biodiversity conservation through landscape ecology...

B i o d i v e r s i t y c o n s e r v a t i o n t h r o u g h l a n d s c a p e e c o l o g y

1

POLICY BRIEFBiodiversity Conservationthrough Landscape Ecology:The PARC Approach

Defining landscapeecologyIn common with many other emergingnations, Viet Nam is struggling toreconcile the needs for rural develop-ment to support growing and oftenmarginalized rural communities, withprotection of its natural resources.

Viet Nam’s landscape is constantlychanging as land use changes. Some-times the resources base benefits whereforests are protected and allowed toregenerate naturally, bare land is refor-ested, or where swidden land is con-verted to more intensive agriculture.Sometimes resources are lost whereforests are exploited for timber, clearedfor agricultural or grazing, or burnt byspreading wildfires.

Demands on the rural landscape aremany and often conflicting. Conserva-tion agendas require the protection ofnatural habitat. Rural developmentagendas require increased agriculturalproductivity and improved marketaccess at the local level. Meanwhile,national development agendas requiredams for electricity production, pulp-wood plantations, timber forests andmines.

All these conservation and developmentdemands are superimposed upon afinite landscape.

Landscape ecology incorporates conser-vation and human dimensions to create asustainable and harmonised living environ-ment. The landscape can be viewed as acomplex jigsaw puzzle with many overlap-ping pieces, representing areas whereconflicts for land exist. In essence,landscape ecology is the science of fittingtogether pieces that do not fit.

PARC Project seeks to develop effectivemodels for the conservation of VietNam’s biological diversity through alandscape ecology approach. Its focusis on building local capacity to implementintegrated conservation and develop-ment programmes through the participa-tion of local communities and govern-ment sector agencies.

PARC Project was established on therealisation that a system of protectedareas is unlikely to be maintainedsuccessfully if it is established withoutreference to the rest of the landscape.Protected areas do not exist in isolation,immune to other processes and de-mands in their vicinity. To create proc-esses for long-term biodiversity conser-vation, PARC analyses the entire patternof demands on the landscape to linkconservation and development goals,which then form integral components ofan overall government agenda.

This paper describes the landscape levelapproach to conservation in Viet Namthat has been explored by PARC Project.

PARC ProjectPARC ProjectMay 2004

Pac Ta Mountain, Na Hang Nature Reserve

PARC Project P o l i c y B r i e f

2

While following the internationally-acceptedprotected area zonation system, PARC hasadapted approaches to the specific regula-tions of the Government of Viet Namconcerning protected areas, and to theprevailing land laws and the devolvedresponsibilities of rural communities.

Adopting such an approach is not withoutproblems, however. A principal obstaclehas been the division of responsibility forlandscape elements between manyauthorities. Protected area authorities arenot responsible for buffer zones (bufferzones do not exist as legal entities) anddevelopment agendas for land adjacent toprotected areas can be established withoutreference to those protected areas. Thistypically leads to conflicts of use. A mainrole of the PARC approach is to reduce thelikelihood of these conflicts occurring.

Conservation planning at the landscape levelPARC has abandoned the traditional approach of protected area management, whichfocussed on the development of a detailed management plan for individual protectedareas. Traditional management plans are mostly developed in isolation from localcommunities, fail to address root causes of land degradation and are ultimatelyunworkable. Operational planning has been the central pillar of protected areaplanning for PARC Project. While it remains important, operational planning is onlyone component of PARC’s five-tier planning process.

Srepok River, Yok Don National Park

PARC’s five-tier planning process

1. Conservation strategy developmentPlanning appropriate land managementfor the entire landscape - not restrictedto protected areas. This incorporatesnational and local level developmentand conservation agendas based onlandscape level evaluations andprioritisations.

2. Financial mechanismsStrategies for long-term financing ofconservation in biodiversity-rich areaslinked with economic development inbuffer zones.

3. Operational planningGuidance documents for managers ofprotected areas and community-managed areas of high biodiversity,based on conservation needs and inline with available financial resources.

4. Landscape unit managementDetailed management prescriptionsfor a specific unit in the landscape,such as a lake important for fisheriesand aquatic birds, or a cave compleximportant for bats and guanocollection.

5. Site plansDetailed day-to-day managementplans and prescriptions for individuallocations, such as ranger posts andtourist attractions.


3

Putting it into practice:Approaches toconservation in a human-dominated landscapeConservation planning developed byPARC involves a range of stakeholderswithin and outside the authoritiestraditionally involved with biodiversityconservation. In some cases, co-management responsibilities areintroduced, in other cases conservationmanagement responsibility is assumeddirectly by local communities. In allcases, conservation decision-making islinked closely with an assessment ofthe needs of rural populations fornatural resources.

Evaluation of conservation criteria at thelandscape level includes an assessment ofexisting protected areas but is by no meanslimited by their boundaries. A picture ofconservation values of the entire landscapeis built up by analysing field conservationmeasures and biological and physicalinformation, and by geographical analysisof forest cover. Each conservation value,or criteria, is graded and forms a layer in acumulative analysis. Put all the layerstogether and the resulting map will showbiodiversity ‘hotspots’. In most cases,however, the biodiversity-rich areas,representing priorities for conservationmanagement, will not be restricted to thedefined protected areas within the land-scape. The goal of this systematic analysisis to establish conservation as a compo-nent of rural land use.

Participatory resource use planning is acornerstone for the development of conser-vation management strategies for thelandscape (PARC Policy Brief: IntegratingConservation and Development throughParticipatory Resource Use Planning).Through this approach, Village Develop-ment Plans are developed. These five-year plans include maps of current naturalresource use and document vegetation

cover. They identify human uses ofbiodiversity-rich areas (these areas areidentified by the process described above),and include village commitments to adoptsustainable use policies in return forrecognition of user rights and support ofimproved livelihoods. The plans providebudget calculations to implement identifiedactivities. The central goal of these plans isdevelopment in support of conservation.

Reconciling resource use is complex, butthe bottom-up approach implemented byparticipatory resource use planning,superimposed on conservation evaluation,provides a basis for zonation of the land-scape. In the experience of PARC,stakeholders are able to appreciate thisapproach and to reach agreement onlimiting local use of resources in key areas.In effect, the pieces of the puzzle can bemade to fit.

Certainly, national-level infrastructuredevelopment projects such as a major damor road can introduce new pieces to thepuzzle, and this would require adjustmentof all the others. If this occurs, the processdescribed above can assist by accommo-dating the new pieces to limit adverseeffects on biodiversity conservation and thesocio-economic development aspirations oflocal communities.

Decentralisation ofconservationA current policy of the Government ofViet Nam is to decentralise naturalresource management responsibilities.

Legislation allows for provincial manage-ment of protected areas falling totally withina province (only multi-province nationalparks are managed centrally). DecisionNo. 08/2001/QD-TTg of the Prime Minister,“Promulgation of Regulations on Manage-ment of Special-use Forests, ProtectionForests, and Production Forests” allows fora new form of landscape management‘Species or Habitat Conservation Area’which is recognised nationally but managedcooperatively between local communities


4

and local forest authorities. PARC Projecthas used this legislation to extend conser-vation into the wider landscape and toestablish conservation management as acommunity activity.

This new legislation also allows for commu-nities to manage certain areas (’landscapemanagement units’) within existing pro-tected areas, such as areas of open water.PARC Project has used this legislation tofoster community management of fisheries,extending local community rights intoprotected areas.

There are thus a number of approaches ortools that can be used to enhance land-scape level conservation. These rangefrom creation of new national parks andnature reserves, or extension of existingareas (a traditional approach), to co-management or community managementof designated areas, and even householdlevel management of forests allocatedunder Government common land forestprotection programmes.

Innovative approaches to themanagement of protected areasPARC Project has made a detailed exami-nation of the way in which protected areasfunction - or do not function. This has ledto a re-thinking of the way in which pro-tected areas are financed (PARC PolicyBrief: Covering the Costs of Viet Nam’sProtected Areas). The aim has been toprescribe financing mechanisms forprotected areas to undertake their mainrole of habitat protection and biodiversityconservation. Beyond financing, this hasalso led to a re-thinking of the way in whichprotected areas are managed on a day-to-day basis.

PARC Project has also supported thegovernment in piloting a new protectedarea management approach based on theconcept of operational planning. Thisadapts a number of international manage-ment planning approaches to the Vietnam-ese context. Protected areas are currentlyestablished with a ten year ConstructionInvestment Plan that supports only infra-

structure development. Funds for staffsalaries and conservation activities areapplied for annually from other sources andare not cohesively planned. There arealways gaps in funding. The operationalplanning approach progresses from theConstruction Investment Plan and inte-grates this and other financing resourceswithin a planning and implementationprocess that focuses on long-termbiodiversity conservation (and not only oninfrastructure).

Operational planning works on the basis ofdetailed day-to-day prescriptions forprotected area staff, including detailedmanagement responsibilities for landscapeunits and individual key sites. Integral tothe approach is a monitoring system thatfeeds biodiversity and human impactinformation into management decision-making. While this may seem fundamen-tal, the establishment of managementtargets and the monitoring of achievementsis not a current feature of protected areamanagement in Viet Nam.

Operational planning also links closely withthe implementation of Village DevelopmentPlans resulting from the participatoryresource use planning exercises. Whereappropriate, the operational plan providesdetailed prescriptions for sustainable usewithin co-managed areas of the landscape.The plan would also identify conservationmanagement targets, as defined byresource users, and means of monitoringresource use and conservation.

Innovative approaches tocommunity-based conservationAlthough the Government of Viet Nam hasa policy of decentralising managementresponsibilities, this has not yet beenfollowed by decentralisation of decision-making. Laws governing the use ofprotected areas are in some cases contra-dictory and in many cases unworkable.Protected area management authoritiesare empowered to adapt managementpractices to suit local conditions and thiscan mean the involvement of local peopleshould they chose to be involved. Experi-


5

ence in co-management is very limited,however. Protected area authorities havegenerally been slow to embrace localcommunities as partners rather than agentsof destruction. Whereas, to local commu-nities, forest protection authorities may beviewed as restricting their options forlivelihood improvement.

Government reforestation programmeshave for some time supported individualhouseholds to protect small common landforest plots and to obtain some limitedbenefits from them. The household hasnot had any say, however, in how thoseplots should be managed – the householdis employed to protect the plot not empow-ered to manage it. Since the householdreceives no direct benefit from goodmanagement, and because their success inmanaging the plots is rarely monitored, theexisting forest land allocation programmehas had limited success.

Pilot projects aimed at mobilising localpeople to participate in biodiversity protec-tion and forest protection have beenestablished in several important biodiversityareas in Viet Nam. These projects gener-ally work on the basis of Government-approved forest protection and utilisationcontracts, where, again, local people areemployed to protect forest and may obtainsome fringe benefits from harvesting non-timber forest products. Although theseapproaches aim to create an incentive forforest protection, they fall short of actuallygiving local people a say in managementprocesses.

Community-based conservation, whereinlocal communities and government authori-ties are equal partners, has rarely beenattempted in Viet Nam. PARC Projectpiloted cooperative management ap-proaches in several landscape units,whereby actual management responsibili-ties are ceded to or shared with localpopulations.

It is expected that PARC Project pilots incommunity-based conservation and co-management will encourage and supportpolicy revision at the government level.

This is still needed in order to improve thepotential for community empowerment andinvolvement in conservation managementat the landscape level.

The cases of Ba Be,Na Hang and Yok DonDifferent protected areas interact withtheir surroundings in different ways,and may require different solutionseffectively to link conservation anddevelopment needs. PARC Project hasoperated in three sites in Viet Nam,each with rather different managementstructures and faced with differentsocio-economic pressures.

The three field sites at which PARC Projecthas piloted landscape managementapproaches are:

Yok Don National Park (a centrally-managed national park);

Ba Be National Park (a provincially-managed national park); and,

Na Hang Nature Reserve (a provinciallymanaged nature reserve).

These areas were chosen to provide arange of scenarios to test innovativemanagement and biodiversity conservationapproaches that could lead to policyprescriptions.

At each field site, PARC Project waspresented with an existing protected areaisolated, in management terms, from itssurroundings. In the case of neighbouringBa Be National Park and Na Hang NatureReserve, the surrounding areas supports adense human population. The areasurrounding Yok Don National Park issparsely populated but large areas aremanaged by state-owned logging compa-nies. All three protected areas havehuman settlements within their boundaries,extensive agricultural development in thebuffer areas and heavy encroachment intothe protected landscape.


6

Conservation strategydevelopmentAt each site, a first step was to redefine theconservation priorities across the land-scape, rather than to concentrate conser-vation efforts on the established protectedareas. This redefinition was undertaken byhotspot analysis, including geographicalanalysis and the results of broadbiodiversity surveys.

At Yok Don, the analysis clearly defineda biodiversity hotspot within the nationalpark, that is Yok Don Mountain. It alsohighlighted the importance of thebiodiversity-rich area south of the parkunder the jurisdiction of a state-ownedlogging company.

At Ba Be – Na Hang, hotspot analysishighlighted the very complex nature ofthe landscape and indicated severalbiodiversity-rich areas outside theexisting protected landscape in need ofconservation attention.

As a second step, participatory resourceuse planning was used to redefine existingprotected area boundaries, and to explorepossibilities for gazettement or the intro-duction of community management ofother important areas.

At Na Hang, this assisted in fixingboundaries of the nature reserve thatwere acceptable to both the naturereserve authority and the local commu-nities (legal boundaries betweenpopulated and protected areas of theinvolved communes were not previouslydefined). Boundaries of enclaves werealso arrived at through a participatoryprocess, which aimed to limit expansionand adverse effects of in-reservevillages, ensure that uses of forestareas were sustainable, and engage thehouseholds in participatory conservationprogrammes.

Based on conservation hotspot analysisand participatory resource use planning, athird step included zonation of the land-scape and development of a strategysuitable to implement conservation actionscompatible with local community resourceneeds.

At Ba Be – Na Hang an EndangeredPrimate Recuperation and Manage-ment Programme has been imple-mented focussing on the conservationof two endangered primates, the TonkinSnub-nosed Monkey Rhinopithecusavunculus and Francois’ LangurTrachypithecus francoisi, across thelandscape. This has involved improvedprotection within existing protectedareas, extension of protected areas intoimportant additional habitats, creation ofnew co-managed protected areas andengagement of the local communityand institutional stakeholders in activeconservation programmes.

To the south of Ba Be, an upland areawas identified as important for thesurvival of the Vietnamese Salamander,a locally distributed endemic species.A community-managed conservationprogramme was therefore developed,focussing on community-based refor-estation and protection of the uplandwatershed that supports this species.

Establishing financial support forconservation actionsWhile PARC Project has provided financialresources for planning and initiation ofspecific conservation actions, Governmentfunding sources are being engaged toprovide at least a minimum level of supportfor protected areas and community man-aged areas in the long-term. Additionalpotential funding sources include tappinginto tourism revenues and, in the case ofNa Hang, accessing a proposed conserva-tion fund provided by the electricity com-pany operating the Gam River Dam (SeePARC Policy Brief: Covering the Costs ofViet Nam’s Protected Areas).


7

Operational planning foreffective protection andcommunity participationPARC has improved the capacity ofprotected area authorities for planning,funding and implementing conservationprogrammes through an operationalplanning process adapted to Vietnameseprotected area administration systems.The concept of operational planning is alsoextended away from existing protectedareas into areas under gazettement as newprovincial and community-managedSpecies and Habitat Conservation Areas.

In all three PARC Project sites the pilotoperational planning processes areapproved by the Government of VietNam as potential models for futureuptake throughout Viet Nam’s protectedarea system. The introduction ofoperational planning to elucidateconservation (as opposed to construc-tion) goals is likely to be a pre-requisitefor future funding from donors such asthe World Bank.

Setting conservation targets andmonitoring achievements is an integralpart of operational planning. PARCProject has introduced pilot approachesand is developing a monitoring data-base for wider adoption among pro-tected areas.

All three PARC Project sites introducesome examples of community co-management of resources within theprotected area. These are important

models in themselves and are aimed atencouraging and supporting the govern-ment to further revise legislation tofacilitate community empowerment andcooperative management.

Co-management oflandscape unitsCertain landscape units assume highimportance for effective management,often because of potential conflicts ofresource usage.

Yok Don Mountain forms an isolated‘island’ of evergreen forest amid the drydeciduous forest of the lowlands of thenational park. In addition to supportingspecies not found elsewhere in thelandscape, except in evergreen forestsfurther south, the mountain forms arefuge for many species during the dryseason. As such, it is a favouritehunting ground for local people. In thiscase, biodiversity values justify prohibit-ing the hunting of key species andmanagement is designed to protect thehabitat. In the meantime, controlledeco-tourism is being introduced to partof the mountain.

Also at Yok Don, the potential for co-management of freshwater resources isbeing explored, partly to compensatefor prohibiting hunting in key areas ofthe national park. Villages with user-rights over stretches of the SrepokRiver will have these rights recognisedand gain exclusive access to stretchesof productive water within the park. In

Landscape ofBa Be National Park


8

return, the households will assist thenational park authorities in excludingcommercial fishermen who come fromurban centres.

At Be Be, the management of fisherieson Ba Be Lake has been handed overto a cooperative comprised of repre-sentatives from local communities.Damaging fishing practices such asdynamiting and use of small mesh netsare prohibited and self-policed. As partof the cooperative managementagreement, it has been proposed thatthe cooperative also assumes responsi-bility for managing and monitoringtourist attractions on the lake, andwould obtain a percentage of tourismrevenues as an incentive.

Managing key sitesfor conservationBiodiversity surveys and human threatanalyses, pinpoint key sites for conserva-tion. As a result, ranger stations are oftenestablished and tasked with managingparticular sites, for which they are givendetailed day-to-day work plans (includedwithin the operational plans). In addition,multi-agency groups, often including localpeople, may be tasked with managementof key biodiversity sites.

At Yok Don, biodiversity surveys havedocumented the use of dry seasonwaterholes by endangered bird speciessuch as the Giant Ibis Pseudibisgigantea. These waterholes are alsoused as watering places by localdomestic buffalo herds, which graze inthe park as part of a tacit agreementwith the national park authority. Thewaterholes require some level ofmanagement, however. Their use byendangered waterbirds and domesticbuffalos is compatible (perhaps evensynergistic). Setting traps and snaresaround the waterholes needs to beprevented, however, as does directcontact between domestic and wildmammals which may result in diseasesbeing spread into wild populations.

At Ba Be, the Puong Cave is a populartourist attraction and a through route fortransport along the Nang River, but it isalso home to large and important batcolonies. Currently the cave is viewedonly as a potential tourism developmentsite. PARC Project has tried to pro-mote an integrated site managementapproach, whereby local people wouldmanage the site and take tourists to thecave, but would be required to preventdisturbance to the bat colonies, as wellas controlling littering and preventingtourists from defacing cave walls.

Changing the game:Imposing majorinfrastructure projects onthe managed landscapeLandscapes evolve over time and thepieces of the puzzle shift. How to copewith the introduction of major newthreats or demands on the landscape,such as a major infrastructure project,is a common problem facing conserva-tion strategies.

PARC has developed conservation strate-gies that are adaptive to new threats andchallenges. Involving communities and

Puong Cave


9

institutional stakeholders in conservationactivities provides a link between conserva-tion and development agendas. Protectedareas are not viewed as isolated units, withtheir own exclusive management plans, butas a part of the human landscape and apart of the development agenda.

However, local conservation and develop-ment agendas can be severely strained bythe imposition of national-level infrastruc-ture projects, usually developed with littlelocal consultation. PARC Project’s conser-vation strategies have had to face this testat Na Hang, where the construction of theGam River Dam is leading to the loss oflarge areas of both protected forest andagricultural land beneath the resulting lake.

In this case, the landscape level analysis ofconservation priorities enabled swift actionto compensate for the loss of substantialparts of the protected area due to damconstruction. A procedure for protectedarea extension and gazettement of newareas could be defined immediately, tocompensate for the loss of protected areahabitat. A new Species and HabitatConservation Areas was established atXuan Lac adjacent to the nature reserveand a proposal for another adjacentprotected area at Sinh Long is supportedby provincial authorities. Links with the ruraldevelopment plans enabled clarification ofland compensation and other requirementsfor displaced families, and also enabledPARC Project to recommend areas wherehouseholds should not be resettled due topotentially high conservation impacts. Thedam construction company was alsoengaged constructively in supportingbiodiversity monitoring to reduce threatsimposed by an influx of labourers, and toprovide long-term financial support fromelectricity revenues, as is the case in similarprojects elsewhere in the region.

Managed in isolation, the Na Hang pro-tected area would be severely impacted bythe dam construction. Because conserva-tion management is an element of overalllandscape management, the effects of thedam construction, while severe, can bemitigated.

Landscape managementin Viet NamPARC Project has piloted a number ofinnovative approaches to conservationmanagement at sites operating underdifferent government administrativestructures. The sites face a number ofcommon problems: among the mostimportant are low staff capacity andlack of funding for conservation activi-ties. Nevertheless, PARC Project hasdemonstrated that re-thinking manage-ment approaches and moving awayfrom the concept of isolating protectedareas within the developing landscapecan provide distinct benefits for forestand biodiversity conservation.

Experience has shown that managingprotected areas as islands within a human-dominated landscape, without linkages andbenefits accruing from these areas to thelocal communities, is an unworkableapproach. Integrated conservation anddevelopment projects attempt to solve thisproblem, but have generally failed becausethey focus too much on the needs ofprotected areas, and try to define bufferzone management strategies accordingly.Landscape ecology is evolving as a alter-native approach that places conservationwithin an overall integrated planningframework, rather than setting asideconservation areas that are supposed tothen remain inviolate. Conservation needsto be established as a viable form of landuse, alongside competing demands. It alsoneeds to be a part of overall landscapemanagement, not a consideration thatneed be applied only in protected areas.

PARC Project starts from the premise thatlocal communities can be engaged asactive partners in development of anefficient land management strategy thatincludes both conservation and develop-ment goals. In effect, local communitiescan be brought onto the side of conserva-tion, providing incentives and benefitsaccrue to them. The project demonstratesa truly integrative approach, where conser-


1 0

vation criteria extend outwards fromprotected areas into the wider landscapeand, in turn, local community user rightsextend inwards into protected areas underco-management agreements. In effect,the entire landscape is managed to pro-mote both conservation and appropriatedevelopment.

Approaches developed by PARC Project toachieve this harmonisation of conservationand development agendas, and importantlessons to be learned, include the following:

PARC Project has developed andpromoted a five-tier participatoryplanning process, adapted to thespecific legislative conditions of VietNam, to achieve landscape levelintegrative conservation and develop-ment. The process is adaptive and canaccommodate shifts in local or evennational development policy withouttotally compromising conservationpriorities.

Lesson learned. Development of land-scape level conservation strategiesthrough hotspot or similar analyses canmaximise conservation efficiency and buildin flexibility and adaptability to changingenvironmental pressures.

Within the overall landscape, PARCProject has demonstrated that localcommunities can develop and takecharge of their own land managementstrategies that can incorporate conser-vation as well as development goals.Local communities have been engagedas partners in developing new co-managed protected areas as well as indeveloping sustainable use strategiesfor areas previously zoned as totallyprotected.

Lesson learned. Landscape level conser-vation management provides a basis forengaging local communities in co-opera-tive management initiatives, or encourag-ing communities to develop their ownconservation initiatives to tap into govern-ment funding programmes. This promotes

the participation of local communities eventhough the legislative support for co-management of protected areas is currentlyweak.

Lesson learned. Prioritising landscapeunits and key sites within protected areas,and defining feasible means of managingor co-managing these sites together within-reserve communities, can be importantsteps towards getting the community onthe side of conservation.

Within designated protected areas,PARC Project has piloted a planningprocess that supports the role ofprotected areas in protecting andconserving biodiversity. This is definedby the government as a primary role ofViet Nam’s protected area system, butplanning and financing systems are notyet sufficiently developed to support thisprimary objective.

Lesson learned. Operational planning andmonitoring, linking investment and recurringfunding to identify and fill gaps in conserva-tion funding, and the prioritisation of conser-vation over infrastructure development areall important for wider application in VietNam’s protected area network.

Related PARC Project documents:

Available from:www.undp.org.vn/projects/parc

Operational Plan for Ba Be National Park

Operational Plan for Na Hang NatureReserve

Operational Plan for Yok Don National Park

A Conservation Strategy for the Ba Be / NaHang Conservation Complex

Bat Survey and Management Plan forPuong Cave, Ba Be National Park

Yok Don National Park Hotspot Analysis


1 1

Ba Be National Park was originally gazetted in1977, then established as a national park in1992. It covers an area of 7,611 ha includingthe 500 ha Ba Be Lake, the largest natural lakein Viet Nam. The national park was adminis-tered by the Ministry of Agriculture and RuralDevelopment before being transferred to BacKan Province in 2002.

A network of rivers and streams connect thelake to evergreen forests that cover adjacentranges of limestone karst mountains, giving thepark a spectacular landscape. There is a highdiversity of flora and fauna, in particular thereare over 300 species of butterfly and about 80species of freshwater fish. The national park isnoteworthy for its small resident population ofendangered Francois’ Langurs.

Na Hang Nature Reserve covers an area of41,930 ha, comprised of limestone mountainsunder tropical moist forest, with smaller areasof mixed lowland evergreen and semi-ever-green broadleaf and bamboo forest.

The nature reserve has global biodiversitysignificance as the only known protected areawith extant populations of the critically endan-gered and endemic Tonkin Snub-nosedMonkey. This species, once thought extinct,was rediscovered in 1992, which led to theforests of Na Hang being designated a naturereserve in 1994. It is managed by TuyenQuang Province.

Established in 1991, Yok Don National Park lies in Dak Lak Province in the CentralHighlands of Viet Nam, next to the border with Cambodia. It is managed by the Ministry ofAgriculture and Rural Development. In 2002, the park was expanded to cover a core zoneof 115,545 ha (twice its original area) and a buffer zone of 133,890 ha. Most of this areawas formerly managed as production forests.

The park occupies a relatively flat area with two small mountains to the south of theSrepok River. It is mainly under natural forest and includes the only protected area of drydipterocarp forest in Viet Nam, as well as evergreen hill forests and riverine forests. Thenational park is an important site for the conservation of large mammals and regardedas one of the most important areas in the country for birds.

Ba Be National Park

Na Hang Nature Reserve

Yok Don National Park

PARC Project Sites

i nV i e t N a m


1 2

PARC ProjectCreating Protected Areas for Resource Conservationusing Landscape Ecology

PARC is an Integrated Conservation and Development Project of the SocialistRepublic of Viet Nam. From 1999 to 2004, the project has piloted a landscapeecology approach for conserving Viet Nam's diverse biological heritage. Thisapproach integrates conservation and development by using resource use planningas a basis for project activities at three sites: Yok Don National Park, Ba Be NationalPark and Na Hang Nature Reserve.

The project is co-financed by the Global Environmental Facility and the UnitedNations Development Programme. It is implemented by the Forest ProtectionDepartment of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and the UnitedOffice for Project Services. IUCN - The World Conservation Union provides technicalassistance at the national level and Scott Wilson Asia - Pacific Ltd. provides technicalassistance at the site level.

PARC Project policy briefs

This series of policy briefs describes the planning approaches taken by PARCProject as part of its framework of integrating biodiversity conservation and socio-economic development. As such, the series should serve to strengthen policy forprotected area management in Viet Nam by sharing the experiences gained from theproject. This policy brief is one of four that have been published so far:

1. Covering the costs of Viet Nam’s protected areas

2. Biodiversity conservation through landscape ecology

3. Integrating conservation and development throughparticipatory resource use planning

4. Management planning for protected areas in Viet Nam

Author:Andrew Greiser Johns, PARCProject biodiversity conservationspecialist, FRR Ltd. ([email protected])

Copyright:2004, Forest Protection Department

This policy brief reflects the personalpoints of view of the author and doesnot necessarily represent those of theUnited Nations Development Pro-gramme, the Forest ProtectionDepartment, or those of theiremploying organisations.

Available from:Nature Conservation Division,Forest Protection Department,Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development2 Ngoc Ha, Ha Noi, Viet NamTel: 84 4 7335676Fax: 84 4 7335685E-mail: [email protected]

and the PARC Project website:www.undp.org.vn/projects/parc

Design: Paul Insua-CaoProduced by: Haki

biodiversity conservation through landscape ecology...

Documents