funding, and top-down, sectoral power and interest. Although the decentralisation process in Vietnam allows the province and city authority some flexibility in interpreting the central policies and regulations that could benefit BR operation and management locally, the way this is interpreted varies with the commitment and engagement of the provincial leaders. Lack of true understanding i of the BR approach coupled with unclear guidance on BR planning and management led to most of the management effort being paid to the conservation of the core PAs.

Specific study of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve (KGBR) showed a similar operational “disconnect” between concept and practice as in most other BRs in Vietnam. Whilst major attention has been paid to compliance with the UNESCO Man the Biosphere rules, little effort and investment has been made in the practical implementation of the concepts they embody. Lack of public awareness and understanding, state-control based on a strong sectoral approach to BR planning and management hindered broader stakeholder participation. Weak engagement from provincial leader in BR governance limited cross-sectoral collaboration process for effective delivery BR mandate functions that differentiates BRs from the conventional conservation PA approach. The study found that external projects only have a temporary impact on operation of the KGBR because they often start with small, time-bound demonstration models which negatively condition the community attitude to the projects and by association the BR.

Using Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit (EoH) developed by IUCN and UNESCO for evaluation of management effectiveness, the study found that while the KGBR has been operating for a decade, the management planning process has not been completed. While a management system was established in KGBR it has proved inadequate to the task in operation because of structural deficiencies in the BR Management Board, lack of trained staff with BR knowledge and no allocation of operational funding specifically for BR activities. There appears a difficulty to achieve desired outcomes. Due to the absence of an approved operational plan with a monitoring and evaluation system has meant that assessment of management effectiveness of the KGBR against the key performance indicators has not been possible.

To improve performance and effectiveness of the BR model in Vietnam, BRs should have nationally legal recognition that provides legitimacy for setting up clear BR governance structure and cross sectoral collaboration, and increase funding opportunity from central government for BR delivery. Additionally, BR sustainability and effectiveness greatly depends on the implementation of appropriate, locally-based management solutions that need a strong stakeholder’s awareness, and engagement for a stable and strong governance leadership based on a strategic participation and public-private stakeholder partnerships in planning, operating resource allocation and implementation.

DECLARATION BY AUTHOR

This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included in my thesis.

I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial advice, and any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of my research higher degree candidature and does not include a substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award.

I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and, subject to the policy and procedures of The University of Queensland, the thesis be made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 unless a period of embargo has been approved by the Dean of the Graduate School.

I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the copyright holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright permission from the copyright holder to reproduce material in this thesis.

iii

PUBLICATIONS DURING CANDIDATURE

Peer reviewed papers

Cuong, C.V., Dart, P., Hockings, M., 2017. Biosphere reserves: Attributes for success. Journal of Environmental Management 188, 9-17.

Cuong, C.V., Dart, P., Dudley, N., Hockings, M., 2017. Factors influencing successful implementation of Biosphere Reserves in Vietnam: Challenges, opportunities and lessons learnt. Environmental Science and Policy 67, 16-26.

Cuong, C.V., Dart, P., Hockings, M., 2017. Using Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit for assessing management effectiveness of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve. The International Journal of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves 1, 56-76.

Cuong, C.V., Brown, S., To, H.H., Hockings, M., 2015. Using Melaleuca fences as soft coastal engineering for mangrove restoration in Kien Giang, Vietnam. Ecological Engineering 81, 256-265.

Cuong, C.V., Russell, R., Brown, S., Dart, P., 2015. Using Shoreline Video Assessment for coastal planning and restoration in the context of climate change in Kien Giang, Vietnam. Ocean Science Journal 50, 413-432.

Conference papers and abstracts

Cuong, C.V., Tri, N.H., Hockings, M., Dart, P., 2014. Action Plan for Conservation and Promotion of the Values of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve for the Period 2013-2015 and Vision to 2020. Rach Gia, Kien Giang.

Cuong, C.V., Brown, S., Dart, P., 2014 (abstract). Using biosphere reserve management for better conservation and livelihood outcomes in Kien Giang, Vietnam. World Park Congress (12-19 Nov. 2014), Sydney, Australia

Cuong, C.V., Dart. P., 2014 (abstract). Wetland Restoration: Lessons learned from Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve.. World Park Congress (12-19 Nov. 2014), Sydney, Australia.

Cuong, C.V., Brown, S., 2013. Using Biosphere reserve as an integrated planning and management tool: A case study in Kien Giang, Vietnam. In: Davis, S. (Ed.), Future nature, future culture(s). Noosa Biosphere Limited & CQ University, Noosa, Queensland, pp. 157-164.

PUBLICATIONS INCLUDED IN THIS THESIS

This thesis consists of four jointly authored journal articles: Three published papers and one jointly authored work that has been submitted for peer review. These papers have been reproduced in full thesis chapters. I conducted the majority of the work contained within these articles, including: design survey questions, data collection, data analysis and interpretation, draft and finalised writing. I also played a role as corresponding author on the behalf of others. The author contributions are indicated with the below relevant citations.

Cuong, C.V., Dart, P., Hockings, M., 2017. Biosphere reserves: Attributes for success. Journal of Environmental Management 188, 9-17. Incorporated as Chapter 2.

Contributor Statement of contribution Van Cuong Chu (Candidate) Designed questions (95%) Collected and analysed data (100%) Wrote paper (85%) Peter Dart Provided comments and edited paper (7 %) Marc Hockings Designed survey questions (5%) Provided comments and edited paper (8 %)

Contributor Statement of contribution Van Cuong Chu (Candidate) Designed questions (90%) Collected and analysed data (100%) Wrote paper (82%) Peter Dart Designed survey questions (5%) Provided comments and edited paper (7 %) Nigel Dudley Provided comments and edited paper (3 %) Marc Hockings Designed survey questions (5 %) Provided comments and edited paper (8%)

Contributor Statement of contribution Van Cuong Chu (Candidate) Designed data collection method (90%) Collected and analysed data (100%) Wrote paper (85%) Peter Dart Provided comments and edited paper ( 7 %) Marc Hockings Designed data collection method (10 %) Provided comments and edited paper (8 %)

CONTRIBUTIONS BY OTHERS TO THE THESIS

Marc Hockings and Peter Dart provided their advice and comments on drafts of written materials for whole thesis. Nigel Dudley provided his comments on the draft Chapters 3 and 4.

STATEMENT OF PARTS OF THE THESIS SUBMITED TO QUALIFY FOR THE AWARD OF ANOTHER DEGREE

None

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my profound gratitude to the advisory team, Professor Marc Hockings, Asssociated Professor Peter Dart and Nigel Dudley for their invaluable support, advice and encouragement throughout the courses of my study journey. I am appriciated Shay Simpson for her proof reading and constructive comments on the final thesis Chapter. I would like to acknowledge four anonymous reviewers and Dr John Innes (Editor, Journal of Environmental Management) and Dr Pam Berry (Editor, Environmental Science and Policy) for their constructive comments on draft manuscripts of Chapters 2 and 3. I thank the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences (former School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management), Graduate School, and Scope Global Pty Ltd, particularly my case managers Ms. Ammeline Balanag and Ms. Vanessa Wright for their efficient providing support and assistance in completing this study degree.

My appreciations are addressed to the international Delphi panel experts, and managers and staff working at the National MAB Committee and biosphere reserves in Vietnam who have spent time and effort to participate in the online survey. Particularly, my special thanks to the Biosphere Reserve Management Board, Provincial department managers, staff and local people in Kien Giang for their support and participation in the meetings, interviewing and participatory workshop.

The research idea was initiated when I was working in the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve but it could not be done without the sufficient finance support. I would like to acknowledge this support from the Australian Government Endeavour Scholarships and Fellowships Award, the University of Queensland, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, and GIZ/DFAT Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve Project.

Especially, I wish to dedicate this work to family and my wife (Tran Thi Hiep), my daughters and son (Chu Bich Ngoc, Chu Thi Bao Tram and Chu Duc Tri) for their understanding, patience and unfailing support.

vii

KEYWORDS biosphere reserves, biosphere reserve performance, biosphere reserve operation, management effectiveness, evaluation, success, failure, Vietnam.

Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications (ANZSRC)

ANZSRC code: 050209, Natural Resource Management, 60 %

ANZSRC code: 160507, Environment Policy, 20 %

ANZSRC code: 070599, Forestry Sciences not elsewhere classified, 20 %

Fields of Research (FoR) Classification

FoR code: 0502, Environmental Science and Management, 80 %

FoR code: 0705, Forestry Sciences, 20%

viii

PREFACE

Except for Chapter 1 (Introduction) and Chapter 6 (Conclusions), this thesis consists of four content research chapters that have been published in or submitted for scientific journals. Hence, I made some minor stylistic changes to the manuscripts that make thesis content to be consistently and logically flowed. All Figures, Tables and Appendices within the chapters have been re-labeled, and references using in individual chapter have been collated and standardised at the end of thesis. Some repetitions occurred in the content chapters as they have been written under the peer-reviewed journal article format.

TABLE OF CONENTS

ABSTRACT ...... i DECLARATION BY AUTHOR ...... iii PUBLICATIONS DURING CANDIDATURE ...... iv PUBLICATIONS INCLUDED IN THIS THESIS ...... v CONTRIBUTIONS BY OTHERS TO THE THESIS ...... vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... vii KEYWORDS ...... viii PREFACE ...... ix LIST OF FIGURES ...... xv LIST OF ABBREVIARIONS USE IN THE THESIS...... xvii CHAPER 1: INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1. Introduction and problem statement ...... 1

1.1.1. Biodiversity conservation and development dilemma ...... 1 1.1.2. Integrated conservation and development under the World Network of Biosphere Reserves ...... 2 1.2. Rationale ...... 5

1.3. Research aims ...... 8

1.4. Research questions ...... 8

1.5. Research methodology ...... 8

1.6. Thesis structure ...... 9

CHAPTER 2: INFLUENCING FACTORS TO MANAGEMENT OF THE BIOSPHERE RESERVE MODEL ...... 11 2.1. Introduction ...... 13

2.2. Research methods ...... 14

2.3. Results ...... 15

2.3.1. Nomination results ...... 15 2.3.1.1. Successful and unsuccessful biosphere reserves ...... 15 2.3.1.2. Promoting and hindering factors to biosphere reserve success or failure ...... 20 2.3.2. Rating the importance of the promoting or hindering factors to biosphere reserve management ...... 27 2.4. Discussion ...... 28

2.4.1. Biosphere reserve designation ...... 29 2.4.2. Participation ...... 29 2.4.3. Delivery ...... 30 2.5. Conclusions ...... 31

CHAPTER 3: APPLICATION OF THE SEVILLE STRATEGY AND MANAGEMENT CRITERIA IN VIETNAM’S BIOSPHERE RESERVES ...... 32 3.1. Introduction ...... 34

3.2. Research methods ...... 37

3.2.1. Data collection ...... 37 3.2.2. Data analysis ...... 37 3.3. Results ...... 38

3.3.1. Survey results ...... 38 3.3.2. Consistency of Vietnam’s biosphere reserves with the Seville guidelines ...... 38 3.3. 3. Perception of the biosphere reserve approach ...... 41 3.3.4. Factors influencing biosphere reserve management ...... 43 3.3.4.1. Stakeholder participation and collaboration ...... 44 3.3.4.2. Governance ...... 45 3.3.4.3. Finance and resources ...... 45 3.3.4.4. Awareness and communication ...... 45 3.3.4.5. Management and implementation ...... 47 3.3.5. Perception about the roles of external projects ...... 47 3.3.6. Perception of the future for biosphere reserves without external project support ...... 48 3.4. Discussion ...... 49

3.4.1. Stakeholder participation and collaboration...... 50 3.4.2. Finance and resources ...... 51 3.4.3. Biosphere reserve governance ...... 52 3.4.4. Awareness and communication ...... 53 3.4.5. Management and implementation ...... 53 3.5. Conclusions ...... 54

CHAPTER 4: MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE OF THE KIEN GIANG BIOSPHERE RESERVE ...... 55 4.1. Introduction ...... 57

4.2. Research methods ...... 59

4.2.1. Data collection ...... 59 4.2.2. Data analysis ...... 62 4.3. Results ...... 62

4.3.1. Survey participants ...... 62 4.3.2. Compliance between Seville criteria and management in KGBR ...... 62 4.3.3. Impediments to operation and management of the KGBR...... 63 4.3.4. Factors influencing the operation and management effectiveness...... 64 4.3.4.1. Awareness and communication ...... 66 4.3.4.2. Stakeholder participation and collaboration ...... 68 4.3.4.3. Governance ...... 69 4.3.4.4. Finance and resources ...... 69 4.3.4.5. Management and implementation ...... 69 4.3.4.6. Economic development ...... 70 4.3.5. Perception of external project support for biosphere reserve management ...... 70 4.3.6. Future operation of the KGBR and enhancement of management processes ...... 72 4.4. Discussion ...... 74

4.5. Conclusions ...... 77

CHAPTER 5: MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION FOR KIEN GIANG BIOSPHERE RESERVE ...... 79 5.1. Introduction ...... 81

5.2. Research methods ...... 82

5.2.1. Study area ...... 82 5.2.2. Management effective evaluation ...... 82 5.2.3. Data collection and analysis ...... 83 5.3. Results ...... 84

5.3.1. Context ...... 88 5.3.1.1. Biosphere reserve values ...... 88 5.3.1.2. Threats ...... 88 5.3.1.3. Stakeholders and their engagement ...... 89 5.3.1.4. National and provincial management context ...... 91 5.3.2. Designation and planning...... 92 5.3.3. Inputs ...... 93 5.3.4. Management process ...... 94 5.3.4.1. Management structure and system ...... 95 xii

5.3.4.2. Resource management ...... 96 5.3.4.3. Management and tourism...... 96 5.3.4.4. Management and communities...... 97 5.3.5. Outputs...... 97 5.3.6. Management outcomes ...... 98 5.3.6.1. Core area coverage ...... 98 5.3.6.2. Biodiversity health ...... 100 5.4. Discussion ...... 102

5.5. Conclusions ...... 104

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS ...... 106 6.1. Introduction ...... 106

6.2. Discussion of the research findings...... 107

6.2.1. What are the attributes of successful implementation of the biosphere reserve model? ...... 107 6.2.2. Do the management models and management practices applied to biosphere reserves in Vietnam support the principles of the Seville Strategy? ...... 110 6.2.3. How is Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve performing under the provincial socio- economic development and management context? ...... 113 6.3. Recommendations ...... 119

6.3.1. National level ...... 120 6.3.1.1. Establish a legal basis for the BR approach ...... 120 6.3.1.2. Strengthen roles of the National MAB Committee ...... 120 6.3.2. Site level ...... 120 6.3.2.1. Programs for public awareness ...... 120 6.3.2.2. Strengthen leadership ...... 121 6.3.2.3. BR funding and resources ...... 121 6.3.2.4. Build capacity for future needs ...... 122 6.3.2.5. Formal management plans and evaluation ...... 122 6.3.2.6. BR branding and initiatives ...... 122 6.4. Contributions of the research project ...... 123

6.5. Research limitations ...... 124

6.6. Future research ...... 124

LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 126 xiii

APPENDICES ...... 146 Appendix A: Supplementary Tables for Chapter 2 ...... 146

Appendix B: Supplementary Tables for Chapter 3...... 150

Appendix C: Supplementary Tables and Figures for Chapter 4 ...... 160

Appendix D: Supplementary Tables for Chapter 5 ...... 171

Appendix E: Supplementary Tables for Chapter 6 ...... 200

LIST OF TABLES Table 2. 1. Successful and unsuccessful biosphere reserves with multiple nominations ...... 16 Table 2. 2. Major factors influencing biosphere reserve management ...... 21 Table 2. 3. Mean score and rankings of the factors influencing biosphere reserve success and failure ...... 28 Table 3. 1. Management issues and biosphere reserve solutions ...... 42 Table 5. 1. Summary of management effectiveness assessment results ...... 85 Table 5. 2. Key threats to KGBR ...... 89 Table 5. 3. Stakeholder engagement in KGBR ...... 90 Table 5. 4. Staff and funding for KGBR ...... 94 Table 5. 5. Ecosystem health in the key management sites of the KGBR ...... 101 Table 5. 6. Key challenges to management of the WNBR and findings in Kien Giang ...... 102 Table 6. 1. Major factors influencing biosphere reserve management success ...... 109 Table 6. 2. Perception of the factors influencing biosphere reserve management in Vietnam ...... 111 Table 6. 3. Influencing factors to biosphere reserve management perceived by provincial managers and staff, and local people in Kien Giang ...... 114 Table 6. 4. Key challenges to management of the WNBR and findings in Kien Giang ...... 115

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. 1. Structure designation model of a biosphere reserve ...... 3 Figure 1. 2. Number of biosphere reserves in the global network...... 4 Figure 1. 3. Distribution of biosphere reserves in Vietnam ...... 7 Figure 2. 1. Factors influencing overall management of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves grouped into 3 functional groups based on ranking of their importance for promoting or hindering the success of biosphere reserve management...... 22 Figure 2. 2. Factors promoting or hindering successful management of all the biosphere reserves nominated in the Delphi process grouped into 3 functional groups based on ranking of their importance for promoting or hindering the success of biosphere reserve management...... 25 Figure 2. 3. Factors promoting or hindering successful management of the most commonly nominated (>2 nominations) biosphere reserves in the Delphi process grouped into 3 functional groups based on ranking of their importance for promoting or hindering the success of biosphere reserve management...... 26 Figure 3. 1. Biosphere reserves in the management system of Vietnam ...... 36 Figure 3. 2. Examples of BRs in Vietnam: Cu Lao Cham - Hoi An (above) and Red River Delta (below)...... 40 Figure 3. 3. Factors Influencing biosphere reserve management in Vietnam ...... 44 Figure 3. 4. Biosphere reserve communication in Vietnam ...... 46 Figure 3. 5. Perception about the roles of external projects to biosphere reserve management (N=41) ...... 47 Figure 3. 6. Project limitations for long-term operation of the biosphere reserves (N=30) ...... 48 Figure 3. 7. The challenges to biosphere operation without project support (N=41) ...... 49 Figure 4. 1. Survey sites in Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve ...... 60 Figure 4. 2. Participants’ perception of the key impediments to operation and management of the KGBR...... 64 Figure 4. 3. Perception of factors influencing operation and management effectiveness of the KGBR from government employees (a) and local people (b) ...... 65 Figure 4. 4. Current communication between BRMB/Operating Office and stakeholders in KGBR...... 67 Figure 4. 5. Percentage of informants who mentioned the contributions of the GIZ/DFAT project to biosphere reserve management in Kien Giang (N=88)...... 71 Figure 4. 6. Percentage of informant opinions about the limitations that affect projects contributions to the sustainability of the KGBR (N=88) ...... 72

Figure 4. 7. Percentage of informant opinion about challenges to sustainable operation of the KGBR in the absence of project support...... 73 Figure 4. 8. Informant perceptions about the ways to improve operation and sustainability of the KGBR as a percentage of survey respondents...... 74 Figure 5. 1. Designation map of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve ...... 93 Figure 5. 2. Infrastructure and signboards with inadequate maintenance ...... 96 Figure 5. 3. Management progress of the KGBR in 2014 and 2015 ...... 97 Figure 5. 4. Management outputs of the KGBR in 2014 and 2015 ...... 98 Figure 5. 5. Changes in the core and conservation area in KGBR between 2006 (a) and 2016 (b) . 99

xvi

LIST OF ABBREVIARIONS USE IN THE THESIS

ADB Asian Development Bank AfriMAB African Biosphere Reserves Network ArabMAB ArabMAB Network ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations AsiaMAB Asia and Pacific Network (Southeast Asian Biosphere Reserve Network; South and Central Asia Network; East Asian Network; and Pacific Man and the Biosphere Network) BR Biosphere reserve BRMB Biosphere Reserve Management Board CBD Convention on Biological Diversity DARD Department of Agriculture and Rural Development DFAT Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade DOCST Department of Culture, Sport and Tourism DONRE Department of Natural Resources and Environment DOST Department of Science and Technology EoH Enhancing our Heritages EuroMAB Europe and North America Network FPMB Forest Protection Management Board GDP Gross Domestic Products GIZ German International Cooperation Gov Government ha Hectares IberoMAB Ibero-American MAB Network ICC-MAB International Co-ordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere Program ICD Integrated Conservation and Development ICEM International Centre for Environmental Management IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature KGBR Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve KGL Informants who are local people in Kien Giang KGS Informants who are government employed officials in Kien Giang LAP Lima Action Plan MAB Man and the Biosphere Program MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

xvii

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MONRE Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment MPA Marine Protected Area NGO Non Government Organisation NP National Park PA Protected Area PAME Protected Area Management Evaluation PPC Provincial People’s Committee R Respondents of the Delphi Panel RAND Research and Development SDGs Sustainable Development Goals UK The United Kingdom UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNESCO The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization US The United States of America VR Respondents from Vietnam’s biosphere reserves WCED World Commission on Environment and Development WCPA World Commission on Protected Areas WNBR World Network of Biosphere Reserves

xviii

CHAPER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Introduction and problem statement

1.1.1. Biodiversity conservation and development dilemma

Surviving and improving quality of life while avoiding depletion of natural resource systems and their ecosystem services are amongst the most significant challenges that human beings are facing (WCED, 1987; Saunier and Meganch, 1995; McShane et al., 2011; Guerry et al., 2015). However, the supportive planet has been experiencing significant conversion from natural or semi-natural ecosystems to artificial -human induced ones (Vitousek et al., 1997; Olson et al., 2001; Schellnhuber et al., 2001) due to high pressure from strong economic development focus that took place within the uncertain limits of natural resource availability (Meadows et al., 1972, 2005; Daly, 2005; Muraca, 2012, Guerry et al., 2015; Steffen et al., 2015). As a result, natural resources and capital that provide essential needs for human wellbeing like forests, land and water have been exploited beyond their recovery capacity (WCED, 1987; ADB, 1993; UNEP, 2002; Asara et al., 2015; Steffen et al., 2015), along with the loss of ecosystem services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; UNESCO, 2008; Costanza et al., 2014). Growing concerns about the impacts of anthropogenic pressures on biodiversity and ecosystem services have led to sustainable development movements focussing on environmental conservation and economic growth as important components (WCED, 1987; Hunter, 1996; Thaitesi and DeLacy, 1997; Norton, 2003; Stoll-Kleemann and O’Riordan, 2017).

The global protected area (PA) system now encompasses over 200,000 sites, covering 15.4 % of terrestrial land and 8.4 % of sea area (Juffe-Bignoli et al., 2014), and their role in biodiversity conservation has been widely recognised (Bruner et al., 2001; Ervin, 2003; Chape et al., 2008; Juffe-Bignoli et al., 2014; Watson et al., 2014; Boerner et al., 2016). The Aichi Target 11 under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 2010) set up the 2020 target to “ increase global protected area to at least 17 % of terrestrial land and 10 % of the marine area by 2020 and especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascape”. Despite the recent efforts and commitment in expansion of the PA coverage and management, the biodiversity continues declining (Butchart et al., 2010; Tittensor et al., 2014). While the PA network is facing the challenge of downgrading, downsizing, and degazettment (Mascia and Pailer, 2011; Mascia et al., 2014), many other PAs failed to meet their conservation objectives because they are managing as isolated islands with little integration into a wider landscape (McNeely, 1993; Zimmerer et al., 2004; Palomo et al., 2014). The conventional 1 conservation practices using a fence and fine as the most common approaches in management have led to putting local people outside the PAs resulting in the failure of marrying conservation and poverty reduction objectives (Brandon and Wells, 1992; Brown, 2002; Cambell and Vainio-Mattila, 2003; Dowie, 2005; McShane et al., 2011). Thus, integrated Conservation and Development (ICD) became the common approach for international agencies and NGOs after the Earth Summit in 1992 to apply inside the PAs and in outside their buffer zones (McNeely, 1994; Brandon and Wells, 1992; Wells, 1992; McShane et al., 2011; Miller et al., 2011). While ICD and related projects were good ideas, what was entailed was not clearly spelt out. Achievable win-win solutions in conservation and development were more complex than perceived by conservationists and this led to failure because ICD projects were only associated with the new conservation measures by some researchers (Hughes and Flintan, 2001; Brown, 2002; Chapin, 2004; Christensen, 2004; McShane et al., 2011; Salafsky, 2011).

1.1.2. Integrated conservation and development under the World Network of Biosphere Reserves

Biosphere reserves (BR) under the Man and Biosphere program (MAB) were launched in 1970s by the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to integrate biodiversity conservation, research and education, and sustainable development (UNESCO, 1996a; Bridgewater, 2016; Reed, 2016). MAB and BRs are considered to be a major component in implementing part of the World Conservation Strategy (Thorsell, 1989; UNESCO, 1996a, 2000; Reed, 2016) as they provide a global network which link separate PAs with neighbouring landscapes while fostering sustainable development (Batisse, 1985; Brunckhost, 1997; UNESCO, 2008, Stoll-Kleemann and O’Riordan, 2017). Under the landscape designation, BRs promote an approach to integrated land management that harmonises interactions between people and nature and is distinct from the PA model as they cover the whole range of landscapes (Batisse, 1985; UNESCO, 1996a; Bridgewater, 2002, 2016; Ishwaran et al., 2008; Reed, 2016) (Figure 1.1). While the conservation and research in the core area enhances biodiversity and environmental values, the transition zone under the multiple-zonation scheme within the BR can support, test and demonstrate adaptation measures and resilience strategies for natural and human systems, while assisting in sustainable economic development, and dealing with new challenges such as climate change (UNESCO, 2008, 2016a). In addition, flexibility in BR management and governance encourages the involvement of different stakeholders from a range of sectors that provides opportunities for developing the types of management needed to effectively implement the BR actions (Batisse, 1997; Francis, 2004; Edge and McAllister, 2009; UNESCO, 2010).

Figure 1. 1. Structure designation model of a biosphere reserve (adapted from UNESCO, 1996a)

The BR concept and its application has been continuously evolving over four decades (Price, 2002; Price et al., 2010; Ishwaran et al., 2012; Coetzer et al., 2014; Reed, 2016). Misunderstanding the concept of the BR model led to early nominated sites being purely PAs for conservation and research only (Goodier and Jeffers, 1981; Batisse, 1986, 1990; Brunckhorst, 1997; Ishwaran et al., 2008; Price et al., 2010; Coetzer et al., 2014; Bridgewater, 2016). Consequently, many of these BRs continued applying conventional PA approach in planning and management, resulting in lack of interest and involvement from stakeholders and the local people (Di Castri and Robertson, 1982; Cuong et al., 2017b). Thus, introduction and adoption of the Seville documents which include the Seville Strategy (UNESCO, 1996a) and the Statutory Framework for the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO, 1996b) in 1995 marked a significant change in the BR concept and implications for management that not only supports biodiversity conservation and research but also allows inclusion of sustainable development for the local communities.

The Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO, 1996b) set up guidelines and criteria in selecting, planning and management of the BRs under the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR). Since 1995, only new proposed sites that have a compliant zonal designation of the core, buffer zone and transition area are recognised by the UNESCO. This ensures that the designated sites under the WNBR fulfil three mandate objectives: (1) Conservation (contribute to the conservation of landscapes, ecosystems, species and genetic variation); (2) Development (foster economic and human development which is socio-culturally and ecologically sustainable); and (3) Logistical support (support for demonstration projects, environmental education and training, research and monitoring related to local, regional, national and global issues of conservation and sustainable development (UNESCO, 1996b). Particularly, to ensure the sites 3 under the WNBR living up to the contemporary BR concept, the article 9 within the Statutory Framework requests all individual BRs conducting periodic review every ten years. This evaluation process aims to assess achievements of site management relating to the three core functions of BRs and explore learning opportunities at both national and international scales (UNESCO, 1996b; Price, 2002; Price et al., 2010, Bridgewater, 2016; Reed, 2016).

Recent rapid growth (Figure 1.2) in extent and number of sites in the WNBR, particularly after the Seville Strategy in developing, biodiversity hotspot countries shows a promising progress of the BR concept, indicating that BRs are regarded as providing achievable, potential models for conservation and sustainable use of natural resources (Ishwaran et al., 2008; Brenner and Job, 2012). The BR has now become an international model that allows for integrating conservation and sustainable development in both land and seascape, in which over 80% of the BR area is located outside the strictly PA (Ishwaran et al., 2008, Ishwaran, 2012).

700 669 600 500 400 362 300 223 200

Number of Sites 84 100 0 First Second Third Total generation generation generation (before 1985) (1985-1995) (after 1995) Pre-Seville Post-Seville

Figure 1. 2. Number of biosphere reserves in the global network (Source: UNESCO, 2016a).

Although the BRs provide an enabling mechanism for harmonising the interactions among different land use tenures within different zones, to achieve sustainable land management across landscapes, they are not a unique approach that aims to tackle the dual objectives of conservation and development (Coetzer et al., 2014). There appears a mismatch between the theoretical BR concept and practical implementation due to the low understanding and underestimation of the values and role of BRs by governments and the general public (Ishwaran, 2010; UNESCO, 2010; Okano, 2013; Reed, 2016). Yet, MAB and the BRs within it is an international program whose level of implementation and success varies depending on the commitment and goodwill of the participating country members (Brown, 2002; Ishwaran et al., 2008; Coetzer et al., 2014). In addition, lack of indicators and mechanisms for effective assessment means that many BRs are on the official list but their management does not align with the three assigned functions of conservation, sustainable 4 development and logistic support (Price, 2002; Lotze-Campen et al., 2008; Coetzer et al., 2014; Matar and Anthony, 2017). Thus, the vision for management of the WNBR to 2025 set up by the Lima Action Plan (UNESCO, 2016a) is to “build up the thriving societies in harmony with the biosphere for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”.

1.2. Rationale

Recognised as one of the most biodiversity richest nations in the world, Vietnam is home to 49,200 identified species (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment [MONRE], 2010)1. However, the country has been experiencing serious loss of its biodiversity due to recent war, extensive forest and land conversion to production and development, illegal logging, wildlife poaching and trading, and forest fire (National Environment Protection Agency [NEA], 2005; MONRE, 2010, 2015a). Hence, in addition to economic reform and development, biodiversity conservation has been considered a priority action in the national policy and legal framework in response to the environmental degradation in Vietnam since 19862 through a number of laws3 and management strategies4. As a consequence, the rate of biodiversity loss and degradation has slowed significantly in response to the efforts and investment5 by the government in environmental protection and conservation. However, over-riding emphasis on economic growth is occurring at both national and provincial level and this results in an imbalance between short-term economic gain and the long- term negative impact on the environment and biodiversity conservation in Vietnam (MONRE, 2010, 2015a, b; Gov. of Vietnam 2012a, 2015). Thus, sustainable development strategy for

1 Including 7,500 microorganisms, 20,000 terrestrial and wetland plants, 10,500 terrestrial animals, 2,000 invertebrates and freshwater fish, and over 11,000 marine species. 2 Linked to Doi Moi (renovation) in Vietnam 3 Forest Protection and Development Law (1991, 2004); Land Law (1993 [amended in 1998], 2003, 2013); Environmental Protection Law (1993, 2005, 2014); Fishery law (2003); Water Resource Law (1998 [amended in 2012]; and Biodiversity law (2008) 4 National Biodiversity Action Plan (Gov. of Vietnam, 1995); Management Strategy for a Protected Area System in Viet Nam to 2010 (Gov. of Vietnam, 2003a); National Action Plan on Biodiversity to 2010 and direction to 2020 (Gov. of Vietnam, 2007a); Vietnam Forestry Development Strategy (2006-2020) (Gov. of Vietnam, 2007b); National Strategy on Biodiversity conservation to 2020 and vision to 2030 (Gov. of Vietnam, 2013); Master plan of nation-wide biodiversity conservation by 2020, with a vision to 2030 (Gov. of Vietnam, 2014a); Strategy for Management of Special Use Forests, Marine PAs and Inland water PAs in Vietnam until 2020 and Vision to 2030 (Gov. of Vientam, 2014b). 5 Since 2006, the Central Government and Provincial budget has allocated one percent of annual GDP to environmental protection. Forty percent of this allocated budget is spending on biodiversity conservation (MONRE, 2008, 2015b). 5

Vietnam, officially launched in 2004 provided a framework for planning and policy development that ensures environmental and conservation factors are integrated into socio-economic development plans at all levels and sectors to achieve three main objectives: sustainable economic growth, social equity and environmental protection (Gov. of Vietnam, 2004a).

Adoption of the BR approach through establishment of the Can Gio Mangrove (Biosphere Reserve) in 2000 aimed at providing a demonstration model and approach that is often absent from the current legal systems (i.e. for national parks and protected areas) to integrate conservation and sustainable development at the landscape level (Tri, 2006). Initial results from a pilot project in Cat Ba using Biosphere Reserves as “learning laboratories” for sustainable development (Ishwaran et al., 2008; Tri et al., 2013) were encouraging enough to apply in other BRs in Vietnam with the expectation of achieving three mandate BR objectives (conservation, socio-economic development and scientific research), and climate change mitigation and adaptation as well (National MAB of Vietnam, 2016). There is an impressive growth in the Network of BRs in Vietnam to nine BR (Figure 1.3) covering over 4.1 million ha of land and marine area (detail in the Appendix 3.1) and representing the key ecological regions (UNESCO Hanoi, 2013; National MAB of Vietnam, 2016). Although BR concept and approach is a promising approach to support conservation and socio- economic development, particularly at the provincial level (Ishwaran et al., 2008; Tri, 2009), evaluation of the management effectiveness for these sites is in an early stage as few of these BRs have their management plans for full operation and delivery of their mandate (UNESCO Hanoi, 2013; Cuong et al., 2017a).

Figure 1. 3. Distribution of biosphere reserves in Vietnam

This research project focuses on analysing and evaluating the performance and management effectiveness of the BR model. Successful and less successful BR examples and factors contributing to the success or management failure of the WNBR are investigated. Using these contributing factors as a reference point in combination with the Seville criteria, key factors influencing performance and management of the BRs in Vietnam are identified. A specific site study of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve (KGBR) is conducted to provide on ground evidence, to determine the knowledge and institutional gaps and to make recommendation for policy, institutional 7 arrangement and interventions to enhance management effectiveness of the BR model in Vietnam and Kien Giang as well.

1.3. Research aims

The aims of this research project are to evaluate the performance and management effectiveness of the BR model and to analyse the knowledge and institutional barriers for long-term management outcomes of the BR system in Vietnam.

1.4. Research questions

To achieve these aims, three questions were developed:

Research Question 1: What are the attributes of successful implementation of the biosphere reserve model?

Research Question 2: Do the management models and management practices applied to biosphere reserves in Vietnam support the principles of the Seville Strategy and criteria?

Research Question 3: How is Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve performing under the provincial socio- economic development and management context?

1.5. Research methodology

This research idea has been developed when I was working as a Manager of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve Project funded by German and Australian Government. Before working to Kien Giang, I had 11 years working at the Tam Dao National Park and took several positions from researcher, project coordinator to the department manager of the Park. This gave me strong practical experience about the conflict between biodiversity conservation and local livelihood in conventional PA management. Traditionally, local people living in the buffer zone accessed to the forest area for exploitation of some timber, fuelwood, non-timber forest products including medicinal plants, and used the land for farming and grazing of cattle. However, the declaration of the Park for biodiversity conservation only immediately prohibited the local access to their traditional resource exploitation and this directly caused the loss of people’s livelihood and income. Strong application of conventional conservation approach isolated the NP with the surrounding areas. Lack of alternative strategy for livelihood and income generation consequently increased conflict between the park management authority and local communities. When working in Kien Giang for BR Project, I realised that the BR model could provide an appropriate tool for cross stakeholder participation and collaboration in conservation and socio-economic development at the regional level. However, the personal experience and observations from the study tours to other BRs in Vietnam and other countries (e.g., Thailand, Australia, Germany, France and Brazil) showed

8 that there have been limited successful cases in BR implementation. Thus, it is expected that this thesis will explore key promoting and hindering factors attributed to the BR implementation success or failure and then offers potentially transformative recommendations to improve performance and effectiveness of the BR model in Vietnam.

To achieve the research aims and research questions, this study embodies an investigation and analysis of perceptions of the BR model operating in the global context and in the national institutional and specific-site situation. I apply a mixed approach of desktop review, document analysis and primary data collection, both qualitative and qualitative. The aim is to add rigour to the research and validate the outcomes by using a wide range of information and data collection, from different sources and use different methodologies to produce a more robust analysis and reduce bias often inherent in the use of a single method (Mack et al., 2005; King and Horrocks, 2010). Details of the research methodology applied to address the specific research question are presented in the content research Chapers 2 to 5.

1.6. Thesis structure

This thesis comprises six chapters, an introduction (Chapter 1) then four research content chapters (Chapter 2-5), and a conclusion chapter (Chapter 6). The content chapters of the thesis are presented in a journal article format. The brief outline of each chapter is as follows:

Chapter one provides an overview of the research project including a brief introduction and research rationale, research aims and research questions, methodology, and thesis structure.

Chapter two focuses on answering the Research Question 1 of this thesis. It lists successful and less successful BRs in the WNBR, and the factors that promote or hinder the operation of BRs, identified using the Delphi method based on expert’s opinions. The key factors defining the BR success or failure as well as their relationship to the framework and principles of the Seville Strategy are discussed and used to examine the management of the BR network in Vietnam. The article for this chapter was published in the Journal of Environmental Management.

Chapter three addresses the thesis Research Question 2 through (1) evaluating the compliance with the Seville Strategy and international criteria and management issues around their adoption and practical application in the BR in Vietnam, (2) investigating the difference between the BR and PA management approach, (3) identifying key factors influencing BR operation and sustainability under the management framework and context of Vietnam. The article for this chapter was published in Environmental Science and Policy.

Chapters 4 and 5 present analysis and discussion of the fieldwork data on performance and management effectiveness of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve (KGBR). The content of these two 9 chapters contributes to addressing Research Question 3. These chapters are formatted as journal articles and submitted to Environmental Management (Journal) and The International Journal of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves.

Chapter 4 conducts an evaluation of the performance and management of the Kien Giang BR. The study starts with an investigation of the compliance of the KGBR with the Seville criteria. Fieldwork activities included focus group meetings, in-depth interviews with managers, staff and local people and a participatory workshop to identify the key factors promoting and hindering the performance and sustainable management of the KGBR. The role of external projects on BR operation and management is analysed and explored based on informant’s perceptions and response to survey questions.

Chapter 5 specifically focuses on evaluating management effectiveness of the KGBR using Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit (EoH), developed by IUCN and UNESCO. This assessment is based on the six elements of the World Commission on Protected Areas framework (context, planning, input, process, output and outcomes). The article for this chapter was published in The International Journal of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves

Chapter 6 concludes this research with an overall assessment of the implications of the analysis of the new knowledge gained from the research in this thesis and how they can be used to support operation of BRs in the WNBR and particularly those in Vietnam. This chapter also discusses some major limitations of the present study and identifies areas for future research. It concludes with some suggestions for the way policy and governance might improve the operation of the BRs in Vietnam.

CHAPTER 2: INFLUENCING FACTORS TO MANAGEMENT

OF THE BIOSPHERE RESERVE MODEL

This chapter was published as an article paper: Cuong, C.V., Dart, P., Hockings, M., 2017. Biosphere reserves: Attributes for success. Journal of Environmental Management 188, 9-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.069.

Received: 3 Nov. 2015/ Accepted: 26 Nov. 2016/ Available online: 2 Dec. 2016

World Heritage forest in Tasmania, Australia

(Photo credit: Van Cuong Chu)

Abstract

Biosphere reserves established under the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Program aim to harmonise biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Concerns over the extent to which the biosphere reserve network was living up to this ideal led to the development of a new strategy in 1995 (the Seville Strategy) to enhance the operation of the network of biosphere reserves. An evaluation of effectiveness of management of the biosphere reserve network was called for as part of this strategy. Expert opinion was assembled through a Delphi Process to identify successful and less successful biosphere reserves and investigate common factors influencing success or failure. Ninety biosphere reserves including sixty successful and thirty less successful biosphere reserves in 42 countries across all five Man and the Biosphere Program regions were identified. Most successful sites are the post-Seville generation while the majority of unsuccessful sites are pre-Seville that are managed as national parks and have not been amended to conform to the characteristics that are meant to define a biosphere reserve. Stakeholder participation and collaboration, governance, finance and resources, management, and awareness and communication are the most influential factors in the success or failure of the biosphere reserves. For success, the biosphere reserve concept needs to be clearly understood and applied through landscape zoning. Designated biosphere reserves then need a management system with inclusive good governance, strong participation and collaboration, adequate finance and human resource allocation and stable and responsible management and implementation. All rather obvious but it is difficult to achieve without commitment to the biosphere reserve concept by the governance authorities.

2.1. Introduction

Biosphere Reserves (BR) are a mechanism within the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB) that seek to promote an approach to land management that harmonises interactions between people and nature. It is distinct from a PA model as it considers the entire range of landscapes bound within the geographic limits of the management area (Batisse, 1985; UNESCO, 1996a; Bridgewater, 2002), although protected areas (PA) are commonly the core of any BR. The conceptual model behind the BR idea was first developed in the 1970s and is based on integrated management across a landscape through a new approach to zonation of core, buffer and transition zones in order to harmonise conservation and development (Ishwaran et al., 2008; Axelsson et al., 2011). However, the gap between theory and practice is still a significant challenge for BR management due to poor understanding of how a BR should work on the ground to achieve the goals of sustainability by harmonising interactions between people and the environment across the landscape (Matysek et al., 2006; UNESCO, 2010; Reed and Egunyu, 2013).

Discrepancies in understanding the concept of the BR model and its implementation in the early stages hampered their development at both national and international level because many BRs were purely designated or proclaimed within the areas of high value of biodiversity with the aim of facilitating research in PAs (Brunckhorst, 1997; Ishwaran et al., 2008; Price et al., 2010). As a consequence, the BR concept was re-articulated through the Seville Strategy formulated at the International Conference on BRs in Seville, Spain in 1995, to include sustainable development as a priority with local people involved in planning and management of the BRs. The Seville Strategy provided a legal statutory framework to ensure sites could fulfil the three BR functions: biodiversity conservation, sustainable development and logistic support (UNESCO, 1996b).

Recent rapid growth in the extent and number of sites in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) across biodiversity hotspot countries, particularly after adoption of the Seville Strategy in 1995, demonstrates promising progress in the recognition of the value of the BR program for providing achievable models for conservation and sustainable use of natural resources (Ishwaran et al., 2008; Brenner and Job, 2012; Coetzer et al., 2014). Since the first BRs were set up in 1976, the current WNBR has grown to include 669 sites in 120 countries with a total area of more than one billion ha (UNESCO, 2016b). However, the BRs are still considered undervalued and underutilised, and their roles and functions not yet recognised and clearly understood by the public and governments (UNESCO, 2010). Within the current WNBR, the conventional approach of top-down biodiversity conservation involving multi-stakeholder arrangements and the aspiration for community-led management makes it more challenging to effectively manage BRs (Stoll-Kleemann and Welp, 2008; Schultz and Lundholm, 2010; Schultz et al., 2011). 13

Evaluation for individual BRs through a ten-yearly periodic review process was called for by the Man and the Biosphere Program under the Seville Strategy. This Strategy document was incorporated under "The Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves" and adopted by the General Assembly of UNESCO (UNESCO, 1996b). The evaluation process aims to assess achievements of site management relating to the three core functions of BRs and explore learning opportunities at both national and international scales (Price et al., 2010; Coetzer et al., 2014). These assessments are used to show the appropriateness of the particular BR approach to achieve both conservation and sustainable development (Price, 2002; Reed and Massie, 2013). However, periodic reports mainly focus on the article 4 of the Strategy relating to BR selection criteria. As a result, the evaluation reports focus on assessment of zonation schemes while disregarding other aspects such as management practices and governance (Reed and Egunyu, 2013). The ten-year interval between reviews also hinders the process of active learning, adjusting and adapting management action (Price et al., 2010; Reed and Egunyu, 2013).

Using a Delphi process to elicit expert opinions, this paper identifies internationally recognised examples of successful and less successful BR implementation and key factors influencing success or failure of the BR model. The common factors defining the BR success or failure as well as their relationship to the frameworks and principles of the Seville Strategy are discussed and recommendations are made about attributes that are likely to be transferable across countries and governance systems.

2.2. Research methods

The views of people with particular expertise in BRs were gathered using a Delphi Process. The Delphi process, named after the ancient Greek oracle at Delphi, was developed in 1960s by the RAND Corporation (Dalkey and Helmer, 1963). Using two or more rounds of consultation, the Delphi process allows for eliciting, refining and drawing- out the considered views of experts who are knowledgeable about the topic area (Gupta and Clarke, 1996; Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004).

Two rounds of a Delphi process were undertaken to identify successful and less successful BRs and identify factors impacting on success or failure. A list of 55 potential experts including scientists and managers was prepared for this process. From this group, 25 potential panelists from the scientific community were selected based on (1) their publications relating to BRs using the search engine from Web of Science and (2) work experience through their research and publication profiles. Thirty professional staff including four from UNESCO-MAB headquarters and 26 coordinators, chairs or vice chairs of 26 national MAB committees of 26 countries representing all five MAB regions (AfriMAB, IberoMAB, EuroMAB, AsiaMAB and ArabMAB) were also approached to join the expert panel. 14

Structured questions were sent to experts in round one asking them to: nominate five successful BRs and five less successful BRs in the global network; provide personal opinions or statements for up to five factors influencing the success and failure of each nominated site; and general statements about the contributing and hindering factors affecting the WNBR.

Responses were compiled in an Excel spread sheet for developing the list of nominated successful and unsuccessful BRs, year of designation (Pre or Post Seville Generation), and the number of nominations of each BR, year of conducting periodic review, and zonal expansion (if any). Similarly, all statements about the BR success or failure collected from panelists were compiled in an Excel spread sheet. The attributes identified as contributing to the success or failure were sorted and then grouped into 11 main factors with detailed descriptions as in Table 2.2. These were then returned to all people in the contacted list of both responders and non-responders in the first round. In this second and final round, the panelists gave their rating for the 11 the factors based on 5 levels: critical, very important, important, somewhat important and not important. Responders also were asked to add and rate any missing factors that they think are important to success or failure of BR management.

Feedback from the second round was synthesised as a rating on a scale from critical (5 for success factors/-5 for failure) to not important (1/-1). SPSS 20 then was used to calculate mean score of the influencing factors, develop the ranking list and identify the significant relationships among influencing factors using Spearman correlation.

2.3. Results

Twenty out of fifty-five (36 %) contacted experts and managers participated in the first round questions. Thirteen respondents were scientists and seven managers from the national MAB committees or BRs in both developed and developing countries. The response rate of the panelists in the second round was 27 out of 55 people (49 %). This represented sixteen panel respondents in the first round and nine new participants (people who did not respond in the first round) who provided their rating and assessment in this round.

2.3.1. Nomination results

2.3.1.1. Successful and unsuccessful biosphere reserves

A total of 90 BRs belonging to 42 countries representing all five regions of the WNBR were nominated. Forty-seven nominated BRs belong to the post-Seville generation, set up from 1996 to the present and forty-three pre-Seville sites, which were established from 1976 to 1995. Approximately two thirds of the successful sites belong to post-Seville while two thirds of less

15 successful BRs belong to pre-Seville generation. Four BRs (Rhon, Tonle Sap, Riverland and Fitzgerald) received both successful and less successful nominations.

Sixty BRs were nominated as successful examples in 28 countries representing all five regions of WNBR (Appendix 2.1). Thirty-seven BRs belong to the post-Seville generation and 23 sites belong to pre-Seville generation. The top five countries having the highest number of nominated successful BRs were Canada and Germany (8), Vietnam (5), Mexico, Spain and South Africa (4).

Thirty sites (10 post-Seville and 20 pre-Seville BRs) in 20 countries were nominated as less successful examples (Appendix 2.2). Australia (7) and Germany (4) are the countries having the largest number of less successful BRs. Interestingly, Rhon BR which was nominated in the set of most successful examples in the WNBR received one nomination as a less successful site due to a lack of staff.

Twelve nominated sites that belong to 10 countries of five regions within the WNBR were identified as the most common successful examples. Of these, five BRs received three or more nominations as successful sites and six BRs received two nominations (Table 2.1).

Table 2. 1. Successful and unsuccessful biosphere reserves with multiple nominations

No Name of BR MAB Seville No of Periodic Zoning action in region generation nominations review response to ICC-MAB review** Successful biosphere reserves 1 Rhon Euro Pre 8 2004; 2014 No recommendation 2 North Devon Euro Pre 4 1999; Zone extension in 2002 2009* 3 Camargue Euro Pre 2 2000; 2006 Zone extension in 2006 region 4 Spreewald Euro Pre 2 2003; 2013 No recommendation 5 Dana Arab Pre 2 2014 No recommendation 6 Noosa Asia Post 3 7 Jeju Asia Post 3 2013 No recommendation 8 Sierra Gorda Ibero Post 3 2013 No recommendation 9 Schaalsee Euro Post 2 2012 No recommendation 10 Aya Asia Post 2 11 K2C Afri Post 2 2013 No recommendation 12 Entlebuch Euro Post 2 2012 No recommendation

No Name of BR MAB Seville No of Periodic Zoning action in region generation nominations review response to ICC-MAB review** Less successful biosphere reserves 1 Wilson’s Asia Pre 3 2003 Recommended but no Promontory zoning action 2 Kosciuszko Asia Pre 2 2003 Recommended but no zoning action 3 Torres del Paine Ibero Pre 2 1999 Recommended but no NP zoning action 4 Mount Kenya Afri Pre 2 No NP periodic review 5 Golden Gate Euro Pre 2 2014 Recommended but no zoning action 6 Ranong Asia Post 2 2011; 2014 Recommended but no action to clearly designate zones *North Devon did not have separate periodic review as it was reviewed under the UK BR system

**All successful BRs now have Seville Strategy compliant zonation, and less successful BRs do not have.

Although the post-Seville generation had the highest proportion (59 %) in the list of the successful sites, a significant percentage (41 %) of successful sites belonged to the pre-Seville generation. Having a compliant designation of three zones under the landscape approach, either in the original pre-Seville designation (Rhon, Spreewald and Dana) or transformed effectively through zonation extension after the review as recommended by the Seville Strategy (North Devon and Camargue region), supports the implementation of the BR concept:

“[North Devon] the first UK BR to revise its design from a 1970s structure to one that fully met Seville Strategy” (Respondent #5, hereafter R5).

Such zone designation then allows for a strong partnership with a wider stakeholder and land user group who participate in the new opportunities for development and this collaboration contributes to BR concept delivery. This development opportunity promotes a sustainable financial base for the BR and results in local and regional input to sustainable resource management and also encourages adaptive learning, for example: 17

“[North Devon] Considerable experimentation in buffer and transition zones - in fields linked to sustainable energy, agriculture and forestry” (R5).

“[Rhon] Effectively linking the BR -brand to local produce-socio-economic successes, contributing to ‘economic revival’ of the region” (R7).

Successful application of the biosphere concept model in Rhon BR is given below:

Rhon - example of a biosphere reserve identified as successful through the Delphi Process

Rhon is a transboundary BR that crosses three federal states of Bavaria, Hesse and Thuringia in Germany. Covering a total area of 185,276 ha and characterised as a rural man-made landscape, Rhon is home for about 162,000 people who live in small villages and towns with small-scale farming. Long history of land use created a rich cultural landscape and habitat for great number of endangered and rare wildlife species. However, land abandonment as a result of agricultural decline since the 1980s has posed a threat to the integrity of the regional landscape and its biodiversity which particularly depends on extensive grassland management.

Designation

Designated in 1991, but this pre-Seville BR had from the beginning a compliant landscape designation of core, buffer and transition zone which provides for fulfilment all three functions of a Biosphere Reserve.

Participation

Strong stakeholder engagement supported formulation of good participatory governance in Rhon. Although every state has its own administrative agency, a legal binding requirement for cross- border responsibility and cooperation beyond administrative boundary was formulated in 2002 and this facilitated setting up a Regional Working Group (ARGE Rhon) to coordinate BR activities with support from an Advisory Board which consists of 12 representatives of district administrators, local stakeholders, NGOs, and scientists.

Delivery

The management framework for Rhon was developed with strong local and regional integration based on the combination of top-down and bottom-up participation and consultation process. This framework integrated different interests of conservation, agriculture, forestry, economy, research and environmental education. Especially, strong government and stakeholders’ commitment ensures the long-term finances and resources for BR implementation.

Conservation and sustainable development activities are undertaken based on the principle ‘Conservation by utilisation’ and this encourages preserving and using indigenous domestic livestock (lamb, beef, and brown trout) and plants (apple) under strong partnership between local producers and enterprises. Rhon is also a successful example of value adding for local products and services through marketing using the BR brand at the regional level. Research and monitoring is regularly conducted in the BR. Half of the German studies on BRs are carried out in Rhon and these support for preparing BR periodic reports that serve for adaptive learning and enhancing nature conservation and sustainable development. The environmental education and campaigns are conducted regularly with diverse activities, events and exhibitions and these promote BR brand and create a regional identity for the BR (Pokorny, 2006; Kasperczyk et al., 2009).

Six commonly nominated less successful BRs were spread across five countries (Australia, Chile, Kenya, the US and Thailand). Except for Mount Kenya National Park, all other BRs in the less successful category had conducted and provided the periodic reviews to UNESCO MAB but there was no follow up action relating to zonation requirement to meet the Seville criteria. Ranong, a post-Seville site, was nominated as unsuccessful due to lack of a clear zoning scheme and weak implementation as a result of top down management approach:

“The designation [of the Ranong] appeared to be driven by a desire for international status, rather than to further the BR concept” (R17).

With three nominations, Wilson’s Promontory was the most nominated less successful site:

Wilson’s Promontory -a BR identified as less successful in implementing the biosphere reserve model

Wilson’s Promontory BR is situated along the coast of the Bass Strait at the southern most point in southeast mainland Australia. Covering 49,000 ha of terrestrial and marine area, the BR consists of eleven main habitats and provides living place for 296 animal species and over 740 native vascular plant species. Wilson’s Promontory National Park is a well-known location valued for its biodiversity, wilderness and as a prime tourism destination (Parks Victoria, 2006).

Designation

Wilson’s Promontory was recognised as a BR in 1982. However, lack of rigorous application of the BR concept in the early stage, resulted in this pre-Seville site only covering the National Park with its high conservation and research value (Brunckhorst, 1997; Matysek et al., 2006).

Participation

Lack of landscape zonation meant the BR only undertook conservation, just one of three BR functions. Wilson’s Promontory only has a core zone of land owned by Government and managed by its conservation agency. This leads to a negative perception by local communities about the ownership and caring responsibility for the BR (Brunckhorst, 1997). There is no organisational structure for the BR operation linked to its status as a Biosphere Reserve.

Delivery

The National Park Management Plan (Parks Victoria, 2006) while mentioning that it is a Biosphere Reserve, gives no indication how it might function as a BR. Lack of engagement by government and stakeholders has led to limited funding and resources for BR operation (Matysek et al., 2006). While there was Seville Strategy compliance Periodical Review in 2002, there was no follow-up action to add buffer and transition zones. There have been no further ten-year periodical reviews.

2.3.1.2. Promoting and hindering factors to biosphere reserve success or failure

The Delphi panelist responses were reviewed grouped into eleven common factors (Table 2.2). The relative importance of these factors was then calculated and ranked from the highest (1) to the lowest (11).

Table 2. 2. Major factors influencing biosphere reserve management

Factors Description 1 Stakeholder participation and Participation, engagement, collaboration of local collaboration community, public, private stakeholders, NGOs. 2 Governance Leadership, coordinator, partnerships, government and stakeholder commitment, support and on-going support. 3 Awareness and Understanding BR concept and MAB program, liaison, communication communication program, stakeholders have a sense of BR ownership. 4 Landscape planning and Application of landscape and zonation to fulfil all 3 desired zonation functions across different land uses. 5 Regional integration Link to regional development, socio-economic program and other management systems in the region. 6 Learning orientation and Use of BR as living laboratory, experiment application, system thinking adaptive management, learning by doing. 7 Finance and resources State funding availability, support projects and human resources (number, quality, education, professional experienced staff). 8 Economic development Economic development, livelihood and production, tourism development, branding and marketing activities. 9 Management and Management plans and vision, ground activity implementation implementation, law enforcement. 10 Monitoring and evaluation M&E frequency, measurement of tangible indicators. 11 Research linkage Partnership with research institutes, universities in research.

Of the 170 general statements on key features of the WNBR, 96 detailed aspects supporting the concept and 84 detailed impeding aspects. Statements dealing with similar concepts were grouped resulting in the 11 main factors as described in the Table 2.2. These factors then were ranked based on the relative importance (1- factor which received the highest number of statements from panelists about the promoting or hindering attributes to BR success; 11- factor which received the least number of statements from panelists about the promoting or hindering aspects for BR success). This ranking result was used to develop a chart showing the combination of promoting factors (Y axis) and hindering factors (X axis) in the order from high (1) to low (11) as shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1 shows three main functional groups (a) BR Designation, (b) Participation and (c) Delivery influencing BR management success or failure. BR designation includes factors relating to landscape zonation, monitoring and evaluation, regional integration, learning orientation and system thinking, and research linkage. Participation includes governance, stakeholder participation and collaboration, and awareness and communication. BR delivery relates to management and implementation, finance and resources and economic development.

Figure 2. 1. Factors influencing overall management of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves grouped into 3 functional groups based on ranking of their importance for promoting or hindering the success of biosphere reserve management. Y axis presents relative importance of the promoting factors to biosphere reserve success and X axis presents relative importance of the hindering factors to biosphere reserve management failure. (G: Governance; SP: Stakeholder participation and collaboration; AC: Awareness and communication; MI: Management and implementation; FR: Finance and resources; ED: Economic development; ME: Monitoring and evaluation; LP: Landscape planning and zonation; LS: Learning orientation and system thinking; RI: Regional integration; RL: Research linkage).

Participation

Participation was regarded as the most important function influencing the success or failure of the WNBR. In this functional group, good governance, strong stakeholder participation and collaboration, and good awareness and communication were the most significant attributes and their

22 lack hindered BR success. BR governance was the most important aspect followed by stakeholder participation and collaboration, and good understanding of the BR concept:

“While the BRs that are struggling would argue that they are lacking in funds, I would suggest that they are lacking in vision and good governance. With the vision and structure in place, then there are ways of leveraging to enhance resource allocation (R1).

The role of stakeholder participation in BR planning and delivery was mentioned as:

“The BR model requires designation across a human landscape, requires a landscape scale approach to conservation, rather than focus only on conservation ‘islands’, and thus requires commitment and participation from different sectors of the community” (R3).

Respondents highlighted that good awareness and communication about the BR approach leads to willingness to support the BR program and to implementation of designation compliant activity. In practice, however, misunderstanding of the BR concept has not only resulted in establishment of non-compliant pre-Seville sites but also misuse of the buffer zone and associated transition zone:

“In many cases, the BR title was added on top of a protected area title with little understanding of the difference” (R19).

“A lot of misinformation and misuse of the purposes of the buffer and transition zones by different types of NGOs. Extreme conservation of NGOs have used these outside zones to restrict natural resource use” (R5).

Delivery

Delivery of the BR concept was the second important group of factors with management and implementation regarded as the most important contributing factors within this group. For successful delivery of the BR concept and objectives, a strategic plan developed with stakeholder participation and consultation process is needed:

“Engaging different sectors in a process of strategic planning to achieve consensus on goals of BR is critical. The resultant plan that everybody can retain some ownership of could include detailed objectives for conservation (species, actions, funding etc.), boundaries, zones, responsibilities, timeframes, as well as communication procedures and contacts, and possibly some kind of conflict resolution process” (R3).

Designation

Biosphere reserve designation was the least important functional group. Monitoring and evaluation was an important factor in promoting success, but was not considered a significant contributing factor to BR failure. 23

“ Lack of monitoring means that managers and other stakeholders are not very well aware of whether or not the BR is achieving its aims” (R13).

In discussing specific sites nominated by respondents as illustrating relative success or failure, 268 statements characterised successful BRs and 141 statements related to failure were grouped into the 11 key factors. Stakeholder participation and collaboration, governance, and management and implementation remained the most important roles for BR failure or success in general (Figure 2.2). Awareness and communication was necessary but not sufficient to achieve success.

(G: Governance; SP: Stakeholder participation and collaboration; AC:

Awareness and communication; MI: Management and implementation; FR:

Finance and resources; ED: Economic development; ME: Monitoring and evaluation; LP: Landscape planning and zonation; LS: Learning orientation and system thinking; RI: Regional integration; RL: Research linkage)

Figure 2. 2. Factors promoting or hindering successful management of all the biosphere reserves nominated in the Delphi process grouped into 3 functional groups based on ranking of their importance for promoting or hindering the success of biosphere reserve management. Landscape planning and zonation is an outlier. In Figure 2.2a & b these factors are disaggregated into developed countries (a) and developing countries (b). Y axis presents relative importance of the promoting factors to nominated successful biosphere reserves and X axis presents relative importance of the hindering factors to nominated unsuccessful biosphere reserves.

Landscape planning and zonation was not the most important factor contributing to BR success but lack of zonation was considered as a major contributor to failure, especially in developed countries (e.g., the US and Australia) where the most pre-Seville sites are entirely NPs or PAs (Figure 2.2a). In developing countries, economic development became an important factor contributing to BR success or failure (Figure 2.2b). Lack of finance and human resource was considered the important contributor to BR failure in both developed and developing countries.

Similarly, the grouping process also was applied to the commonly nominated sites (12 successful and 6 unsuccessful BRs) from 108 promoting statements and 53 hindering statements given by the panelists. Figure 2.3 shows that most factors remained in their three functional groups as identified across the whole WNBR, except for landscape planning and zonation which was an outlier, separate from all other groups.

Figure 2. 3. Factors promoting or hindering successful management of the most commonly nominated (>2 nominations) biosphere reserves in the Delphi process grouped into 3 functional groups based on ranking of their importance for promoting or hindering the success of biosphere reserve management. Landscape zonation is again an outlier, its lack very important (rank 1) for hindering BR management but of least importance in promoting successful BR management.

(G: Governance; SP: Participation and collaboration; AC: Awareness and communication; MI: Management and implementation; FR: Finance and resources; ED: Economic development; ME: Monitoring and evaluation; LP: Landscape planning and zonation; LS: Learning orientation and system thinking; RI: Regional integration; RL: Research linkage).

While landscape planning and zonation became the major hindrance in the commonly less successful BRs, it was considered the least important factor in the successful sites. This is because all successful sites have established 3 clear zones as required to meet the Seville criteria. In contrast, less successful BRs are pre-Seville sites which are managed as NPs with its associated PA approach.

“Because they are not managed as BRs at all but instead as traditional nature reserves, with all the management effort aimed at the core zone and the buffer zone never developed as a context. Many of the older BRs fall into this group” (R13).

Having secure finance, and sufficient, qualified staff with appropriate educational background is considered important for BR success. Hence, BR financial sustainability from state funding and projects is important:

“Community members are often encouraged to see strong government commitment (funds, projects, etc.) but seeing projects and funding from other sources can be just as important” (R3).

Respondents highlighted the economic development needs, particularly in developing countries. Ecotourism, green energy, branding and product certification and alternative income activities are expected to be included in BR management, but this appears a significant limitation in practice:

“ There are few attempts to develop activities related to biosphere [reserve] – such as ecotourism or the labelling and selling of products from the [biosphere]reserve, so that residents or local people experience increased restrictions and costs without seeing any benefits” (R13).

2.3.2. Rating the importance of the promoting or hindering factors to biosphere reserve management

In addition to the importance ratings for the 11 factors in the Delphi round 2, panelists also provided 64 additional comments (41 promoting attributes and 23 hindrances) which they considered important but were missing from the key attribute lists. All these attributes were placed within the existing list of factors for inclusion in the analysis.

Table 2.3 shows that there was a fairly even balance between the factors being rated as promoting and hindering. Stakeholder participation and collaboration, governance, finance and resources, and management and implementation were critical for BR management. Landscape planning and zonation, awareness and communication, economic development, regional integration, monitoring

27 and evaluation, and learning orientation and system thinking were scored as very important for the success or led to failure of the BRs.

Table 2. 3. Mean score and rankings of the factors influencing biosphere reserve success and failure

Mean score and ranking Factors Promoting Hindering Stakeholder participation and collaboration 4.53 (1) -4.21 (1) Governance 4.37(2) -4.21 (1) Finance and resources 4.27(3) -4.18 (3) Management and implementation 4.26 (4) -4.12 (4) Landscape planning and zonation 3.74 (5) -3.62 (6) Awareness and communication 3.66 (6) -3.60 (7) Economic development 3.46 (7) -3.73 (5) Regional integration 3.42 (8) -3.46 (8) Monitoring and evaluation 3.30 (9) -3.18 (9) Learning orientation and system thinking 3.03 (10) -3.14(10) Research linkage 2.89 (11) -2.85 (11) (critical: 5/-5; very important: 4/-4; important: 3/-3; somewhat important: 2/-2; not important: 1/-1). Ranking order in the bracket. Spearman Correlation shows a significant relationship between finance and resources and governance, economic development, and implementation. Awareness and communication had a strong correlation with learning orientation and system thinking, and regional integration. Significantly, research linkage scored as the least important among 11 factors but it had a strong correlation with other factors such as landscape planning and zonation, regional integration, economic development, and learning orientation and system thinking (Appendix 2.3). There are large benefits from having partnerships with research institutes and universities because:

“Having partnerships with research institutions can bring other kinds of connections and support including broader training opportunities for young people, more fruitful exchanges in curriculum, volunteer activities by students, financial support, etc.” (R1).

2.4. Discussion

Most of the successful BRs were established post-Seville while the pre-Seville sites were more commonly identified as less successful. We identified eleven key factors and assigned them into 3 main functional groups of BR designation, participation and delivery. Among these factors, awareness and communication, and landscape planning and zonation are preconditions but beyond 28 that stakeholder participation and collaboration, governance, finance and resources, management including sustainable development are sufficient conditions for BR success. Monitoring and evaluation appears to be a less important factor influencing the BR success but it is an important component for adaptive learning and management within the WNBR.

2.4.1. Biosphere reserve designation

Implementing a landscape zonation approach distinguishes the BR model from other PA approaches. A true BR is only recognised when it has a strictly PA for conservation while also acknowledging the need to support sustainable development in the neighbouring zones and providing for the basic needs of local communities through a strong connection with the buffer zone and transition zone (Batisse, 1990). Rhon and North Devon illustrate how old, pre-Seville BRs can be made compliant with zonation requirements. Pre-Seville sites that just cover a core zone can be made to conform to Seville criteria by adding additional zones through boundary expansion. The zonal approach can promote stakeholder participation and collaboration through a common vision harmonising conservation, sustainable development (through product branding, marketing, regional linking), adaptive learning, education and research, across the landscape. We also found that establishment of a management system for participation (stakeholder participation, governance structure) and delivery (e.g., finance, human resources, and management strategy plan) is more important to success than stakeholder understanding of the BR concept.

2.4.2. Participation

Participation increases social acceptance and support that results in improved BR management (Stoll-Kleemann and Welp, 2008; Stoll-Kleemann et al., 2010; Albert et al., 2012). The landscape approach to zone designation is inclusive, fulfilling all three BR functions (conservation, development and logistic support), but needs participation and cooperation from public, private stakeholders and communities. When BR management is based on land management (UNESCO, 1996a), it pays particular attention to the transition zone where it includes different land users and jurisdictions. In practice the landscape approach only achieves the designed outcomes as the result of participation and negotiation between stakeholders and institutions (Bouamrane, 2007). Participation from scientists through research partnership also contributes to BR success because they provide new information and evidence for planning, decision-making and policy development (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993).

Stakeholder participation and collaboration is critical for good governance either in formal or informal structures. This ensures provision of a central coordinating service which facilitates dialogue, participation and cooperation in BR planning and management. However, setting up 29 informal governance by local communities or non-government organisations could be weakened in their operation because they lack authority. Thus, government commitment, involvement and understanding of the role of local participation is crucial for BR success (Brunckhorst, 2001).

Our study reveals that good awareness and communication is necessary for BR success because it makes the BR concept a reality to the community and enables implementation. The failure of a great number pre-Seville sites resulted because the BR nomination was only an exercise in rebranding existing NPs (Brunckhorst, 1997; Ishwaran, 2012). Additionally, low public attention and support due to this limited communication has resulted in the MAB program being less popular than other programs such as National Park and World Heritage (UNESCO, 2010). In Australia, BRs were even perceived as a funding competitor to other government funded conservation programs resulting in less successful implementation of the Australian BR program (Matysek et al., 2006). Use of social media (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube) supports the disseminating and marketing of the BR brand (Coetzer et al., 2014). The recent BR Smart Initiative (biospheresmart.org) provides a platform for networking and information sharing across the WNBR.

2.4.3. Delivery

Rapid expansion of the global network shows a theoretical potential of the BR model for conservation and sustainable development internationally (Ishwaran et al., 2008). However, network expansion does not necessarily mean improved management effectiveness. Schliep and Stoll-Kleemann (2010) found that some countries did not actively contribute to BR management but only use the BR badge for fundraising based on existing PAs.

Sustainable development that provides economic benefit to the local people is the best way to gain their acceptance and participation in BR management (Stoll-Kleemann, 2005; Schultz et al., 2011). Unlike the conventional conservation practices that focus mainly on conservation (Brandon and Wells, 1992; Brown, 2002), the BR model encourages use of the BR brand for sustainable economic development while taking into account the needs for environmental protection. Promotion of certified clean agriculture products (e.g., milk) and regional market linkage in the Rhon BR (Knickel, 2001), or alternative incomes from farming activity in dry land of Dana BR (Adeel and Safriel, 2007) are successful examples of integrated conservation and sustainable development at the regional level.

Our results show that sustainable finance and resources is a major factor leading to successful implementation and their lack leads to BR failure. Price (1996) and Coetzer et al. (2014) found that resource limitations are significant hindrances for implementing innovative, collaborative studies 30 and knowledge transfer in developing countries. In developed countries like Australia funding shortage was also the major hindrance to BR awareness and implementation (Matysek et al., 2006). As well, lack of finance was a significant hurdle inhibiting completion of periodic reviews which in turn discouraged non-compliant designated sites from making changes to conform to the BR concept (Price et al., 2010).

2.5. Conclusions

The BR within the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere program provides an enabling mechanism to reconcile biodiversity conservation and development, which cannot be effectively solved under the conventional PA schemes. The Seville Strategy in 1995 has made a significant impact on the way BRs are designed and managed and there are many efforts to bring the concept into practice, but the management effectiveness of the WNBR is still under evolution. BRs are considered to be a novel approach to conservation and sustainable development that human-beings are attempting to achieve (Batisse, 1997; Ishwaran et al., 2008; Ishwaran, 2012).

The aim of this chapter was to identify successful and unsuccessful BRs and factors involved through capturing Delphi expert opinions. BR management is influenced by factors relating to designation, participation and delivery. First, BRs need to have proper zonal designations that allow for landscape planning, and regional integration. Then, the designated sites must obtain strong stakeholder participation and an inclusive governance structure for planning and management. Finally, BR finance and resource allocation are critical for implementing successful conservation and sustainable development. Last but not least, monitoring and evaluation is necessary for the key processes of adaptive learning and management improvement. However, fully implementing the periodic review recommendations, which may include an “Exit Strategy” for closure of non- performing BRs over time, may be a useful solution for improving overall effectiveness of the evaluation process and quality of the WNBR (ICC-MAB, 2014).

CHAPTER 3: APPLICATION OF THE SEVILLE STRATEGY AND MANAGEMENT

CRITERIA IN VIETNAM’S BIOSPHERE RESERVES

This chapter was published under the journal article: Cuong, C.V., Dart, P., Dudley, N., Hockings, M., 2017. Factors influencing successful implementation of Biosphere Reserves in Vietnam: Challenges, opportunities and lessons learnt. Environmental Science and Policy 67, 16-26.

DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.10.002.

Received: 5 July 2016/ Accepted: 27 October 2016/ Available online: 9 November 2016

Landscape of Cat Ba Biosphere Reserve, Vietnam

(Photo credit: Van Cuong Chu)

Abstract

The way biosphere reserve principles are applied in Vietnam was assessed through analysis of legal documents and an online survey with 41 managers and staff members of the Biosphere Reserve Management Boards and National Man and the Biosphere Committee. The significant growth of the biosphere reserve network in Vietnam since 2000 is indicative of strong support from the National MAB Committee and the local provincial authorities in particular. Although all biosphere reserves conform to the Biosphere Reserve conceptual model, the operation and management effectiveness of sites is hindered by the predominant practice of sectoral and top-down control that is at odds with the intent of biosphere reserve management. The relatively weak legal status of biosphere reserves within the national framework is counter balanced by their more direct management by, and support from the autonomous provincial and city authorities. Recent administrative decentralisation in Vietnam allows the local authority flexibility in interpreting the central policies and regulations so as to benefit biosphere reserve management. Future sustainability and effectiveness of the biosphere reserves will depend on the implementation of appropriate, locally-based management solutions. This will require stronger support and commitment of the provincial leaders, relevant sectoral actors and communities to ensure cross-sectoral participation and collaboration, and secure adequate resourcing of biosphere reserve management activities.

3.1. Introduction

Vietnam is ranked the 16th in the world for richness of its biodiversity (National Environment Protection Agency [NEA], 2005; WB, 2005a). However, extensive deforestation and forest degradation has led to serious decline in biodiversity. Forest cover decreased from 43% in 1943 to around 27 % in 1991 (WB, 2005b; de Jong et al., 2006). Additionally, intensive illegal wildlife poaching and trading (WB, 2005b; Song, 2008) brought over 300 wildlife species to the risk of extinction (NEA, 2005). Consequently, conservation has become a priority action in the national agenda since 1986 under the renovation “Doi Moi” policy. This is being approached largely through rapid growth of the protected area (PA) system across the country (ICEM, 2003; MONRE, 2010) with 164 terrestrial national parks (NP) and PAs, and five marine PAs being declared (MARD, 2014). Another 41 new PAs are planned for establishment by 2020 and a further 23 by 2030 and this will bring the coverage by the PA system to 9 % of the total mainland area and 0.24 % of the approximately 1 million km2 of national marine area by 2020 (Gov. of Vietnam, 2014b). However, most PAs in Vietnam are located in areas of high poverty and it is a great challenge to achieve the often conflicting objectives of conservation and development (ICEM, 2003; NEA, 2005). These parks are managed as “prohibited forest- rừng cấm” without local community participation in planning and management (ICEM, 2003; Zingerli, 2005; Phuc, 2009; McElwee, 2011). As a result, local people, particularly poor forest dependant people often suffer from loss of income due to limitations on, or loss of access to, the PAs for livelihood and development opportunities (ICEM, 2003; McElwee, 2011; Wikle and Le, 2013). The government sought to remedy this through a benefit sharing, co-management policy between the Park authority and local communities which involved protection of natural resources while allowing some sustainable harvesting of the forest and marine products. This was initially piloted in Xuan Thuy and Bach Ma NPs in 2012 and scheduled to be implemented by all NPs and PAs by 2020 (Gov. of Vietnam, 2012b). However, this co-management initiative has had little implementation (Dung et al., 2013).

Biosphere Reserves (BR) offer the promise of a broadening of the current approach to PA management for biodiversity conservation by taking into account the broader socio-economic context in which the PAs are situated. BRs are an international management approach supported by UNESCO under the Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB) launched in 1971 with the first BRs established in 1976 (Batisse, 1986). However, misunderstanding of the broader landscape concept of the BR model has led to the wrong application in practice with many PAs being designated as BRs core zone purely on the basis of their high biodiversity status and research value with little or no attention being paid to buffer and transition zones (Batisse, 1986; Ishwaran et al., 2008; Price et

34 al., 2010). The Seville International Conference on Biosphere Reserves in 1995 was a landmark in the evolution of the BR concept and implementation with two important documents. First, the Seville Strategy (UNESCO, 1996a) set out the vision, main goals and strategic actions for the BRs at the global, regional, national and site level. Secondly, the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) outlines a formal BR definition, functions, the criteria for designation, the nomination procedure and periodic review requirement (UNESCO, 1996b). As the Statutory Framework operates as an agreement that is not legally binding, it allows for countries to adaptively implement appropriate management approaches that fit with diverse local political and socio-economic situations to achieve three core functions of conservation, sustainable development and logistic support (Brunckhorst, 2001; Ishwaran et al., 2008). However, practical implementation of the MAB concepts relies on the commitment and goodwill from participating countries and states (Brown, 2002; Ishwaran et al., 2008). It is particularly important for successful management of the BR to get the balance of conservation and development right in order to be adequately supported within the governance system of each country (Coetzer et al., 2014). As a follow up, the Madrid Action Plan for this MAB program (UNESCO, 2008) encouraged state members to include BRs in the national/sub-national legal system and to establish a framework for stakeholder collaboration in management of different zones within the BRs. Recently, the Lima Action Plan (2016-2025) for the MAB and its WNBR endorsed by 4th World Congress of BRs (UNESCO, 2016a), highlighted the way BRs can support achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and other international agreements.

For Vietnam, the BR model is new in both concept and practice, and was established post the Seville Strategy (Tri et al., 2013). There has been a substantial increase in the number and area of the country’s BR network over the last decade and a half. In 2000, Can Gio Mangrove (forest) was the first site placed on the list with the latest, Langbian BR, designated in 2015. The network of nine BRs covering an area of over 4.1 million ha of land and water is home to more than 2.3 million people (Appendix 3.1).

Although sections of each BR (core zone and buffer zone) are legally recognised under the national laws6, there is no legal framework and management structure for BRs as a system (UNESCO Hanoi, 2013). In practice, the management of the BRs is based on the collaboration between the National MAB Committee and the local authorities where the BRs are located (Figure 3.1).

6 Fishery law (2003); Forest Protection and Development law (2004); Biodiversity law (2008); other relating laws such as Land law; Environmental Protection law and Cultural Heritage law; government decree and decision on special use forest management. 35

Figure 3. 1. Biosphere reserves in the management system of Vietnam. The figure shows the differences in management structure between the protected area system and biosphere reserves. National parks and protected areas have a clear management structure from central ministries to the provincial level. In contrast, the management structure for biosphere reserves is unclear at the national level as they do not fall under the management of any central ministry. All biosphere reserves fall in management responsibility of the provincial authorities.

The key legal document that governs BR administration and operation issued by the Province/City People’s Committee (PPC) is called the “Biosphere Reserve Management Regulation”. It defines the BR concept, provides general management principles and assigns responsibilities and tasks for departments and agencies in relation to their management responsibilities in different zones of the BRs. However, the legal basis for development of provincial regulations varies from site to site7.

7 Some provinces used Government Decree No 23/2006/ND-CP (Gov of Vietnam, 2006a) on guiding implementation of Forest Protection and Development law; others used the Prime Minister Decision No186/2006/QD-TTg (Gov of Vietnam, 2006b) on Forest Management Regulation. Some provinces did not mention any National laws and regulations. 36

This paper examines how the BR concept and the Seville guidelines are translated and applied in Vietnam’s BR system through three research questions:

. How consistent are Vietnamese BRs in applying the guidelines of the Seville criteria? . How does the management of BRs differ from other PAs in Vietnam? . What factors are impacting on successful management of Vietnam’s BRs?

3.2. Research methods

3.2.1. Data collection

Data were collected through document analysis and a qualitative online survey. The study started with review and analysis of existing legal documents relating to BRs in Vietnam such as the BR nominations, management regulations and periodic reports that have been prepared and approved by provincial authorities. The review examined: (1) how BR concept and Seville criteria were translated and applied in Vietnam; and (2) the legal basis, institutional setting and overarching features in BR management within the political, cultural and socio-economic context of Vietnam. Based on this understanding, the questionnaires in Vietnamese (Appendix 3.2) were prepared and sent via email to 53 managers, staff members of eight Biosphere Reserve Management Boards (BRMB) and National MAB secretary8. The survey questions focussed on respondent’s perception about the BR approach, its operation and communication, and identifying factors promoting and hindering BR performance and effectiveness. The respondents also were asked to rate as significant, present and not significant the challenges to long-term sustainability of the Vietnam’s BRs in the situation where there is reduction of support from an external project or there is no external project and program support.

3.2.2. Data analysis

Data from the surveys was translated into English and used to analyse and explore the current operation of the BRs in Vietnam. NVivo software (version 10) was employed to code, store and manage data (Richards, 2002). Statements/opinions about the promoting and hindering attributes for BR operation and management were coded using references to 11 key identified factors as described in the Table 2.2 of the global survey (Chapter 2). All identified factors deriving from the coding process were then calculated as percentages and ranked from 1 (factor has the highest relative importance of statements relating to requirements or impediments for BR management success) to 11 (factor has the lowest relative importance of statements relating to requirements or

8 We did not collect information from Langbian BR because it was a newly designated site and there was no management structure in place at the time of the survey. 37 impediments for BR management success. Based on the ranking order of these factors, a graph presenting a combination of X (Impediment) and Y (Requirement) was developed (Figure 3.3). Spearman Correlations were used to identify the significant relationships among the key factors that impact on performance and sustainability of these BRs. As well, respondent’s ratings of the identified challenges were used to explore the most significant issues impacting on the sustainability of the BR model in Vietnam. Social Network Analysis (Haythornthwaite, 1996; Vance-Borland and Holley, 2011) was used to investigate information flow and exchange within and between BR managers and other key players.

3.3. Results

3.3.1. Survey results

Forty-one out of fifty-three (77.4%) people responded to the survey. Forty respondents were from 8 BRs and one respondent was from the MAB committee. Respondents were mostly male with ages varying from 27- 65. All were tertiary educated, while nearly half were managers. Most respondents had less than five-year working experience in the BRs (Appendix 3.3).

3.3.2. Consistency of Vietnam’s biosphere reserves with the Seville guidelines

The Statutory Framework for WNBR includes 10 criteria that were used to assess how Vietnam’s BRs conform to the international guidelines. The comparison was recorded under three categories: (1) Seville’s articles were followed through in Vietnam, (2) Seville’s articles were theoretically followed through in Vietnam but often not in practice, and (3) Seville’s articles were not directly addressed in Vietnam (detail in Appendix 3.4). The study revealed that the Vietnam BRs applied the Seville articles (category 1) in 5 out of 8 articles relating to BR definition (article 1), BR functions (article 3), designation process (article 5), publicity (article 6) and periodic review process9 (article 9). Two Seville articles relating to participation in the WNBR (article 7) and regional and thematic sub-network (article 8) were not directly addressed, but Provincial Management Regulations for BRs highlight the need for international cooperation to exchange information and lessons learnt, and to promote research collaboration. Although the Vietnam BRs indicate they have theoretically responded to the key article 4 “Criteria” of the Seville Statutory Framework, in reality these are often not fulfilled in practice. As post-Seville designations, all BRs in Vietnam are compliant with the conceptual model of landscape designation with the legally

9Can Gio, Dong Nai, Cat Ba and Red river Delta have conducted periodical reviews and submitted reports to ICC- MAB. All of them satisfied BR criteria. The 10 year period report for Kien Giang is in preparation. 38 constituted core and buffer zone, and a transition area but the management priority has been mainly focused on the core area.

At a local level, each province has set up a part-time BRMB which is chaired by a PPC vice chairman and includes representatives from Departments of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), Natural Resources and Environment (DONRE), Culture, Sport and Tourism (DOCST), Science and Technology (DOST), NPs, PAs, Districts and other relevant sectors. This structure allows for cross-sectoral participation and management at the regional level. However, it also differs from site to site in terms of the number of departments and agencies which are represented on the Management Board10. An Advisory Council which includes former leaders, scientists and project staff was also established in Dong Nai, Cu Lao Cham and Red River Delta, aims to provide advice to the BRMB. However, notably, there are no community or enterprise representatives on these Boards.

10 The number of BRMB members varies from 6 people (Red river Delta) to 29 (Kien Giang). Besides the key members in the Board such as Vice chair of PPC, managers of DARD, DONRE, DOCST, DOST, NPs, PAs and district leaders, and depending on the province, other BRMB members could include the Department of Finance, Department of Planning and Investment, Department of Foreign Affairs, Department of Education and Training, Union of Friendship Associations; Fatherland Front, Forest protection Management Board, Border Defence Army, Commune leaders, and Project representatives. 39

RED RIVER DELTA BIOSPHERE

Figure 3. 2. Examples of BRs in Vietnam: Cu Lao Cham-Hoi An (above) and Red River Delta (below). Source: UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Smart Initiative (www.biospheresmart.org)

The National MAB Committee has developed guidelines to promote use of BRs as learning laboratories for sustainable development using the SLIQ11 (System thinking, Landscape planning,

11 System thinking: considering BRs as a complex system, system thinking is used to explore and explain the interactions between humans and nature, and assist in managing the various feedback loops that influence nature, culture and socio-economic development processes within the BR. Landscape planning is a key process for BR designation. Landscape planning increases connectivity between the core and buffer zones and the surrounding transition area and enables fulfilment of the three interdependent functions of the BR (conservation, sustainable development and logistic support) at the regional level. Intersectoral coordination involves stakeholders in participatory BR planning and management at the landscape level to avoid the gaps and conflicts arising from single sector planning and management. Quality economy comes through integrating conservation and development actions such as occurs with ecotourism, BR branding and payment for environmental services. 40

Intersectoral coordination and Quality economy) framework (Tri, 2009). Cat Ba BR was chosen as the pilot site to demonstrate use of a system thinking approach (Ishwaran et al., 2008; Nguyen et al., 2011). Cat Ba was also the first BR in Vietnam providing certification for local products and services that meet the requirement for conservation and development and were accredited as Biosphere Reserve products (Tri et al., 2013). In addition, a BR trust fund aiming to provide seed funding for sustainable development initiatives in Cat Ba was set up in 2008 with the main contributions coming from business enterprises (Thoai et al., 2014).

3.3. 3. Perception of the biosphere reserve approach

Ninety-five percent of informants perceived BRs as a novel conceptual approach to address the conservation and development dilemma. The BR approach is seen as a means to spread biodiversity conservation efforts beyond the boundaries of formally declared conservation areas while promoting socio-economic development by using brand name and certification for the local products and services. It supports mitigation through participatory planning and collaboration, of gaps and overlaps arising from conventional sectoral management practice. In contrast to PAs which are often managed according to defined structures and legal provisions, BRs provide flexible mechanisms for establishment of adaptive local governance that provides for coordination among different sectors rather than replacing the legal state management responsibility of the sectors and conservation agencies. The role of BRs in contributing to the solution of the recent management issues that are facing by the PA and sectoral approaches are evident in respondent perceptions (Table 3.1).

Table 3. 1. Management issues and biosphere reserve solutions

Issues Link to Biosphere Reserve Approach through observation Conservation and “BR is a management model that helps to solve practical problem we development are facing today in how to balance biodiversity conservation and conflict resource management with promotion of socio-economic development and maintenance of traditional cultural values that meets increasing demand of the local people” (Respondent #1, hereafter, VR1). Isolated “BRs enhance biodiversity conservation inside the NPs and bring conservation within conservation and benefits out of the park’s boundary to the new places the protected area where the conservation priority does not exist before” (VR8). boundary Over-exploitation “Seventeen products and services (honey bee, fish sources, boat natural resources transportation services, restaurants and hotels) have been certified in and unsustainable Cat Ba BR. They are exclusively registered trademarks in Vietnam and development must meet two criteria (1) are environmental friendly, safe and healthy products and (2) use local employees, promote community development and conserve traditional cultures” (VR8). Lack of stakeholder “BR model supports to address inconsistencies in conservation and participation and resource use through building a multi-sectoral participation and collaboration collaboration mechanism that ensures for conservation, sustainable development and cultural preservation at the regional level” (VR5). Central government “BRs are directly managed by the city and province, so we have own control and right to establish a suitable BRMB and regulation that adapts to the influence local conditions” (VR30).

Separate and “The actual BR management is to coordinate activities on a large scale, uncoordinated plans multiple subjects based on the existing legal documents to achieve the and activities across commonly desired goal of harmony human and nature under the landscapes principle: Conservation for development and development for conservation "(VR1)

However, roughly 55 % of informants were concerned about the gap between theory and implementation. As an “international title”, the BRs do not have legal recognition nationally. This lack of legal status might hinder stakeholder engagement as they have no legitimacy and 42 accountability in management practice because this is strongly influenced by the legal basis and regulation. Without legal status, BR funding, governance arrangement and opportunities for establishing long-term BR operational strategies are hindered. The difficulty in implementing the BR approach because of these limitations was voiced rather strongly by the following respondent: “The Vietnamese ancient adage ‘Correct cause and strong words - Danh có chính thì ngôn mới thuận’. BRs do not have strong legality and commensurate position, their existence is even difficult, not to mention the development” (Respondent #15, hereafter, VR15).

3.3.4. Factors influencing biosphere reserve management

Using global survey results as reference, we identified eight factors belonging to three functional groups (BR Designation, Participation and Delivery) through the coding process. Factors relating to functional groups of participation (Stakeholder participation and collaboration, Governance and Awareness and communication) and delivery (Finance and resources, Management and implementation, and Economic development) were considered more important than designation factors (Monitoring and evaluation, and Regional integration). Participation and collaboration, Governance, Finance and resource, Awareness and communication, and Management and implementation were the five factors commonly perceived to be influencing BR management in Vietnam (Figure 3.3).

Figure 3. 3. Factors Influencing biosphere reserve management in Vietnam. Y axis presents the relative importance of informants’ perceptions about the requirements for biosphere reserve success; and X axis presents the relative importance of informants’ perceptions about the impediments to management failure (1: the most important, 8: the least important).

(G: Governance; SP: Stakeholder participation and collaboration; FR: Finance and resources; AC: Awareness and communication; MI: Management and implementation; ED: Economic development; ME: Monitoring and evaluation; RI: Regional integration).

3.3.4.1. Stakeholder participation and collaboration

Stakeholder participation and collaboration was perceived to be the most influential factor in BR operation with 92 % of respondents perceiving weakness in cross-sectoral participation and cooperation due to the predominance of particular sectoral issues setting the BR agenda rather than an integrated, cross sectoral policy development and top-down management.

“BR is an idea theoretical concept for multi-stakeholder involvement including local communities but real management is complex and difficult. It often practically lacks participation and collaboration as influence of sectoral interest, power and top-down management” (VR1).

Older and more experienced respondents generally had a negative perception about the stakeholder participation and collaboration in the current BR planning and management (Spearman coefficient = -0.407 and -0.483; Pvalue = 0.008 and 0.001 respectively)

3.3.4.2. Governance

Governance was the second most important factor influencing BR operation in Vietnam. Eighty- five percent of respondents noted that the establishment of the BRMB with different stakeholder’s representatives provides a potential platform for participation and collaboration.

“Establishment of the BRMB that includes provincial leader and members from departments, PAs and local authorities provides good chance for stakeholder participation and collaboration” (VR14).

In practice, however, 87 % of the respondents noted current governance weakness. Strong top-down sectoral interest and management results in the lack of a broader agenda addressed and carried out by the BRMB.

“All sectors have their own governance structure and there is a great decentralisation in planning and management from central to the local levels. However, it is a major challenge to incorporate these structures for a strong participation and collaboration” (VR9).

3.3.4.3. Finance and resources

Finance and resources was the third influential factor for effective BR management. Eighty percent of respondents perceived the current lack of the human and resources as hindering effective BR operation. Most BRs do not have secure resources for regular operation because they are often perceived as a lower funding priority than sectoral programs:

“There are few attempts and engaged funding and resource contributions from the whole political system, sectors and stakeholders to bring BR approach in the real life” (VR14).

3.3.4.4. Awareness and communication

Our study shows that BR functions have not yet been fully understood. While 100% of respondents perceived that a key role of the BRs is for biodiversity conservation, only 90 % thought BRs were about sustainable development and 78% thought BRs were about providing logistic support. Confusion between BR and a more conventional conservation approach was mentioned as:

“BRs fall into 1 of 4 PA categories [NPs, natural reserves, species/habitat PAs and historical, cultural sites]. Hence, the most important thing here is how to manage these PAs effectively” (VR3). 45

The study found the current communication between BRMB and other stakeholders is undertaking under both formal and informal methods. Using official stamped papers, telephone and email are three most delivery methods of BR communication. Eighty-eight percent of respondents perceived current BR communication to be weak; characterised as non-mandatory, with an unclear mechanism and resource limitations. Communication about BRs depends largely on the voluntary contributions from coordinating staff and involved stakeholders and their ability/opportunity to communicate ideas:

“BR concept does not appear in the real life as it lacks stakeholder interest and support for open communication” (VR10).

Informants identified 14 key actors involved in biosphere communication and information sharing. Figure 3.4 shows that the current communication effort mostly occurs (monthly) between the BRMB office and NPs or PAs while the communication with others stakeholders is still weak and irregular i.e. 1-2 times per year.

Weekly

Monthly

Quarterly

Twice a year and other stakeholders

Once a year Communication frequency between Communication frequency between BRMB

Figure 3. 4. Communication frequency between BRMB and 13 other stakeholders relating to BR management. The communication frequency was presented by mean and standard deviation in 5 levels (5= weekly, 4= monthly, 3= quarterly, 2= twice a year, and 1= once a year).

3.3.4.5. Management and implementation

Fifty-one percent of respondents perceived the current BR management and implementation to be weak. Lack of long-term management plan with secure associated resource allocation hinders the effectiveness delivery and implementation of the BR concept model. Hence, limited number and irregular BR activities, particularly those for generating sustainable incomes and awareness education for the local communities were of major concern to respondents:

“Very few and irregular BR activities are implemented due to the lack of strategic management plan for the whole reserve and insecure funding and human resources” (VR32).

3.3.5. Perception about the roles of external projects

Eighty-three percent of respondents had a positive perception about the contribution of external projects to BR management. Informants perceived that capacity building, awareness raising, biodiversity conservation and livelihood development were positive outcomes from project funding (Figure 3.5).

projects to projects BR management 10 Percentage (%) of informants who who informants of (%) Percentage percieived of the contributions percieived the 0 Capacity Awareness Biodiversity Livelihood New data and Participation & building improvement conservation development information collaboration promotion

Figure 3. 5. Percentage (%) of informants nominating each type of contribution (N=41)

By bringing advances in technical expertise, projects provide a chance for staff and local people to learn through awareness raising, training, and project implementation and thereby to develop better conservation and livelihood outcomes:

“Projects provide international standards, professional knowledge and skill to improve management effectiveness and meet the local needs. They encourage using traditional knowledge in conservation and livelihood improvement. Mui Ca Mau BR was funded a project to support local people using traditional practice, called ‘rafter beekeeping- gác kèo ong

[Honey collection by using a branch of Melaleuca cajuputi trees in the forest to make a rafter that attracts bees to build a honey hive beneath]” (VR13).

However, paradoxically, 73 % of informants perceived little or no impact of these external projects on BR sustainability. Older informants with a senior position and more working experience generally had negative perceptions about the role of the projects perhaps because ‘they had seen it all before and were unimpressed by the long-term outcomes from projects’ (Appendix 3.5). Significantly, small funding and short time for implementation were ranked as the two most limiting factors of external projects to the long-term BR operation (Figure 3.6).

“Project resources are often small and only help to solve a small issue in a narrow range. Short time implementation and temporarily influent projects cannot solve the fundamental problems of Vietnam” (VR15).

40 term biosphere biosphere term - 30

20 reserve reserve management 10 projects to projects long Percentage (%) of informants who who informants of (%) Percentage

perceived the limitations of external external of the limitations perceived 0 Small funding Short Few activities Discreteness Low Lack of M&E intervention partnership

Figure 3. 6. Percentage (%) of informants nominating each type of limitation (N=30).

Additionally, projects have their own policy and decision-making power relating to budget and activity and this often leads to low interest and engagement from BRMB, sectoral members and local people.

“Projects often take overall controlling budget and activities and this leads to low interest and participation from local partners. It is not long impact because the ownership of project activities and outcomes do not belong to the local partners and people” (VR14).

3.3.6. Perception of the future for biosphere reserves without external project support

Only 17 % of the respondents from 3 BRs (Cat Ba, Can Gio and Dong Nai), identified a strong opportunity for long-term BR operation without project support. Our study found the significant relationships between BR sustainability and attributes relating to local leader support, i.e. PPC vice 48 chairman and sectoral and park managers (who are BRMB members), local funding and resources, stakeholder participation and collaboration, and awareness and communication (Appendix 3.6). Significantly, having leader support and commitment increases the opportunity for BR to obtain funding and resources from both province and departments:

“[Cat Ba BR] The BRMB receives annual budget of one and half billion Dong (75,000 USD) from the city to implement activities. Additionally, the departments, district and NP also provide their own budget for BR activities” (VR8).

On the other hand, 83 % of informants perceived little chance for BR sustainability without external project support. Lack of secure funding for awareness raising, capacity building, livelihood, community participation and conservation were the five most commonly identified challenges (Figure 3.7).

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 no external support project external no the challenges of BR management in case of case in of BR management challenges the Percentage (%) of informants who perceived who perceived of (%) informants Percentage

Not significant Present Significant

Figure 3. 7. Percentage (%) of informants nominating each type of challenges to biosphere reserve operation in the absence of project support (N=41)

3.4. Discussion

We examined how the BR concept and its criteria were translated in BR management in Vietnam. Although BR conceptual model and Seville guidelines were theoretically followed in Provincial Management Regulations for BRs, our study found a limitation in management practice. All BRs show compliance with respect to Seville criteria in relation to landscape designation, but 49 management priority and communication effort still focuses on conservation of the core zone with less attention paid to the two other BR functions of development and logistic support. The traditional management practice in Vietnam is strongly based on laws and regulations and lack of a national framework might be a reason for delaying participation and collaboration under the BR approach for most of the sector-based staff and managers. However, this lack of legal status could provide a certain level of flexibility allowing for adaptive interpretation and application of the central laws and regulations in order to fit local conditions (UNESCO Hanoi, 2013) because BRs in Vietnam are partly constituted by the legal PAs which are the core zones of each BR and which are managed independently by the provincial authority.

Three functional group factors of Designation, Participation and Delivery that influence Vietnam’s BR operation and management were identified. However, three factors identified in the survey of the WNBR (Cuong et al., 2017b) as relating to BR Designation (Landscape planning and zonation, Learning orientation and system thinking, and Research linkage) were missing in the minds of both Vietnamese BR practitioners and managers due to the lack of understanding the BR concept and strong influence of over-arching top-down, sectoral planning and management. Similar to the findings from the WNBR, we found that Stakeholder participation and collaboration, Governance, Finance and resources, Awareness and communication, and Management and implementation were the most influencing factors to BR operation in Vietnam.

3.4.1. Stakeholder participation and collaboration

Stakeholder participation and collaboration should be promoted through the established BRMB and Advisory Council, but our study found great limitations in practice because of the domination of a sectoral approach in decision-making and management operation. Although BRMB is chaired by the vice chairman of PPC, the actual coordination and management of the BRs often falls to a specific Department or NP and PA12 which is usually under the management control of the Forest Protection sub-Department under DARD. Without strong sectoral willingness to support the BR approach, BR activities are often under the control of the assigned sector or agency with minimal participation from other sectors. For example, the local partnership was set up between the communities and BR through co-management and benefit sharing in Cu Lao Cham and Red River Delta, but this partnership scheme is often undertaken by the NP and local communities with support from projects rather than the BRMB itself (UNESCO Hanoi, 2013).

12 BR focal agency is DARD in Cat Ba, Can Gio and Tay Nghe An; DOST in Kien Giang andMui Ca Mau; NP and PA in Red river Delta, Cu Lao Cham and Dong Nai BRs. 50

The grassroots democracy policy13 encourages community participation in natural resource planning and decision-making but implementing this process has been quite slow in Vietnam (de Wit, 2007; Tortosa, 2012; Hai, 2014, 2016). Community participation has not fully developed in relation to PAs and BRs as major decision-making powers still reside in government agencies (Zingerli, 2005; de Wit, 2007; Clement and Amezaga, 2008; Dung et al., 2013). The absence of representatives from community and private sectors in both BRMB and Advisory Council indicated their weak role in BR planning and management. Therefore, improvement of the governance structure that allows for local communities and industries to participate in planning and management will benefit BR operation and development.

3.4.2. Finance and resources

Lack of legal recognition poses a challenge for BRs to obtain Central Government funds14, and operation of the BRs now relies on the provincial budget and external projects. Fiscal decentralisation15 allows for provincial authority having budgetary responsibility within the provincial territory (Duc, 2005; de Wit, 2007). However, an incomplete decentralisation process, due to strong central political and sectoral power in decision-making and resource allocation, has resulted in great reliance on central government subsidy for local operations (Fforde, 2003; Duc, 2005; Fritzen, 2006; de Wit, 2007). Lack of finance and qualified staff are two of the greatest challenges for effective management of the provincially-managed PAs (Nguyen, 2002; ICEM, 2003; MARD, 2014) and our research also shows this is the case for BRs. Hence, forming BR partnerships with different stakeholders to generate management resources for example, the trust fund for sustainable development as the case of Cat Ba BR could be used as a lesson learnt for other sites in the BR network (Tri et al., 2013; Thoai et al., 2014).

External projects are the second major funding source (after the government budget) for biodiversity and environmental protection in Vietnam (ICEM, 2003; WB, 2005a). But due to the

13 Directive No 30/CT of the Politburo Committee of the Communist Party (Politburo Committee of the Party, 1998) on grassroots democracy aiming to encourage social organisation and citizen participation in formulating, implementing and monitoring policies with the key slogan of ‘people know, people discuss, people execute and people supervise’ and followed by the Government Decree 79/2003/ND-CP (Gov of Vietnam, 2003b) that promulgated the regulation on the exercise of democracy in communes. 14Although National MAB Committee is an active but this part-time structure mainly acts as a national contact and communication centre rather than interacting with national governance and thereby ensuring funding allocation for the BR network. 15 State budget law (2002, 2015) allows the provincial authority to prepare annual socio-economic development plan and budget and submit to the Provincial People Council for approval. 51 small amount of funding and with usually a narrow focus for their activities, projects often work with specific local partner(s) to achieve specific target(s), rather than intervention at the BR scale. Thus, such short-time project interventions can have a temporary impact but do not provide a comprehensive learning experience on how to find the root-cause of problems and enable setting up long-term and sustainable solutions (ICEM, 2003; Brooks, 2010; Nguyen et al., 2015).

3.4.3. Biosphere reserve governance

Vertical governance hierarchy structured from the centre to village level is a traditional political ideology in Vietnam (Marr, 2004) and the absence of a central government management body means that the relevant local government (PPC) is the lead agency, however for the core zone PAs and the departments, as they are legally responsible to, and obtain their major finance as designated under the line Sectoral Management Plan of the Central Government Ministries. This then in reality dominates their planning and management process. Thus, there is a need to coordinate the PA management processes within the BR Strategy and Action Plan (where this exists and in Vietnam only two out of the 8 BRs have such a Plan). However this potential point of tension is partly defused by some activities of the BR being funded and actioned by the local provincial authority (PPC) agencies. Some PAs see this as complementary to their centrally funded activities and have a more favourable relationship with the BRMB.

The administrative decentralisation process16 provides an opportunity for local authorities to manage their BRs and constituent PAs within the provincial boundary. Considered as an autonomous government unit, the province has its own power to establish local governance (BRMB and Advisory Council) and allocate funding and resources for operating BR activities. Management of provincial transboundary BRs (Dong Nai and Red River Delta) is promoted through an officially signed agreement and establishment of an interprovincial BRMB as in the case of the Red River Delta (Tri, 2009; Tri et al., 2013).

Led by the PPC leader and represented by the key stakeholder members, the BRMB could serve as the locally-based governance that allows for integrating sectoral plans into BR management and benefit all involved sectors through fulfilling BR functions across landscapes (Tri, 2009). It is reported that there is an increased role of the BRMB in providing advice to the draft sectoral plans and decisions in the BR through consultation process in Kien Giang and Cat Ba. However, without strong leadership and engagement, this Board will face great practical limitations. Firstly, coordination is the most important role in BR management but it is addressed in very broad terms in

16 Based on the Law on Organization of People's Councils and People's Committees (2003) 52 the Provincial BR Management Regulations. Lack of a clear distinction between BR coordination and sectoral state management weakens the role of the BRMB in integrating BR activities which are often undertaken by a single stakeholder. Additionally, lack of community and private sector representation in both the BRMB and Advisory Council is another weakness of the existing BR governance. Finally, BR plans and operations can be delayed because it often takes time to get consensus and approval from members and their departments and this is particularly the case when calling for management resource contribution from stakeholders (Francis, 2004).

3.4.4. Awareness and communication

Poor understanding of the BR approach affected the management reality in Vietnam and our result was consistent with the findings of Tri et al. (2013). Lack of zonation and a landscape approach means that the preservation approach (mainly forest and biodiversity conservation) still strongly influences BR planning and implementation17. This results in excessive focus on the core zone, lack of attention to buffer and transition zones, with subsequent low landscape zonation connectivity as required by the BR approach. Similarly, system thinking, an important tool for adaptive learning in BR management (Nguyen et al., 2011; Nguyen et al., 2015), was often missing and this presents a practical implementation difficulty due to weak stakeholder interest and limited understanding of the way adaptive learning might work within the BR management framework to achieve the designed outcomes (Nguyen et al., 2015). Hence, an outreach and awareness-raising program to improve general public and provincial departments’ understanding of the BR approach and its application in planning and management/coordination of activities within the BR based on a systems analysis of process and actions proposed under the BRMB plan, would help ensure integrated and successful BR operation (UNESCO, 2016a; Cuong et al., 2017b).

3.4.5. Management and implementation

Our study shows a weak BR implementation due to limitation in understanding, and the necessary management skills and experience in Vietnam. Significantly, lack of stakeholder participation and collaboration, coupled with funding limitation, weakens delivery of BR objectives. Despite being established for several years or even a decade, most BRs in Vietnam have not yet developed management or operational plans. As a result, only a few and irregular BR activities, mainly forest and biodiversity conservation are being implemented in Vietnam’s BRs (UNESCO Hanoi, 2013).

17 Provincial socio-economic development is the most important master plan directing the 5 year action program for the whole province. As part of the local management system, BRs are mentioned in this plan but it is often addressed in the context of using and managing the BRs for compliance with nationally mandated biodiversity and environmental protection. 53

3.5. Conclusions

Even taking into account the nationally weak legal status, the BR concept and Seville guidelines were completely captured, at least in theory, in provincial governance approaches and management regulations. Rapid growth of the Vietnam BR network indicated a strong interest and commitment from provincial authorities in using the BR approach for conservation and sustainable socio- economic development. However, a strong preference for top-down and sectoral approaches to planning and decision-making in practice was the largest negative influence on effective BR participation, governance and delivery. In addition, BR functions have not yet been fully implemented due to limitations on development of appropriate communication strategies to build community awareness. Having landscape zonation is necessary for compliance with the Seville criteria but also applying this designation in management operations significantly contributes to success. Lack of integrated management plan for the whole BR results in the reality BRs are being managed as the original core zone only.

The MAB program is a global initiative but its success depends on local management solutions (Edge and McAllister, 2009). Given the limited opportunity to obtain funding from central government and external projects, the future operation Vietnam’s BRs will need a greater local stakeholder participation and collaboration for better governance and partnerships to obtain secure funding sources both from the province and private sector. Hence, awareness and communication is necessary to obtain stronger political support and public engagement to motivate entrenched political systems and individuals that resist opening up the BR approach to more active participation and cooperation. Enhancing BRMBs as strong, locally-based governance systems with mandate and resources to coordinate stakeholder interests and participation through an agreeable management plan will bring the full BR concept into practice.

CHAPTER 4: MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE OF THE KIEN GIANG

BIOSPHERE RESERVE

This chapter was prepared as journal article and submitted to Environmental Management.

Cuong, C.V., Dart, P., Dudley, N., Hockings, M., (under review). Building stakeholder awareness and engagement strategy to enhance Biosphere Reserve performance and sustainability: The case of Kien Giang, Vietnam.

Community involvement in mangrove restoration in Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve

Photo credit: Van Cuong Chu

Abstract

Local application of the biosphere reserve (BR) concept in Kien Giang, Vietnam was examined to see how it compared with other reserves both in Vietnam and internationally and from that to assess the level of adoption and what could be limiting processes. This was undertaken mainly through qualitative document analysis, field surveys and extensive interviews of stakeholders. Whilst major attention has been paid to compliance with the UNESCO Man the Biosphere regulatory rules, little effort has been made to translate these in operational terms i.e. their practical implementation. There is limited understanding of the broader aspects of the BR approach because poorly developed communication channels hindered stakeholder engagement and thereby the management accountability needed for strong governance and development of adequate management resources including adequate financial support necessary to effectively deliver the BR concept. External projects were perceived by community stakeholders to have only a temporary impact on BR operation because the small, time-bound demonstration models they often start with were not well integrated into governance processes which lead to long term change. Without proper investment in public awareness and improvement of BR governance leadership, the hope for development of strategic public-private partnerships to support implementation remains unfulfilled and the BR model will as a consequence contribute little to the long-term biodiversity conservation and socio- economic development.

4.1. Introduction

The global system of protected areas (PAs) plays a vital role in biodiversity conservation (Watson et al., 2014). The number and extent of PAs has increased remarkably since the 1970s under various national and international targets, with the intended outcome of mitigating biodiversity loss and poverty reduction. However, successive targets for PA establishment and management have not been met, resulting in increasing pressure on biodiversity and natural resources (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010). PAs, by themselves, cannot be a safe refuge for ecosystems and the species they encompass because they are often isolated islands surrounded by major environmental disturbance and modification of landscapes (McNeely, 1993; Batisse, 1985; Palomo et al., 2014). However, PAs can contribute significantly to human welfare if they are properly managed (McNeely, 1994) through the environmental services they deliver (Stolton, 2010). Hence, the Aichi Target 11 under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 2010) calls for the conservation of at least 17 percent of terrestrial area and 10 percent of the world’s oceans by 2020 through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of PAs and other effective area-based conservation measures integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes. The issue was also addressed by the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which built on the success of the Millennium Development Goals, for attainment by 2030 of the following related goals (1) end poverty in all its forms everywhere, (2) end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture, (14) conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development and (15) protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss (United Nations, 2015).

Initiated by UNESCO in the 1970’s under the Man and Biosphere Program, Biosphere Reserves (BR) aim to reconcile biodiversity conservation with economic development, in a way that is not possible under conventional PA management (Batisse, 1997). The conceptual BR model as outlined by the Seville Strategy (UNESCO, 1996a) is built around PAs as the core of the BR, but with a defined buffer zone and transition area, each with different rules/strictures defining activities that can be undertaken in each zone and which support delivery of the three principal functions defined for BRs of conservation, sustainable development and logistic support (UNESCO, 1996b, Price, 2002; Price et al., 2010; Reed and Egunyu, 2013; Matar and Anthony, 2017). However, BR activities occur in both the legally defined PA with designated natural resource management operational “rules” as well as the buffer zone and transition area that are commonly without legal

57 status and across which there are a range of different land uses and stakeholders (Batisse, 1997; Ishwaran et al., 2008). Successful implementation relies on having a compliant landscape designation of the BR site as well as commitment and support from central and state government that encourages setting up a reliable management system which encompasses a broad ranging stakeholder participation and partnership (Coetzer et al., 2014; Cuong et al., 2017a, b).

Kien Giang was officially recognised in 2006 as the fifth of nine BRs in Vietnam. At 1.1 million ha, it is the second largest BR in Vietnam with very diverse lowland wetlands, karst mountains, coastal and marine habitats (Kien Giang Province People’s Committee [PPC], 2005; Dang, 2009). Only 37,000 ha in U Minh Thuong NP, Phu Quoc NP, Phu Quoc Marine PA and Hon Chong-Kien Luong lime-stone PA were designed as the core area of the KGBR for legal conservation of their enclosed ecosystems, habitats and the 2,340 plant and animal species, including endangered or iconic species such as Hairy Nose Otters (Lutra sumatrana), Sarus Crane (Grus Antigone) and Dugong (Dugong dugon) (Kien Giang PPC, 2005; Hai, 2013). The buffer zone and particularly the large transition area were designed to promote sustainable economic development and generate income for over 735,000 people (40 percent of the total provincial population) whose primary activities are agriculture, fishery and forestry production (Kien Giang Statistic Office, 2016). The very diversity of cultural and historical features (e.g., 43 national and 21 provincially recognised relics/heritages, and 388 annual festivals and cultural events) makes the province an attractive tourism destination with over six million visitors to Kien Giang in 2015 (Kien Giang PPC, 2015). Particularly popular tourism locations (e.g., Phu Quoc, Kien Luong and Ha Tien) draw visitors from Vietnam and as well as Southeast Asian countries and they provide opportunities for developing quality indigenous tourism and service products. Although having potential for economic development and income generation, recent tourism activities are posing high risks to the natural environment and biodiversity due to the lack of integrated planning and management (Cuong and Dart, 2011; Carter, 2013; Cuong et al., 2014).

Because of its location in the lower Mekong delta, 75 % of Kien Giang mainland area is predicted to be affected by sea level rise by the end of this century (MONRE, 2012). Coastal forests mainly formed by melaleuca (Melaleuca cajuputi) and mangroves occur along 74 percent of the c.200 km provincial coastline, not only providing secure sources of income for the coastal communities but also contributing to coastal protection (Duke et al., 2010; Cuong et al., 2015). However, the total provincial forest area decreased from 60 % in 1990’s to only 8.5 % in 2015 (MARD, 2016) as a result of large scale forest conversion to rice and industrial shrimp aquaculture (see e.g., Biggs, 2005; Son and Tu, 2008; Cuong and Dart, 2011; Hoa et al., 2013). The pressure for provincial

58 socio-economic development and income generation coupled with the sector-based management approach are challenging the sustainability and resilience of the last fragmented forest areas in the province (Hawkins et al., 2010; Cuong and Dart, 2011; Cuong et al., 2015). The terrestrial and marine PAs that were legally established and designed as the core zone of the KGBR have not yet effectively protected natural resources as they suffer from illegal harvesting and poaching (e.g., Dang et al., 2001; Stuart, 2004; Giles et al., 2005; Hamman et al., 2006; Hines et al., 2008; Nuwer and Bell, 2014). Unsustainable land and sea management for rice, aquaculture and fishing are occurring across the buffer zone and transition area of the KGBR and this poses a high risk of production decline and income collapse, particularly under the predicted climate change impacts (ADB, 2011; Cuong and Dart, 2011). Limitations of traditional, sectoral planning and management, and demands for sustainable development led to the change in the management approach through establishment of the KGBR in 2006.

In this article, we examine how the KGBR model works under the current institutional framework and as influenced by the particular socio-economic and cultural features of Kien Giang Province. The factors that inhibit or facilitate the BR implementation and key enabling factors, knowledge limitations and management gaps in BR management are explored through investigating the following research questions:

. Does KGBR promote effective management as outlined in the guidelines of the Statutory Framework and what are the impediments to implementing the BR model in Kien Giang? . What are the key promoting and hindering factors that impact on effective management of the KGBR? . What is the role of external project support and how sustainable is the BR model operating in Kien Giang?

4.2. Research methods

4.2.1. Data collection

Research methods included document analysis and primary data collection through site observation, focus group discussions, in-depth interviews and a participatory workshop aimed to maximise the benefits from data triangulation and multipronged analysis in order to overcome the bias often inherent when using a single data collection method (Mack et al., 2005; King and Horrocks, 2010). Three field visits to Kien Giang were conducted to collect data and information by the principal researcher who had more than three years working experience as project manager for the Conservation and Development of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve Project, funded by Australian Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAT) and implemented by German International Cooperation 59

(GIZ) between 2008 and 2014 (hereafter GIZ/DFAT project). The project aimed to assist Kien Giang authorities and local communities develop and implement a sustainable natural resource management program with focus on improvement of PAs and coastal forest management in Kien Giang province (Cuong and Dart, 2011; Brown, 2012).

In the first visit (January- March 2014), the principal researcher met with Biosphere Reserve Management Board (BRMB) and staff of BR Operating Office to discuss the data collection method and decide on the target locations and informants to include in the survey. During this visit, focus group meetings and in-depth interviews were conducted with local government-employed informants who are managers and staff of the Province, District and Commune Peoples’ Committees, provincial departments, NPs, PAs, Forest Protection Management Boards (FPMB), social-political organizations (e.g., Farmer Association, Youth Union and Women Union), and GIZ/DFAT Project. During the second field visit (May-July 2014) focus group meetings and interviews were conducted with local people in four selected villages (Vam Ray, Cong Su, Bai Thom and Vinh Lac (Figure 4.1). These villages were selected based on the recommendations from the BRMB that they represent local communities in the buffer zone and transition area who have a high level of resources use and conflict over the establishment of the NPs, PAs and protection forest.

Figure 4. 1. Survey sites in Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve

Focus group meetings were organised to engage provincial staff and local people in discussing the general questions relating BR model, local understanding and application of the BR approach in supporting stakeholder participation and cross-sectoral involvement in planning and managing natural resources in the province; advantages and disadvantages of the current sectoral and NP systems and how the BR approach can use to solve the limitations of these conventional management systems in the context of the local culture and political/governance structures, and identify key impediments hindering operation and management of the KGBR. Because the villages in the survey area are small (approximately 25-40 households), thus all household representatives were invited to the focus group discussion. All participants were asked if they voluntarily participated in face to face interview stage and then the interview schedule was set up based on the agreement between researcher and informants.

Draft survey questions developing after the focus group meetings were presented to the BR Operating Office staff and then finalised by the principal researcher and BR Operating Office staff.

In-depth interviews were conducted in person based on semi-structured questionnaires (Appendix 4.1). The respondents were asked:

• if they have heard or known about the KGBR before the focus group meetings? • to give personal perceptions about the BR approach, its operation and communication • to give their rating to the key BR impediments identified from the group meetings using a Likert Scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); • to provide personal opinion about the factors promoting and hindering the performance and management effectiveness of the KGBR; • how often they communicate with BRMB and BR Operating Office? • to give their personal opinion about the impact of external projects on operation and effectiveness of the KGBR; • to give their personal opinion on future operation and challenges to long-term sustainability of the KGBR in the absence of external project support and solutions to improving BR operation and effectiveness; Twenty-five out of 30 invited participants (Appendix 4.2) attended a half-day stakeholder workshop held during the third visit (April, 2016). Under the consultation process with the BR Operating Office, the participants were selected based on (1) their participation in the focus group meetings and in-depth interview, (2) participants have knowledge on biosphere reserve and traditional management system (through observation in the focus group discussions and in-depth interview), (3) representative BRMB, managers and staff of the provincial departments, management agencies, 61 business enterprise association, GIZ/DFAT project and local communities, and (4) gender consideration. Findings were presented and discussed at the workshop. The participants also added any comments relating to these survey results and then they gave their direct votes if they “agree” or “disagree” with the study findings.

4.2.2. Data analysis

The current operation and application of the BR approach under the provincial socio-economic development and management context was explored through document analysis. NVivo 10 was used to code the responses from two respondent groups of local government staff (hereafter KGS) and local people (hereafter KGL) using information from 142 completed survey forms (detail of the coding structure in Appendix 4.3). This coding process assisted in (1) identifying the most influential factors and their relative importance to the performance and management of the KGBR; (2) analysing the informant’s perception of the role of external project(s) in operational and management effectiveness of the KGBR, and (3) analysing informant’s perception about the future operation of the BR model in Kien Giang and solutions to improve performance and sustainability.

4.3. Results

4.3.1. Survey participants A total of 142 informants were interviewed. Half the informants were representatives of the local government and agencies (provincial managers, departments, NPs, PAs, and district and commune staff) and mainly had professional and university degrees while the other half were local people (farmers, fisherman and small business owners) with school education background. Most interviewees (66%) were male (detail in Appendix 4.4).

4.3.2. Compliance between Seville criteria and management in KGBR

The scoring system applied to the Vietnam BR system (Cuong et al., 2017a) was used to compare the compliance between international criteria outlined in the Statutory Framework for BR network (UNESCO, 1996b) and their application in the management of the KGBR (detail in Appendix 4.5). The study revealed that management of the KGBR was followed thoroughly in five out of eight applicable Seville articles relating to BR definition (article 1), BR functions (article 3), designation procedure (article 5), publicity (article 6) and periodic review process (article 9). Two Seville criteria relating to participation in the global network (article 7) and regional and thematic sub- network (article 8) were not directly addressed, but the Management Regulation for KGBR encourages the participation of the BRMB in international cooperation for information exchange, research collaboration and funding mobilisation. Although the Management Regulation for KGBR 62 theoretically responded to the key article 4 of the Seville Statutory Framework dealing with criteria for nominating a BR, it lacked practical ways for supporting BR management. For instance, although the BR conforms to the conceptual model of landscape designation with the core, buffer zone and transition area, only three percent of the KGBR was designed for biodiversity conservation. The planning and management decision for the KGBR only involved the provincial departments and agencies, while the local community and private sector has even now no involvement in BR governance and management structure. Finally, although an action plan has been submitted to the PPC as called for by the KGBR Management Regulation, it is pending approval after 20 months.

The Biosphere Reserve Management Board (BRMB) was set up to assist the PPC to manage and deliver the BR approach across sectors and management agencies in the province. This Board is led by a PPC vice chairman and representative managers from seven Departments, Kien Giang Union of Friendship Organization (a social, political organisation), 10 districts, Phu Quoc NP, U Minh Thuong NP, Phu Quoc MPA, and Forest Protection Management Boards (FPMB) (Appendix 4.5). This multi-agency governance structure aims to coordinate and promote cross-sectoral participation and collaboration in planning and management of the KGBR for biodiversity conservation, sustainable socio-economic development, and development opportunities for local communities (Kien Giang PPC, 2010, 2014; Cuong and Dart, 2011; Brown, 2012). Additionally, the KGBR Operating Office was permanently set up and funded by the PPC to support BRMB in BR administration and communication. This office has 5 full-time staff and is under direct management of the Department of Science and Technology Director who is the standing vice chair of the BRMB. However, similar to the other Vietnam BRs, there are no community or enterprise representatives on the governance structure of the KGBR.

4.3.3. Impediments to operation and management of the KGBR

Focus group discussions identified ten key impediments that are hindering operation and implementation of the KGBR (see Figure 4.2). Based on this, informants were asked to rate each impediment during the in-depth interview process. Figure 4.2 shows that the five most important impediments were:

• limited information pertaining to, and local knowledge of, the BR due to the weakness of the awareness and communication campaign, • lack of strategic management plan, • weak support and engagement from the provincial and department leaders, • preference for a sectoral approach, 63

• weak community involvement

Figure 4. 2. Participants’ perception of the key impediments to operation and management of the KGBR. The figure shows the means and error bars (= 95 % CI) using the Likert scale rating from 142 informants (1=SD: strongly disagree; 2=D: Disagree; 3=N: Neutral; 4=A: Agree; 5=SA: Strongly agree).

4.3.4. Factors influencing the operation and management effectiveness

Based on the list of eleven referent factors identified from the global survey (Cuong et al., 2017b), the Nvivo coding process identified only eight factors (Stakeholder participation and collaboration, Awareness and communication, Finance and resources, Management and implementation, Economic development, Governance, Monitoring and evaluation, and Regional integration) influencing operation and management effectiveness of the KGBR (Appendix 4.3). Stakeholder participation and collaboration, Finance and resource, Management and implementation were perceived to be the most influential factors across two respondent groups comprised of government employees and local people. Both respondent groups perceived the lack of Awareness and communication as the greatest hindrance to BR operation, but government-employed respondents did not consider it to be a strong factor for promoting BR performance. While informants from the government group perceived Governance as the most significant influencing factor (Figure 4.3a), it was considered the least important by the local people who considered Economic development to be the major factor influencing management effectiveness of the KGBR (Figure 4.3b).

a, b,

Figure 4. 3. Perception of factors influencing operation and management effectiveness of the KGBR from government employees (a) and local people (b). Y axis presents the relative importance of informants’ perceptions about the requirements for biosphere reserve success; and X axis presents the relative importance of informant’s perceptions about the impediments leading to management failure in KGBR.

(SP: Stakeholder participation and collaboration; AC: Awareness and communication; FR: Finance and resources; MI: Management and implementation; ED: Economic development; G: Governance; ME: Monitoring and evaluation; RI: Regional integration).

4.3.4.1. Awareness and communication

Only 88 out of 142 (62 %) of informants knew of, or had heard about KGBR before the focus group discussions. Fifty four percent obtained BR information from training and involvement in the GIZ/DFAT project activities, and the rest through mass media (e.g., internet, newspapers, local television and radio). There was a significant difference between 2 informant groups. Among the informants who knew of the KGBR, 83 % (61 out of 73 people) were from government-employed group, while the figure was only 39 % (27 out of 69) for the local community group.

Ninety percent of respondents from the government-employed group and 96 percent from the local community considered the lack of public awareness and communication to be the most important factor hindering the operation and management of the KGBR. Even though they knew of the existence of the BR in the province, many informants failed to distinguish the difference in the way the BR should function from the traditional PA conservation approach. This limitation hinders application of the BR concept through management practice as noted by this respondent from the government-employed group:

“Nearly a decade after recognition the BR concept is quite strange in both working offices doing work related to the project and in the public domain. Many people, including BRMB staff and managers still suppose there is an economic development and investment cost from having the BR due to the supposedly stricter conservation and environmental protection regulations” (Respondent KGS #12).

Misunderstanding of the differences between the BR and PA approaches was also apparent with commune staff and local people:

“It [biosphere reserve] was set up for conservation without proper alternative livelihood options and compensation for the local fisherpersons who lose traditional fishing places and thereby income” (Respondent KGS #72). and

“BR is the place for conservation of forest, wildlife and environment. All people must follow the laws and government regulations” (Respondent KGL #25)

The study also shows a weak communication between KGBR Operating Office and provincial departments and other local stakeholders. The current linkages and communications between BRMB through the Operating Office and departments and stakeholders in KGBR were explored and visualised using Nodexl (Figure 4.4). Only 21 out of 142 informants (15%) had communication with BRMB and its Operating Office and half of them were BRMB members. However, the 66 communication mainly related to the GIZ/DFAT project funding and activities that directly involved the departments and agencies. Sixty-seven percent of respondents from district and commune offices and all informants from local community group did not know of the existence of the BRMB and location of the KGBR Operating Office.

Figure 4. 4. Current communication between BRMB/Operating Office and stakeholders in KGBR.

The communication frequency presents at 3 levels: Quarterly (thick bold line), Twice a year (medium bold line), and Once a year (thin line).

(LM: Leaders of PPC, provincial Departments, NPs, PAs and Forest Protection Management Board who also are the member of BRMB; L1, 2, 3: Leaders of provincial Departments and NPs (individual number 1 or 2 or 3) but not a BRMB member; and S1, 2, 3: Staff number 1 or 2 or 3 of provincial Departments.

With regard to the future communication, 74% of informants expected to maintain or establish contact and communication with BRMB and operating office largely because of their expectation of getting more involvement in KGBR projects and funding sources. The remaining respondents (26%) and mostly from the community group did not want to establish contact and communicate because they could not foresee any benefits for them coming from the BR.

4.3.4.2. Stakeholder participation and collaboration

Stakeholder participation and collaboration was perceived as one of the two most important factors influencing BR management. Eighty-two percent of respondents noted the promising of the BR model for promoting stakeholder participation and collaboration which in turn enhances BRMB coordination and addresses fragmentation and overlap of effort/activities often arising from conventional governance processes of planning and management. Evidence of sectoral cooperation in BR planning was typically perceived by the respondent from the government-employed group:

“Departments, NP and PA agencies start sending draft management and investment plans to obtain advice from BRMB prior to finalising and submitting for approval from PPC and Ministries” (Respondent KGS #7).

However, most informants (83%) voiced concern about the current weak sectoral participation. Because government departments and agencies are not obliged by law to manage or direct their activities in accordance with the BR concept it takes time for the BR approach to become operational within the sector and supplant the traditional conventional planning and management activities even though the KGBR has been in existence since 2006. This is illustrated in the following response:

“ The new approach [biosphere reserve] necessarily takes time to understand and then be adopted into the general legal management practices. It is at an early stage of information sharing and exchange as requested by the PPC vice chairman” (Respondent KGS #29).

While it was realised there is a need to engage local people in BR planning and management, many informants voiced their concern about the limitations for a meaningful community participation process imposed by the lack of understanding of the BR concept. The top-down, conventional approach to operations by state agencies does not encourage local peoples involvement in BR operation and implementation.

“We do not see any differences between NP and BR management. Both are still planned and operated by the government authorities and agencies” (Respondent KGL #29).

4.3.4.3. Governance

Informants from local communities perceived Governance was of the least importance for BR management. This is because they have not yet been involved in the governance or management structure of the BR in Kien Giang. In contrast, respondents from the government group considered having strong governance as the second most important factor promoting success. However, current and recent BRMB representatives are the PPC vice chairman and participating department and agency managers, it is a part-time and unpaid assignment, and coupled with a lack of understanding about the BR coordination role, discourages investment of time and effort in BR activities.

“We do not have a strong and continual leadership to maintain stakeholder collaboration and facilitate BR activities like Cat Ba BR because the BRMB is only a part-time activity and constant turnover [of the chair and Board Members]. Most managers and Board members still do not know what BR coordination stands for and how to deliver it?” (Respondent KGS #6).

Additionally, the BRMB only has members drawn from the Peoples Committees at province and district levels of governance, provincial departments, NPs, PAs and FPMBs. Thus, the need to have community and industry representatives in governance was suggested by the BR manager as:

“The current BRMB only represents the province and department leaders. Thus, establishment of an Advisory Council is needed to include community, enterprise and scientific representatives in BR governance under the Seville guidelines and Provincial Management Regulation” (Respondent KGS #7).

4.3.4.4. Finance and resources

Finance and resources were perceived as the third factor influencing KGBR management. Seventy- three percent of informants voiced their concerns about low staff capacity and experience, and limited funding for BR implementation. The main responsibility to allocate funding for BR operation rests with the PPC (through Department of Finance) but due to the provincial budget limitation, there is no financial contribution to BR activities from these stakeholders. As the result, the BR appears to exist largely in title only because of the limited resources for implementation.

“Much attention is paid to the international title and its showcasing rather than giving real resources to manage and use the BR effectively” (Respondent KGS #12).

4.3.4.5. Management and implementation

Sixty-three percent of the informants voiced their concerns about the limitations of, and irregularities associated with BR Management and Implementation. Lack of strategic management

69 plan and delivery mechanisms were the key hindrances to the promotion and implementation of the potential associated with the BR concept. Especially, public awareness campaign, law enforcement (in the core zone) and alternative income options for those who are living around the PAs and dependent on the core zone’s natural resources, were the most significant concerns of informants, but there was no evidence to show that these activities are taken into account by the current BR management.

“Very few activities in awareness improvement, especially promotion and use of BR brand for tangible outcomes that demonstrate its advantages compared to the traditional NP management, have been organised by the BRMB” (Respondent KGS #41)

4.3.4.6. Economic development

In contrast to government-employed respondents, local people perceived Economic development to be the third important factor influencing management effectiveness of the KGBR. Seventy-seven percent of respondents from the community group voiced their concern about the limited contribution of the BR model to improvements of livelihoods and alternative incomes. As a result, it is difficult to persuade them engage in the BR management for protection of natural resources and biodiversity.

“The Vietnamese proverb says ‘the hungry belly has no ears’. Many poor people rely on traditional resource exploitation i.e. fishing, timber and fuel wood harvesting for their daily life. Recently, we do not get any additional benefits and incomes from having a BR” (Respondent KGL #13).

4.3.5. Perception of external project support for biosphere reserve management

Ninety-eight percent of informants who had experience with the GIZ/DFAT project and activities perceived its positive contribution to operation and management of the KGBR. Environmental awareness and capacity building (i.e. short trainings, workshops and study tours) for provincial managers and staff, and local people were perceived to be the two most significant project contributions. The improvement of BR knowledge and management skills supported staff and local people in developing a strategic plan for integrating conservation, restoration of coastal forest and livelihood improvement. Additionally, promoting stakeholder participation and cooperation in planning and delivering of BR activities, establishing the demonstration models for local learning and providing updated information for planning and decision making processes were thought to be other significant contributions of the GIZ/DFAT project (Figure 4.5).

Planning & decision making

Demonstration model

Participation and collaboration

Conservation

Livelihood improvement

Capactity building

Awareness raising

0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage (%) of informants who mentioned the role of project to operation and management of the KGBR

Figure 4. 5. Percentage of informants who mentioned the contributions of the GIZ/DFAT project to biosphere reserve management in Kien Giang (N=88).

Examples of the project contribution to BR operation as perceived by government staff were:

“A wide range of activities such as awareness raising, capacity building and demonstration models using participatory approach were undertaken by the project. New partnerships and connections have been established between province and research institutes, universities and donors with project assistance. Evidence and information from project surveys on biodiversity, forest and related management issues is useful for planning and decision-making” (Respondent KGS #29)

And an informant perception from local community group:

“Projects built fences [wave breaking Melaleuca fences] and planted mangroves to protect new dyke, land and properties from sea water flooding. They also provided a small fund and technical training to support women undertaking fish farming and planting of a new variety of coconut” (Respondent KGL #23).

However, 83% of informants perceived little impact of the project on the long-term sustainability of the KGBR. Among of the reasons given were the small scale of activities supported (79%), short- term intervention of the on-ground activities (77%), project control of the funding and activities (64%) (the local partners and communities often think that they are in a weak position or powerless in final decision making of the project activities and spending of project funds), were perceived to be the most important project limitations (Figure 4.6).

Weak M&E

Unsustainable economic option

Only demonstration

Driven by projects

Short-term intervention

Small funding

0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage (%) of informants who mentioned limitations of project interventions to KGBR sustainability

Figure 4. 6. Percentage of informant opinions about the limitations that affect projects contributions to the sustainability of the KGBR (N=88)

Perception of the government-employed informants who are BR managers about the project support to sustainability of the KGBR is illustrated in the following comment.

“Support for on-ground activities is often via small, short time demonstrations with ambitious targets and this kind of small-scale and quantitative-focussed activity is unconvincing for learning and scaling up. Specific support for developing and implementing KGBR Action Plan began in 2014, but it was cut-off due to the change in project structure and focus by the end of that year” (Respondent KGS #12).

Perception of the local people about the project long-term impact is illustrated by the following quote:

“The integrated mangrove restoration and livelihood models demonstrate an appropriate intervention but we are not sure of the sustainability of these small scale works. Without continuous investment in expanding the narrowing mangrove fringe (because of sea inundation), over 25 local families here and their livelihoods are likely again to be at risk from sea water” (Respondent KGL #13).

4.3.6. Future operation of the KGBR and enhancement of management processes

Ninety-eight percent of informants were concerned about the sustainability of the KGBR in the situation where project support declines or disappears. Insecure funding and resources to continue on-ground activities and secure achievements, weak support and engagement of the provincial leaders, low BR management and communication skills, weak participation and cooperation from involved departments and sectors, and frequent change of the governance leadership were the five

72 major challenges to the future operation of the KGBR (Figure 4.7). Weak legal status was perceived to be the least significant challenge, but it was still a concern of some informants.

“Lack of national legal recognition means that BR will continue to be a secondary issue in the political and funding agenda at both national and provincial level” (Respondent KGS #20).

Lack of legal status

Weak community engagement

Economic development pressure

Insubstantial BR leadership

Weak inter-sector collaboration

Low management & communication skill

Weak provincial leader engagement

Lack of funding & resources

0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage (%) of informant's perception about the challenges to future operation of the KGBR

Figure 4. 7. Percentage of informant opinion about challenges to sustainable operation of the KGBR in the absence of project support.

Regarding solutions for BR operation and sustainability, informants suggested that improvement of public awareness and understanding of the BR approach; improvement of leadership; management plan approval from the PPC and subsequent implementation, improvement in stakeholder participation and engagement, particularly from local communities and non-government actors; capacity building to improve working experience and skills for managers, staff and local communities were key requirements (Figure 4.8).

“The periodical review report will be soon prepared and submitted to UNESCO which means that the BR model is expected to be maintained but its performance and contributions will greatly depend on the level of public awareness and provincial leader commitment allowing for a strong BR leadership and accountability for implementing a participatory and strategic BR plan under the umbrella of the provincial socio-economic development plan” (Respondent KGS #12).

Improved BR legal status

Secure finance & resources

Improved biosphere governance

Capacity building

Management Plan

Improved participation & collaboration

Improved BR leadership

Improved awareness & communication

0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage of informant's perception about the solution to improve operation and management effectiveness of the KGBR

Figure 4. 8. Informant perceptions about the ways to improve operation and sustainability of the KGBR as a percentage of survey respondents.

4.4. Discussion

The BR approach which addresses biodiversity conservation coupled with sustainable development and the logistical support needed, is a challenge to implement (Coetzer et al., 2014; Popelier and Vaessen, 2014). Lack of awareness in the community of the BR concept leads to the local misperception about the difference between the main aims of the conventional PA management and the BR model. This has two consequences, firstly, similar to findings from many other studies (e.g., Fraga, 2006; Wallner et al., 2007; Bosak, 2008; Kusova et al., 2008; Elbakidze et al., 2013), we found that lack of understanding of the BR model leads to the fears of local stakeholders that the BR will limit exploitation and use of forest, land and natural resources for socio-economic development in the province. Secondly, confusion about how a BR should work on the ground (UNESCO, 2010; Reed and Egunyu, 2013) leads to lost opportunities to exploit the potential advantages of the BR to promote conservation and local economic development, while BR management is concerned about the deregistering of the BR title by UNESCO if their international criteria and instructions are not met. Consequently, attention was paid to compliance and its apparent functioning, but little investment and management effort was made towards making the model work effectively.

Successful implementation of the BR approach needs strong a strong public-private partnership and engagement from government and non-government stakeholders (UNESCO 1996a, 2010; Ishwaran et al., 2008; Stoll-Kleemann and Welp, 2008; Stoll-Kleemann et al., 2010; Cuong et al., 2017b). Management experience of the WNBR showed that multi-sectoral participation and collaboration

74 only works sustainably under the BR framework with a strong voluntary stakeholder dedication. In contrast, our findings in Kien Giang showed that the participation and collaboration process mainly occurred under the direction of the PPC vice chairman rather than through stakeholder voluntary and willing participation. This raises a critical question about long-term sustainability of the working partnership between BR management and stakeholders as it depends on a stable and committed BRMB which in turn depends on a strong sectoral involvement. In practice, there is currently a rapid Management Board turnover. Additionally, the BR concept is a broad-based community-wide planning instrument. Thus, strong local community buy-in and engagement is necessary for successful implementation of the BR program (e.g., Stoll-Kleemann, 2005; Stoll- Kleemann and Welp, 2008; Stoll-Kleemann et al., 2010; Brenner and Job, 2011; Schultz et al., 2011; Coetzer et al., 2014). This will need a strong commitment by the state level management agencies for decentralisation and empowerment of local communities coupled with adequate support to ensure that the BR is managed according to the original designation rhetoric. Our case study indicated that when the top-down, conventional state control approach is applied to BR management, the local people do not have a strong sense of “their ownership” of the BR and this leads to the community not caring what happens to, and in, the BR similar to the Australian BRs (Matysek et al., 2006).

A distinct feature of the BR management approach is that it is about coordination and facilitation and that its activities do not overlap with or repeat a state management process (Biores, 2001). To support BR operation at the landscape level, however, it still needs a governance structure mandated by the province that can influence the policies and integrate stakeholder’s interests into activity agendas (Ishwaran, 2010). Thus, establishment of the BRMB that is chaired by the PPC vice chairman with representatives of the provincial departments and agencies is required for strong and enduring leadership which then enables the building of the partnership with the community and local stakeholders such that they then become involved in the BR activity (e.g., as in examples from Canada (Edge and McAllister, 2009; George and Reed, 2016). However, our case study showed that the rapid changes of the top and key managers18 militated against the kind of governance structure that provides continuing coordination and facilitation services. Rapid change of personnel in the BRMB would not be so disruptive if the sectors represented on the Board were committed to the principle of cooperation between and within sectors in matters relating to the BR function.

Limited funding and resources for BR implementation is a general problem throughout the WNBR (Brown, 2002; UNESCO, 2010; Popelier and Vaessen, 2014) and this is the case in Kien Giang.

18 Within 4 years from 2010-2014, the BRMB experienced four changes of its chair and Board members. 75

This limited the execution of “on-ground” activities needed to create tangible outcomes for both conservation and generation of sustainable livelihoods that differentiate the BR from conventional PA management and thereby provide more legitimacy and engagement within the community. Because of the lack of financial support to engage qualified staff with appropriate local expertise and experience, at the operational and site management level (Schliep and Stoll-Kleemann, 2010), there are less opportunities for capacity building of BR staff and community organisations. This limitation of staff long-term career development prospects discourages people from seeking the additional external funding and project activity needed from industry, private sector, universities and research institutes. Additionally, lack of funding support does not allow local people to implement livelihood programs and alternative options that encourage using natural resources in a sustainable way.

Sustainable development with tangible livelihood benefits for the local people is a core function that distinguishes BR from PA management (UNESCO, 1996a; Stoll-Kleemann, 2005; Cuong et al., 2017b). However, successful implementation of the BR objectives of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development for the local communities has proven a key challenge (UNESCO, 2010; Coetzer et al., 2014; Reed, 2016). On the one hand, there is on-the-ground evidence that overriding economic development projects ignore the precautionary principle with respect to environmental integrity and services (e.g., road and infrastructure, large scale aquaculture and rice production, and cement production that are destroying sensitive and high value environmental areas19(Cuong and Dart, 2011; Carter, 2013; Godfrey, 2016). On the other hand, when management efforts largely focus on biodiversity conservation, the livelihood development opportunities and rights of the rural and indigenous people who lost their access and traditional incomes from establishment of the PAs are often ignored (Lu et al., 2006; UNESCO, 2010; Reed, 2016). Thus, eco-tourism and promotion of the BR branding for the local products20 using environmentally friendly production techniques must be a priority solution to preserve the natural environment, promote sustainable development and provide alternative sources of incomes for the local communities (UNESCO, 2016a; Cuong et al., 2017b).

There is substantial evidence for positive contributions by projects to BR operation and management (Cuong and Dart, 2011; Brown, 2012; Cuong and Brown, 2013; Cuong et al., 2015),

19e.g., mountainous and coastal forest ecosystems in Phu Quoc NP, inland wetlands (plain of reeds in Ha Tien area and coastal mangrove forest), lagoon (Dong Ho), Limestone out crops (Kien Luong) 20BRMB has developed a list of 16 potential products to be supported by BR brand certification and labelling e.g., Phu Quoc pepper, Phu Quoc fish sauce, U Minh honey, and Sac Ran dried fish. 76 but it appeared that project activities were perceived to have only a temporary impact on operation of the BR because of their small scale and short time intervention (Schliep and Stoll-Kleemann, 2010; Cuong et al., 2017a). There was a misperception of the role of the project models by the community who expected them to be maintained by external funding into the future. Conversely there was an expectation by the funders that, if successful, the models would then be taken up by other agents or members of the community per se. This illustrates the difficulty in transitioning from small scale livelihood development models to acceptance and uptake within the wider community of the benefits of adopting the model’s process. Additionally, the model projects did not put enough effort into developing community understanding of the reasoning and intention behind the model and engagement and this limited subsequent “buy in” by the community; a very common problem with development projects. This consequently led to the lack of interest and active involvement in project activity implementation from local stakeholders resulting in a cessation of the activities beyond the project completion as also observed in Cat Ba and Cat Tien BRs (Brooks, 2010; Brook et al., 2014). Thus, such projects in support of the BR should take into account the length of the intervention needed to develop the understanding by the local stakeholders of the project aims, while also leaving enough time to build a strategy that adaptively evolves in accord with local circumstances and develops its own dynamic and activity continuity.

4.5. Conclusions

The chapter examines how the BR concept and approach was interpreted and used in planning and management in Kien Giang and it reveals a mismatch between the project in Kien Giang and the BR concept and international criteria for implementation. Lack of awareness and communication at the different levels of governance, particularly within local communities was considered the most hindering factor to successful operation of the BR model. In addition, the frequent changes in the BRMB leadership meant that the process of implementing decisions and follow through to genuine grass roots mobilisation was often neglected being the last component in the chain of activities arising from a BRMB decision, and this hindered broad stakeholder participation. As well, collaboration between sectors in implementing action processes was not well enough promoted. Current application of a strong state-control and sectoral approach in planning and management weakened BR governance and limited BR funding and resource opportunities for effective BR activity delivery. Thus, developing and implementing an awareness and communication strategy is critical to improving public awareness and support for a BR approach (UNESCO, 2010, 2016a). This would encourage greater stakeholder engagement in collective decision-making and help to shift entrenched political ideals/memes that resist opening up to include the BR approach in

77 planning, resource allocation and delivery of a BR shared plan and vision (Cuong et al., 2017a). In addition, development of business strategy plans to diversify BR operational income - such as from payment for environmental services, revenue from using BR branding, park entrance fees, and non- traditional sources (e.g., enterprises, projects, universities and research institutes) is essential to address BR finance limitations (UNESCO, 2016a).

CHAPTER 5: MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION FOR KIEN GIANG BIOSPHERE RESERVE

This chapter was published under the journal article: Cuong, C.V., Dart, P., Hockings, M., 2017. Using Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit for assessing management effectiveness of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve. The International Journal of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves 1, 56-76.

Local fishing near the coastal protection mangrove forest in Kien Giang

Photo credit: Van Cuong Chu

Abstract

Biosphere Reserves operating under the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Program aim to achieve the three mandate management objectives of conservation and sustainable socio-economic development and logistic support. The apparent mismatch between the biosphere reserve concept and the realities of implementation has led to the call for assessment of management effectiveness as part of a system to support management of sites under the Statutory Framework for the Biosphere Reserves Network since its promulgation in 1995. We used the Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit (EoH) developed by IUCN and UNESCO to evaluate the management effectiveness of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve (KGBR). Lack of broad understanding of the conceptual model leads to a biosphere reserve that is really an artificially constructed model with little buy-in from agencies of government and limited efforts to pursue adequate planning and implementation. The management system established in Kien Giang lacks operational funding and its staff lack adequate knowledge of the biosphere reserve model, but exhibit strong sectoral commitments that cut across the biosphere reserve approach. As consequence, most of the important values found in the KGBR are ineffectively protected and managed. The case study in Kien Giang suggests that EoH effectiveness evaluation tool can be used to capture management outcomes of sites and could assist stakeholders in implementing adaptive planning and improving BR management effectiveness.

5.1. Introduction

The biosphere reserve (BR) initiative formalised under the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB) from the 1970s aims to provide mechanism for balancing the needs for nature conservation and human development (UNESCO, 1996a; Ishwaran et al., 2008; Ishwaran, 2012). With introduction of the Seville Strategy in 1995, the BR concept has evolved from a primarily conservation and research focus to pay greater attention to sustainable development for the local communities (UNESCO, 1996a). Especially, since the adoption of the Seville Statutory Framework (UNESCO, 1996b), only proposed sites which comply with the requirement for clearly defined core, buffer and transition zones with a focus on fulfilling three core functions (conservation, sustainable development and logistic support) have been designated as BRs. The recent Lima Action Plan sets up strategic directions and actions for continuing implementation of the Seville Strategy and Statutory Framework for the world network of biosphere reserves (WBNR) to 2025 (UNESCO, 2016a). There are currently 669 sites in the global network indicating that BRs are regarded as important potential models for conservation and sustainable development (Ishwaran et al., 2008; Reed, 2016; UNESCO, 2016b). However, the recent studies (e.g., UNESCO, 2010; Ishwaran, 2012; Coetzer et al., 2014; Popelier and Vaessen, 2014; Reed, 2016; Cuong et al., 2017b) revealed a significant concern relating to an apparent mismatch between the BR concept and practical implementation. Thus, evaluation is recognised as a crucial process to assess management progress and improve BR success and effectiveness (Stoll-Kleemann, 2005, 2010; UNESCO, 2010; Coetzer et al., 2014; Matar and Anthony, 2017).

Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management provide a vital tool for assessing how well sites were being managed and for providing an informed base for adaptive management (Hockings, 2003; Cook et al., 2014). Protected Area Management Effectiveness evaluation (PAME) began to be applied to the protected area (PA) system in the mid to late 1990s (Hockings et al., 2000; Hockings, 2003) and it has now become the important tool to monitor management systems, and provide for adaptive management and assessment of conservation outcomes (see e.g., Cook et al., 2014; Coad et al., 2015). Because the BR concept originally evolved from the PA approach (every BR must have one or more PAs as the core area in designation) (Ishwaran, 2010), it is necessary to undertake progress assessment to ensure that all designated sites under the WNBR are being managed in compliance with the concept model and international criteria for BRs (Price, 2002; Price et al., 2010; Reed and Egunyu, 2013). Thus, the Statutory Framework for the WNBR approved by UNESCO conference in 1995 (UNESCO, 1996b), calls for assessment of management effectiveness as part of a system to enhance management of sites within the world network through

81 a system of periodic reporting. The primary aim of such periodic reviews is to assess achievements of site management relating to the three core functions of BRs and explore learning opportunities at both national and international scales (Price, 2002; Price et al., 2010). Evaluation can also provide information from site management that can inform planning and decision-making processes and generate lessons learnt at national and global levels (Bertzky and Stoll-Kleemann, 2009; Price et al., 2010; UNESCO, 2010; Reed and Egunyu, 2013). However, these periodic reports have mainly focussed on assessment of the zonal compliance and designation of sites under the article 4 of the Seville criteria with little attention paid to evaluating the practical performance and management effectiveness of sites (Price, 2002; Lotze-Campen et al., 2008; Price et al., 2010; UNESCO, 2010; Matar and Anthony, 2017).

In this article, we used the Enhancing our Heritage (EoH) Toolkit developed by IUCN and UNESCO for assessing management effectiveness of natural World Heritage Sites (Hockings et al., 2008) to (1) evaluate the performance and management effectiveness of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve, (2) test PAME methods in BRs and examining how systemic BRs issues identified in the literature play out at the site level, and (3) develop recommendations based on this management evaluation on ways to improve BR performance and effectiveness.

5.2. Research methods

5.2.1. Study area

The study site was Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve (KGBR) located in the Mekong Delta (see detailed information of the KGBR in Chapter 4.1). The BR’s coordinations are 90 24’00.75” and 10031’45.54” North latitudes, and 1030 44’23.64” and 1050 19’48.28” East longitudes. KGBR was created in 2006 and is under the direct management of the Kien Giang Province People’s Committee (PPC). Designation of the BR was based on the expansion of three existing core areas (U Minh Thuong NP, Phu Quoc NP and Phu Quoc marine protected area [MPA], and Hon Chong- Kien Luong PA) and their mandated buffer zones to the wider landscape, which encompasses over 200 km of provincial coastline of both the mainland and nearby islands. The total area of the KGBR is 1,118,105 ha and includes 3 zones: core area (36,935 ha), buffer zone (172,578 ha) and transition area (978,592 ha).

5.2.2. Management effective evaluation

The Framework for evaluating management effectiveness used in this study originally developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Commission on Protected Areas includes six key elements for evaluation of the complete management cycle: context, planning,

82 inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes (Hockings et al., 2004). Ninety-five PAME methodologies have been developed and applied in evaluation for both global PA systems and over 18,000 individual sites (Coad et al., 2015). One of the most detailed evaluation methods, UNESCO’s Enhancing our Heritage (EoH) Toolkit, was designed for assessing effectiveness at the site level (Hockings et al., 2008; Hockings et al., 2009). EoH was developed by UNESCO and IUCN in 2001 and piloted in nine natural World Heritage sites in Africa, South Asia and Latin America (Hockings et al., 2008) and has subsequently been applied in a number of other natural World Heritage sites around the world (Coad et al., 2015). The EoH Toolkit consists of eleven assessment tools that uses quantitative and qualitative data to understand key site values and threats as well as develop a rich understanding of management strengths and weaknesses. It was designed to directly aid site managers improve their management strategies and practices (Hockings et al., 2008; Hockings et al., 2009; Stoll-Kleemann, 2010).

5.2.3. Data collection and analysis

EoH guidelines and worksheets were downloaded online from the website: http://whc.unesco.org/en/eoh and translated into Vietnamese prior to the field visit in Kien Giang. The information used for management effectiveness evaluation of the KGBR was compiled from document analysis, meetings with five key members of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve Management Board (BRMB) and a final participatory workshop with managers and stakeholders.

The management effectiveness evaluation process started with initial meetings between the principal researcher and key members of the BRMB in January 2014. EoH toolkits were briefly introduced and handed over to BRMB managers and members during the meetings. At this stage, all publications, official reports, and data from research and monitoring studies relating to KGBR were collected. The management effectiveness evaluation and EoH toolkits were officially presented at the KGBR workshop in February 2014. The summary of EoH and evaluation tools was also included in the monitoring and evaluation section of the Action Plan for KGBR (Cuong et al., 2014).

The reports and documents collected in Kien Giang were reviewed by the principal researcher and KGBR Operating Office staff and relevant evidence was transferred to the worksheets. A provisional assessment based on this evidence was then developed by this group. In April 2016, the principal researcher organised five meetings with the key people from BRMB including standing vice director, chief of the office of the BRMB, vice directors of U Minh Thuong NP and Phu Quoc MPA and director of Hon-Dat Kien Ha Forest Protection Management Board (FPMB). Each

83 meeting lasted approximately three hours where the preliminary assessment was discussed and additional evidence was added to the worksheets in advance of the final evaluation workshop.

Twenty people participated in a one-day participatory workshop in Rach Gia, the provincial capital city. The list of participants was developed based on the consultation with BRMB and Operating Office. They consisted of (1) representatives (leader and staff) from BRMB, BR operating office, provincial departments and agencies i.e. NPs, PAs and FPMBs, (2) representatives of enterprises, social organisations, and local communities who had good knowledge and experience relating to the management of the KGBR (determined through observation and previous in-depth interviews conducted as part of this research), (3) who had been involved in the management effectiveness evaluation training workshop that was held in February 2014 as part of developing the action plan for the KGBR. Participants used the initial worksheets and information to discuss, change or validate and add additional information to complete the evaluation facilitated by the principal researcher. Information collected from the meetings, field observation and the participatory workshop was synthesised and analysed using the six elements of the management cycle as outlined in the IUCN-WCPA framework.

5.3. Results

Six elements of the IUCN-WCPA framework are summarised in the Table 5.1. The study revealed a low overall performance and management effectiveness in KGBR. Although the BR values, threats and management objectives were identified and agreed by stakeholders, the practical planning and management of the KGBR was hindered by the lack of legal status, low priority in the provincial management framework and lack of stakeholder engagement with the BR approach. The designation of the site theoretically followed the landscape approach, but exhibited weak integration and connectivity between the zones due to the predominance of sectoral planning and management being confined to provincial administrative boundaries and not the BR boundaries. There was inadequate efforts and commitment to complete the BR planning process. As a consequence no official work plan exists which, coupled with inadequate staff capacity and operational resources, limited management effectiveness. This, in turn, limited the achievement of desired outcomes and reduced overall management effectiveness.

Table 5. 1. Summary of management effectiveness assessment results

IUCN- EoH tools Key issues Data sources Required follow up actions WCPA element Tool 1: Biosphere • Incomplete biological and social Kien Giang PPC, 2005; • Set up a system to compile and update reserve values survey Dang, 2009; Cuong and information • None-existence of the systematic Dart, 2011; Carter, 2013; • Set up a mechanism for information information at the BR level Hai, 2013 sharing and exchange across the BR • Most existing information is not up to stakeholders date • Conduct new studies to collect • Information is not shared between the information gaps institutions, departments and agencies • Revise and update the management objectives Tool 2: Threats to • KGBR is facing 11 key threat deriving Kien Giang DONRE, 2008; • Set up clear indicators to monitor the the BR from human activities and climate Dang, 2009; ADB, 2011; change of threats and conditions change Long et al., 2011; Carter, 2013; Cuong et al., 2014; Mateo and Garforth, 2014 Tool 3: Stakeholder • Lack of understanding and Cuong and Dart, 2011; • Improve stakeholder awareness and relationship and engagement of the BR approach from Cuong et al., 2014 understanding about the role and benefit engagement provincial stakeholders, communities from having a BR and industry • Engage local people and industry in BR planning and management Tool 4: National • BR has weak legal position at the Cuong et al., 2017a; • Improve legal position and creditability and provincial national framework Evaluation workshop of the BR through integration into the 85

IUCN- EoH tools Key issues Data sources Required follow up actions WCPA element management • There was a weak integration of the provincial socio-economic and sectoral context BR approach into the provincial social planning processes and management economic plan and sectoral plans plans. Tool 5: • Incomplete planning process UNESCO Hanoi, 2013; • Revise BR Action Plan and obtain PPC Management • Low priority of the BR planning and Evaluation workshop approval planning management • Develop annual plan and funding based on the approved Action Plan Tool 6: BR • Small core areas Carter, 2013; Evaluation • Improve stakeholder participation and designation and • Low integration and connectivity workshop collaboration in BR planning and planning among 3 zones due to predominance decision-making. of sectoral planning and administrative • Improve provincial planners and boundary management managers knowledge of ecosystem approach and encourage them to apply in practical management Tool 7: • Very limited contribution (time and Annual reports (Kien Giang • Improve management skill and ability for Inputs Management need effort) from BRMB BRMB, 2012, 2013, 2014, the BRMB and office staff and input • Lack of staff capacity 2015, 2016) • PPC allocate operational funding or • No BR operational fund BRMB find alternative funding sources • Involved sectors to assign staff to work with BR office Tool 8: • Inadequate capacity to manage the Annual reports (Kien Giang • Develop and implement BR annual work Process Management system and reporting processes BRMB, 2012, 2013, 2014, plan

IUCN- EoH tools Key issues Data sources Required follow up actions WCPA element process 2015, 2016); Evaluation • Set up a monitoring and evaluation workshop system • Improve reporting system and use it in adaptive planning and management decision making • Improve staff capacity • Improve communication and partnership with stakeholders, communities and industry Tool 9: Assessment • Low management task completion of management • Ineffective managing and conserving output BR values Tool 10: Work/site • No standard indicators set up to output indicators measure management outputs

Tool 11: Assessing • No monitoring and evaluation tool for Dang, 2009; Long et al., • Increase investment in ecosystem Outcomes the outcomes of assessing the management outcomes 2011; Johnstone, 2013; Van research and restoration management • Most of the key ecosystems are in and Lam, 2013 • Set up new PAs to increase level of deteriorating or degraded condition. protection • Implement monitoring and evaluation program at the NP, PA and BR level

5.3.1. Context 5.3.1.1. Biosphere reserve values

KGBR key values are a rich and significant biodiversity, many historical heritage sites and cultural values and events (Kien Giang PPC, 2005; Dang, 2009; Carter, 2013; Vietnam Sustainable Tourism Institute, 2013). However, most of the information relating to biological values, socio-economic conditions, and human population in the KGBR has not been systematically updated since 2005 when the KGBR was designated. Some more recent information exists, but it is often kept by different departments and agencies and used only internally by these organisations. The biological information of the BR is mainly available at site level for the terrestrial NPs and PAs where research works have been focussed. Recent efforts to compile biodiversity information at the BR level were only for vascular plants, terrestrial vertebrates (mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians), coral reefs and sea grass. There are some data on threatened species but with very little detail on their population sizes and ecological processes leading to the threatened status due to the lack of a monitoring and evaluation program (detail in Appendix 5.1).

5.3.1.2. Threats

The study identified 11 key threats affecting to KGBR management objectives (Table 5.2). Ten out of eleven threats were identified at site level of NPs and PAs while eight threats were found in the buffer zone and transition area. Most identified threats in KGBR come from economic and development activities. Habitat loss and degradation due to economic and infrastructure development, forest fire, and climate change are the three most significant threats to the biological values of the KGBR. Although illegal hunting and wildlife trading was a low threat, it is occurring across the BR (detail in Appendix 5.2). Many species including endangered species such as dugongs, sea turtles, sea horses, pangolin and reptiles are subject to illegal hunting and trading (e.g., Stuart, 2004; Giles et al., 2005; Hamman et al., 2006; Hines et al., 2008; Dang, 2009; Nuwer and Bell, 2014).

Table 5. 2. Key threats to KGBR

Existing Core areas PAs in planning Buffer zone Rating U Minh Phu Phu Kien Phu Lime- Dong and level of Threats Thuong Quoc Quoc Luong My stone Ho transition threat* NP NP MPA PA grass- out lagoon area land crops Habitat loss and x x x x x x x x High degradation Forest fire x x x x High Climate change x x x x x x x High Limestone quarrying x Medium Coastal erosion x Medium Inappropriate and x x x Medium over fishing Pollution x x x x Medium Heritage degradation x x x x Low Illegal poaching and x x x x x x Low wildlife trading Illegal land x x x Low encroachment Invasive species x x x Low * Low: 10 % or less of the value is threatened; Medium: 11-25 of the value is threatened; High: 26- 75 % of the value is threatened; Very high: 76-100 % of the value is threatened.

5.3.1.3. Stakeholders and their engagement

Nine key groups of stakeholders directly involved in planning and management of the KGBR were identified (Table 5.3). Using a rating system with 4 levels (very good, good, fair and poor), the stakeholder engagement in planning and management of the KGBR was generally fairly weak (detail in Appendix 5.3).

Table 5. 3. Stakeholder engagement in KGBR

Stakeholder engagement in biosphere reserve values Overall Stakeholders Biodiversity Heritage and Economic Environmental rating* and natural cultural and education and values values development research

Province People’s Fair Fair Good Fair Fair Committee District and Commune Fair Fair Good Poor Fair People’s Committees Kien Giang BRMB Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Provincial departments Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair NPs, PAs and FPMB Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Enterprises Poor Fair Fair Poor Poor Local People Poor Poor Fair Poor Poor Socio-political Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor organisations Projects, NGOs Good Fair Fair Good Fair Education and research Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair institutes * Poor: 25 % or less of the aspects of the relationship are positive; Fair: 26-50 % of the aspects of the relationship are positive; Good: 51-74 % of the aspects of the relationship are positive; Very good: More than 75 % of the aspects of the relationship are positive.

Five of the provincial stakeholders directly involved in BR management were rated only fair for their engagement. Although the Provincial Management Regulation for KGBR (Kien Giang PPC, 2014) requests all relevant stakeholders collaborate with BRMB (detailed description of the Kien Giang BRMB was presented in Chapter 4.3.2 and Appendix 4.6) to coordinate and facilitate BR activities through integrating sectoral plans and activities in the BR planning, the study revealed inadequate commitment of stakeholder to follow through in practice. The level of stakeholder cooperation in BR management varies depending on their understanding of the role of the BR approach and the engagement of the PPC vice chairman who is the chair of the Management Board (personal observation since 2009).

Local people and socio-political organisations21, and business enterprises were identified as the key natural resource users but their engagement in BR planning and management was poor. The large population (c. 735,000 people) and local enterprises living in the buffer zone and transition area directly exploit and use natural resources (land, water, forest and marine area) and ecosystem services in production and generating incomes activities. Although they are considered to be key audiences needed for threat management and maintenance of the KGBR values, the dominant practice of the top-down and state control approach devalues their role in BR planning and management.

External projects and NGOs provide technical and finance support to the provincial authorities and local communities in awareness raising, capacity building, biodiversity conservation and livelihood development. Except for the Conservation and Development of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve project (GIZ/DFAT project) that provided large scale technical support (Cuong and Dart, 2011; Brown, 2012), other development projects tended to focus on a limited area with specific intervention and thematic targets. There was no long-term engagement of these projects in BR planning and management.

Universities and research institutes undertake their research and studies using different funding sources in the NPs, PAs and BR. Information and scientific evidence from studies assist in planning and decision-making that improves natural resource management. However, the current communication and contact relating to research and scientific studies is often made between researchers and their organisations with the NP, PAs or departments rather than with BRMB or BR office. Except for the studies using funding from the province, not many researchers/ institutes return their reports and findings after finishing their studies. There was no formal agreement or partnership established between BRMB and research institutes and universities or even core zone PAs to share reports and support BR management.

5.3.1.4. National and provincial management context

The BR approach was initiated in Vietnam in 2000 to promote biodiversity conservation, sustainable development, scientific research and environmental education. In contrast to the PA system, BRs have not yet been legally recognised in the national laws and management framework in Vietnam. In addition, there was unclear management structure for the BR system at the central

21 E.g., Women Association, Farmer Association, Youth Union, and Veteran Association.

91 level and this led to the governance structure and policy applied in BR management varying from province to province (Cuong et al., 2017a).

In Kien Giang, the BR is under the direct management of the Kien Giang PPC. The province sets up a BRMB to facilitate the BR approach through coordinating relevant sectoral activities under the umbrella of the five-year provincial socio-economic development plan (2016-2020) that established the target of 14 % economic growth rate and forest cover increase from 8.5 % in 2015 to 14 % by 2020 (Kien Giang PPC, 2015). In supporting this master socio-economic development plan, all departments and provincial agencies are implementing their sectoral and other related strategic plans in line to the central Governement of Vietnam Ministries. The study identified at least 26 official plans including socio-economic development for province and districts, land use plans and sectoral development plans that are relevant to BR operation and management (Appendix 5.4). However, all of these plans are developed and managed without any acknowledgements and linkages to the BR.

5.3.2. Designation and planning

KGBR is the second largest BR in Vietnam and its designation conforms to the Seville criteria. The BR delineates a core zone with legal management under the national laws and overlap with other international designations (e.g., Ramsar site and ASEAN Heritage Park in case of U Minh Thuong NP) and a buffer zone and transition area. Although the core areas play the main role in conserving the last remaining ecosystems, species and ecological processes, these parks are too small for ecosystem integrity and are isolated from each other in the large production area with high economic growth demands (Figure 5.1). Additionally, establishment of the buffer zone and transition area aims at creating a buffer protection area for the core zone and connecting fragmented NPs and PAs across the landscape. In fact, there was only a weak integration and connectivity among the three zones of the BR that would support application of an ecosystem approach to BR management.

Figure 5. 1. Designation map of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve

It was apparent that the planning process was incomplete even though the Action Plan for KGBR was developed in 2014. The Action Plan clearly identified values of the site, threats and a set of nine action programs (management policy, awareness and capacity building, improvement of cross- sectoral planning and collaboration, biodiversity conservation, livelihood improvement, scientific research, international cooperation, BR finance mechanism, and climate change adaption) that were mainly based on the information and lessons learnt from implementation of the GIZ/DFAT project. It also identified the need to develop and undertake a monitoring and evaluation system for whole KGBR and its core areas (Cuong et al., 2014). However, the Plan did not outline a method to quantify human resources, operational funding and specific funding sources required to deliver actions and achieve management objectives. Disapppointingly, the Plan has not yet been officially approved by PPC for implementation (Appendix 5.5).

5.3.3. Inputs

The current BR activities are coordinated by the BRMB that includes 29 members who only have a “good” educational background and skills relating to sectoral and administrative state management. The actual contribution from the Board members to BR operation and management is limited because they only work for the KGBR on a part-time and unpaid assignment.

The BR Operating Office nominally has six permanent positions, five of which are actually employed (Table 5.4), including one chief of office (Information Technology), two technicians (one Forester, one Fishery staff), one administrator (English education background), and one accountant. Most of BR office staff have limited BR management capacity and working experience, particularly in the area of communication, engagement and fundraising. These BR staff are not active and have put little effort into communicating and building partnerships with provincial departments and other stakeholders for obtaining funding and support (Kien Giang DARD manager, interviewed June 2014).

Table 5. 4. Staff and funding for KGBR

No Items Requirement Actual Human resources 1 Number of permanent staff 6 5 Annual PPC funding for BR (Million VND) 2 Management and administration 600 400 3 Biodiversity conservation 500 0 4 Livelihood development 600 0 5 Training, environmental education 200 0

There was no operational funding allocated from Kien Giang PPC for implementing BR activities even though it was repeatedly highlighted in all annual reports since 2012. Table 5.4 shows that the only two thirds of the funding requirement (600 million VND or 28,000 USD) for BR administration (staff salary, payment for electricity, water and stationary for the office, and travel allowance for BRMB members when attending BR meetings) are allocated from provincial budget. Strikingly, no PPC and sectoral funding has been allocated for operating activities to improve BR functions. PPC, provincial departments, NPs and PAs are struggling to find enough funding and resources to achieve their obligations, tasks and targets, so it may be unrealistic to ask for additional funding and staff support for BR activities (Kien Giang DARD senior planner, interviewed January 2014).

5.3.4. Management process

Twenty-nine indicators were used to evaluate management process in the KGBR (detail in Appendix 5.6). Apart from the site values, almost all criteria belonging to the four management themes (management structure and system, resource management, management and tourism, and management and communities) were rated as fair or poor. This indicates a lack of capacity to

94 manage the KGBR as an integrated system. The annual work plan criterion was rated as poor because in contrast to the core areas (U Minh Thuong and Phu Quoc NPs, and Phu Quoc MPA), KGBR is currently operating without an annual plan. Similarly, there was no evaluation and monitoring system for the BR in place, even though some monitoring activities have been separately undertaken in the NPs and PAs by projects and scientists.

5.3.4.1. Management structure and system

The BRMB is chaired by a PPC vice chairman, but the actual BR administration and coordination falls within the Department of Science and Technology whose Director cooperates with other Board members, particularly the three other vice chairs of the Board from key provincial departments and agencies22 to undertake specific BR management topics that fit within their sectoral management responsibilities. The BRMB only organises one or two meetings annually and were often integrated as part of GIZ/DFAT project’s planning workshops. The study revealed a weak management structure due to unstable leadership and weak commitment and accountability from departments and agencies. BR management is supposed to be a shared responsibility by all BRMB members and their agencies, but it actually is nobody’s business (Kien Giang DARD manager, interviewed June 2014).

The lack of a work plan, and absence of monitoring and evaluation data did not allow assessment of BR implementation. The BRMB has produced annual reports since 2012, but they only contain the minimal annual reporting requirements from the PPC and National MAB Committee, and are not useful for constructive assessment, and adaptive planning and management.

Indicators 10 to 12 (Appendix 5.6) are regarded as indicating low empowerment of staff in BR planning and management because they can only participate in discussion of some stages of the planning process but are not involved in the final decision. Staff trainings and personnel management provision were also inadequate due to the irregular BR activities, unclear staff task assignment. Lack of a regular maintenance plan and resources led to generally inadequate maintenance of equipment and basic infrastructures in the parks and BR (Figure 5.2).

22 Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in charges of forests, biodiversity conservation and livelihood improvement; Department of Culture, Sport and Tourism in charges of tourism promotion and development and BR branding, Kien Giang Union of Friendship Organisation in charges in fundraising and external cooperation. In addition to overall BR coordination, Department of Science and Technology in charges in BR administration and scientific study in the BR. 95

Figure 5. 2. Infrastructure and signboards with inadequate maintenance

5.3.4.2. Resource management

Indicators 15, 18 and 19 (Appendix 5.6) reveal an ineffective system of resource management in Kien Giang. Weak law enforcement coupled with lack of alternative livelihood options for the local people living in the buffer zone of the parks consequently led to illegal access to the protection areas for hunting, fishing and exploiting resources. The study showed little effort and investment in inventory of the marine resources and environmental values of the ecosystems. Information about the key critical habitats, ecosystems and threatened species has not been updated to support effective planning and decision-making. Requirements for management of the key habitats, ecosystems and threatened species are highlighted but there is a lack of human capacity and resources invested in conservation and restoration.

5.3.4.3. Management and tourism

Diversity of the natural landscapes, historical and cultural value, and local lifestyle associated with the canal system attracts approximately 6 million visitors23 to Kien Giang in 2015 (Kien Giang DOCST, 2016). However, the tourism potential, especially ecotourism and BR branded based products and services are under exploited due to weak tourism management and inappropriate investment strategy (see indicators 20 to 23 in Appendix 5.6 for further information). Besides the inadequate visitor facilities and services, the imbalanced investment in tourism infrastructure development in roads and associated concrete tourism facilities (hotels and resorts) poses a high risk to biodiversity and natural values in Phu Quoc and Dong Ho lagoon (Cuong and Dart, 2011; Carter, 2013; Tran, 2001, 2013). In contrast, many historical sites associated with typical local lifestyle and cultures in the mainland have not received proper investment in support of local revenue and benefit (Carter, 2013). Additionally, there were few efforts to enhance visitor experience and site values through

23 Domestic, low end tourists make up approximately 97 % of the total visitors to Kien Giang. 96 providing essential information in the visit sites and the main contact between site managers and tourism operators is about the matters of access permission to the parks and entrance fees (if any). There was a limited environmental education program to improve awareness for visitors and local people. The visitor management systems were only partially effective in controlling access to the parks in accordance with the laws and regulations.

5.3.4.4. Management and communities

Indicators 25 and 26 (Appendix 5.6) indicate that the local communities, including ethnic minority people have not yet become involved in BR planning and management decisions. Additionally, the Action Plan for KGBR highlighted the need to improve local people’s awareness, livelihood essentials and preservation of the local cultural values, but only a few activities have been designed and undertaken such as Sac Ran fish farming, blood shell culture and fish farming in the mangrove forest. The study also revealed a limited effort and motivation from BR Operating Office to improve communication and establish a strong partnership with local communities and industry.

5.3.5. Outputs

Active management of the site as a BR is limited. Although the Action Plan for KGBR proposed 40 activities for implementation in 2014 and 2015, only five per cent were completely implemented with a further 30 % in progress. Sixty per cent of the total planned activities were not started. Two activities (5 %) relating to BR international cooperation were cancelled because there was no further support from GIZ/DFAT project (Figure 5.3).

Figure 5. 3. Management progress of the KGBR in 2014 and 2015

The most significant output under the nine areas in the Action Plan was management policy where the Management Regulation for the KGBR was prepared in 2014 (Figure 5.4). There was some 97 progress in conservation and livelihood improvement but the activities under two of these programs were undertaken by provincial departments and agencies rather than the BR. There was little activity with regard to scientific research, BR finance, and international cooperation.

Management policy 4 Climate change BR finance adaptation 3 2

1 Improved Scientific research participation & collaboration

Livelihood Conservation improvement

International Awareness & cooperation Capacity building

Figure 5. 4. Management outputs of the KGBR in 2014 and 2015 (1= activities were cancelled; 2= activities are delayed; 3= activities are being implemented; 4= activities are completed) derived from a questionnaire at the evaluation workshop.

5.3.6. Management outcomes

5.3.6.1. Core area coverage The BRMB has recently cooperated with relevant departments to expand the BR core area through declaration of the last section of Phu Quoc NP24 (in the BR core zone). There has also been progress in establishing new PAs to provide legal protection of significant ecosystems and species in the KGBR such as Phu My Habitat and Species PA (one of the 4 categories of PAs in Vietnam) in 2016 that will support to protect the remaining grassland ecosystem and provide homeland for migratory threatened Sarus Cranes (Grus antigone). Additionally, planning is in progress to establish of new PAs by 2020 for the Kien Luong limestone outcrops and Dong Ho lagoon (Figure 5.5). However, due to the small and fragmented core areas25 which are surrounded by a large population with high economic

24 In 2006, only 12,037 ha (of 29,596 ha) of the Phu Quoc NP were designed as the core area of the KGBR. The recent Provincial Management Regulation for KGBR includes the last section (17,459 ha) of the Park in the BR core zone. 25 Although there is no quantitative guidance and indicator from UNESCO about the BR zonal partitioning, Lourival et al. (2011) recommended a minimum of 17 % of the BR to be nominated as the core zone to meet conservation requirements. Only 3.2 % of the BR area is designated as core area in Kien Giang. 98 development demands, the long-term integrity of these protected ecosystems, species and associated ecosystem services is threatened (Carter, 2013).

Figure 5. 5. Changes in the core and conservation area in KGBR between 2006 (a) and 2016 (b)

5.3.6.2. Biodiversity health

Lack of systematic monitoring information on biodiversity indicators prevented a detail quantitative analysis of management progress in KGBR. The available information from studies and monitoring reports, and the participatory evaluation workshop only allowed assessment of the current condition of seven key ecosystems and it revealed a fairly weak conservation picture in the KGBR (Table 5.5). Only Melaleuca (Melaleuca cajuputi) Wetland in U Minh Thuong NP was rated as good and its condition is improving as the result of the strong support from the GIZ/DFAT project and investment from central government and province in improved water management practices applied since 2009 (Cuong and Dart, 2011; Thang, 2013a, b). Without an increased investment in management and restoration, the three ecosystems of coastal mangrove forest, primary and secondary broad-leaf forest in Phu Quoc NP, and seasonally inundated grassland in Phu My PA will face potential degradation and loss (Table 5.5). The coral reef and sea grass in Phu Quoc MPA, Dong Ho lagoon and the limestone outcrops in Kien Luong are also being degraded from excess harvesting of marine life, destructive fishing, limestone quarrying, the expansion of shrimp production, land reclamation for tourism and urban development and water pollution.

100

Table 5. 5. Ecosystem health in the key management sites of the KGBR

Key management sites Size Rating* Data sources References Management and ecosystems rating intervention U Minh Thuong and Good Qualitative; Cuong and Investment in forest wetland Melaleuca Evaluation Dart, 2011; fire prevention and workshop Thang, fire fighting 2013a, b Phu Quoc NP and Good Quantitative Dang 2009; Improvement of law primary broad-leaf Evaluation Cuong and enforcement to forest with dominance workshop Dart, 2011 prevent illegal land Dipterocarp family encroachment and (Dipterocarpaceae) access to the park Phu Quoc MPA and Fair Qualitative; Long et al., Increase investment coral reef and sea grass Evaluation 2011 in site management workshop Staff capacity Improvement of law enforcement Effectively control of tourism activity Kien Luong and lime- Fair Quantitative; Van and Set up PA to stone outcrops Evaluation Lam, 2013 increase level of workshop habitat protection Phu My grassland PA Fair Quantitative; Truyen et Improve habitat Evaluation al., 2014 management workshop Dong Ho lagoon Fair Quantitative; Tran, 2011; Set up PA to Evaluation Johnstone, increase level of workshop 2013 habitat protection Coastal protection Fair Quantitative; Cuong et Investment in coastal mangrove forest Evaluation al., 2015 reforestation and workshop erosion protection

Good and condition is improved; Developing concern and condition is unchanged

Condition is deteriorating

101

5.4. Discussion

Our case study findings in Kien Giang provided an example of the challenges encountered in effectively implementing the BR model in Vietnam. The lack of basic information on site management together with a consistent monitoring and evaluation system has been identified as a common challenge for assessing performance and management effectiveness of sites within the WNBR (Bertzky and Stoll-Kleemann, 2009; UNESCO, 2010). Using the challenges to implementation identified in the Madrid Action Plan for BRs (Popelier and Vaessen, 2014), we found many similarities with the Kien Giang case (Table 5.6).

Table 5. 6. Key challenges to management of the WNBR and findings in Kien Giang

Key challenges to BR management Findings in KGBR globally* Legal framework and policy for BR Lack of legal framework and guidance in BR planning management and management. Political support at the regional level Lack of continuity in support from PPC and department leaders. Strong regional integration and Limited understanding and misconceptions of the BR landscape planning model and how it was designed to operate within governance and BR management structures, and continuing preference for sectoral planning and administrative boundary management. Multi stakeholder partnership and Weak provincial stakeholder engagement and participatory governance commitment and limited community engagement and support for BR management. Funding and staff capacity to BR operation depends on the will of a part-time and implement BR management plan unpaid Management Board. Incompetent BR staff. No allocated operational funding. Balanced conservation and socio- Strong economic focus, conflict between tourism economic development infrastructure investment and ecosystem protection. Monitoring and evaluation for No M&E system for BR in place. adaptive management

*Adapted from Popelier and Vaessen (2014)

102

Our findings reflect the common issue of scarcity and lack of data and information at site level of BRs and PAs (Bertzky and Stoll-Kleemann, 2009; Geldmann et al., 2013) and this lack hinders development of an integrated plan and strategic conservation actions in the KGBR and in similar cases such as Mexican BRs (Pino-Del-Carpio et al., 2014). Key factors causing these deficiencies have been identified as lack of human resource and capacity to collect and generate information, and unwillingness to publish and share the finding results due to scientific and administrative competitiveness and reluctance of the government departments and agencies to provide information that might show the poor performance and management and KGBR is not an exceptional case as other research has shown (Price, 2002; Bertzky and Stoll-Kleemann, 2009). The study evaluation workshop also articulated concern about loss of insightful and valuable information of the BRs if no additional effort is made to collect and manage data and information properly. This is a common problem within the WNBR (Lotze-Campen et al., 2008). To prevent this requires establishing a systematic approach to collecting and updating information together with preparation of the Seville Statutory periodic report for both capturing and sharing of information, particularly on planning and adaptive management in the future.

The MAB encourages BRs to establish a place-based governance structure and appropriate local arrangement in planning and management of sites (Francis, 2004; Edge and McAllister, 2009), but it requires support from a strong and consistent local leader and stakeholder commitment to integrate the agendas of the different sectors and interests in the regional landscape (Ishwaran, 2010). However, our findings for KGBR revealed that the BR concept is really an artificial construct by the PPC and MAB for the BR designation with little prior buy-in from agencies of government or other stakeholders and limited efforts to pursue an adequate planning and implementation process. In consequence, the BR is of limited relevance to stakeholders who continue to strongly rely on a legally-based, sectoral planning and administrative system. Consequently, in practice the planning and management of the site did not follow the ecosystem approach and principles as outlined by UNESCO (UNESCO, 1996a, 2000). Lack of clear understanding about the BR approach and the potential benefits of the model can arise from insufficient communication (UNESCO, 2010) as was the case with KGBR. Strikingly, local communities and the private sector who are the key natural resource dependant entities and who are the main source of threats have not been included sufficiently in BR planning and management. Without local community support and engagement, BR management failure is likely (Stoll- Kleemann and Welp, 2008; Reeds and Massie, 2013; Coetzer et al., 2014; Cuong et al., 2017b) and this is well demonstrated in the case of KGBR.

103

Lack of human capacity and management resources remains a challenge in BR implementation in many places (e.g., Matysek et al., 2006; Schultz et al., 2011; Popelier and Vaessen, 2014; Cuong et al., 2017a). Having key people representing the local authorities (Province and District People’s Committees), provincial departments, NPs and PAs involved in the BR governance should theoretically provide an advantage in coordinating and facilitating BR activities across sectors. However, because of a lack of will and an absence of effort from the BRMB, the management objectives of the KGBR are unlikely to be achieved as is the case with many other BRs in the global network (Schultz et al., 2011). Our case study also highlighted the need to have a secure operational fund for delivering BR functional requirements (e.g., BR awareness, ecosystem and species conservation, and sustainable livelihood projects) rather than only allocating resources for administration and office operations. When the law enforcement is not strong due to the lack of management resources, the BR values and biodiversity are unlikely to be protected from threats and pressures of illegal access and exploitation (UNESCO Hanoi, 2013; Brook et al., 2014; Cuong et al., 2017a) as was evident in Kien Giang. Additionally, sustainable economic and livelihood development using eco-tourism and BR labels for local products and services was considered as one of the most significant advantages from BR listing (UNESCO, 2008, 2010, 2016a; Cuong et al., 2017b), but this initiative was not promoted sufficiently in KGBR. Over emphasis on tourism infrastructure development in the sensitive and pristine conservation areas not only leads to destruction of ecosystems and biodiversity values but also compromises the future usage of these values and associated ecosystem services (Carter, 2013; Godfrey, 2016). Completion of the process for Provincial acceptance of the existing BR planning and management plan draft already with the PPC will provide a long-term vision and strategic solutions to improve management process and promote the BR approach for balancing conservation and sustainable provincial socio-economic development.

5.5. Conclusions This evaluation of management effectiveness using EoH Toolkit revealed an overall gap between the aims of the BR establishment and practical management capacity at the site level. We identified three main hindrances leading to ineffective management process and outcomes of the BR in Kien Giang (1) lack of legal framework and clear guidance about BR planning and management, (2) lack of stakeholder understanding of the BR approach and their engagement in planning and implementation process, and (3) lack of management capacity and resources support for meaningful BR functioning requirements.

Management effectiveness evaluation is recommended as ‘‘a positive process, which allows us to correct and learn from our mistakes and build on success” (Hockings et al., 2006). This evaluation 104 activity not only assists the provincial officials, BRMB and other local stakeholders to understand the current limitations but supports development of strategic solutions to improve BR performance and management effectiveness. While periodic review is still a key evaluation process to ensure compliance between the BR conceptual model and application reality, and enhance management effectiveness of individual BRs (UNESCO, 1996b, 2016a), this assessment approach is mainly based on qualitative and descriptive information which would not allow quantification of BR management and delivery (Matar and Anthony, 2017). Thus, quantitative (and qualitative) information and results generated from using EoH evaluation provide baseline data that can be used for future monitoring and evaluation, and adaptive BR planning and management decision.

105

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS

6.1. Introduction

Biosphere reserves (BR) established under the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) program aim to seek and test solutions for integration of nature conservation and development needs for human being at the landscape level. Yet, studies examining the rapid expansion of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) over four decades have found a mismatch between the BR conceptual model of fostering conservation and sustainable development and its practical implementation (e.g., Price, 2002; UNESCO, 2010; Coetzer et al., 2014; Popelier and Vaessen, 2014; Reed, 2016). Continual evolution of the concept indicates the potential of using BRs to serve as “laboratories” for disciplinary research and learning sites for sustainable development. The Lima Action Plan (LAP) endorsed by the UNESCO in 2016 (UNESCO, 2016a) sets up new strategic directions and actions that support the effective implementation of the Seville Strategy and Statutory framework for the WNBR aiming to develop and strengthen models for sustainable development in the WNBR while also contributing to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)26 to 2030 and other international environment agreements. In particular, the LAP establishes an important mission to “Help Member States and stakeholders to urgently meet the Sustainable Development Goals through experiences from the WNBR, in particular through exploring and testing policies, technologies and innovations for the sustainable management of biodiversity and natural resources and mitigation and adaptation to climate change”(UNESCO, 2016a, p2). SDGs which built on the success of the Millennium Development Goals have 17 goals for attainment by 2030 with the three dimensions of sustainable development (economic growth, social welfare and environmental sustainability) (United Nations, 2015).

Several of the findings in this thesis on factors which hinder or promote effective management within the WNBR and in the specific case of the BRs in Vietnam, address how well the BRs are contributing (or not) to the SDGs. Relationships between the SDGs and the LAP and examples of the way these BR management factors impact on them are provided in the Appendix 6.1.

26 Relevant SDGs to implementation of the LAP are (1) End poverty in all its forms everywhere, (2) End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture, 8) Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all, 12) Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns, 13) Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts , (14) Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development, (15) Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss, and 17) Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development (United Nations, 2015). 106

The MAB (and BRs) program is an international initiative, but country members determine implementation within their territory. The right to initiate a BR nomination is delegated from the UNESCO MAB program to the participating country (UNESCO, 1996a). The country then provides the relevant information on the proposed zonation and management scheme, which aligns to standardised criteria from the Saturatory Framework, to the MAB secretariat for consideration. These requests are strongly conditioned by the socio- economic development pressures within the initiating country, state or province that influence the extent to which there is support for BR implementation (Brown, 2002; Ishwaran et al., 2008; Coetzer et al., 2014). In particular, a lack of clear guidance and support from UNESCO MAB, beyond recognition of the sites as BRs, can contribute to gaps in effective on-ground implementation (Brown, 2002).

In this final chapter I summarise the key findings from this research. Section 6.2 presents the main answers to the three research questions relating to performance and management effectiveness of the global network of BRs, Vietnam’s network and Kien Giang as a specific case study site. Recommendations to improve operation and management effectiveness of the BR model based on the LAP are given in Section 6.3. Key knowledge contributions and limitations from this research project are discussed in the Sections 6.4 and 6.5. Finally, implications for future research are presented in Section 6.6

6.2. Discussion of the research findings

The key intention of this research was to develop an understanding of factors promoting and hindering performance and management effectiveness of the BR model, with a central focus to explore the gaps between BR concepts and their practical implementation. The key factors promoting and hindering performance and management effectiveness of the BR model were investigated at the global, national and site level. Three research questions were posited: (1) What are the attributes of successful implementation of the biosphere reserve model; (2) Do the management models and management practices applied to biosphere reserves in Vietnam support the principles of the Seville Strategy and criteria; and (3) How is Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve performing under the provincial socio-economic development and management context?

6.2.1. What are the attributes of successful implementation of the biosphere reserve model?

Research Question 1 was addressed through expert assessment using the Delphi method (Chapter 2.3.1 and 2.3.2). This involved an iterative structured survey of twenty BR experts and managers in two rounds of online data collection. The study identified ninety BRs that defined 60 ‘successful’ and 30 ‘less-successful’ sites in 42 countries across all five MAB regions. Sites deemed most successful are the post-Seville (Strategy) generation (i.e. after 1995), while the majority of sites

107 defined as unsuccessful are from the pre-Seville generation. The latter are managed as national parks and lack buffer and transition zones, meaning they do not conform to the characteristics that are meant to define a BR.

This study component identified eleven key factors influencing BR success. These were grouped into three main functional areas: (1) BR Designation; (2) Participation; and (3) Delivery. These factors provide a “baseline” for comparison of BR management across national and site level in Vietnam (Table 6.1) that were addressed in Research Question 2. Six key factors (among eleven identified factors) were considered the most influencing attributes to BR management success globally: (1) Awareness and communication; (2) Landscape planning and zonation; (3) Stakeholder participation and collaboration; (4) Governance; (5) Finance and resources; (6) and Management and implementation, including Sustainable development. Monitoring and evaluation appeared to be a less important factor influencing the BR success but it was considered an important component for adaptive learning and management within the WNBR. Notably, the study found that good Awareness and communication, and compliant Landscape planning and zonation are necessary but not sufficient conditions for success. Beyond these, a management system based on strong participatory governance and partnership, and secure finance and resources for delivery are needed for success.

108

Table 6. 1. Major factors influencing biosphere reserve management success

Group Factors Description factors Landscape planning Compliant landscape and zonation scheme of the core, buffer and zonation zone and transition area to fulfil all 3 desired functions (conservation, sustainable development and logistic support) across different land uses. Regional integration Strong link of the BR into regional development, socio- economic program and other management systems in the region. Learning orientation Good use of the BR as living laboratory, experiment and system thinking application, adaptive management, and learning by doing. Monitoring and Have a M&E system and indicators in place that allow evaluation measurement of tangible management outcomes Research linkage Good partnership with research and training institutes in research and BR education Stakeholder Strong public-private participation and collaboration across participation and the landscapes; strong engagement of local communities, collaboration NGOs and industries. Awareness and Good understanding of the BR concept and MAB program; communication strong and regular liaison and communication program; stakeholders, including communities have a good sense of BR ownership. Governance Strong leadership; strong support and commitment from government and stakeholders; adequate policy; participatory governance; strong partnerships. Finance and Government and state funding availability and support resources projects; enough permanent, professional and appropriate educated staff. Management and Have management plans with visions and strategy for on implementation ground activity implementation; integrated conservation and livelihood program; strong law enforcement. Economic Sustainable use of natural resources for economic development development, livelihood and production; promotion of ecotourism, branding and marketing for the local products and services.

109

6.2.2. Do the management models and management practices applied to biosphere reserves in Vietnam support the principles of the Seville Strategy?

This Research Question was addressed in Chapter 3.3.2 and 3.3.4. Operation and management practices of the Vietnam’s BRs against the Seville Strategy and international criteria were assessed using a combination of document analysis and an online survey with BR managers and staff in Vietnam. There has been a rapid growth of the BR network across Vietnam with nine sites established since 2000. This has indicated a strong interest and commitment from provincial authorities to using the BR model to pursue three mandated BR management objectives (nature conservation; sustainable local socio-economic development; scientific research advancement) and deal with climate change impacts as well (National MAB of Vietnam, 2016). Implementation and management of all Vietnam’s BRs is decentralised to the provincial or city authorities and there is no recognition of the BRs in the national legal system or management framework. This provides a level of flexibility for the adaptation and interpretation of central sectoral regulations that is necessary to ensure they fit local conditions. However, lack of clear instruction from the national level often creates confusion in local practical application of these central policies. Strongly centralised political and sectoral decision-making power and resource allocation in Vietnam leads to incomplete decentralisation. In turn, there is a heavy reliance on central government support and funding subsidy for local operations.

The National MAB Committee is an active but part-time structure that mainly acts as a national contact and communication centre that disperses funding allocations for the BR network. It is underutilised as a potential point of interaction with national government and ministries. The limited human and resource mandate of the National MAB Committee prevents facilitation of capacity building and liaison with the BRs in the national and international network.

A simple check against the Seville criteria indicated that BRs in Vietnam are theoretically compliant with the international conceptual model (sub-section 3.3.2 in Chapter 3). However, the result from an online survey with BR managers and staff in Vietnam found a mismatch between the BR concept and management reality. The study results reflected limited understanding of the BR concept and a strong influence from top-down, conventional conservation planning and management. Among the eleven factors influencing management of the WNBR identified in Research Question 1, only eight of these belong to, or span, the three functional groups that were identified (Table 6.2) as influencing Vietnam’s BR operation and management (i.e., BR Designation; Participation; and Delivery). The survey identified three factors relating to the BR Designation functional group that were overlooked by both Vietnamese BR practitioners and managers. These were: (1) Landscape planning and zonation; (2) Learning orientation and system 110 thinking; and (3) Research linkage.

Table 6. 2. Perception of the factors influencing biosphere reserve management in Vietnam

Group factors Factors Factors perceived by Vietnamese BR managers and staff Landscape planning and zonation No Regional integration Yes Learning orientation and system thinking No Monitoring and evaluation Yes Research linkage No Stakeholder participation and collaboration Yes Awareness and communication Yes Governance Yes Finance and resources Yes Management and implementation Yes Economic development Yes

The study also found a number of key attributed factors that hindered performance and management effectiveness of the BR system in Vietnam. First, there is an unclear understanding of the BR concept and the challenges to BR implementation. The BR model is often perceived only as an “international title”, with BRs set aside and reflected in the national framework and ministry sectoral agenda, but with weak political and public support. Additionally, poor communication of the BR approach within and outside the network exacerbates the limited understanding and management practice of the policy makers, planners, and BR managers and staff in Vietnam. As a consequence management practices often focus on the core zone and there is a lack of attention to buffer and transition zones with subsequent low landscape connectivity that undermines the BR approach.

The effectiveness of the BR system in Vietnam is also hindered by a lack of national recognition and legal binding regulations. The entrenched political systems under the central ministries, and provincial and district line departments limit opening up of the BR approach to more active participation and collaboration processes. Managers, planners and government staff do not want to engage in BR planning and management as legitimacy and accountability is not apparent and not acknowledged by reward systems at the personal level. Whilst a policy directive on implementing grass-roots participation was adopted by the central government in 1998, which aims to encourage

111 local engagement in planning and decision-making processes, this practice rarely occurs. The absence of meaningful community participation in policy development, coupled with limited dissemination of information, means that most national laws and policies often experience difficultly in application. Ultimately, the socio-political organisations (e.g., the Farmers Association, Women Association, Youth Union) are set up to represent the local people and interests and create a communication channel that connect them with the Party and management authorities. Under the leadership of the Party, however, these organisations often act following the Party and government directions rather than working to address the needs of local people.

The effectiveness of the BR system in Vietnam is hindered by a lack of strong participatory governance with an absence of long-term management vision. The study revealed that the recent BRMB established by Province or City People’s Committee (PPC) only represents the provincial- led departments and agencies and it has proved to be an ineffectual governance structure as it lacks ongoing engagement of the PPC or city leaders. Part-time and temporary assignments of the Chair and Board members, coupled with the fear of losing sectoral power and interests, limits motivation for them to invest their time and efforts in BR management. In comparison, there appears no room for community and other private sector involvement in BR governance due to the preference for a top-down, and state controlled approach. These circumstances highlight challenges to the expectation for a participatory public-private partnership.

Opportunities for the administration of BRs to obtain funding and technical support from central government and ministries are rare because of the lack of a national legal framework in which BRs could sit. The operation and management of BRs often only relies on the limited funding from the province/city, together and some external project support. Although the provincial management regulations for BRs address the need to allocate provincial budget for BR operation, the actual funding often depends on the socio-economic situation of the province or city. While some wealthier provinces/cities are able to allocate budget for both PA and BR management, many of those that are less financial find it is an unaffordable task. The provincial budget of the poorer provinces/cities is often only sufficient to share a small, obligatory proportion of the operational cost with central government and ministries for the legalised formal management systems (PAs or sectoral program and activities).

The technical and finance assistance from support projects is playing a vital role in enhancing local awareness and management capacity of the PAs and BRs. However, the study found that the contributions from support projects are perceived as temporary and are not sustainable because their small scale and short time frames. Other stakeholder’s perception about project limitation is that

112 external projects relate to their narrow focus and lack of effective coordination for information sharing and adaptive learning at the landscape level (see Chapter 3.3.5).

The Seville Statutory Framework requires the development of a management plan or policy that defines how management of the BR will occur, particularly the human activities in the buffer zone. However, most of Vietnam’s BRs do not have a management or operational plan in place. There is lack of clear guidance on how to develop such a plan, coupled with the dominance of sectoral and PA plans as documents of legal response that obtain major finance under the central line ministries. Whilst there is a lack of integrated management planning for BRs as an entire unit, with management of the original core zone only, BR values are critical as reflected in the slogan “Conservation for Development and Development for Conservation”. Additionally, BR conceptual framework would theoretically promote a “quality economy” model through sustainable development or green growth strategy at national and local level. In practice, however, economic activities and infrastructure development often presents as the highest national interest and priority as reflected in the actions of policy-makers and planners, and environmental protection and conservation remains a challenge.

6.2.3. How is Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve performing under the provincial socio-economic development and management context?

Local application of the BR concept in practice was researched through a variety of methods. These included: field surveys using focus group discussions; face to face interview; and participatory workshops that involved provincial, department managers and staff, and local people. A comparison between international criteria outlined by the Seville Statutory Framework and their application in Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve (KGBR) identified similar results to the case of the national BR system (see Chapter 4.3.2, 4.3.4 and Chapter 5.3.4 to 5.3.6). Although the BR concept and most of the Seville criteria were theoretically captured in the designation, the management regulation and governance systems established for the KGBR (Chapter 4.3.2 and Appendix 4.5), the field survey results found a low performance and management effectiveness. This result was attributed to: (1) the lack of public understanding of the concept model; (2) weak governance and management system; and (3) a lack of available local resources to support effective model delivery.

Eight factors belonging to the three functional groups (i.e., BR Designation; Participation; and Delivery) influenced BR operation in Kien Giang (Table 6.3). Provincial managers and staff overlooked three out of five success factors identified in the global survey that relate to BR Designation. These were: (1) Landscape planning and zonation; (2) Learning orientation and system thinking; and (3) Research linkage. Notably, all five factors relating to BR Designation were not

113 captured in the local community perception. This highlights the limited understanding of the BR conceptual approach amongst most managers, staff and local people who have had no direct involvement in BR designation, planning and operation.

Table 6. 3. Influencing factors to biosphere reserve management perceived by provincial managers and staff, and local people in Kien Giang

Group factors Factors identified from survey Factors perceived by Factors perceived by of the WNBR Kien Giang the local people in Kien managers and staff Giang

Landscape planning and No No zonation

Regional integration Yes No

Learning orientation and No No system thinking

Monitoring and evaluation Yes No

Research linkage No No

Stakeholder participation and Yes Yes collaboration

Awareness and communication Yes Yes

Governance Yes Yes

Finance and resources Yes Yes

Management and Yes Yes implementation

Economic development Yes Yes

A management effectiveness evaluation undertaken in KGBR using the EoH toolkit provided an example of the challenges encountered in effectively implementing the BR model in Vietnam. Lack of basic information on site management of both BR and marine PAs coupled with the absence of a consistent monitoring and evaluation system (Chapter 5.3.1.1) hindered assessing performance and management effectiveness. The study findings shared many similar challenges identified in an assessment of implementation of the Madrid Action Plan for BRs (Table 6.4). 114

Table 6. 4. Key challenges to management of the WNBR and findings in Kien Giang

Key challenges to BR management Findings in KGBR globally* Legal framework and policy for BR Lack of legal framework and guidance in BR planning management and management Political support at the regional level Lack of continuity support from PPC and department leaders Regional integration and landscape Limited understanding and misconceptions of the BR planning model and how it was designed to operate within governance and BR management structures, and continuing preference for sectoral planning and administrative boundary management. Multi stakeholder partnership and Weak provincial stakeholder engagement and participatory governance commitment and limited community engagement and support for BR management. Funding and staff capacity to BR operation depends on the will of a part-time and implement BR management plan unpaid Management Board. Incompetent BR staff. No allocated operational funding. Balanced conservation and socio- Strong economic focus, and conflict between economic development infrastructure tourism investment and ecosystem protection. Monitoring and evaluation for No monitoring and evaluation system for BR and adaptive management protected areas in place.

* Adapted from Popelier and Vaessen (2014)

Even though KGBR has been established for a decade, its concept and approach has rarely been communicated to government units (e.g., provincial departments, NPs, PAs and district offices) or the local community as evidenced by the lack of awareness of the area’s designation and implications throughout the province. Lack of communication and information dissemination contributes to a misinterpretation of the BR model as being just another conventional PA approach and a perception by local people of greater restrictions in resource use and capacity for livelihood and socio-economic development. Lack of understanding of the long-term benefits from implementation of the BR approach not only leads to reluctance by the PPC and provincial departments to declare new land and forests as ‘protected area’ to protect critical habitats and 115 ecosystems (e.g., lime stone outcrops, seasonally inundated grass or Dong Ho lagoon) from economic exploitation, but also limits management investment in improvement of ecological integrity of the existing small PAs. In addition, a lack of awareness and public communication is also likely to reinforce stakeholder resistance for cross-sectoral collaboration, such as by including BR issues on various agendas of stakeholder agencies and in their related management practices.

Although the Provincial BR Management Regulation requests that all participating departments and agencies collaborate with the BRMB to facilitate cross-sectoral integration, contributions toward this process are limited. Collaboration processes at the local level are especially limited by sectoral political boundaries under the central governance system. For example, the latest BRMB model only represents the Peoples’ Committee members from province and district levels27, provincial departments and agencies such as NPs, PAs, with managers often ignoring the role of communities and private sector in planning and decision-making process. In addition, limited two-way dialogue and information exchange between the BR and communities hinders the effective development of an awareness strategy that could help build strong public-private partnership and participatory governance. The study found that local communities and industries perceived governance as the least important factor influencing BR management because they have not yet been involved in the organisational structure arrangements in Kien Giang (Chapter 4.3.4.3 and Figure 4.3b in Chapter 4).

Similar to the national system survey results, those for Kien Giang identified that having strong and continuing BR governance leadership is an essential component for effectiveness. Long-term and stable leadership with genuine grass roots mobilisation for BR engagement in governance contributes to active and diverse stakeholder participation and successional collaboration processes (Chapter 3.4.3 and Chapter 4.3.4.3). The KGBR has had consistently strong provincial leader engagement in the BR model with technical assistance from the GIZ/DFAT project. In particular, throughout the period of 2011-2013, a considerable number of achievements and outcomes were generated under the coordination of the BRMB (see Cuong and Dart, 2011; Brown, 2012; Cuong and Brown, 2013; Cuong et al., 2014). This situation has since changed with a leadership turn-over, together with the ending of project support for BR in 2014 that has created a “leadership gap” during this transition period. It will now take time for the new leaders to understand the BR approach and start supporting BR activities.

27 There is no formal way for the 70 Communes and over 400 villages (often the implementation level of BR related activities) to present their opinions about the BR management and activities and this limits the ability of the BRMB to reach the community level with information about the BR and its management.

116

Lack of funding and management expertise is a critical challenge to performance and management effectiveness of the BR model (e.g., Schliep and Stoll-Kleemann, 2010; Popelier and Vaessen, 2014; Cuong et al., 2017a). KGBR has been operating for a decade without an operational funding allocation. This has resulted in the BR appearing to be just a “title” rather than a management functioning as a model which truly reflects the Seville guidelines. In addition, most managers and staff members whose work link them to the KGBR have sector-specific education and management skills, and their understanding of the role of BR planning and management as an integrated process is likely to be limited. Whilst turnover changes within the governance structure do not allow key people with knowledge and skills to work with some semblance of continuity for the BR, lack of funding and resources limits capacity building for both existing and new managers and staff. While people are not provided sufficient management knowledge and capacity for innovation or change, it is likely that the conventional working approach will persist. This approach relies on resources and budget allocation rather than trying to seek new opportunities with external funding and support.

External projects play an important role as catalysts to promote stakeholder participation and cooperation in planning and managing natural resources using a BR approach. However, most project activities were perceived to have only a temporary impact on operation of the BR because of their small, short-term scale with the project maintaining control over funding and design of individual activities. There is a local misunderstanding of the role of external projects and their intervention approach as they are wrongly thought of as providing long-term investment and funding support. Rather external projects often provide short-term expenditure with small demonstration models that are more conducive to the involvement of local stakeholders and communities in the design and implementation of project activities for learning and adaptive management which would then contribute feedback to the BR management plan on activities that are supportive and innovative and work at the local level. Further, the short-time frame of project activities was also shown to limit dialogue between BRMB, local stakeholders and projects in the redesign of livelihood and conservation projects to account for locally evolving circumstances beyond the project’s completion. Results from interviews with local informants and the EoH assessment showed that a critical challenge to management effectiveness is the lack of an official, approved management plan and annual work plan for KGBR operations (Chapter 5.3.2 and 5.3.4). This absence of formalised strategic and operational plans implies that the BR concept was only adopted in theory and lacks integration in the formal provincial management framework and socio-economic development context (e.g., in the provincial and district socio-economic development plans, and management plan of provincial departments, NPs and PAs). Weak political support and stakeholder commitment, 117 together with the ending of the external project assistance led to a delay in the planning process. The absence of a strategic plan with long-term vision has resulted in many recent activities throughout the BR being fragmented, lacking integration into a plan and being not cohesive across the broader landscape.

The evaluation of management effectiveness revealed practical challenges to achieving dual objectives of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in Kien Giang. To maintain the extremely high economic growth rate (14 % increases annually) meant that the provincial leaders and departments are likely to place development higher than environmental protection, with this priority unfortunately often having strong political support from central government and ministries. Consequently, remaining undeveloped land, forests and natural resources continue to be targeted for land conversion for economic activities such as rice, aquaculture production and in particularly infrastructure development. Specific examples that demonstrate this trade-off between economic development and environmental protection are evident in the ongoing conversion of seasonally inundated grassland (plain of reeds), mangrove and melaleuca forest for rice and shrimp production, and in the exploitation of limestone for cement and construction material production (Dang, 2009). However, whilst the EoH assessment identified local communities and industry enterprises as the key contributors to biodiversity loss and degradation through impacts of their daily production and resource use, these groups have not yet been the targets for management solutions. There has been limited focus on the development of alternative on-ground activities to support local people to improve their livelihoods and generate a sustaining income that would enable transition away from dependency on exploitation of the natural resources through illegal harvesting and hunting from NPs and PAs.

The natural, historical and cultural values of the BRs in Vietnam provide the advantage of offering attractive destinations for visitors. Over the decade to 2015 there was a significant increase in the number of tourists that visited Kien Giang to approximately 6 million people (Kien Giang DOCST, 2016). Although tourism development is now seen as a key economic sector for development and has strong political support and endorsement at both central and provincial level, the sustainability of this industry is questionable. On the one hand, inappropriate and improper tourism planning and management that has greater focus on infrastructure investment to pursue revenue and income is compromising long-term integrity of natural ecosystems and their environmental services. For example, Phu Quoc is the largest island in Vietnam and forms a part of the KGBR. The island has many natural attributes that include a large NP located in the north that contains rich unique biodiversity (Dang, 2009; Cuong and Dart, 2011; Cater, 2013). These features attract visitors, particularly high-end international tourists. Under the government strategic development plan, Phu 118

Quoc presently a provincially managed entity and a component of the Mekong Delta tourism promotion will become a major national and tourism destination in South East Asia by 2020 (Gov. of Vietnam, 2004b, 2010a) and the island is designated to receive significant investment in infrastructure and tourism facilities, with a vision for it to become an international tourism destination that could compete with other famous tourist sites in Asia. This puts Phu Quoc under severe threat from incursions such as roads and coastal building development. Of particular concern is the construction of a major road traversing the core zone, and the plan for a large water reservoir also in the core zone of the park (also the BR core area). Consequently, there is a growing sense among locals of unstainable tourism investment, businesses losing income and environmental pollution resulting from an increase in paved and concreted areas (Godfrey, 2016). The KGBR should have a major role in addressing these concerns and making sure the community is aware of its efforts in this regard. A strong emphasis on the protection of the natural resources and heritage sites and support for cultural events within the BR by the Management Board would strengthen the perception of Kien Giang as a tourist destination.

On the other hand, BR branding for unique products and services from the BR (i.e., Phu Quoc pepper, Phu Quoc fish sauce, U Minh honey, and Sac Ran dried fish) are potential solutions to promote sustainable local economy and incomes, but there is limited support from the BRMB and provincial departments to build community awareness and investment in such production. Without seeing any tangible benefits, the local people and enterprises could get the feeling that the operational restrictions and potentially increased production costs of producing BR labelled products does not warrant the increased investment.

6.3. Recommendations

Given the current limitations for implementation of the BR concept in Vietnam, a promising development is the specific mention of the role of BRs as an approach to reconcile socio-economic development and long-term requirements for environmental protection, a major goal of the Government of Vietnam (Gov. of Vietnam, 2012a, 2015). This should now be supported by appropriate legal instruments. Proper planning and management of the BRs would contribute to the sustainable development strategy (Local Agenda 21) that was endorsed by the Vietnamese Government in 2004 to support sustainable economic growth, environmental conservation, social welfare and equity at both national and provincial level (Gov. of Vietnam, 2004a). Additionally, successful implementation of the BR in Vietnam would provide lessons learned for adaptive application in other countries through regional and international network sharing.

119

This thesis research provides the basis for a number of recommendations as to how the sustainability and management effectiveness of the BR model could be improved. These recommendations are outlined for both the national and site level.

6.3.1. National level

6.3.1.1. Establish a legal basis for the BR approach

BRs do not receive sufficient interest and support from central and provincial governments, sectoral ministries, and line agencies due to their lack of legal recognition at the national level (Chapter 3.3.3, Chapter 4.3.6, and Chapter 5.3.1.4). Strategic action A3.1 under the LAP for WNBR to 2025 (UNESCO, 2016a) calls for country and state members to integrate BRs into national and subnational legislation, policies and management programs. Thus, establishment of a legal basis for the BR system with government and provinces in Vietnam would contribute directly to planning and management processes through: (1) providing a legal basis and clear instruction to set up a governance structure and management system, and to conduct planning and budgeting for BR activities; (2) providing legitimacy that requires involved ministries, departments and agencies to establish mechanisms for cross-sectoral collaboration and to take into account the biosphere approach in their respective planning and decision making processes; and (3) increasing opportunity for funding from central government and ministries (as stated in the LAP action A5.3) to support the BR program and implementation (e.g., awareness raising, capacity building, and BR branding)

6.3.1.2. Strengthen roles of the National MAB Committee

The National MAB Committee is an active but part-time structure that mainly acts as a national contact and communication centre within the BR network. Expanding the functions of this committee with adequate human mandate and resources as suggested by LAP action E2.2 would help it to: (1) work effectively as a national focal point of contact to promote communication, exchange information and share lessons learned within the BR network; (2) actively interact with national government ministries to secure support and funding for the BR network; and (3) facilitate capacity building and training for BR managers and staff using the lessons learned from BR implementation that could encourage adaptive application at the local level.

6.3.2. Site level

6.3.2.1. Programs for public awareness

A lack of awareness at the different levels of governance, particularly in local communities, hinders successful operation of the BR model (Chapter 3.3.4.4, and Chapter 4.3.4.1). Developing and implementing an awareness and communication strategy is critical to improving public awareness

120 and support for a BR approach. BR information could be disseminated through integrating BR content into seminars, workshops, trainings, mass media (local TV, radio, and newspapers), and community campaigns, at political, cultural or sporting events and through local branch meetings of organisations such as the Youth Union, Women Union, Farmer Association, and business associations. Having strong and clear public communication would advance BRs and help to distinguish advantages of the UNESCO model compared to the conventional conservation approach. In turn, this would encourage greater stakeholder engagement in collective decision- making and implementation of BRs. Improving public awareness would help to shift entrenched political ideals/memes that resist opening up to include the BR approach thereby enabling BR Action Plan to be so it is more active, participatory and cooperative. Good awareness and communication would increase stakeholder ownership and local identity by way of having international recognition, which in turn promotes and provides support for responsible protection by the BR for long-term conservation and associated socio-economic benefits (LAP actions D2.1 to D2.4).

6.3.2.2. Strengthen leadership

A lack of continuing leadership engagement is a governance weakness and hinders coordination across stakeholders (Chapter 4.3.4.3). Getting strong PPC leader engagement in BR management structure ensures continuity in the coordination of collaborative processes for planning and implementation of programs at the landscape level. Especially, engaging local communities and private industries in BR planning and decision management would help to build a place-based, participatory governance for implementing a shared BR vision across the landscape (LAP action A3.2).

6.3.2.3. BR funding and resources

The operational and management effectiveness of BRs are challenged by lack of funding and resources necessary to fulfil functions of conservation and logistic support (Chapters 3.3.4.3, 4.3.4.4 and 5.3.3). This issue could be partly addressed through dedicating a nominated officer from each sector to liaise with the BR office to develop the integrated plan of activity and to coordinate sector input. Where the provincial government and sectors have budget line items for projects within the BR, any similar-type projects across sectors could be linked to develop a more collaborative and coordinated activity plan and expenditure. In particular, development of business strategy plans to diversify BR operational income - such as from payment for environmental services, revenue from park entrance fees and non-traditional sources (e.g., enterprises, projects, universities and research institutes) is essential to address BR finance limitations (LAP actions A5.1 and C3.2).

121

6.3.2.4. Build capacity for future needs

A lack of management capacity at the site level is a key factor attributed as contributing to the low BR performance and management effectiveness (Chapters 4.3.4.4 and 5.3.3). Capacity building is essential to improve staff working performance and efficiency and enhance their long-term career development prospects (LAP action C3.1). Training and capacity should be considered as an ongoing activity to deal with substantial change within the BR and to provide new capacities that will be needed for its functioning - from within government sectors, in the way business operates, and how civil society contributes to the BR. The capacity building should address how ecosystems can be maintained so that they continue to provide long-term ecosystem services whilst also accommodating human activity operating in the landscape. Capacity building is needed to ensure that civil infrastructure development minimises effects on these natural systems and their biodiversity. New ways of managing natural systems and production systems such as aquaculture, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries will continue to evolve. The capacity of people to manage these changes in ways that are consonant with BR sustainability is crucial.

6.3.2.5. Formal management plans and evaluation

The absence of management plans has led to an activity focus on the core areas and a lack of regional and landscape integration (Chapters 3.4.5, 4.3.4.5 and 5.3.4). BRs require formal management plans that allow for the integration of BR activities into the provincial socio-economic and sectoral development plans. Further, the evaluation of management effectiveness should form part of this management system to provide a supportive tool for managers and staff to monitor progress against set objectives and outcomes of intervention for adaptive planning and decision- making. The evaluation of management effectiveness requires more than just impact or outcome evaluation, but an assessment of the full management cycle so that the factors supporting or impeding management outcomes can be fully understood and appropriate actions taken to enhance or improve management (LAP actions A6.1 and A6.2).

6.3.2.6. BR branding and initiatives

BRs continue to contribute little to conservation and sustainable development of the local economy and livelihoods because their potential is under utilised (Chapters 4.3.4.6, 5.3.4.2 and 5.3.4.3). Opportunities such as eco-tourism and BR branding to promote environmentally friendly goods and services should be promoted. In particular, BR branding should act to underpin marketing of tourism services as well as selected ranges of goods such as food products. Branding, however, requires an obligation that the provision of ‘branded’ goods and services is aligned with the aims and intent of BR status (LAP actions C7.1 and C7.2). There is the potential from promotion of the

122

BR “brand” or certification to establish a sustainable development fund, similar to the case of Cat Ba (Thoai et al., 2014), to provide seed funding for local initiatives in sustainable production and development, and which would advance the BR model of support for local economic benefits and sustainability.

6.4. Contributions of the research project

This research project provided an opportunity to build on, and contribute to, the knowledge base for application of the BR concept in a real and practical way. The study revealed that BRs could achieve their management objectives as outlined in the Seville Strategy (UNESCO, 1996a) if they meet three functional group factors identified in the Research Question 1 and that relate to: (1) BR Designation; (2) Participation; and (3) Delivery. While many sites belonging to the first and second generations of the WNBR established before 1995 still need encouragement to conform their zonation to requirements of the UNESCO MAB contemporary concept model, this research demonstrates that zonation compliance alone does not ensure BR success. To achieve success also requires: wider stakeholder engagement; a participatory governance structure; finance and quality human resources to deliver a strategic management plan; and a monitoring system to measure management outcomes of the interventions and investment.

Although the UNESCO model does not require legal recognition beyond the core area of the BR, this study found the absence of such a mechanism underestimates the role central and state/province governments should play, and their critical contribution, in support of BR implementation. Weak national legal status and unclear guidance for BR operation highlights this need for support from government at all levels for the BR model to be integrated into the socio-economic planning and management framework, while securing core funding and management resources to invest in BR functioning and actions.

The case study in Kien Giang highlights that governance leadership is a core issue in BR coordination and crucial in the facilitation of stakeholder partnerships and collaboration processes. The BR model encourages the establishment of appropriate, locally-based governance structures and approaches for implementation but requires strong leadership to coordinate and harmonise stakeholder interests and competing agendas at the landscape level to make this happen. Additionally, this research highlights the need for long-term BR leadership to reconcile the conflict between the modes of a current top-down, state control and that of participatory governance down to the commune supported by strategic public - private partnership in planning and sustainable implementation of the BR approach.

123

6.5. Research limitations

This research aimed to explore the factors influencing operation and management effectiveness of the BR model in Vietnam. Data collection occurred primarily through the interview of managers and staff working in the BRs and MAB committee. A critical limitation of this research was that it did not include respondents from the central political structure, such as decision-makers and managers of central government ministries. The data collected lacks their input on current limitations and possible mechanisms to address challenges such as cross-sectoral collaboration.

A major part of the research methodology used online questionnaires to collect primary data and information. This method foregoes the opportunity for face-to-face interaction with informants during the survey process and this can result in the loss of some detailed insight and information. For example, even though respondents were assured confidentiality, there were sensitivities related to the potential identification of less successful BRs that made data collection difficult. Questions that asked informants to critique current weakness in BR management may have been deemed to be potentially harmful to future working relationship within the BRs system. A combination of data and information collection, coupled with observations in the field enabled me to synthesise information and elaborate research findings to minimise these limitations.

6.6. Future research

A number of recommendations for future research are evident, based on the findings from this dissertation. Foremost is to conduct research into the central power relations to identify the limitations and opportunities to identify appropriate changes at this level to benefit cross-sectoral collaboration in BR management. Further, there is potential to use the factors that have been identified as influencing performance and management effectiveness in other BRs in Vietnam. This would help to elaborate the research findings for sharing lessons learned, and enhanced performance and management effectiveness of the BR model (LAP action A4.4).

At a site level, the large marine area of the KGBR provides income for a large number of local people. However, this marine area is hard to manage effectively due to inadequate human capacity and resources in research and management (compared to other terrestrial PAs in Vietnam). Future research should focus on identifying where efforts should be prioritised to protect and improve the function of the marine ecosystems. As this area borders jurisdictions with Cambodia, applied research on cross-boundary MPA management is also necessary.

As the forests (wetland melaleuca and mangroves), grass wetlands and even PAs in the BR provide little direct economic value, their protection and management often does not receive strong support from government and the public. Thus, the LAP action A7.1 calls for conducting research that 124 identifies and quantifies the contribution of these natural ecosystems to services (e.g., carbon sink, fresh water supply, coastal protection, nurseries for marine life) that will help inform decision- making. This information would provide support for change in public awareness and better articulatitions of the trade-offs between conservation and development for planners and decision makers, and provide an evidence base for implementing payment for environmental services as prioritised by the Government of Vietnam (Gov. of Vietnam, 2010b, 2016).

Future research should also continue a focus on the evaluation of management effectiveness. Specifically, this should include: quantitative research against key performance indicators to measure the management progress; research to elucidate the threats to the BR and PA values from climate change and economic development activity that does not properly consider concervation of natural resources providing environmental services, and regular interaction with the National MAB in order to share the finding with other BRs in Vietnam.

A final area where future research should be directed is quantitative methodology (e.g., GIS, remote sensing, and Video Shore Line Assessment) to document and evidence land-use change at the landscape level. Findings could then be considered against investment and management interventions for better planning and management by the BRMB, including identification of opportunities that promote conservation and sustainable economic development. Such research would support development of guidelines with technical indicators action which promote a “quality economy” (LAP action C7.1).

While this thesis concentrates on Vietnam’s Biosphere Reserves as a case study, it nevertheless has significance for Indochina in particular and more broadly to South East Asia. The findings from this research have relevance to regional perspectives. An example of this are the agreements on action plan (Kien Giang DARD, 2014) negotiated between the BRMB and Kampot province in Cambodia which dealt with a cross border fishery management program for aquaculture and capture fishing intensity, secondly with management of migratory protected species such as dugong.

125

LIST OF REFERENCES

ADB, 1993. Economic policies for sustainable development. Asian Development Bank.

ADB, 2011. Climate change impact and adaptation study in the Mekong Delta- Part A, Final report: Climate change vulnerability and risk assessment study for Ca Mau and Kien Giang Provinces. Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment (IMHEN), Hanoi.

Adeel, Z., Safiel, U., 2008. Achieving sustainability by introducing alternative livelihoods. Sustain Sci 3, 125-133.

Albert, C., Zimmermann, T., Knieling, J., Von Haaren, C., 2012. Social learning can benefit decision making in landscape planning: Gartow case study on climate change adaptation, Elbe valley biosphere reserve. Landscape and Urban Planning 105, 347-360.

Asara, V., Otero, L., Demaria, F., Corbera, E., 2015. Socially sustainable degrowth as a social- ecological transformation: Repoliticizing sustainability. Sustainability Science 10, 375-384.

Axelsson, R., Angelstam, P., Elbakidze, M., Srtyamets, N., Johansson, K.E., 2011. Sustainable development and sustainability: landscape approach as a practical interpretation of principles and concepts. Journal of Landscape Ecology 4, 5-30.

Batisse, M., 1985. Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves. Environmental Conservation 12, 17-27.

Batisse, M., 1986. Developing and focusing the biosphere reserve concept. Natural Resources 22, 1- 12.

Batisse, M., 1990. Development and Implementation of the Biosphere Reserve Concept and its Applicability to Coastal Regions. Environmental Conservation 17, 11-116.

Batisse, M., 1997. Biosphere Reserves: A challenge for biodiversity conservation & regional development. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 39, 6-33.

Bertzky, M., Stoll-Kleemann, S., 2009. Multi-level discrepancies with sharing data on protected areas: what we have and what we need for the global village. Journal of Environmental Management 90, 8-24.

Biggs, D., 2005. Managing a rebel landscape: conservation, pioneers, and the revolutionary past in the U Minh forest, Vietnam. Environ Hist 10, 448-476.

Bioret, F., 2001. Biosphere reserve manager or coordinator. Park 11, 26-28.

126

Boerner, J., Baylis, K., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, E., Ferraro, P.J., Honey-Roses, J, Lapeyre, R., Persson, U.M., Wunder, S., 2016. Emerging Evidence on the Effectiveness of Tropical Forest Conservation. PloS ONE 11, 1-11.

Bosak, K., 2008. Nature, conflict and biodiversity conservation in the Nanda Devi biosphere reserve. Conservation and Society 6, 211-224.

Bouamrane, M., 2007. Dialogue in biosphere reserves: references, practices and experiences. Biosphere Reserves - Technical Notes 2. UNESCO, Paris.

Brandon, K.E., Well, M., 1992. Planning for people and parks: Design dilemmas. World Development 20, 557-570.

Brenner, L., Job, H., 2012. Challenges to actor-oriented environmental governance: Examples from three Mexican Biosphere Reserves. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie 103, 1-19.

Bridgewater, P.B., 2002. Biosphere reserves: special places for people and nature. Environmental Science and Policy 5, 9-12.

Bridgewater, P.B., 2016. The man and biosphere programme of UNESCO: rambunctious child of the sixties, but was the promise fulfilled?. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 19, 1-6.

Brook, S.M., Dudley, N., Mahood, S.P., Polet, G., Williams, A.C., Duckworth, J.W., Ngoc, T.V., Long, B., 2014. Lessons learned from the loss of a flagship: The extinction of the Javan rhinoceros Rhinoceros sondaicus annamiticus from Vietnam. Biological Conservation 174, 21-29.

Brooks, A.M., 2010. Constraints and enabling factors for effective conservation in Vietnam: Cat Ba Island case study. PhD thesis, the University of Queensland.

Brown, J.D., 2002. The integration of Man and the Biosphere. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 14, 741-765.

Brown, K., 2002. Innovation for Conservation and Development. Geographical Journal 168, 6-17.

Brown, S.M., 2012. The Conservation and Development of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve: Adaptation to climate change. Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management 4, 489-510.

Brunckhorst, D.J., 1997. The Biosphere Reverse Program in Australia: Landscape Models for Sustainable Conservation and Resource Use. In: Charles, W. (Ed.), Fifteenth North American Prairie Conference, 1997. The Natural Areas Association, pp. 35-41.

Brunckhorst, D.J., 2001. Building capital through Bioregional planning and Biosphere Reserves. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics. February, 19-32.

127

Bruner, A.G., Gullison, R.E., Rice, R.E., Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca, G.A.B., 2001. Effectiveness of Parks in Protecting Tropical Biodiversity. Science 291, 125-128.

Butchart, S.H.M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Almond, R.E.A., Baillie, J.E.M., Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter, K.E., Carr, G.M., Chanson, J., Chenery, A.M., Csirke, J., Davidson, N.C., Dentener, F., Foster, M., Galli, A., Galloway, J.N., Genovesi, P., Gregory, R.D., Hockings, M., Kapos, V., Lamarque, J.F., Leverington, F., Loh, J., McGeoch, M.A., McRae, L., Minasyan, A., Morcillo, M.H., Oldfield, T.E.E., Pauly, D., Quader, S., Revenga, C., Sauer, J.R., Skolnik, B., Spear, D., Stanwell-Smith, D., Stuart, S.N., Symes, A., Tierney, M., Tyrrell, T.D., Vie, J.C., Watson, R., 2010. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328, 1164.

Cambell, L.M., Vainio-Mattila, A., 2003. Participatory Development and Community-Based Conservation: Opportunities Missed for Lessons Learned. Human Ecology 31, 417-437.

Carter, R.W., 2013. Sustainable management of natural resources: Guidelines for developing tourism in Kien Giang Province, particularly the Ha Tien- Dong Ho area. Agricultural Publishing House, Ho Chi Minh City.

CBD, 2010. Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011-2020 - COP 10, decision X/2. Montreal, Canada: Convention on Biological Diversity. http://www.biodiv.be/convention/strategic-plan-2011- 2020/cop-10-decision-x-2-strategic-plan-for-biodiversity-2011-2020. (accessed 3.4.2014).

Chape, S., Spalding, M., Jenkins, M.D., 2008. The world’s protected areas: status, values and prospects in the 21st century. University of California Press, Berkley, USA.

Chapin, M., 2004. A challenge to conservationists. Worldwatch Institute Nov/Dec, 17-31.

Christensen, J., 2004. Win-win illusions. Conservation in Practice 5, 12-19.

Clement, F., Amezaga, J.M., 2008. Linking reforestation policies with land use change in northern Vietnam: Why local factors matter. Geoforu 39, 265-277.

Coad, L., Leverington, F., Knights, K., Geldmann, J., Eassom, A., Kapos, V., Kingston, N., de Lima, M., Zamora, C., Caudros, I., Nolte, C., Burgess, N., Hockings. M., 2015. Measuring impact of protected area management interventions: current and future use of the global database of protected area management effectiveness. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 370, 20140281.

Coetzer, K.L., Witknowski, E.T.F., Erasmus, B.F.N., 2014. Reviewing Biosphere Reserves globally: effective conservation action or bureaucratic label? Biological Reviews 89, 82-104.

128

Cook, C.N., Carter, R.W., Hockings, M., 2014. Measuring the accuracy of management effectiveness evaluations of protected areas. Journal of Environmental Management 139, 164-171.

Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I, Farber, S, Turner, R.K., 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 26, 152-158.

Cuong, C.V., Brown, S., 2013. Using Biosphere reserve as an integrated planning and management tool: A case study in Kien Giang, Vietnam. In: Davis, S. (Ed.), Future nature, future culture(s): Peer-reviewed papers for Balance-Unbalance International Conference. Noosa, Queensland, Australia, pp. 157-164.

Cuong, C.V., Dart, P., 2011. Conservation and Development of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve: Climate change, Conservation and Development- Lesson learned and Practical Solutions. Ho Chi Minh City: Agriculture Publishing House.

Cuong, C.V., Dart, P., Dudley, N., Hockings, M., 2017a. Factors influencing successful implementation of Biosphere Reserves in Vietnam: Challenges, opportunities and lessons learnt. Environmental Science and Policy 67, 16-26.

Cuong, C.V., Dart, P., Hockings, M., 2017b. Biosphere reserves: Attributes for success. Journal of Environmental Management 188, 9-17.

Cuong, C.V., Russell, M., Brown, S., Dart, P., 2015. Using Shoreline Video Assessment for coastal planning and restoration in the context of climate change in Kien Giang, Vietnam. Ocean Science Journal 50, 413-432.

Cuong, C.V., Tri, N.H., Hockings, M., Dart, P., 2014. Action plan for conservation and promotion of the values of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve for the period 2013-2015 and Vision to 2020. Kien Giang Biosphere reserve and GIZ/DFAT project. http://kiengiangbiospherereserve.com.vn/project/uploads/doc/action_plan_kgbr_en.pdf. (accessed 7.3.2015).

Dalkey, N.C., Helmer, O., 1963. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science 9, 458-467.

Daly, H.E., 2005. Economies in a full world. Scientific America. September, 100-107.

Dang, N.X., 2009 (Ed.). Rapid assessment of flora and terrestrial animals in Key Areas of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve. Kien Giang, Vietnam.

129

Dang, N.X., Anh, P.T., Tuyen, L.H., 2001. New information about the Hairy-Nose Otters (Lutra sumatrana) in Vietnam. IUCN Otter Spec. Group Bull 18, 64-75. de Jong, W., Do, D.S., Trieu, V.H., 2006. Forest rehabilitation in Vietnam: Histories, realities and future. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor Barat. de Wit, J.W., 2007. Decentralisation, Local government and community participation in Vietnam. Institute of Social Studies. The Hague, The Netherlands.

Di Castri, F., Robertson, J., 1982. The biosphere reserve concept: 10 years after. Parks 6, 1-6.

Dowie, M., 2005. Conservation refugees: When protecting nature means kicking people out. Orion 24, 16-26.

Duc, V.H., 2005. Fiscal decentralisation in Vietnam: a preliminary investigation. School of Economics and Commerce, The University of Western Australia, Perth.

Duke, N., Wilson, N., Mackenzie, J., Hoa, N.H., Puller, D., 2010. Assessment of Mangrove Forests, shoreline condition and feasibility for REDD in Kien Giang Province, Vietnam. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Conservation and Development of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve Project, Rach Gia, Vietnam.

Dung, N.K., Bush, S., Mol, A.P.J., 2013. Administrative co-management: The case of Special-use forest conservation in Vietnam. Environmental Management 51, 616-630.

Edge, S., McAllister, M.L., 2009. Place-base local governance and sustainable communities: lessons from Canadian biosphere reserves. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52, 279-295.

Elbakidze, M., Angelstam, P., Sandstrom, C., Stryamets, N., Crown, S., Axelsson, R., Stryamets, G., Yamelynets, T., 2013. Biosphere Reserves for conservation and development in Ukraine? Legal recognition and establishment of the Roztochya initiative. Environmental Conservation 40, 157- 166.

Ervin, J., 2003. Protected area assessments in perspective. Bioscience 53, 819-822.

Fforde, A., 2003. Decentralisation in Vietnam- Working effectively at Provincial and Local government level- A comparative analysis of Long An and Quang Ngai Provinces. Report for AusAID, Hanoi.

Fraga, J., 2006. Local perspectives in conservation politics: the case of the Ria Lagartos Biosphere Reserve, Yucatan Mexico. Landscape and Urban planning 74, 285-295.

130

Francis, G., 2004. Biosphere reserves in Canada: ideals and some experience. Environments 32, 3- 26.

Fritzen, S.A., 2006. Probing system limits: Decentralisation and local political accountability in Vietnam. Asia-Pacific Jounral of Public Administration 28, 1-24.

Geldmann, J., Barnes, M., Coad, L., Craigie, I.D., Hockings, M., Burgess, N.D., 2013. Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biological Conservation 161, 230-238.

Giles, B.G., Ky, T.S., Hoang, D.H., Vincent, A.C.J., 2005. The catch and trade of seahorses in Vietnam. Biodiversity Conservation 15, 2497-2513.

Godfrey, C., 2016. Phu Quoc feels growing pains as development booms. http://e.vnexpress.net/news/travel-life/phu-quoc-feels-growing-pains-as-development-booms- 3487852.html (accessed 24.10.2016).

Goerge, C., Reed, M.G., 2016. Building institutional capacity for environmental governance through social entrepreneurship: lessons from Canandian biosphere reserves. Eco.Soc 21, 18.

Goodier, R., Jeffers, J.N.R., 1981. Biosphere reserves. Advances in Applied Biology 6, 279-317.

Gov. of Vietnam, 1995. Prime Minister Decision No. 845/TTg approving the Vietam’s National Action Plan on Biodiversity.

Gov. of Vietnam, 2003a. Prime Minister Decision No. 192/2003/QD-TTg approving Management Strategy for a Protected Area System in Vietnam to 2010. Duy Thanh Company, Hanoi.

Gov. of Vietnam, 2003b. Government Decree No. 79/2003/ND-CP on promulgation the exercise of democracy in communes.

Gov. of Vietnam, 2004a. Prime Minister Decision No. 153/2004/QĐ-TTg approving the Strategic direction towards sustainable development in Vietnam (Vietnam’s Agenda 21). Hanoi.

Gov. of Vietnam, 2004b. Prime Minister Decision No 178/2004/QĐ-TTg approving the master development plan of Phu Quoc Island, Kien Giang province to 2010 and vision to 2020.

Gov. of Vietnam, 2006a. Government Decree No. 23/2006/ND-CP on guiding implementation of Forest Protection and Development law.

Gov. of Vietnam, 2006b. Prime Minister Decision No.186/2006/QD-TTg on Forest Management Regulation.

131

Gov. of Vietnam, 2007a. Prime Minister Decision No 18/2007/QĐ-TTg approving the National Action Plan on Biodiversity to 2010 and direction to 2020 in order to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity and Cartagena Protocol on biosafety.

Gov. of Vietnam, 2007b. Prime Minister Decision No 18/2007/QĐ-TTg approving the National Strategy for forestry development in Vietnam 2006-2020.

Gov. of Vietnam, 2010a. Prime Minister Decision No 633/QD-TTg approving amendments to the building general planning of Phu Quoc Island to 2030.

Gov. of Vietnam, 2010b. Government Decree No. 99/2010/ND-CP of the Government on piloting payment for forest environmental services.

Gov. of Vietnam, 2012a. Implementation of the sustainable development in Vietnam: National report at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20). Hanoi, Vietnam. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/852vietnam.pdf (accessed 24.5.2015)

Gov. of Vietnam, 2012b. Prime Minister Decision No.126/QD-TTg approving the pilot policy on benefit sharing mechanism in management, protection and development of special-use forests.

Gov. of Vietnam, 2013. Prime Minister Decision No.1250/QD-TTg approving the National Strategy on biodiversity conservation to 2020 and vision to 2030.

Gov. of Vietnam, 2014a. Prime Minister Decision No. 45/QD-TTg approving the Master plan of nation-wide biodiversity conservation by 2020, with a vision to 2030.

Gov. of Vietnam, 2014b. Prime Minister Decision No. 218/QD-TTg approving Strategy for Management of Special-use forests, Marine protected areas and Inland water protected areas in Vietnam until 2020 and vision to 2030.

Gov. of Vietnam, 2015. Fifteen years achieving the Vietnam Millennium Development Goals. Country report. Government of Vietnam.

Gov. of Vietnam, 2016. Government Decree No. 147/2016/ ND-CP of the Government on amending and supplementing a number of articles of the Government's Decree No. 99/2010 / ND- CP on payment for forest environmental services.

Guerry, A.D., Polasky, S., Lubchenco, J., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Daily, G.C., Griffin, R., Ruckelshaus, M., Bateman, Ian., Duraiappah, A., Elmqvist, T., Feldman, M.W., Folke, C., Hoekstra, J., Kareiva, P.M., Keeler, B.L., Li, S., Mckenzie, E., Ouyang, Z., Reyers, B., Ricketts, T.H., Rockstrom, J., Tallis, H., Vira, B., 2015. Natural capital and ecosystem services informing

132 decisions: From promise to practice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112, 7348-7355.

Gupta, U.G., Clarke, R.E., 1996. Theory and application of the Delphi technique: A bibliography (1957-1994). Technological forecasting and Social change 53, 185-211.

Hai, L.T., 2013. Overview about the conservation and promotion of the values of Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve. In: Brown, S., Cuong, C.V., Simpson, S., Morison, L., Phuong, N.T.V. (Eds.), Conservation and promotion of the values of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve. Agriculture Publishing House, Ho Chi Minh City, pp. 3-13.

Hai, N.H., 2014. Grassroots Democracy and Inequality Reduction in Rural Vietnam: The Case of Thái Bình in 1997 and Now. Asian Journal of Political Science 22, 71-92.

Hai, N.H., 2016. Resilience of the Communist Party of Vietnam’s Authoritarian Regime since Doi Moi. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 35, 31-55.

Hamman, M., Cuong, C.T., Hong, N.D., Thuoc, P., Hien, B.T., 2006. Distribution and abundance of marine turtles in the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. Biodiversity and Conservation 15, 3703- 3720.

Hawkins, S., Phuc, XT, Phuong, P.X., Thuy, P.T. Tu, N.D., Cuong, C.V., Brown, S., Dart, P., Robertson, S., Vu, N., McNally, N., 2010. Roots in the Water: Legal Frameworks for Mangrove PES in Vietnam. Katoomba Group’s Legal Initiative Country Study Series. Forest Trends: Washington, DC.

Haythornthwaite, C., 1996. Social network analysis: an approach and technique for the study of information exchange. Lib. Inf. Sci. Res. 18, 323-342.

Hines, E., Adulyanukosol, K., Somany, P., Ath, L.S., Cox, N., Boonyanate, P., Hoa, N.X., 2008. Conservation needs of the Dugong dugon in Cambodia and Phu Quoc island, Vietnam. Oryx 42, 113-121.

Hoa, N.H., McAlpine, C., Pullar, D., Johansen, K., Duke, N.C., 2013. The relationship of spatial temporal changes in fringe mangrove extent and adjacent land-use: case study of Kien Giang coast, Vietnam. Ocean and Coastal Management 76, 12-22.

Hockings, M., 2003. Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected areas. Bioscience 53, 823-832.

133

Hockings, M., James, R., Stolton, S., Dudley, N., Mathur, V., Makombo, J., Courrau, J., Parrish, J., 2008. Enhancing our heritage toolkit: Assessing management effectiveness of natural World Heritage Sites. World Heritage Papers 23. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris.

Hockings, M., Leverington, F., James, R., 2006. Evaluating management effectiveness. In: Lockwood, M., Worboys, G.L., Kothan, A. (Eds.), Managing Protected Areas: A Global Guide. Earthscan, Camden, UK, pp. 635-655.

Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Dudley, N., 2000. Evaluating effectiveness: a framework for assessing the management of Protected Areas. WCPA Best Practice Protected Area Guideline Series No. 6. IUCN, Gland Switzerland, pp. 1-121.

Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Dudley, N., 2004. Management effectiveness: assessing management of protected areas? Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 6,157-174.

Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Dudley, N., James, R., 2009. Data credibility: What are the “right” data for evaluating management effectiveness of protected areas? In: Birnbaum, M., Mickwitz, P. (Eds.), Environmental program and policy evaluation: Addressing methodological challenges. New directions for evaluation 122, 53-63.

Hughes, R., Flintan, F., 2001. Integrating Conservation and Development experience: A review and bibliography of the ICDP literature. International Institute for Environment and Development, London.

Hunter, M.L., 1996. Fundamentals of Conservation Biology. Blackwell Science, Cambridge.

ICC-MAB [International Co-ordinating Council of the MAB Programme], 2014. Update on the Exist Strategy. SC-14/CONF.226/9. UNESCO, Paris.

ICEM, 2003. Vietnam National Report on Protected Areas and Development. Review of Protected Areas and development in the lower Mekong river region. Indooroopilly, Queensland, Australia.

Ishwaran, N., 2010. Biodiversity, people and places. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 17, 215-222.

Ishwaran, N., 2012. Science in intergovernmental environmental relations: 40 years of UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme and its future. Environmental Development 1, 91-101.

Ishwaran, N., Persic, A., Tri, N.H., 2008. Concept and practice: the case of UNESCO biosphere reserves. Environment and Sustainable Development 7, 118-131.

Johnstone, R., 2013. The sustainability of Dong Ho lake: Key environmental factors and knowledge needs. In: Brown, S., Cuong, C.V., Simpson, S., Morison, L., Phuong, N.T.V. (Eds.), Conservation 134 and promotion of the values of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve. Agriculture Publishing House, Ho Chi Minh City, pp. 24-34.

Juffe-Bignoli, D., Burgess, N.D., Bingham, H., Belle, E.M.S., de Lima, M.G., Deguignet, M., Bertzky, B., Milam, A.N., Martinez-Lopez, J., Lewis, E., Eassom, A., Wicander, S., Geldmann, J., van Soesbergen, A., Arnell, A.P., O’Connor, B., Park, S., Shi, Y.N., Danks, F.S., MacSharry, B., Kingston, N., 2014. Protected Planet Report 2014. UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge, UK.

Kasperczyk, N., Gehrlein, U., Neef, M., 2009. Comparative study of models and approaches of “ Eco-provinces and Eco-cities”. IFLS, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.

Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve Management Board, 2012. Report on biosphere reserve implementation in 2011 and directions in 2012 of the Biosphere Reserve Management Board. Rach Gia, Kien Giang.

Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve Management Board, 2013. Report on biosphere reserve implementation in 2012 and directions in 2013 of the Biosphere Reserve Management Board. Rach Gia, Kien Giang.

Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve Management Board, 2014. Report on biosphere reserve implementation in 2013 and directions in 2014 of the Biosphere Reserve Management Board. Rach Gia, Kien Giang.

Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve Management Board, 2015. Report on biosphere reserve implementation in 2014 and directions in 2015 of the Biosphere Reserve Management Board. Rach Gia, Kien Giang.

Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve Management Board, 2016. Report on biosphere reserve implementation in 2015 and directions in 2016 of the Biosphere Reserve Management Board. Rach Gia, Kien Giang.

Kien Giang DARD, 2014. Plan of implementing the cooperation in fisheries between Kampot Fishery Department and Kien Giang Fisheries Department DARD.

Kien Giang DARD manager, interviewed June 2014. Rach Gia, Kien Giang.

Kien Giand DARD senior planner, interviewed January 2014. Rach Gia, Kien Giang

Kien Giang DOCST, 2016. Tourism achievements and results. Department of Culture, Sport and Tourism. Rach Gia, Kien Giang.

Kien Giang DONRE, 2008. Planning for evironmental protection in Kien Giang to 2015 and visions to 2020. Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Rach Gia, Kien Giang. 135

Kien Giang PPC, 2005. Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve. Proposal report to UNESCO. Kien Giang Province People’s Committee. Rach Gia, Kien Giang.

Kien Giang PPC, 2010. Decision No 811/QD-UBND of the Kien Giang PPC establishing the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve Management Board. Kien Giang People’s Committee. Rach Gia, Kien Giang.

Kien Giang PPC, 2014. Management regulation for Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve. Kien Giang Province People’s Committee. Rach Gia, Kien Giang.

Kien Giang PPC, 2015. Report of Provincial socio-economic development 2010-20015 and directions for 2020. Kien Giang Province People’s Committee. Rach Gia, Kien Giang.

Kien Giang Statistic Office, 2016. Statistical yearly book. Rach Gia, Kien Giang.

King, N., Horrocks, C.H., 2010. Interviews in qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications.

Knickel, K., 2001. The marketing of Rhöngold milk: an example of the reconfiguration of natural relations with agricultural production and consumption. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 3, 123-136.

Kusova, D., Tesitel, J., Matejka, K., Bartos, M., 2008. Biosphere reserves: an attempt to form sustainable landscapes. A case study of three biosphere reserves in the Czech Republic. Landscape and Urban Planning 84, 38-51.

Long, N.V., Tuan, V.S., Ben, H.X., Hoang, P.K., Tuyen, H.T., 2011. Biodiversity dynamics trend of coral reefs in Phu Quoc marine protected area. Proc. 4th Natl. Symp. Mar. Sci. Tech. Mini- Symp. Mar. Biol. Res. Pp. 40-45.

Lotze-Campen, H., Rewsswig, F., Stoll-Kleemann, S., 2008. Soci-ecological monitoring of biodiversity change- Building upon the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. GAIA 17/S1, 107- 115.

Lourival, R., Watts, M., Pressey, R.L., Mourao, G., Padovani, C.R., Pereira da Silva, M., Possingham, H.P., 2011. What is missing in Biosphere Reserves accountability. Natureza Conservacao 9, 160-176.

Lu, Y., Chen, L., Fu, B., Liu, S, 2003. A framework for evaluating the effectiveness of protected areas: the case of Wolong Biosphere Reserve. Landscape and Urban Planning 63, 213-223.

Mack, N., Woodsong, C., Macqueen, K.M., Guest, G., Namey, E., 2005. Qualitative Research Methods: a data collector's field guide.

136 http://www.fhi360.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/Qualitative%20Research%20Methods% 20-%20A%20Data%20Collector's%20Field%20Guide.pdf. (accessed 24.8.2013)

MARD, 2014. National plan for special use forest planning to 2020. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Hanoi.

MARD, 2016. Decision of the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development about announcement of the national forest area. http://tongcuclamnghiep.gov.vn/van-ban-hanh-chinh/cong-bo-hien- trang-rung-nam-2015-quyet-dinh-so-3158-qd-bnn-tcln-ngay-27-7-2016-a3094 (accessed 13.10. 2016).

Marr, D.G., 2004. A Brief history of local government in Vietnam. In: Kerkvliet, B.J.T., Marr, D.G. (Eds.), Beyond Hanoi: Local Government in Vietnam. ISEAS Publications, Singapore, pp. 28-53.

Mascia, M.B., Pailler, S., 2011. Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) and its conservation implications. Conservation Letters 4, 9-20.

Mascia, M.B., Pailler, S., Krithivasan, R., Roshchanka, V., Burns, D., Mlotha, M.J., Murray, D.R., Peng, N., 2014. Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean, 1900–2010. Biological Conservation 169, 355-361.

Matar, D.A., Anthony, B.P., 2017. UNESCO Biosphere Reserve management evaluation: where do we stand and what’s next? The International Journal of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves 1, 37-52.

Mateo, I., Garforth, D., 2014. Kien Giang province trawl fishery, Vietnam. IFFO Fishery Assessment Report. http://cms.sustainablefish.org/fisheries-improvement/supply-chain- roundtables/small-pelagics-reduction-fisheries/asia-fishmeal-roundtable/kien-giang- fip/Kien_Giang_Fishery_Assessment_Report-_final_15th_July.pdf (accessed 25.4.2015).

Matysek, K. A., Stratford, E., Kriwoken, L.K., 2006. The UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Program in Australia: constraints and opportunities for localized sustainable development. Canadian Geographer/ Le Géographe canadien 50, 85-100.

McElwee, P., 2011. Who should manage the land? Common property and community responses in Vietnam’s shifting land. In: Sikor, T., Nghiem P.T., Sowerwine, J., Romm, J. (Eds.), Upland transformations in Vietnam. National University of Singapore Press, Singapore, pp 75-91.

McNeely, J.A., 1993 (Ed.). Parks for life: Report of the IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas. Grand, Switzerland: World Conservation Union.

McNeely, J.A., 1994. Protected areas for the twenty-first century: Working to provide benefits for society. Biodiversity & Conservation 3, 390-405.

137

McShane, T.O., Hirsch, P.D., Trung, T.T., Alexander N. Songorwa, A.N., Ann Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B., Mutekanga, D., g, Thang, H.V., Dammert, J.L., Pulgar-Vidal, M., Welch-Devine, M., Brosius, P., Coppolillo, P., O’Connor, S., 2011. Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation 144, 966-972.

Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Rander, J., Behrens III, W.W., 1972 (Eds.). The limit to the growth. A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of the Mankind. Universe Books, New York.

Meadows, D.H., Randers, J., Meadows, D.L., 2005. Limits to Growth -The 30-Year Update. Earthscan, London.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Miller, T.R., Minter, B.A., Malan, L.C., 2011. The new conservation debate: a descriptive and normative analysis. Biological Conservation 144, 948-957.

MONRE, 2008. Vietnam’s implementation of the Biodiversity Conservation. 4th country report. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Hanoi.

MONRE, 2010. Vietnam’s state of the environment report. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Hanoi.

MONRE, 2012. Climate change and sea level rise scenarios for Vietnam. Natural Resources- Environment and Maps Publishing House, Hanoi.

MONRE, 2015a. Vietnam’s state of the environment report for the period 2011-2015. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Hanoi.

MONRE, 2015b. Vietnam National Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, Vision to 2030. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Hanoi.

Muraca, B., 2012. Towards a fair degrowth-society: Justice and the right to a ‘good life’ beyond growth. Futures 44, 535-545.

National Assembly of Vietnam, 1991. Law on Forest Protection and Development (No. 58- LCT/HDNN8).

National Assembly of Vietnam, 1993. Land Law (No. 24-L/CTN/1993/QH).

National Assembly of Vietnam, 1993. Environment Protection Law (No. 29-L/CTN).

National Assembly of Vietnam, 1998. Water Resource Law (No. 08/1998/QH10).

138

National Assembly of Vietnam, 2001. Cutural Heritage Law (No. 28/2001/QH10).

National Assembly of Vietnam, 2002. State Budget Law (No. 01/2002/QH11).

National Assembly of Vietnam, 2003. Land Law No. 13/2003/QH11).

National Assembly of Vietnam, 2003. Fishery Law (No. 17/2003/QH11).

National Assembly of Vietnam, 2003. Law on Organisation of People’s Councils and People Commitees (No. 11/2003/QH11).

National Assembly of Vietnam, 2004. Forest Protection and Development Law (No. 29/2004/QH11).

National Assembly of Vietnam, 2005. Environment Protection Law (No. 52/2005/QH11).

National Assembly of Vietnam, 2008. Biodiversity Law (No. 20/2008/QH12).

National Assembly of Vietnam, 2012. Water Resource Law (No. 17/2012/QH13).

National Assembly of Vietnam, 2013. Land Law (No. 45/2013/QH13).

National Assembly of Vietnam, 2014. Environment Protection Law (No. 55/2014/QH13).

National Assembly of Vietnam, 2015. State Budget Law (No. 83/2015/QH13).

National MAB of Vietnam, 2016. Khu dự trữ sinh quyển Việt Nam: Bốn trong một (Vietnam’s biosphere reserves: four in one). http://mabvietnam.com/khu-du-tru-sinh-quyen-viet-nam-bon- trong-mot (accessed 28.5.2016).

NEA [National Environment Protection Agency], 2005. Vietnam’s state of the environment report: Biodiversity. National Environment Protection Agency, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Hanoi.

Nguyen, C.N., Bosch, O.J.H., Maani, K.E., 2011. Creating ‘Learning Laboratories’ for Sustainable Development in Biospheres: A Systems Thinking Approach. Syst. Res 28, 51-62.

Nguyen, T., Huynh, T., Zhang, H., 2015. Cu Lao Cham Biosphere Reserve sustainability project in Vietnam: Cooperate framework for sustainable development management. Sustainable Development 1, 15-27

Nguyen, X.N., 2002. Financial Management for Protected Areas in Vietnam. Forest Protection Department and WWF Indochina Program.

Norton, B.G., 2003. Searching for Sustainability: Interdisciplinary Essays in the Philosophy of

Conservation Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

139

Nuwer, R., Bell, D., 2014. Identifying and quantifying the threats to biodiversity in the U Minh peat swamp forests of the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Oryx 48, 88-94.

Okano, T., 2013. Japanese activities in biodiversity conservation and biosphere reserves in Japan. Japanese Journal of Ecology 62, 375-385.

Okoli, C., Pawlowski, S.D., 2004. The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management 42, 15-29.

Olson, D.M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E.D., Burgess, N.D.G., Powell, V.N., Underwood, E.C., D'Amico, J.A., Itoua, I., Strand, H.E., Morrison, J.C., Loucks, C.J., Allnutt, T.F., Ricketts, T.H., Kura, Y., Lamoreux, J.F., Wettengel, W.W., Hedao, P., Kassem, K.R., 2001. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth. A new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. BioScience 51, 933-938.

Palomo, I., Montes, C., Martín-López, B., González, J.A., García-Llorente, M., Alcorlo, A., Mora, M.A.G. 2014. Incorporating the social-ecological approach in Protected Areas in the anthropocene. Bioscience 64, 181-191.

Parks Victoria, 2006. Wilson’s Promontory Marine National Park and Wilsons Promontory Marine Park Management Plan, Melbourne.

Phuc, T.X., 2009. Why did the forest conservation policy fail in the Vietnamese uplands? Forest conflicts in Ba Vi National Park in Northern Region. International Journal of Environmental Studies 66, 59-68

Pino-Del-Carpio, A., Arino, A.H., Villarroya, A., Puig, J., Mirdanda, R., 2014. The biodiversity data knowledge gap: Assessing information loss in the management of biosphere reserves. Biological Conservation 173, 74-79.

Pokorny, D., 2006. Sustainable development beyond administrative boundaries. In: Voltmann, H., Dobretsov, N. (Eds.), Environmental security and sustainable land use-with special reference to central Asia. Springer, pp.199-213.

Politburo Committee of the Party, 1998. Directive No 30-CT/TW of the Politburo Committee on development and implementation of the democracy policy at grassroots level.

Popelier, L., Vaessen, J., 2014. Final Evaluation of the Madrid Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002280/228056e.pdf (accessed 15.4.2015).

Price, M.F., 1996. People in biosphere reserves: An evolving concept. Society & Natural Resources 9, 645-654.

140

Price, M.F., 2002. The periodic review of biosphere reserves: a mechanism to foster sites of excellence for conservation and sustainable development. Environmental Science & Policy 5, 13- 18.

Price, M.F., Park, J.J., Bouamrane, M., 2010. Reporting progress on internationally designated sites: the periodic review of biosphere reserves. Environmental Science & Policy 13, 549-557.

Reed, M.G., 2016. Conservation (in) action: Renewing the relevance of UNESCO Biosphere reserves. Conservation Letters 9, 488-456.

Reed, M.G., Egunyu, F., 2013. Management effectiveness in UNESCO Biosphere Reserves: learning from Canadian periodic reviews. Environmental Science & Policy 25, 107-117.

Reed, M.G., Massie, M.M.M., 2013. Embracing ecological learning and social learning: UNESCO Biosphere reserves as exemplars of changing conservation practices, Conservation & Society 11, 391-405.

Richards, T., 2002. An intellectual history of NUD*IST and NVivo. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 5, 199-214.

Sabatier, P.A., Jenkins-Smith, H.C., 1993. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Salafsky, N., 2011. Integrating development with conservation: a means to a conservation end, or a mean end to conservation?. Biological Conservation 144, 973-978.

Saunier, R.E., Meganch, A.R., 1995. Introduction. In: Saunier, R.E., Meganch, A.R. (Eds.), Conservation of Biodiversity and the new regional planning. Organization of American States and IUCN, pp 1-6. Schellnhuber, H.J., Kokott, J., Beese, F.O., Fraedrich, K., Klemmer, P., Kruse-Graumann, L., Neumann, C., Renn, O., Schulze, E.D., Tilzer, M., Velsinger, P., Zimmermann, H., 2001. World in Transition: Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Biosphere. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London and Sterling, VA.

Schliep, R., Stoll-Kleemann, S., 2010. Assessing governance of biosphere reserves in Central Europe. Land use policy 27, 917-927.

Schultz, L., Duit, A., Folke, C., 2011. Participation, Adaptive Co-management, and Management Performance in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. World Development 39, 662-671.

Schultz, L., Lundholm, C., 2010. Learning for resilience? Exploring learning opportunities in biosphere reserves. Environmental Education Research 16, 645-663.

141

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. http://www.cbd.int/iyb/doc/prints/factsheets/iyb-cbd-factsheet-gbo-en.pdf. (accessed 20.4.2013).

Son, N.T., Tu, N.A., 2008. Determinants of land-use change: A case study from the lower Mekong delta of southern Vietnam. Electronic Green Journal 1, 1-12.

Song, N.V., 2008. Wildlife trading in Vietnam: Situation, causes, and solutions. The Journal of Environment & Development 17, 145-165.

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., de Vries, W., de Witt, C.A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heincke, J., Mace, G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., Sörlin, S., 2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1-17.

Stoll-Kleemann, S., 2005. Indicators and Evaluation of sustainable natural resource management and governance in biosphere reserves. In: Global change impact in mountain Biosphere Reserves (organised by UNESCO). Sierra Nevada Biosphere Reserve, Spain, pp. 237-245.

Stoll-Kleemann, S., 2010. Evaluation of management effectiveness in protected areas: Methodologies and results. Basic and Applied Ecology 11, 377-382.

Stoll-Kleemann, S., De La Vega-Leinert, A.C., Schultz, L., 2010. The role of community participation in the effectiveness of UNESCO Biosphere Reserve management: evidence and reflections from two parallel global surveys. Environmental Conservation 37, 227-238.

Stoll-Kleemann, S., O’Riordan, T., 2017. The challenges of the anthropocene for Biosphere reserves. Parks 23, 89-101.

Stoll-Kleemann, S., Welp, M., 2008. Participatory and integrated management of biosphere reserves - Lessons from case studies and a global survey. Gaia-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 17, 161-168.

Stolton, S., 2010. Vital sites: Protected areas supporting health and recreation. In: Stolton, S., Dudley, N. (Eds.), Arguments for protected areas: multiple benefits for conservation and use. Earthscan, London, pp 13-23.

Stuart, B.L., 2004. The harvest and trade of reptiles at U Minh Thuong National Park, Southern Vietnam. TRAFFIC Bullentin 20, 25-34.

Thaitesi, R., Delacy, T., 1997. Linking development and conservation through biosphere reserves: promoting sustainable grazing in Xilingol Biosphere Reserve, Inner Mongolia, China. In: Hale, P.,

142

Lamb, D. (Eds.), Conservation outside nature reserves. Centre for Conservation Biology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, pp. 183-189.

Thang, T.V., 2013a. Comparative survey of vegetation diversity in U Minh Thuong National Park. Technical report for Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve Project. Rach Gia, Kien Giang.

Thang, T.V., 2013b. Bird survey at U Minh Thuong National Park. Technical report for Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve Project. Rach Gia, Kien Giang.

Thoai, D.T., Tri, N.H., Trong, N.T., Thung, D.C., Hieu, N.T., Hien, V.T., Hue, T.T., 2014. Periodic review for Cat Ba Biosphere Reserve, Vietnam. Report submission to UNESCO.

Thorsell, J.W., 1989. Biosphere reserves and the World Conservation Strategy II. In: Gregg, Jr. W.P., Krugman, S.L., Wood, Jr.J.D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Biosphere Reserves, Fourth World Wilderness Congress, September 14-17, 1987, YMCA at the Rockies, Estes Park, Colorado USA. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Atlanta, Georgia, pp. 41-46.

Tittensor, D.P., Walpole, M., Hill, S.L.L., Boyce, D.G., Britten, G.L., Burgess, N.D., Butchart, S.H.M., Leadley, P.W., Regan, E.C., Alkemade, R., Baumung, R., Bellard, C., Bouwman, L., Bowles-Newark, N.J., Chenery, A.M., Cheung, W.W.L., Christensen, V., Cooper, H.D., Crowther, A.R., Dixon, M.J.R., Galli, A., Gaveau, V., Gregory, R.D., Gutierrez, N.L., Hirsch, T.L., Höft, R., Januchowski-Hartley, S.R., Karmann, M., Krug, C.B., Leverington, F.J., Loh, J., Lojenga, R.K., Malsch, K., Marques, A., Morgan, D.H.W., Mumby, P.J., Newbold, T., Noonan-Mooney, K., Pagad, S.N., Parks, B.C., Pereira, H.M., Robertson, T., Rondinini, C., Santini, L., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Schindler, S., Sumaila, U.R., Teh, L.S.L., van Kolck, J., Visconti, P., Ye, Y., 2014. A mid- term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346, 241.

Tortosa, A.J.P., 2012. Grassroots Democracy in Rural Vietnam: A Gramscian Analysis. Socialism and Democracy 26, 103-126.

Tran, N.N., 2011. Analyzing changes in Dong Ho lake in recent decades. In: Carter, R.W., Cuong, C.V. (Eds.), Proceedings of the national workshop: Integrated Planning for Conservation and Development of Dong Ho Lake, Vietnam, pp. 48-57.

Tran, N.N., 2013. Sustainable development in Phu Quoc. In: Brown, S., Cuong, C.V., Simpson, S., Morison, L., Phuong, N.T.V. (Eds.), Conservation and promotion of the values of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve. Agriculture Publishing House, Ho Chi Minh City, pp. 97-117.

Tri, N.H., 2006. Overview of Vietnam’s Biosphere Reserve: Country report. Paper presented at the Ninetieth Session of the International Coordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Program, UNESCO Headquarter, Paris, 23-27 October 2006. 143

Tri, N.H., 2009. Lesson learnt from using system thinking for development of the Biosphere resereves, Vietnam. 11th meeting of the East Asian Biosphere Reserve Network, Wuyishan, China 10-15 November 2009.

Tri, N.H., Hoa, T.L., Tuyen, L.T., 2013. Management of MAB Vietnam’s network of biosphere reserves through the approach of system thinking, land/seascape planning, inter-sectoral coordination and quality economy (SLIQ). Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the ISSS, Hai Phong, Vietnam, pp. 1-8.

Truyen, D.M., Thia, L.H., Mansor, M., 2014. Conservation and exploitation of Bang grass in Phu My village, Vietnam. Int. J. of GEOMATE 7, 1096-1100.

UNEP, 2002. Global environmental Outlook 3: Past, present and future perspectives. Earthscan, London.

UNESCO, 1996a. The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves. UNESCO, Paris.

UNESCO, 1996b. The Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. UNESCO, Paris.

UNESCO, 2000. Solving the puzzle: The ecosystem approach and biosphere reserves. UNESCO, Paris.

UNESCO, 2008. Madrid Action Plan for Biosphere Reserves. UNESCO, Paris.

UNESCO, 2010. Lessons from Biosphere Reserves in the Asia-Pacific region, and a way forward: A regional review of biosphere reserves in Asia & the Pacific to achieve sustainable development. UNESCO Jakarta Office.

UNESCO, 2016a. Lima Action Plan for UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Program and its World Network of Biosphere Reserves (2016-2025). http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/Lima_Action_Plan_en_final.pdf (accessed 23.4.2016).

UNESCO, 2016b. World Network of Biosphere Reserves. http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/images/MAB_leaflet_2016_2017_e n.pdf/ (accessed 25.10.2016)

UNESCO Hanoi, 2013. Biosphere Reserves in Vietnam: A first assessment of their values and management effectiveness. Hanoi.

144

United Nations, 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&referer=http://www.un.org/sustai nabledevelopment/development-agenda/&Lang=E. (accessed 14.9.2016).

Van, V.T., Lam, P.T.B., 2013. Conservation of the biodiversity of limestone moutains in Ha Tien- Kien Luong, Kien Giang. In: Brown, S., Cuong, C.V., Simpson, S., Morison, L., Phuong, N.T.V. (Eds.), Conservation and promotion of the values of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve. Agriculture Publishing House, Ho Chi Minh City, pp. 79-92.

Vance-Borland, K., Holley, J., 2011. Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving. Conservation letters 4, 278-288.

Vietnam Sustainable Tourism Institute, 2013. Strategy for tourism product development in Kien Giang province to 2020 and orientations to 2030.

Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Lubchenco, J., Melillo, J.M., 1997. Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems. Science 277, 494-499.

Wallner, A., Bauer, N., Hunziker, M., 2007. Perceptions and evaluations of biosphere reserves by local residents in Switzerland and Ukraine. Landscape and Urban Planning 83, 104-114.

Watson, J.E.M., Dudley, N., Segan, D.B., and Hockings, M., 2014. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515, 67-73.

WB, 2005a. Vietnam environment monitor 2005: Biodiversity. World Bank.

WB, 2005b. Going, going, gone: The illegal trade in wildlife in East and Southeast Asia: A discussion Paper. World Bank.

WCED [World Commission on Environment and Development], 1987. A Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Well, M., 1992. Biodiversity Conservation, Affluence and Poverty: Mismatched Costs and Benefits and Efforts to Remedy Them. Ambio 21, 237-243.

Wikle, T.A., Le, N.H., 2013. Vietnam’s emerging national parks war, resource exploitation, and recent struggles to protect biodiversity. Focus Geogr. 56, 66-71.

Zimmerer, K.S., Galt, R.E., Buck, M.V., 2004. Globalization and multi-spatial trends in the coverage of protected-area conservation (1980–2000). Ambio 33, 520-529.

Zingerli, C., 2005. Colliding understandings of biodiversity conservation in Vietnam: Global claims, national interests, and local struggles. Soc Nat Resour 18, 733-747.

145

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Supplementary Tables for Chapter 2 Appendix 2.1. List of nominated successful biosphere reserves

No Name of BR No of Country Seville Periodic Zonation nominations Generation review 1 Rhon 8 Germany Pre 2004; 2014 3 zones 2 North Devon 4 UK Pre 1999; 2009 Zone extension in 2002 (Braunton Burrows) 3 Noosa 3 Australia Post 3 zones 4 Jeju BR 3 Korea Post 2013 3 zones 5 Sierra Gorda 3 Mexico Post 2013 3 zones 6 Schaalsee 2 Germany Post 2012 3 zones 7 Aya 2 Japan Post 3 zones 8 K2C 2 South Africa Post 2013 3 zones 9 Entlebuch 2 Switzerland Post 2012 3 zones 10 Spreewald 2 Germany Pre 2003; 2013 3 zones 11 Dana 2 Jordan Pre 2014 3 zones 12 Camargue region 2 France Pre 2000; 2006 Zone extension in 2006 13 Westernport 1 Australia Post 2015 3 zones 14 Tonle Sap 1 Cambodia Post 2013 3 zones 15 Fundy 1 Canada Post 3 zones 16 Georgian Bay 1 Canada Post 3 zones 17 Clayoquot Sound 1 Canada Post 2011 3 zones 18 Frontenac Arch 1 Canada Post 3 zones 19 Lac Saint- Pierre 1 Canada Post 2012 3 zones 20 Manicouagan- 1 Canada Post 3 zones Uapishka 21 Seaflower 1 Colombia Post 2011 3 zones 22 Agua y Paz 1 Costarica Post 3 zones 23 Kafa 1 Ethiopi Post 3 zones 24 Oberlausitzer 1 Germany Post 2007 3 zones Heide-und Teichlandschaft 25 Vosges du 1 Germany/ Post 2004; 3 zones Nord/Pfä lzerwald France 2011; 2014 26 Swabian Alb 1 Germany Post 3 zones 27 Giam Kecil 1 Indonesia Post 3 zones 28 Serra do Espinhaç o 1 Brazil Post 3 zones 29 Shouf 1 Lebanon Post 3 zones 30 Banco Chinchorro 1 Mexico Post 3 zones 31 Volga – Kama 1 Russia Post 3 zones

146

No Name of BR No of Country Seville Periodic Zonation nominations Generation review 32 Kogelberg 1 South Africa Post 2010 3 zones 33 Waterberg 1 South Africa Post 2013 3 zones 34 West Coast 1 South Africa Post 3 zones Extension in 2003

35 Sierra Del Rincon 1 Spain Post 3 zones 36 East Vättern Scarp 1 Sweden Post 3 zones Landscape 37 Marawah 1 UAE Post 3 zones 38 Can Gio 1 Vietnam Post 2011 3 zones 39 Cat Ba BR 1 Vietnam Post 2014 3 zones 40 Cu Lao Cham 1 Vietnam Post 3 zones 41 Kien Giang 1 Vietnam Post 3 zones

42 Red River Delta 1 Vietnam Post 2014 3 zones 43 Mata Atlantica 1 Brazil Pre Zone extension in 2002; 2009 44 Niagara Escarpment 1 Canada Pre 2002; 2014 3 zones 45 Southeast Rügen 1 Germany Pre 2004; 2014 3 zones 46 Sierra de 1 Mexico Pre 1999; 2013 3 zones Manantlàn 47 Sian Ka’an 1 Mexico Pre 1999 48 Tatra Mountains 1 Slovakia & Pre 2014 3 zones and Poland transboundary BR 49 Sierra Nevada 1 Spain Pre 2000 Zone extension in 2012 50 Fitzgerald River 1 Australia Pre 2003; 2013 51 Riverland 1 Australia Pre 2003 Zone extension in 1995 52 Mont St. Hilaire 1 Canada Pre 1998; 2009 3 zones 53 Mountain Velebit 1 Croatia Pre 1998; 2003 54 Sierra del Rosario 1 Cuba Pre 1998 3 zones 55 Flusslandschaft 1 Germany Pre 2002; 2009 Zone extension in 1997 Elbe 56 Cibodas BR 1 Indonesia Pre 2011 3 zones 57 Yakushima Island 1 Japan Pre 1999; 2014 Zone extension in 2014 58 Retezat National 1 Romania Pre 1998 3 zones Park 59 Doñana 1 Spain Pre 2004 Zone extension in 2012 60 La Palma 1 Spain Pre 2014 Zone extension in 1997 & 2002

147

Appendix 2.2. List of nominated less successful biosphere reserves

No Name of BR No of Country Seville Periodic Zonation nominations Generation review Wilson’s 1 3 Australia Pre 2003 No BZ; TZ* Promontory 2 Kosciuszko 2 Australia Pre 2003 No BZ; TZ 3 Torres del Paine NP 2 Chile Pre 1999 No BZ; TZ 4 Golden gate 2 US Pre 2014 No BZ; TZ 5 Mount Kenya NP 2 Kenya Pre No BZ, TZ;

6 Ranong 2 Thailand Post 2011; 2014 Not clear zonation

7 Fritzgerald 1 Australia Pre 2003; 2013 No BZ and TZ 8 Croajingolong 1 Australia Pre 2003 No BZ; TZ 9 Riverland 1 Australia Pre 2003; 2013 No BZ; TZ 10 Dja National Park 1 Cameroon Pre 2006 No BZ; TZ Wolong Nature 11 1 China Pre 1998 3 zones Reserve 12 Colon Archipelago 1 Ecuador Pre 1999 3 zones 13 Rio Platano 1 Honduras Pre No TZ

14 Darien 1 Panama Pre 2000 3 zones Volcans National 15 1 Rwanda Pre No BZ; TZ Park 16 Beinn Eighe 1 Scotland Pre No BZ; TZ

Queen Elizabeth 17 1 Uganda Pre 1998; 2011 No TZ NP 18 Xilingol 1 China Pre 1999 3 zones 19 Berchtesgaden Alps 1 Germany Pre 2003; 2013 3 zones 20 Rhon 1 Germany Pre 3 zones

Wadden Sea of 21 1 Germany Pre 2006, 2015 Unclear zonation Hamburg 22 Barkindji 1 Australia Post 3 zones

23 Great Sandy 1 Australia Post 3 zones

24 Tonle Sap 1 Cambodia Post 2012 3 zones 25 Cienaga de Zapata 1 Cuba Post 2011 3 zones 26 Bliebgau 1 Germany Post 3 zones

27 Mt. Carmen 1 Israel Post 2007 3 zones 28 San Juan 1 Nicaragua Post 3 zones

29 La Amistad 1 Panama Post 3 zones

30 Western Nghe An 1 Vietnam Post 3 zones

* BZ: Buffer zone; TZ: Transition zone

148

Appendix 2.3. Significant Spearman’s correlations among the key promoting factors for biosphere reserve success

Factor 1 Factor 2 Spearman’s P value coefficient

Finance and resources Governance 0.426* 0.021 Finance and resources Economic development 0.427* 0.023 Finance and resources Management and implementation 0.427* 0.021 Awareness and Communication Learning orientation and system thinking 0.601** 0.000 Awareness and communication Regional integration 0.600** 0.001 Research linkage Landscape and zonation 0. 426* 0.024 Research linkage Economic development 0.401* 0.034 Research linkage Regional integration 0.579** 0.001 Research linkage Learning orientation and system thinking 0.459* 0.016 **. Correlation significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

149

Appendix B: Supplementary Tables for Chapter 3.

Appendix 3.1. Vietnam’s biosphere reserves

Name of BRs Province(s) Designati Total Core Buffer Transi- Popula- Periodic -on year (ha) zone zone tion area tion review (ha) (ha) (ha) (people) Can Gio Ho Chi 2000 71,370 4,721 37,339 29,310 71,370 2010 Minh city Dong Nai Dong Nai, 2001 966,563 209,495 306,354 450,714 485,900 2012 Binh Duong, (former Binh Phuoc, Cat Lam Dong Tien); & Dak Nong renamed in 2011 Cat Ba Hai Phong 2004 26,241 8,500 7,741 10,000 5,243 1014 city Red River Thai Binh, 2004 105,557 14,167 36,849 54,541 128,075 2014 Delta Nam Dinh & Ninh Binh Kien Giang Kien Giang 2006 1,188,104 36,935 172,578 978,591 353,893 Tay Nghe An Nghe An 2007 1,303,285 191,922 503,270 608,093 473,822 Cu Lao Cham Quang Nam 2009 33,146 2,471 8,455 22,220 84,000 Mui Ca Mau Ca Mau 2009 371,306 17,329 43,309 310,868 170,500 Langbian Lam Dong 2015 275, 439 34,943 72,232 168,264 570,000 TOTAL 4,101,246 382,908 1,133,218 2,585,320 2,342,803

150

Appendix 3.2. Câu hỏi thu thập thông tin tại các khu Dự trữ sinh quyển (DTSQ) Việt Nam (Questionnaires were translated in English and present in italic texts) (Questionairs to collect information in BR management in Vietnam) Tên của khu DTSQ/Name of the BR: Chức vụ của anh/chị trong khu DTSQ/ Your position in the BR: 1. Theo anh chị thì vì sao chúng ta lại sử dụng cách tiếp cận mô hình khu DTSQ? (In your opinions, Why we use the model of biosphere reserve?)

2. Anh chị cho biết các giá trị chính mà khu dự trữ sinh quyển bảo tồn/bảo vệ, gìn giữ và phát huy? (What are the main values that biosphere reserves seek to protect?)

Xin anh chị cho biết 3 giá trị quan trong nhất? (Please give 3 most important values?)

3. Anh chị cho biết về vị trí pháp lý của hệ thống khu dự trữ sinh quyển ở Việt Nam hiện nay? (What do you understand the legal position and status of BR system in Vietnam?)

4. Theo anh chị thì tính pháp lý có ảnh hưởng như thế nào đến việc quản lý khu dự trữ sinh quyển ở Việt Nam? Vì sao? (Does legal status have influence on the effective implementation of BR in Vietnam? How?)

5. Đánh giá của Anh/Chị về hiệu quả của hệ thống quản tri hiện nay trong quản lý khu DTSQ (Do current governance and administration structures support effective management of BR in Vietnam?)

Rất tốt/ Tốt/ B.thường/ Yếu/ Rất yếu/ Very good Good Neutral Bad Very bad

Xin giải thích tại sao? (Please explain why?)

6. Đánh giá xếp hạng của anh chị về mức độ ảnh hưởng của các qui định, chính sách hiện nay trong quản lý mô hình khu DTSQ (Do current Policies/laws support effective management of BR in Vietnam? Yes/No and Why? Please give your rating): Rất tốt/ Tốt/ B.thường/ Yếu/ Rất yếu/ Strong positive Positive Neutral negative Strongly negative

Xin giải thích lý do vì sao (Please explain why?)

151

7. Xin Anh chị đánh giá về công tác liên lạc, chia sẻ thông tin giữa khu DTSQ của mình và các cơ quan, đơn vị, tổ chức có liên quan khác (Please give your statement about communication between your BR with others) Tên tổ chức, cơ quan Tần xuất liên lạc/Frequency Mục đích Hàng Hàng Hàng Dưới 4 lần/ Rất hiếm liên tuần/ tháng/ quí / năm/ Less hoặc chưa/ lạc/Main Weekly Monthly Quart than 4 times Rarely/ purposes erly /year Never Uỷ Ban MAB Việt Nam/MAB Vietnam Bộ ngành trung ương/ Central government agencies/Ministries UBND tỉnh, thành phố/ PPC/City Sở ngành /Provincial Departments Tổ chức đoàn thể/ Socio-political organizations (Youth, Women, Farmers…) VQG, khu bảo tồn, BQL rừng / National parks, ptected areas, forest protection Management Boards UBND huyện, xã/ Local authorities of districts/ communes Cộng đồng/ communities Dự án và các tổ chức phi chính phủ/ projects and NGOs Các Viện, trường / Universities, research Institutes Doanh nghiệp (Industry/enterprises) Các khu DTSQ khác ở Việt Nam/ Other biosphere reserves in Vietnam Khu dự trữ sinh quyển trên thế giới/ International BRs (name of BR and purposes Các tổ chức khác (nêu tên cụ thể) / Others (please specify)

Anh chị cho biết 3 cách thức liên lạc, trao đổi thông tin phổ biến nhất ở KDTSQ của mình? /The three most communication methods in the BR?

8. Anh chị cho biết 5 rào cản/hạn chế chính ảnh hưởng đến việc duy trì thông tin liên lạc và truyền thông trong quản lý khu dự trữ sinh quyển? /Please list up to 5 major hindrances to maintain the contact and communication in BR management?

Các rào cản/ hạn chế khác (nếu có) Other hindrances (if any)

9. Anh chị cho biết 5 yếu tố thúc đẩy việc duy trì, trao đổi thông tin trong quản lý khu dự trữ sinh quyển?/ Please give at list up to 5 major facilitating factors to maintain the contact and communication in BR management?

Các rào cản/ hạn chế khác (nếu có) /Other facilitating factors (if any)

10. Anh chị cho biết những điểm mạnh của khu DTSQ ở cấp độ địa phương (tỉnh, thành phố, huyện, xã,…) là gì ? /What do you see as the advantages of BR at the local (province/city, district, and commune) level?

152

11. Theo anh chị thì điểm khác biệt lớn nhất giữa mô hình khu DTSQ và các hệ thống quản lý khác như quản lý theo ngành, quản lý ở Vườn quốc gia, khu bảo tồn, Ramsar và khu di sản thiên nhiên) là gì?/ In your opinion, what are the most important differences between BR and other management systems (national park, protected areas, Ramsar, world heritages? 12. Anh chị cho biết 5 hạn chế lớn nhất đến tính hiệu quả quản lý khu DTSQ và xếp theo thứ tự từ cao xuống thấp? /In the order, please list 5 most important constraints to the effective management of the BR?

Các hạn chế khác (nếu có)/ Other constraints (if any)

13. Anh chị cho biết 5 yếu tố quan trọng nhất thúc đẩy tính hiệu quả quản lý khu DTSQ và xếp theo thứ tự từ cao xuống thấp?/ In the order, please list 5 most important enabling factors (or more) to the effective management of the BR?

Các yếu tố khác (nếu có)/ Other factors:

14. Đánh giá của Anh/Chị về mức độ ảnh hưởng mô hình khu DTSQ trong việc lồng ghép/phối hợp đa ngành trong qui hoạch, quản lý tài nguyên thiên nhiên không?/ Does BR have an effect on cross-sector planning and management of the natural resources? Yes/No? Đánh giá/ your rating Rất cao/ Cao/ B.thường/ Thấp/ Rất thấp/ Very high High Neutral Low Very low Giải thích vì sao/ Please explain?

15. Đánh giá của Anh/Chị về khả năng của mô hình khu DTSQ trong việc khuyến khích sự tham gia của các chủ thể đặc biệt là cộng đồng trong qui hoạch, quản lý bền vững tài nguyên thiên nhiên./Has BR enabled an increase in stakeholder participation? Yes/No? and rating Rất cao/ Cao/ B.thường/ Thấp/ Rất thấp/ Very high High Neutral Low Very low Giải thích vì sao/Please explain why? .

Các giải pháp gì để khuyến khích và tăng cường sự tham gia quản lý khu DTSQ trong thời gian tới?/How would you suggest that stakeholder participation could be encouraged and supported by the BR?

16. Anh/Chị cho biết một số giải pháp để nâng cao tính hiệu quả trong quản lý khu DTSQ?/What should be done to improve the effectiveness of management of BR?

17. Đánh giá của Anh/ chị thì các chương trình, dự án từ bên ngoài có tác động như thế nào đối với khu DTSQ? (In your opinions, do external support projects/programs have impact on the BR management? In which way and why?

153

Rất tốt/ Tốt/ B.thường/ Xấu/ Rất xấu/ Strong positive Positive Neutral Negative Strong negative

Giải thích vì sao/Explain why?

18. Theo anh chị thì các chương trình, dự án từ bên ngoài có giúp làm tăng tính bền vững của DTSQ?/What do you think about the role of the support project/programs to the sustainability and the effectiveness of BR management? and why? Rất cao/ Cao/ Ít/ Thấp/ Rất thấp/ Very high High Litle Low Very low

Giải thích vì sao?/ Explain why?

19. Anh/Chị đánh giá xếp hạng những đóng góp của các chương trình, dự án đối với tính hiệu quả của quản lý khu DTSQ (điền s nếu đóng góp có tác động tốt; p nếu tác động đang diễn ra và ns nếu không có tác động gì)/ Please give your rating the contributions of the projects/programs to effective biosphere reserve management (s for significant; p for present and ns for not significant) Các đóng góp của chương trình, dự án/ Contributions of the projects/programs Xếp hạng/ Assessment (s, p or ns) Nâng cao, ý thức bảo vệ môi trường, bảo vệ rừng/ environmental awareness raising Cải thiện sinh kế, tạo thu nhập/ Livelihood income Khuyến khích và tạo cơ hội tham gia cho cộng đồng/ Participation promotion Xây dựng các mô hình trình diễn/Develop and implement the demonstration models Tập huấn và chuyên giao kỹ thuật/ Technical training and transfer Bảo tồn đa dạng sinh học/ Biodiversity conservation Tăng cường hợp tác, phối hợp/ Collaboration strengthening Bảo tồn giá trị văn hóa, lịch sử/ Preservation of the cultural and historical values Làm cầu nối cho sự tham gia/Create a bridge for participation (sectors, departments, communities) and collaboration in planning, managing and sustainable using natural resources Thích ứng với biến đổi khí hậu/ Mitigate and adapt to climate change impacts Thúc đẩy tăng trưởng xanh và bền vững/Promote green development and sustainable growth

Các đóng góp khác (nếu có)/ Other contributions (if any)

20. Theo anh/chị thì mô hình quản lý khu DTSQ hiện nay đã đảm bảo để nó tiếp tục vận hành trong tương lai chưa? Kể cả khi không con sự trợ giúp của các chương trình, dự án từ bên ngoài?/Is the BR model and its current management processes adequate to enable its continuing into the future even without external support either through projects and funding? Yes/No and Why? Rất cao/ Cao/ Ít/ Thấp/ Rất thấp/ Very high High Litle Low Very low

Giải thích vì sao/Please explain?

154

21. Đề nghị anh chị xếp hạng các thách thức tính bền vững của mô hình khu dự trữ sinh quyển khi không còn sự trợ giúp từ bên ngoài (điền s vào ô trống nếu đây thực sự là thách thức lớn, p: thách thức hiện tại (đang tồn tại) và ns: không có tác động gì- không quan trọng)/ Please rate these challenges to BR sustainable management (s for significant; p for present and ns for not significant) Challenges/issues Rating (s, p, ns) Thiếu kinh phí và nguồn hỗ trợ các hoạt động tuyên truyền, nâng cao nhận thức /Lack of funding and supportive resources for communication and awareness raising Thiếu, ít các hoạt động sinh kế tạo thu nhập/Lack of/few livelihood/income generating activities Không hoặc ít có sự tham gia của cộng đồng/Lack of or low community participation Không có hoặc ít các mô hình trình diễn về bảo vệ môi trường, cải thiện thu nhập/ Lack of the demonstration models Ít các chương trình hoạt động tập huấn và chuyên giao kỹ thuật/Lack of trainings/capacity building programs and technical transfer Thiếu đầu tư cho các hoạt động bảo vệ, phát triển rừng và đa dạng sinh học/ Lack of investment for forest development, biodiversity conservation Làm giảm hoặc không duy trì sự hợp tác, phối hợp giữa các ban ngành/ reduce or stop collaboration process Thiếu đầu từ và nguồn lực cho bảo tồn giá trị văn hoá, lịch sử, di sản/ Lack of fundings and resources to preserve cultural, historical and heritage sites and values Mất đi cầu nối liên kết cộng đồng và các sở, ban ngành trong qui hoạch, sử dụng tài nguyên / Lack of focal point agency to connect community, departments in planning and management of the natural resources Giảm cơ hội nâng cao năng lực, kỹ năng làm việc của cán bộ/ Lack of opportunity for capactity building for staff

Các thách thức khác và đánh giá xếp hạng/Others and rating (s; p, ns)

22. Trong khu dự trữ sinh quyển của anh/chị thì đã có sản phẩm/dịch vụ địa phương nào được gắn nhãn (cấp giấy chứng nhận) khu dự trữ sinh quyển chưa? Nếu có thì trả lời tiếp câu 24, nếu không thì chỉ trả lời câu 23 và câu 27) / (Are you using BR brand names for local products in your BR? Yes go to question 24, if No, go to question 23) 23. Khu dự trữ sinh quyển của mình có dự định, kế hoạch gắn nhãn, cấp giấy chứng nhận cho các sản phẩm/dịch vụ địa phương không? Vì sao? /Do you have plan to use BR brand name for local products in your BR? Yes/No and explain why? (Go to Q26) ………………………………………………………………………………………………… Các sản phẩm, dịch vụ dự kiến/ The expected products/services?

24. Các sản phẩm/dịch vụ đã được gắn nhãn, cấp chứng nhận ở khu dự trữ sinh quyển của anh/chị?. Nêu tên cụ thể/ What kind of products and services are certifying and using your BR brand name or logo? Please this them out

25. Khu dự trữ sinh quyển có cung cấp trợ giúp gì trong quá trình xem xét, chứng nhận và cấp chứng nhận khu DTSQ cho sản phẩm hàng hoá?/ Does your BR provide any support for certifying and maintaining BR products? Yes, no. If yes, please provide the kind of support/assistance?

26. Thông tin cá nhân/Personal information Tên/Your Name: Giới tính/gender: Tuổi/age: Trình độ chuyên môn/Education qualification: Kinh nghiệm công tác/Working experience:

155

Appendix 3.3. Characters of respondents

Respondents’ characters Percentage (%)

Age 27-30 14.6

31-40 48.8

41-50 17.1

51-60 17.1

61-65 2.4

Gender Male 85.3

Female 14.7

Education Undergraduate 63.4

Post graduate 36.6

Position Staff 51.2

Managers 49.8

Working experience in the BRs < 5 years 73.2

5 years+ 26.8

156

Appendix 3.4. Biosphere reserve criteria and application in Vietnam Seville article and criterion Application in Vietnam Although no definition in the national laws but BR concept was translated and defined in the Provincial BR Article 1. Biosphere reserve (BR) definition management regulation Article 2. World network of BRs NA Article 3. Functions (conservation, development and logistic BRs in Vietnam are designed and managed to complement all 3 functions support) Article 4. Criteria 4.1. BR should encompass a mosaic of ecological systems BRs encompass a mosaic of representative ecological systems representative of major economic and ecological representative, including a gradation of human interventions regions in Vietnam 4.2. BR should be of significance for biological diversity All designated sites are significant regional for biological diversity, regional and local cultural and historical conservation values 4.3. BR should provide opportunity to explore and Under the ecosystem approach, BRs are encouraged using SLIQ principles (system thinking, Landscape planning, demonstrate sustainable development approach Inter-sectoral collaboration and Quality economy). Cat Ba BR was the pilot site for using “SLIQ” and system- thinking approach as learning laboratory for sustainable development. 4.4. BR should have appropriate size to support the three All sites have 3 zones, appropriate size and clear spatial mapping boundary functions

4.6. BR should have organizational arrangements for wider A Biosphere Reserve Management Board (BRMB) was sets up by Province/City People’s Committee. This Board stakeholder involvement and participation. is led by a vice chairman of the Province/City People’s Committee and represented by key stakeholder/sectoral

157

Seville article and criterion Application in Vietnam managers and this governance allows for multi-sectoral participation and collaboration. In some provinces, an Advisory Council comprising former leaders, scientists, enterprises and projects was set up to provide advices for BRMB. 4.7. BR should provide mechanisms to manage human use and Together with the national laws on management of the protected area system and the buffer zone, the provincial activities in the buffer zone. management regulation for BRs also assign local authorities (districts, communes) directly manage buffer zones in close cooperation with the Park’s authority. BR should have management policy and management plan Most provinces and cities have developed and approved management regulations for the reserve operation. Some BRs started developing management plans for the whole reserves and the others have annual plan for BR delivery BR should have a designated authority or mechanism to BRs are directly managed by the province or city and the BR activities are coordinated by the BRMB with implement this policy and plan. sectoral collaboration following the provincial BR management regulation. BR should have programmes for research, monitoring, Research, monitoring and environmental education are encouraged, particularly in the national parks, protected education and training. areas and protection forest. BR should conduct communication and exchange information BR group email was set up by the national MAB for information exchange and sharing experience but this with other BRs activity is still limited and relies on MAB secretariat and the external support and funding Article 5. Designation procedure All sites follows the designation procedure outlined by the Seville Strategy Article 6. Publicity Once having recognition from UNESCO, the National MAB Committee and Provincial authority organised a lively official announcement through the mass media (TV, radio and newspapers). Article 7. Participation in the network Though international cooperation and exchange within the WNBR with support from National MAB secretariat Article 8. Regional and thematic sub-network Though international cooperation and exchange. Currently, Cat Ba BR is an active participatory member of the regional BR network (WNICBR, SeaBRnet, APBRnet) Article 9. Periodical review: All BRs must conduct periodical Can Gio, Dong Nai, Cat Ba and Red river Delta have conducted periodical reviews and submitted reports to ICC- review after 10 years MAB. All of them satisfied BR critetia. Article 10. Secretariat N/A

158

Appendix 3.5. Spearman Correlation between age, position and working experience of the respondents and long- term biosphere reserve operation

Factor 1 Factor 2 Spearman’s P coefficient value Age Role of projects to BR sustainability - 0.390* 0.012 Position Role of projects to BR sustainability - 0.317* 0.044 Working experience Role of projects to BR sustainability - 0.364* 0.019 *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed).

Appendix 3.6. Spearman Correlation between biosphere reserve sustainability and other key attributes Factor Spearman’s coefficient P value Leader support and commitment 0.790** 0.000 Availability of local funding and resources 0.721** 0.000 Participation and collaboration 0.516** 0.001 Awareness and communication 0.399** 0.010 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).

159

Appendix C: Supplementary Tables and Figures for Chapter 4

Appendix 4.1. Câu hỏi phỏng vấn /Interview guide for semi structured interviews with local people Họ và tên/ Name: Tuổi/age: Giới tính/ gender: Nghề nghiệp/ Occupation: Thu nhập chính/ Main income source(s) for family: Trình độ học vấn/Level of Education: Kinh nghiệm công tác/ working experience: Hội (nghề nghiệp) nếu có/Associations (if any): 1. Anh chị có nghe/ biết về khu dự trữ sinh quyển (hay khu DTSQ Kiên Giang) không? Và thông tin từ đâu?/Do you know about the (Kien Giang) biosphere reserve (BR)? and How did you get to know about it? 2. Theo anh/chị thì khu dự trữ sinh quyển có nghĩa là gì?/What does the BR mean to you? 3. Theo Anh chị thì khu dự trữ sinh quyển có vai trò gì? / Please give your own opinions about the roles of the BR?

Anh/chị cho biết 3 vai trò quan trọng nhất /Give the three (3) most important roles of the BR?

4. Theo ý kiến của anh chị, điểm khác biệt chính giữa khu dự trữ sinh quyển và khu bảo tồn là gì?/In your opinion, what are the differences between the BR management approach and national park/protected area/protection forest areas approach? 5. Anh chị đánh giá như thế nào về vị trí pháp lý hiện nay của khu DTSQ ở Việt Nam/ What do you understand to be the legal status of the BR system in Vietnam? 6. Theo anh chị tính pháp lý có ảnh hưởng như thế nào đến chức năng của khu DTSQ? Vì sao/Does legal status have an influence on the effective implementation of the BR system in Vietnam? Why? 7. Theo anh/chị thì các qui định, chính sách hiện nay đã đảm bảo thực hiện tốt chức năng khu DTSQ hay chưa? Vì sao?/Do current Policies/laws support effective management of BR? Yes/No and Why?

8. Anh chị hoặc hội của mình có bất kỳ liên hệ nào với văn phòng khu dự trữ sinh quyển hay Ban quản lý khu dự trữ sinh quyển không? Có/không (nếu không, trả lời câu 10)/Do you or your associations/groups have any communication with a BR office or Management Board? Yes/No (if No, go to the question 10). 9. Tần xuất liên lạc/ liên hệ với BQL/văn phòng khu DTSQ? Bằng cách nào?/How often do you communicate with BR management board/office and by what means do you communication? 10.Anh/chị có nghĩ là sẽ rằng mình liên hệ với khu DTSQ trong thời gian tới để thực hiện kế hoạch hành động và hỗ trợ vai trò quản trị của khu DTSQ/ Do you think you would communicate with them in future in the context of an action and management plan which supports a role for the BR in governance of KG? 11. Anh chị cho biết một số ưu điểm của mô hình khu DTSQ tại địa phương/ What do you see as the advantages of BR at the local level?

12. Anh chị cho biết một số nhược điểm của mô hình khu DTSQ tại địa phương/ What do you see as the disadvantages of BR at the local level?

13. Anh chị cho biết các yếu tố thúc đẩy quản lý hiệu quả khu DTSQ/ Enabling attributes to BR management effectiveness

160

14. Anh chị cho biết các yếu tố kìm hãm quản lý hiệu quả khu DTSQ/ Constraints to the management effectiveness of the BR?

15. Anh/chị đánh giá mức độ ảnh hưởng của các yếu tố hạn chế tính hiệu quả trong quản lý khu DTSQ)? /Please give your rating of the following main constraints to the effective management of the BR? a, Tuyên truyền/nhận thức thấp/ Low awareness/communication Rất cao/ Cao/ Ít (B.thường)/ Thấp/ Rất thấp/ Very high High Little Low Very low b, thiếu kiến thức/kỹ năng/ Lack of knowledge/skills Rất cao/ Cao/ Ít (B.thường)/ Thấp/ Rất thấp/ Very high High Little Low Very low c, Thiếu kinh phí và nguồn lực/ Lack of funding and resources Rất cao/ Cao/ Ít (B.thường)/ Thấp/ Rất thấp/ Very high High Little Low Very low d, Thiếu sự tham gia của cộng đồng/ Lack of community participation in planning, managing and use of natural resources Rất cao/ Cao/ Ít (B.thường)/ Thấp/ Rất thấp/ Very high High Little Low Very low e, Thiếu phối hợp đa ngành/ Weak or no cross sectoral collaboration Rất cao/ Cao/ Ít (B.thường)/ Thấp/ Rất thấp/ Very high High Little Low Very low f, Thiếu cơ chế/chính sách/qui định/ Lack of policies/laws/ regulations relate to BR planning and management Rất cao/ Cao/ Ít (B.thường)/ Thấp/ Rất thấp/ Very high High Little Low Very low g, Thực thi luật yếu/ Weak law enforcement Rất cao/ Cao/ Ít (B.thường)/ Thấp/ Rất thấp/ Very high High Little Low Very low h, Thiếu hỗ trợ và vào cuộc của chính quyền/ Lack of governance support Rất cao/ Cao/ Ít (B.thường)/ Thấp/ Rất thấp/ Very high High Little Low Very low i, Không có kế hoạch chiến lược/ Lack of management plan Rất cao/ Cao/ Ít (B.thường)/ Thấp/ Rất thấp/ Very high High Little Low Very low k, Phát triển nóng/ Economic priority Rất cao/ Cao/ Ít (B.thường)/ Thấp/ Rất thấp/ Very high High Little Low Very low

Các rào cản khác và xếp hạng/ Other constraints and rating

161

16. Theo anh chị thì cần phải làm gì để cải thiện tính hiệu quả của khu DTSQ/ What should be done to improve the effectiveness of BR for key resources? 17. So sánh với hệ thống qui hoạch và quản lý hiện nay (nông nghiệp/lâm nghiệp, thủy sản, du lịch) theo Anh/Chị thì mô hình khu DTSQ có ảnh hưởng đến việc phối hợp trong qui hoạch sử dụng tài nguyên không? Vì sao?/Compared to the current sector planning and management system (e.g.,agriculture/ forestry, fishery, tourism), does BR have an effect on collaboration in the planning and management of natural resources? Yes/No, Why?

18. Khu dự trữ sinh quyển có làm tăng sự tham gia trong qui hoạch và quản lý không? Vì sao?/Has BR enabled an increase in stakeholder participation in management? Yes/No and Why?

19. Theo anh chị thì làm thế nào để khuyến khích sự tham gia và hỗ trợ trong quản lý khu dự trữ sinh quyển từ các bên liên quan?/How would you suggest that stakeholder participation could be encouraged and supported by the BR?

20. Anh chị biết dự án/chương trình nào đang thực hiện trong khu vực (hỗ trợ thực hiện các chức năng khu dự trữ sinh quyển)?/Which projects/programs do you know of that are supporting the function of the BR?

21. Đánh giá của anh/chị về tác động của các chương trình, dự án này đến quản lý khu dự trữ sinh quyển?/In your opinion, do these support projects/programs have an impact on the BR management? In which way and why?

22. Đánh giá của anh/chị về tác động của các chương trình, dự án đến tính bền vững của mô hình khu dự trữ sinh quyển? vì sao?/Do the support projects/programs improve the sustainability and overall management of the BR? Yes/No? Please explain why? Anh chị xếp hạng các đóng góp của dự án theo thứ tự từ quan trọng nhất (1) đến ít quan trọng (8)/ Please give your rating the contributions of projects/programs to BR effective management (1 is the most important; 8 is the least important) Nâng cao nhận thức/ Awareness raising Tập huấn KT và chuyển giao/Technical training and transfer Sinh kế/ Livelihood income Bảo tồn/ Biodiversity conservation

Thúc đẩy sự tham gia/ Participation promotion Tăng cường phối hợp/ Collaboration strengthening Mô hình trình diễn/ Demonstration models Bảo tồn VH/Preservation of the cultural and historical values

23. Theo anh/chị thì mô hình khu DTSQ và phương pháp quản lý hiện nay đã đảm bảo tính bền vững của nó khi không còn sự trợ giúp của các dự án, chương trình (tài chính, kỹ thuật) từ bên ngoài chưa? Vì sao?/ Is the BR model and its current management processes adequate to enable its continuance into the future - even without support through external projects and funding? Yes/No and Why?

24. Đánh giá xếp hạng các thách thức trong quản lý khu DTSQ khi không còn các dự án hỗ trợ theo thứ tự từ quan trọng nhất (1) đến ít quan trọng (8)/Please give your rating of the future challenges to the BR without or reduce of external support project/program (1 is the most significant; 8 is the least significant) Thiếu hoạt động tuyên truyền/ Lack of Hạn chế hoạt động tập huấn/ Lack of Technical training Awareness activity

162

Thiếu hoạt động sinh kế/ Lack of Livelihood Thiếu nguồn lực bảo tồn/ Lack of Biodiversity conservation activity activity Hạn chế sự tham gia/ Lack of Participation Hạn chế phối hợp/ Less/lack of Collaboration Thiếu mô hình trình diễn/ Lack of Thiếu nguồn lực bảo tồn Văn hóa/ Lack of activity for Demonstration models Preservation of the cultural and historical values

25. Anh/chị nêu các khuyến nghị nhằm nâng cao hiệu quả và tính bền vững mô hình khu DTSQ/ Recommendations to improve effectiveness and sustainability of the BR model.

26. Các ý kiến bổ sung không/ other comments/opinions Cảm ơn anh/chị đã tham gia buổi phỏng vấn/ Thank you for your participation!

163

Appendix 4.2. List of participants attending the stakeholder workshop on 13 April 2016

Full name Position Organisation

Nguyen Xuan Niem Vice director Department of Science and Technology

Nguyen Thanh Hai Chief Office Biosphere Reserve Operating Office

Ly Minh Tai Technical staff Biosphere Reserve Operating Office

Nguyen Thuy My Technical staff Biosphere Reserve Operating Office

Tran Van Thang Vice director U Minh Thuong National Park

Phung Thi Bich Lam Vice Director Environmental Protection Sub-department- Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DONRE)

Huynh Thanh Tra Division Head Department of Education and Training

Nguyen Van Hien Vice Director Agriculture Extension Centre, DARD

Phan Thi Chuc Xuan Senior Officer Department of Finance

Cao Thanh Nhu Journalist Kien Giang Radio and Television

Ta Ngoc Tim Journalist Kien Giang Radio and Television

Huynh Huu To Technical advisor GIZ/DFAT Project

Nguyen Thanh Suong Officer Sea and Island Sub-Department -DONRE

Nguyen Xuan Quang Division Head Department of Culture, Sport and Tourism

Huynh Hong Mai Vice director Kien Giang Vocational Training College

Ho Van Hoang Division Head Forest Protection Sub-department, DARD

Nguyen Thi Cam Chief Office Provincial Enterprise Association Minh

Tieu T Diem Officer Department of Planning and Investment

Nguyen tin Vice Director Hon Dat-Kien Giang Forest Protection Management Board

Tran Dy Lap Vice chairman An Minh district People’s Committee

Nguyen Viet Binh Vice Chairman An Bien district People’s Committee

Ly Vanh Tha Division Head Phu Quoc Marine Protected Area

Tran Phi Hai Director An Minh- An Bien Forest Protecction Management Board

Do Kim Thu Vice chair Vam Ray Women Association

Lam Thi Nga Member Vam Ray Women Association

Huynh Lai Journalist Kien Giang Newspapers

164

Appendix 4.3. Coding systems based on in-depth interview with informants in Kien Giang

165

166

Appendix 4.4. Informant characteristics

Features No of informants %

Gender

Male 93 65.5

Female 49 34.5

Age range

18-29 15 10.6

30-39 44 31.0

40-49 44 31.0

50-60 29 20.4

Over 60 10 7.0

Main groups

Government employees 73 51.4

Local people 69 49.6

Education background

Can only read and write 4 2.8

Primary school 28 19.7

Secondary school 21 14.8

High school 8 5.6

Professional secondary degree 10 7.0

University degrees 71 50.0

Income sources

Salary 76 53.5

Own business 9 6.3

Farming, aquaculture and fishing 57 40.2

Total interviewees 142 100

167

Appendix 4. 5. Comparison between Seville criteria and application in management of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve Seville article and criterion Application in Kien Giang Article 1. Biosphere reserve (BR) definition Followed through. The BR concept is defined in the Provincial Management Regulation Article 2. World network of BRs NA Article 3. Functions (conservation, development Followed through. Four functions of the KGBR were defined in the Management Regulation: (1) conservation, (2) and logistic support) sustainable development, (3) logistic support, and (4) promotion of the biosphere reserve values Article 4. Criteria 4.1. BR should encompass a mosaic of Followed through. The KGBR encompass a mosaic of representative ecological systems and features in the Mekong ecological systems representative, including a region (Plain wetlands, mangroves, sea grasses and coral reefs, the mountain forests). The lime-stone outcrops and gradation of human interventions their ecosystem only found in KGBR. 4.2. BR should be of significance for biological Followed through. The KGBR has 2 340 plant and animal species with hundreds of rare and threatened species. diversity conservation Some iconic species for KGBR area Hairy Nose Otters (Lutra sumatrana), Sarus Crane (Grus Antigone) and Dugong (Dugong dugon). 4.3. BR should provide opportunity to Theoretically followed through but not often in practice. Although the Management regulation calls for using explore and demonstrate sustainable ecosystem approach and SLIQ principles (System thinking, Landscape planning, Inter-sectoral collaboration and development approach Quality economy), there is no evidence showing that “SLIQ” and ecosystem approach is applying in management reality to promote sustainable development in KGBR. 4.4. BR should have appropriate size to Theoretically followed through but not often in practice. The KGBR has a very small core area (3 %) with quite support the three functions small NPs and PAs surrounding by large populations with strong economic activities

4.6. BR should have organizational Theoretically followed through but not often in practice. Only BRMB was set up. The Advisory Council has not yet arrangements for wider stakeholder involvement established, and communities and private sector do not have any representatives in the BR governance structure and participation.

168

Seville article and criterion Application in Kien Giang 4.7. BR should provide mechanisms to manage Theoretically followed through but not often in practice. The Buffer zone is directly managed by People’s human use and activities in the buffer zone. Committees of district and commune in close cooperation with Park’s authority. But there is a lack of cooperation in practice. 4.8. BR should have management policy and Theoretically followed through but not often in practice. Although the Management Regulation calls for developing management plan BR plans for implementation, there is no management or annual plan for the KGBR in place. 4.9. BR should have a designated authority or Theoretically followed through but not often in practice. The BRMB is only a part-time, unstable assignment and mechanism to implement this policy and plan. lack of commitment and cooperation from involved departments and stakeholders for BR vision and approach. 4.10. BR should have programmes for research, Theoretically followed through but not often in practice due to lack of funding and strategic plan for research, monitoring, education and training. monitoring and environmental education. 4.11. BR should conduct communication and Not directly addressed in KG exchange information with other BRs Article 5. Designation procedure Followed through Article 6. Publicity Followed through. The official announcement ceremony was organised in 2010. Article 7. Participation in the network Not directly addressed in KG Article 8. Regional and thematic sub-network Not directly addressed in KG Article 9. Periodical review: All BRs must Followed through. The review report is preparing in 2016 conduct periodical review after 10 years Article 10. Secretariat N/A

169

Appendix 4.6. Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve governance structure and management responsibility of each Board Member

170

Appendix D: Supplementary Tables for Chapter 5

Appendix 5.1. Value and management objectives of the KGBR, the core, buffer zone and transition area

Sources of Values Values of the KGBR information • 22 ecosystems and habitat types, 6 typical ecosystems include: Melaleuca forest on Kien Giang peatland; primary Dipterocarp (Dipterocarpacease) forest; limestone forest and PPC (2005); outcrops; coastal mangrove forest; coral reef and sea grass, seasonal flooded grass. Dang • 2,340 species, including 1,480 plant species (with 116 rare species listed in the Red (2009); Hai, Biodiversity Book and 57 endemic species) and 860 animal species (with 78 rare species and 36 2013. and natural endemic species). Some iconic and typical species for KGBR are: Hairy nose otters values (Lutra sumatrana), Sarus Crane (Grus Antigone) and Dugong (Dugong dugon), Silver langurs (Trachypithecus germaini), sea turtles (Chelonia mydas, and Eretmochelys imbricate) and population of Red-flowered Black Mangrove (Limnutzera littorea). • Caves, lagoon, beaches, and canal and water transportation system water • 53 national recognized heritages and 21 provincial recognized heritages (e.g., Kien Giang temples, historical places, prison relics). PPC, 2005; Cultural and • 389 annual festivals &cultural events including 91 traditional, 235 religious, 62 Hai, 2013; historical historical and others belonging to Kinh, Hoa and Khmer people. Carter, 2013 values • Handicraft villages • Traditional life associated with water and canal transportation • Direct values such as providing fish, seafood, timber, fuelwood, charcoal, honey, Duke et al., non-timber forest products (medicinal plants, agarwood, sim [Rhodomyrtus 2010; Cuong tomentosa]). and Dart, • Indirect values include: provision of ecosystem and services such as fresh water, 2011; Hai, prevention of acid sulphate soil, carbon sink (Coastal mangrove forest is storing 2013; Kien 450,000 tonne Carbon and U Minh Thuong Melaleuca and peatland is storing over Giang 1.8 million tonne of Carbon), nurseries for fish and other species, prevention of DOCST, Economic coastal erosion, 2016 and • The largest rice producer since 2013 (4.3 million tons) and 4.5 million tons in development 2015; value • Kien Giang is the second largest aquaculture and fishery center in Vietnam • Significant growth of the tourism and service sector (6 million visitors in 2015). Four tourism development areas based on nature, landscape, history, and local culture and spirit (8 unique, and14 main tourism products and 23 associated tourism products), handicraft village of Kinh and Khmer people • Economic development potential from BR band name and certification • Providing visiting, entertainment places

171

Sources of Values Values of the KGBR information • Provide places for environmental education, educating children and people about Cuong and Research the history, culture and sustainable development Dart, 2011; and • The place for undertaking research and study about the impact of climate change Hai, 2013 education and adaptation measures, coastal erosion, forest restoration, sustainable development.

172

Appendix 5.2. Matrix of threats to the management objectives of the KGBR

Impact of threat Management response Current or Information Threats potential Identify major causes of threat Priority of sources Extent Severity* Action threat? the action

Habitat loss from Current Dang, 2009; • High demand for agriculture and Buffer zone High Improve profit from melaleuca forest High conversion of Cuong and Dart, aquaculture production and and production with multiple purposes wetland, forest to 2011; Carter, Infrastructure development transition (timber production) other land use 2013 • Low economic profitability from area purposes forest/grass land Forest fire Current Cuong and Dart, Drought, low underground water in All High Public awareness raising, High 2011; Cuong et dry season, use of fire for honey terrestrial Implementation of fire prevention al., 2014 collection and site cleaning for NPs (UMT, and firefighting planning and replanting. Phu Quoc), management plan PAs, and Community based fire management Melaleuca forests Climate change Current ADB, 2011 • Global warming Whole High Develop an action plan to mitigate high impacts (sea and • Upstream dam development provincial and adapt to climate change water rise, potential • Incomplete dyke/sluice gate system coastline Undertake integrated coastal drought, saline • Mangrove forest loss management plan; intrusion) Complete sea dyke system Manage and restore forest and implement alternative livelihood activities

173

Limestone and Current UNESCO • Economic development priority Kien Luong Medium Set up PA to protect the last high stone quarrying Hanoi, 2013; • High demand for cement and area remaining limestone out-crops Van and Lam, construction materials 2013

Coastal erosion Current Cuong et al., • Loss of mangrove fringe due to All over 200 Medium Develop integrated coastal High and retreat and 2015 human disturbance (cutting, km management plan potential fishing, aquaculture) provincial Mangrove restoration and upgrade of • Sea water rise coastline sea dyke system. • Change of sea current and increased wave action • Change of sediment deposition location Inappropriate and Current Cuong and Dart, • Uncontrolled fishing Marine areas Medium Law enforcement. Medium over fishing 2011; Long et • Advanced fishing technology including Reduce number of boats. al., 2011; Mateo enabling increased catch. Increased Dong Ho Apply seasonal fishing regulations. and Garforth, no of fishing boats. Lagoon Develop a sustainable fishing method 2014 • Using of destructive fishing which is strictly regulated. methods and equipment (electricity, trawl-net fishing in the shallow area)

174

Illegal poaching, Current Kien Giang • Local people have low income and All NPs, Pas Low Awareness raising Provide alternative Medium forest resource DONRE, 2008; high dependence on forest and and buffer livelihood for local people exploitation and Dang, 2009 biodiversity resources zone Improve law enforcement trading wildlife • Lack of alternative livelihood options for the local people • High income from wildlife trading • Weak law enforcement Pollution Current Kien Giang UncontrolledFree discharge of waste Buffer zone Medium Awareness raising High (rubbish, solid DONRE, 2008; from residential areas, agriculture and and Collect waste and treat appropriately waste and waste Carter, 2013; aquaculture production (fertilizers, transition Law enforcement water) Godfrey, 2016 herbicide, pesticide,) food processing area Apply the best management practices and households Along the in agriculture production beaches, Use degradable bags and materials, tourism particularly in Phu Quoc and reduce destinations, plastic bag use cultural and heritage sites Improper tourism Current Carter, 2013; • Lack of an integrated tourism plan All tourism Low Implement an integrated tourism High planning and Vietnam • Weak sectoral collaboration in destinations, planning and process management Sustainable tourism planning and management. particularly Improve law enforcement Tourism • Weak law enforcement in Phu Quoc Improve sectoral involvement in Institute, 2013 • Lack of human capacity and island tourism management resources Develop ecotourism, environmentally • Imbalanced investment in friendly tourism activities using BR infrastructure and environmental brand and certification protection

175

Degradation of Current Carter, 2013; • Over capacity of the heritage and All Low Develop plan, budget for regular Medium the historical Vietnam tourism facility heritages, maintenance relics and Sustainable • Lack resources for regular relics across Improve local awareness on traditional culture Tourism maintenance and use for tourism BR protection of heritage sites and Institute, 2013 and income generating in a significance of cultural event sustainable way • Changes of socio-economic situation. International tourism and media introduces changes to local culture Illegal land Current Dang, 2009; • High demand for economic Some areas Low Clear boundary demarcation Medium encroachment Cuong et al., development (need more land for (PQ NP, Improve law enforcement 2014 agriculture, aquaculture, Coastal infrastructure and tourism protection development) forest, Phu • Weak law enforcement My grassland and Dong Ho Lagoon)

* Low: 10 % or less of the value is threatened; Medium: 11-25 of the value is threatened; High: 26-75 % of the value is threatened; Very high: 76-100 % of the value is threatened

176

Appendix 5.3. Relationships with Stakeholders/Partners

Major Province District and Provincial BRMB NPs, PAs and Enterprises Local people Projects, Social- Universitie stakeholders People’s Commune departments FPMBs NGOs Political orgs s, research with an Committee People’s institutes

interest/ (PPC) Committees connection to the BR Main issues Provides state Directly in Undertake state Coordinate and Conserve forest, Use allocated Use allocated Provide Assist Undertake associated with management in charge in management in the facilitates BR marine biodiversity resources land, forest, funding and authority, research this Kien Giang administration professional activities across and environment in (land, forest, marine, water technical BRMB, NPs, and study stakeholder province. management of sectors. sectors and the core areas. marine, water surface areas support to PAS to at the the Ensures social land, forests Conduct planning stakeholders, Cooperate with surface areas) in production improve deliver NPs, PAs economic and socio- and implement conduct BR BRMB, district and in production, following the local information and BR development economic plan under the awareness commune people’s tourism, and laws and awareness about the plan and other activities umbrella of the raising and committees, social- services regulations and laws, policies plan and their within the provincial socio- promote the BR political following the management to the local impacts to BR district and economic value organisations to laws and capacity in people management commune development plan undertake regulations conservation boundary and line central awareness raising and ministries’ plans and livelihood development and strategies program in the buffer zone

Economic Low Low Low Low Low Medium High Low Low Low dependency

177

Negative None None None None None Exploitation of Illegal access None None None impacts of construction to the parks stakeholders on materials, for hunting, site tourism facility fishing and development harvesting natural resource Negative None None None None None Not allow Not allow None None None impacts of site accessing and accessing management use the and use the on stakeholders resources in resources in NP and PAs NP and PAs

Positive Ensures Ensures Contributes to Promotes cross- Improves Contributes to Contributes Improves Awareness Provides impacts of balance socio- balance socio- implementation of sectoral conservation in the conservation to forest planning and raising informatio stakeholders on economic economic the BR approach participation and core areas and and protection, implmemetin n that site development development and vision through collaboration in contributes to development firefighting, g activities at supports and and multi-sectoral planning and livelihood through recovering the landscape planning conservation environmental cooperation under management improvement in the environmentall biodiversity level and and integrates conservation the landscape buffer zone and y friendly and decision BR in the approach transition area productions environment making socio- and services based on economic, and BR sectoral approach planning at the regional level

178

Positive Improves Improves Fills the gaps in Improves BR Improves Promotes Improves None None None impacts of site management management sectoral planning governance and conservation sustainable production management outcomes and outcomes and approach through communication outcomes (in the business and system, on stakeholders sustainability sustainability strengthening core areas) and production Provides through through sectoral relationship with alternative integrating integrating collaboration local authorities income from conservation conservation and communities BR brand, and socio- and socio- ecosystem economic economic services development development Willingness/ Good Fair Good Good Good Fair Fair Good Fair Good capacity of stakeholders to engage with site management Willingness/ Good Good Good Good Good Fair Fair Good Good Good capacity of site management to engage with stakeholders

Political/social High Moderate High Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Low Low influence (district); Low (commune)

179

Organisation of Under the law, Under the law, Under the law, Work under the Under the law, Enterprise Through Follow Associatio stakeholders cooperates work with prepare Provincial prepare investment association at their structure ns with Central provincial management Management plan and budget for province and association from central ministries to departments sectoral plans and Regulation for approval from PPC central level (Farmer, to village develop master and agencies to budget for BR and central Youth, level plan and implement approval from PPC ministries and Women budget for socio- and line ministries implement association) implementation economic and implement the approval plan in the province development approved plans Leads Works with Cooperates with Coordinates and Cooperates with Contributes to Engages in Supports to Undertakes Conduct departments, BRMB to BRMB to integrate facilitates BRMB to integrate sustainable use BZ and improve awareness research NPs, PAs and integrate the sectoral plans and stakeholder NP plan and of natural transition awareness raising and study other district and actions in the BR participation and actions in the BR resources and area raising and program for to improve stakeholders to commune management collaboration management environmental Sustainable capacity its members BR participate and development process. protection. use resource building in planning What cooperate in plan in the BR Improves Provide and conservation and opportunities BR activities, management sectoral planning funding and livelihood. and decision do stakeholders Allocate and management support to Contributes development making, have to funding and outcomes maintain BR to at the training for contribute to management through conservation regional level students management? resources for consultation through using BR BR operating process using BR forest approach approach and protection, vision forest fire management

180

Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Low Low to Low Low What is the medium level of depending on engagement of scale of the funding and stakeholder? topic of intervention Not strong Not strong Not strong enough No strong Not strong enough Weak because Weak Not strong Weak Not strong Describe the enough due to enough due to due to the sectoral enough due to due to the sectoral they do not because they enough due because they enough overall lack of lack of interest and power, the part time interest and power, have any role do not have to the project do not have

adequacy of understanding understanding and lack of assignments and lack of in BR any role in priorities and any role in stakeholder BR approach BR approach understanding BR understanding BR governance, BR targets of BR summary engagement and its benefits and its benefits approach and its approach and its planning and governance, intervention governance, benefits benefits management planning and planning and management management Rate the Fair Fair Fair fair fair Poor poor fair poor Fair overall adequacy of stakeholder

engagement, as either very Rating good; good; fair or poor

181

Appendix 5.4. Management planning information sheet Name of the plans Level of Year of preparation Next review approval* or most recent review Action Plan for conservation and development of D 2014 but no 2016 but reviewing the KGBR period 2014/2015-2020 and vision approval from PPC process has not yet after 2020 started Provincial socio-economic development plan G and PC 2015 2020 2016-2020 10 District socio-economic development plan PC and 2016-2020 PPC Land use plan G and PC 2013 2020 Provincial action plan the respond to climate PPC 2011 2020 change Integrated coastal management plan PPC 2014 2020 Forestry development plan PPC 2014 2020

Natural resources and environmental management PPC 2013 2020 plan Agricultural production plan PPC 2013 2020 Fishery management and development plan PPC 2014 2020 Tourism development plan PPC 2013 2020 Forest protection and development plan PPC 2013 2020

Conservation and development of generic PPC 2014 2020 resources in Kien Giang to 2020 Investment plan for UMT NP PPC 2015 2020 Investment plan for Phu Quoc NP PPC 2015 2020 Conservation and sustainable development of the PPC 2012 2020 Hon Chong-Kien Luong special-use forest to 2020 Management plan for Phu Quoc MPA PPC 2009 2015 but reviewing process has not yet started Irrigation management plan PPC 2012 2020

*Note: L = plan has force of law; G= Plan was approved by the Government; PC: Plan was approved by the Provincial People Council; PPC = Plan was approved by the Province Peoples Committee; D = Plan was approved by the Departments; A= Plan was approved by the Agency; D = Plan is a draft and has not been formally approved.

182

Appendix 5.5. Adequacy of Primary Planning Document (We used the Action Plan for KGBR for assessment) Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps Decision making framework Desired future is explicitly articulated as a decision making reference point Very good Desired future is reasonably articulated Good Desired future is not clearly articulated but is implied or can be inferred from plan Fair objectives Plan focuses more on present issues and actions and doesn’t indicate a desired Poor future for the site Desired future is expressed in a way that provides clear guidance for addressing Very new issues and opportunities Good Desired future is expressed in a way that gives some guidance for addressing new Good issues and opportunities Desired future is not clearly articulated and provides only limited guidance for Fair addressing new threats and opportunities The plan focuses more on present issues and actions and doesn’t indicate any Poor desired future for the site

Plan provides a clear, explicit and appropriate process for monitoring, review and Very adjustment Good Provisions for monitoring, review and adjustment of the plan are present but are Good incomplete, unclear or inappropriate in some minor respects Need for monitoring, review and adjustment is recognized but is not dealt with in Fair sufficient detail

183

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps Plan does not address the need for monitoring, review and adjustment Poor

Planning context Policy requirements for the site are identified and adequate and appropriate Very policies are established with clear linkages to the desired future for the site Good Policy requirements for the site are identified and policies are largely adequate Good and appropriate although there are gaps Policies in the plan are inadequate or incomplete in many respect Fair

Plan either doesn’t establish policies for the area or the policies are inadequate or Poor inappropriate in major respects

Relevant national, regional and sectoral plans that affect the site are identified and Very specific mechanisms are included to provide for integration or linkage now and in good the future

Relevant national, regional and sectoral plans that affect the site are identified, Good their influence on the site is taken into account but there is little attempt at integration Some relevant national, regional and sectoral plans are identified but there is no Fair attempt at Integration

184

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps KGBR? No account is taken of other plans affecting the site Poor planning and collaboration, livelihood improvement for the local communities, biodiversity conservation and research, international cooperation, reserve finance mechanism, and monitoring and evaluation. Plan Content The information base for the plan is up to date and adequate in scope and depth Very and is matched to the major decisions, policies and issues addressed in the plan good The information base is adequate in scope and depth but maybe a little out dated Good and/or contain irrelevant information The information base is out of date and/or has inadequacies in scope or depth so Fair that some issues, decisions or policies cannot be placed into context Very little information relevant to plan decisions is presented Poor The site values have been clearly identified and linked to well defined Very management objectives and desired outcomes for the site good The site values have been reasonably identified and linked to management Good objectives and desired outcomes for the site The site values have not been clearly identified or linked to management Fair objectives and desired outcomes for the site

185

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps desired outcomes for The site values have not been identified Poor socio-economic development, the site? and research and environmental education, and climate change mitigation Plan identifies primary issues for the site and deals with them within the context Very of the desired future for the site (i.e. plan is outcome rather than issues driven) good Plan identifies primary issues for the site but tends to deal with them in isolation Good or out of context of the desired future for the site Some significant issues for the site are not addressed in the plan or the issues are Fair not adequately addressed Many significant issues are not addressed or are inadequately dealt with in the Poor plan Objectives and actions are adequate and appropriate for all issues Vert good Objectives and actions are adequate and appropriate for most issues Good Objectives and actions are frequently inadequate or inappropriate Fair Objectives and actions in the plan do not represent an adequate or appropriate Poor response to the primary issues

Local and ethnic communities living in the reserve were meaningfully and fully Very involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for KGBR good Local and indigenous communities living in the reserve were fairly meaningfully Good and partly involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the KGBR

186

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps management plan and Local and indigenous communities living in the reserve were only minimally Fair setting direction for involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for KGBR the management of Local and ethnic communities living in the reserve were not involved in Poor the BR? developing the management plan and setting direction for the BR. Plan identifies the needs and interests of local and ethnic communities and has Very taken these into account in decision making good Plan identifies the needs and interests of local communities but it is not apparent Good that these have been into account in decision making There is limited attention given to the needs and interests of local and indigenous Fair communities and little account taken of these in decision making No apparent attention has been given to the needs and interests of local and Poor indigenous communities

Plan identifies the needs and interests of other stakeholders and has taken these Very into account in decision making good Plan identifies the needs and interests of other stakeholders but it is not apparent Good that these have been into account in decision making There is limited attention given to the needs and interests of other stakeholders Fair and little account taken of these in decision making No apparent attention has been given to the needs and interests of other Poor stakeholders Management actions specified in the plan can be clearly understood and provide a Very useful basis for developing operational plans such as work programs and budgets good

187

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps direction on Management actions specified in the plan can generally be clearly understood and Good potential funding sources but developed (based on management actions provide an adequate basis for developing operational plans such as work it did not quantify budget the Action Plan) for that should be programs and budgets needed for implementation. activity delivery. undertaken in Management actions are sometimes unclear or lacking in specificity making it Fair KGBR? difficult to use the plan as a basis for developing operational plans such as work programs and budgets Management actions are unclear or lacking in specificity making it very difficult Poor to use the plan as a basis for developing operational plans such as work programs and budgets Clear priorities are indicated within the plan in a way that supports work Very programming and allocation of resources good Priorities are generally indicated making their use for work programming and Good resource allocation adequate most of the time Priorities are not clearly indicated but may be inferred for work programming and Fair resource allocation There is no indication of priorities in the plan so that the plan cannot be used for Poor work programming and resource allocation

188

Appendix 5.6. Assessment of Management process Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comments Next steps Management Structures and Systems The KGBR has agreed and documented values and the management Very Good objectives fully reflect them The KGBR has agreed and documented values, but these are only Good partially reflected in the management objectives The KGBR site has agreed and documented values, but these are not Fair reflected in the management objectives No values have been agreed for the KGBR Poor

An approved management plan exists and is being fully implemented Very Good An approved management plan exists but it is only being partially Good implemented because of funding constraints or other problems A plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not being Fair implemented There is no plan for managing the KGBR Poor Planning and decision making processes are excellent Very Good

There are some planning and decision making processes in place but Good they could be better, either in terms of improved processes or actions completed There are some planning and decision making processes in place but Fair they are either inadequate or they are not carried out Planning and decision making processes are deficient in most aspects Poor

189

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comments Next steps 4. Regular work Regular work plans exist, actions are monitored against planned Very Good None existence of BR annual work Need to develop annual plan plans targets and most or all prescribed activities are completed plan. and required budget and Regular work plans exist and actions are monitored against planned Good resources for implementation Are there annual targets, but many activities are not completed work plans or other Regular work plans exist but activities are not monitored against the Fair planning tools? plan’s targets No regular work plans exist Poor A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well implemented Very Good and used for adaptive management There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation Good system of management activities but results are not systematically used for management There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation of management Fair activities, but no overall strategy and/or no regular collection of results There is no monitoring and evaluation of management activities in the Poor KGBR Site managers can fully comply with all reporting needs and have all Very Good the necessary information for full and informative reporting Site managers can fully comply with all reporting needs but do not Good have all the necessary information for full and informative reporting There is some reporting, but all reporting needs are not fulfilled and Fair managers do not have all the necessary information on the site to allow full and informative reporting There is no reporting on the KGBR Poor

190

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comments Next steps 7. Maintenance Equipment and facilities are well maintained and an equipment Very Good No regular plan to maintain The BR and NPs, PAs should of equipment maintenance plan is being implemented equipment at the parks and BR develop and implement plans There is basic maintenance of equipment and facilities. If a Good level. Lack of fund and human and manuals for maintaining maintenance plan exists it is not fully implemented. resource equipment. Is equipment There is some ad hoc maintenance but a maintenance plan does not Fair adequately exist or is not implemented maintained? There is little or no maintenance of equipment and facilities, and no Poor maintenance plan Management infrastructure is excellent and appropriate for managing Very Good the site Management infrastructure is adequate and generally appropriate for Good the site Management infrastructure is often inadequate and/or inappropriate Fair for the site Management infrastructure is inadequate and/or Poor inappropriate for the site Staff facilities at the KGBR are good and aid the achievement of the Very Good objectives of the site Staff facilities are not significantly constraining Good achievement of major objectives Inadequate staff facilities constrain achievement of some management Fair objectives Inadequate staff facilities mean that achievement of major objectives Poor is constrained

191

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comments Next steps 10. Staff/ Staff directly participate in making decisions relating to management Very Good Staff only allow participating in Improve the role of staff in management of the site at both site and management authority level some discussions relating to planning and decision making communication Staff directly contribute to some decisions relating to management Good management plan but no direct process involvement in final decisions Does staff have the Staff have some input into discussions relating to management but no Fair opportunity to feed direct involvement in the resulting decisions into management There are no mechanisms for staff to have input into decisions Poor decisions? relating to the management of the KGBR Provisions to ensure good personnel management are in place Very Good Although some provisions for personnel management are in place Good these could be improved There are minimal provisions for good personnel management Fair There are no provisions to ensure good personnel management Poor Staff training and skills are appropriate for the management needs of Very Good the site, and with anticipated future needs

Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further improved to Good fully achieve the objectives of management Staff training and skills are low relative to the management needs of Fair the site Staff lack the skills/training needed for effective site management Poor The staff have excellent capacity/resources to Very Good enforce legislation and regulations

192

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comments Next steps The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to Good enforcement schedule with sufficient Does staff have the enforce legislation and regulations but some funding to improve law capacity to enforce deficiencies remain enforcement legislation? There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to enforce Fair legislation and regulations The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce legislation Poor and regulations Financial management is excellent and contributes to effective Very Good management of the site Financial management is adequate but could be improved Good Financial management is poor and constrains effectiveness Fair Financial management is poor and significantly Poor undermines effectiveness of the KGBR (e.g. late release of funds for the financial year)

Resource Management Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in Very Good the the BR and PAs exist and are being effectively implemented Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in Good the the BR and PAs exist but there are some problems in effectively implementing them

193

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comments Next steps mechanisms in Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in Fair NPs, and PAs due to the weak law management of natural place to control the BR and PAs exist but there are major problems in implementing enforcement and lack of alternative resources and provide inappropriate them effectively livelihood options for local people alternative incomes for the land uses and There are no management mechanisms for controlling inappropriate Poor local people (e.g., eco- activities? land use and activities in the KGBR tourism, payment for environmental services) Information on the critical habitats, species and Very Good cultural values of the KGBR is sufficient to support planning and decision making and is being updated Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the Good protected area is sufficient for some areas of planning/decision making but further data gathering is not being carried out Some information is available on the critical habitats, species and Fair cultural values of the BR, but this is insufficient to support planning and decision making There is little or no information available on the Poor critical habitats, species and cultural values of the KGBR There is a comprehensive, integrated program of surveys and Very Good research, which is relevant to management needs There is considerable survey and research work but it is not directed Good towards the needs of KGBR management There is some ad hoc survey and research work but it is not directed Fair towards the needs of KGBR management.

194

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comments Next steps survey and research There is no research taking place in the KGBR Poor science and technologies program work? (managed by DOST), some are funded by universities, research institutes and projects. Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and species are Very Good being fully implemented Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and species are Good only being partially implemented Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and species are Fair known but are not being implemented Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and species Poor have not been assessed Requirements for management of cultural/ historical values are being Very Good substantially or fully implemented Many requirements for management of cultural/ Good historical values are being implemented but some key issues may not be addressed Requirements for management of cultural/ historical values are Fair known but very few are being implemented Requirements for management of cultural/ historical values have not Poor been assessed and/or active management is not being undertaken Management and Tourism Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels of Very Good visitation

195

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comments Next steps Are visitor Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels of Good destinations within the BR and to transportation facilities (for visitation but could be improved nearby visiting sites. Strong focus Investment in protection and tourists, Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current levels of Fair in infrastructure development in use of the local culture and pilgrims, etc.) visitation Phu Quoc island while less heritages for local revenues. adequate? There are no visitor facilities and services despite an identified need Poor attention to the other destinations particularly the small mainland heritages and local cultures. There is good co-operation between managers and tourism operators Very Good to enhance visitor experiences, and protect site values There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism Good operators to enhance visitor experiences and maintain site values There is contact between managers and tourism operators but this is Fair largely confined to administrative or regulatory matters There is little or no contact between managers and tourism operators Poor using the protected area

Implementation of visitor management policies and programs is Very Good based on research into visitors’ needs and wants and the carrying capacity of the KGBR Consideration has been given to the provision of visitor opportunities Good and policies and programs to enhance visitor opportunities are being implemented Consideration has been given to the provision of visitor opportunities Fair in terms of access to the KGBR or the diversity of available experiences but little or no action has been taken

196

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comments Next steps experience when No consideration has been given to the provision of visitor Poor visiting the BR? opportunities in terms of access to the BR or the diversity of available experiences There is a planned, implemented and effective Very Good education and awareness program fully linked to the objectives and needs of the KGBR There is a planned education and awareness program but there are Good still serious gaps either in the plan or in implementation There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness program, but Fair no overall planning for this There is no education and awareness program Poor Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in controlling Very Good access to the site in accordance with objectives Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling access to Good the site in accordance with objectives Protection systems are only partially effective in controlling access to Fair the site in accordance with objectives Protection systems (patrols, permits, etc) are ineffective in Poor controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives Management and Communities/Neighbors Local communities directly participate in all relevant management Very Good decisions for the site Local communities directly contribute to some relevant management Good decisions but their involvement could be improved

197

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comments Next steps resident in Local communities have some input into discussions relating to Fair the BR management but no direct involvement in decision-making have input to Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the Poor management management of the KGBR decisions? Ethnic peoples directly participate in all relevant management Very Good decisions for the site

Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to making Good some relevant management decisions but their involvement could be improved Indigenous and traditional peoples have some input into discussions Fair relating to management but no direct involvement in decision-making

Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into decisions Poor relating to the management of the site Programs to enhance local, indigenous and/or traditional peoples Very Good welfare, while conserving KGBR resources, are being implemented successfully Programs to enhance local, indigenous and/or Good traditional peoples welfare, while conserving KGBR resources, are being implemented but could be improved Programs to enhance local, indigenous and/or traditional peoples Fair welfare, while conserving KGBR resources, exist but are either inadequate or are not being implemented

198

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comments Next steps people’s welfare There are no programs in place which aim to enhance local, Poor whilst conserving indigenous and/ or traditional peoples welfare the sites resources? There is regular contact between managers and Very Good neighboring official or corporate land/sea users, and substantial cooperation on management There is contact between managers and neighboring official or Good corporate land/sea users, but only some cooperation There is contact between managers and neighboring official or Fair corporate land/sea users but little or no cooperation There is no contact between managers and Poor neighboring official or corporate land/sea users

Conflict resolutions mechanisms exist and are used whenever Very Good conflicts arise Conflict resolutions mechanisms exist but are only partially effective Good

Conflict resolution mechanisms exist, but are largely ineffective Fair

No conflict resolution mechanisms exist Poor

199

Appendix E: Supplementary Tables for Chapter 6

Appendix 6.1. Relationships between the Sustainable Development Goals, the Lima Action Plan for the WNBR and BR implementation.

Sustainable Development Lima Action Plan Factors promoting or hindering effective Goals management of BRs that impinge on the Sustainable Development Goals 1) End poverty in all its A1.3.Establish alliances at local, Economic development, livelihood incomes, forms everywhere regional, international levels for co-management and benefit sharing within the biodiversity conservation and BRs / Management of the BRs as the core area benefits to local people, taking into (mainly focus on biodiversity consideration the rights of conservation)(Chapters 3.4.5, 4.3.4.5, 4.3.4.6 indigenous people. and 5.3.4.4) 2) End hunger, achieve A1.3.Establish alliances at local, Economic development, livelihood incomes, food security and regional, international levels for co-management and benefit sharing within the improved nutrition, and biodiversity conservation and BRs / Management of the BRs as the core area promote sustainable benefits to local people, taking into (mainly focus on biodiversity conservation)( agriculture consideration the rights of Chapters 3.4.5, 4.3.4.5, 4.3.4.6 and 5.3.4.4 ) indigenous people. 3) Ensure healthy lives A7.3.Implement programs to Government policy and research effort to and promote wellbeing preserve, maintain and promote quantify the ecosystem and environmental for all at all ages species and varieties of economic values for protection, restoration and and/or cultural value and that implementation of the payment for ecosystem underpin the provision of services (Chapter 5.3.4.2) ecosystem services. 4) Ensure inclusive and A4.4. Identify and disseminate Awareness raising and environmental equitable quality good practices for sustainable education for sustainable development for education and promote development, and identify and school children, students, farmers and local lifelong learning eliminate unsustainable practices in staff (Chapters 3.3.4.5, 4.3.4.1; and further opportunities for all the BR detail in Cuong et al., 2014) 5) Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls 6) Ensure availability A7.3.Implement programs to Research to quantify water quantity and and sustainable preserve, maintain and promote quality provided to human beings through management of water species and varieties of economic protection of the forest and ecosystems and sanitation for all and/or cultural value and that (Chapter 5.3.4.2) underpin the provision of ecosystem services. 7) Ensure access to

200

Sustainable Development Lima Action Plan Factors promoting or hindering effective Goals management of BRs that impinge on the Sustainable Development Goals affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all 8) Promote sustained, A1.5. Promote Ecotourism, environmentally friendly inclusive and sustainable green/sustainable/social economy production, BR branding vs economic and economic growth, full initiatives inside BRs. infrastructure development focus (Chapters and productive 2.4.3, 3.3.3, 4.3.4.5, 4.3.4.6 and 5.3.4.3) employment, and decent work for all 9) Build resilient A1.5. Promote Ecotourism, environmentally friendly infrastructure, promote green/sustainable/social economy production, BR branding vs economic and inclusive and sustainable initiatives inside BRs infrastructure development focus (Chapters industrialisation, and 3.3.3, 4.3.4.5, 4.3.4.6 and 5.3.4.3) foster innovation 10) Reduce inequality within and among countries 11) Make cities and A1.5. Promote Ecotourism, environmentally friendly human settlements green/sustainable/social economy production, BR branding vs economic and inclusive, safe, resilient initiatives inside BRs infrastructure development focus (Chapters and sustainable 3.3.3, 4.3.4.5, 4.3.4.6 and 5.3.4.3) 12) Ensure sustainable A1.5. Promote Ecotourism, environmentally friendly consumption and green/sustainable/social economy production, BR branding vs economic and production patterns initiatives inside BRs (A4.4) infrastructure development focus (Chapters (indicator 12.8) C7.2. Use the brand in products and 3.3.3, 4.3.4.5, 4.3.4.6 and 5.3.4.3) services in line with national guidelines 13) Take urgent action to A1.4. Use BRs as priority Learning orientations and system thinking. combat climate change sites/observatories for climate BRs are using as laboratories to test new and its impacts (taking change research, monitoring, measures adapting to climate change (Chapter note of agreements made mitigation and adaptation, including 3.2.2)

by the UNFCCC forum) in support of the UNFCCC COP21 Paris Agreement 14) Conserve and A1.2.Promote BRs as sites that Conservation of biodiversity and restoration of sustainably use the actively contribute to implementing the degraded wetland, mangrove and marine oceans, seas and marine MEAs, including the Aichi ecosystems (Chapters 5.3.4.2, 5.3.6.2) resources for sustainable Biodiversity Targets

201

Sustainable Development Lima Action Plan Factors promoting or hindering effective Goals management of BRs that impinge on the Sustainable Development Goals development 15) Protect, restore and A1.2.Promote BRs as sites that Conservation of biodiversity and species, and promote sustainable use actively contribute to implementing restoration of the degraded terrestrial forests of terrestrial ecosystems, MEAs, including the Aichi and ecosystems (Chapters 5.3.4.2, 5.3.6.2). sustainably manage Biodiversity Targets forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss 16) Promote peaceful A4.5. Encourage managers, local Stakeholder participation and collaboration; and inclusive societies communities and other BR Education and training for sustainable for sustainable stakeholders to collaborate in development; local communities and development, provide designing and implementing stakeholders have strong sense of the BR access to justice for all projects that inform the ownership and need for protection of and build effective, management and sustainable biodiversity (Chapters 3.3.4.1, 4.3.4.1, 4.3.4.2, accountable and development of their BR 5.3.1.3). inclusive institutions at all levels 17) Strengthen the means C2.1. Create opportunities for Stakeholder collaboration and partnership; of implementation and collaboration and partnerships regional integration, engage communities, revitalise the global within UNESCO private sectors in participatory BR partnership for C2.2. Create opportunities for governance, BR planning and management/ sustainable development collaboration and partnerships with top-down state control and sectoral planning international programs and relevant and management (Chapters 2.4.2, 3.3.4.1, conventions. 4.3.4.2) C4.2. Create opportunities for collaboration and partnerships with private sector which are open, accountable and sustainable

202

References for the Appendix D

ADB, 2011. Climate change impact and adaptation study in the Mekong Delta- Part A Final report: Climate change vulnerability and risk assessment study for Ca Mau and Kien Giang Provinces. Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment (IMHEN), Hanoi.

Carter, R.W., 2013. Sustainable management of natural resources: Guidelines for Developing tourism in Kien Giang Province, particularly the Ha Tien- Dong Ho area. Agricultural Publishing House, Ho Chi Minh City.

Cuong, C.V., Russell, M., Brown, S., Dart, P. 2015. Using Shoreline Video Assessment for coastal planning and restoration in the context of climate change in Kien Giang, Vietnam. Ocean Science Journal 50, 413-432.

Dang, N.X., 2009. Rapid assessment of flora and terrestrial animals in Key Areas of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve. Kien Giang, Vietnam.

Godfrey, C., 2016. Phu Quoc feels growing pains as development booms. http://e.vnexpress.net/news/travel-life/phu- quoc-feels-growing-pains-as-development-booms-3487852.html (accessed 24.10.2016).

Kien Giang DOCST, 2016. Tourism achievements and results in 2015. Department of Culture, Sport and Tourism. Rach Gia, Kien Giang.

Kien Giang DONRE, 2008. Planning for evironmental protection in Kien Giang to 2015 and visions to 2020. Department of Natural Resources and Environment.

Kien Giang PPC, 2005. Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve. Proposal report to UNESCO. Rach Gia, Kien Giang.

Mateo, I., Garforth, D., 2014. Kien Giang province trawl fishery, Vietnam. IFFO Fishery Assessment Report.

UNESCO Hanoi, 2013. Biosphere Reserves in Vietnam: A first assessment of their values and management effectiveness. Hanoi.

203

Vietnam Sustainable Tourism Institute, 2013. Strategy for tourism product development in Kien Giang province to 2020 and orientations to 2030.

204