Frontier Vietnam Environmental Research
REPORT 26
Bai Tu Long Bay National Park
Biodiversity survey and conservation evaluation
Frontier Vietnam
2004
Frontier Vietnam Environmental Research
Report 26
Bai Tu Long Bay National Park
Biodiversity Survey & Conservation Evaluation
Hardiman, N., Le Xuan Canh & Fanning, E. (eds)
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
Forest Protection Department
Frontier-Vietnam
Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources
Society for Environmental Exploration
Hanoi
2004
Technical report citation:
Frontier Vietnam (2004) Hardiman, N., Le Xuan Canh & Fanning, E. (eds) Bai Tu Long Bay National
Park: Biodiversity survey and conservation evaluation. Frontier Vietnam Environmental Research
Report 26. Society for Environmental Exploration, UK and Institute of Ecology and Biological
Resources, Hanoi.
© Frontier Vietnam 2004, 2005
ISSN 1479-117X (Print), 1748-3689 (Online), 1748-5169 (CD-ROM)
Frontier-Vietnam
Frontier-Vietnam is a collaboration of the Society for Environmental Exploration (SEE), UK and
Vietnamese institutions, that has been undertaking joint research and education projects within the
protected areas network of Vietnam since 1993. The majority of projects concentrate on biodiversity and
conservation evaluation and are conducted through the Frontier-Vietnam Forest Research
Programme. The scope of Frontier-Vienam project activities have expanded from biodiversity surveys
and conservation evaluation to encompass sustainable cultivation of medicinal plants, certified training
and environmental education . Projects are developed in partnership with Government departments (most
recently the Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources and the Institute of Oceanography) and national
research agencies. Partnerships are governed by memoranda of understanding and ratified by the National
Centre for Natural Science and Technology.
Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources (IEBR)
The Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources (IEBR) was founded by decision HDBT 65/CT of the
Council of Ministers dated 5 March 1990. As part of the National Centre for Natural Science and
Technology, IEBR’s objectives are to study the flora and fauna of Vietnam; to inventory and evaluate
Vietnam’s biological resources; to research typical ecosystems in Vietnam; to develop technology for
environmentally sustainable development; and to train scientists in ecology and biology. IEBR is Frontier's
principal partner in Vietnam, jointly co-ordinating the Frontier-Vietnam forest research programme. In the
field, IEBR scientists work in conjunction with Frontier, providing expertise to strengthen the research
programme.
The Society for Environmental Exploration (SEE)
The Society is a non-profit making company limited by guarantee and was formed in 1989. The Society’s
objectives are to advance field research into environmental issues and implement practical projects
contributing to the conservation of natural resources. Projects organised by The Society are joint initiatives
developed in collaboration with national research agencies in co-operating countries.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Frontier-Vietnam
Forestry Protection Department
SEE-Vietnam, PO Box 2422, GPO Hanoi, 75 Dinh Block A3, 2 Ngoc Ha, Hanoi, VIETNAM
Tien Hoang, Hanoi. VIETNAM
Tel: +84 (0) 4 733 5676
Tel: +84 (0) 4 869 1883
Fax: +84 (0) 4 7335685
Fax: +84 (0) 4 869 1883
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources
Nghia Do, Cau Giay, Hanoi. VIETNAM
Tel: +84 (0) 4 786 2133
Fax: +84 (0) 4 736 1196
E-mail: [email protected]
Publishers: Society for Environmental Exploration
50-52 Rivington Street, London, EC2A 3QP. U.K.
Tel: +44 20 76 13 24 22
Fax: +44 20 76 13 29 92
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet: www.frontier.ac.uk
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report is based upon field research conducted by Frontier-Vietnam (expeditions VNF021
to VNF024), which ran consecutively from July to December 2002. The survey team
consisted of Frontier-Vietnam field staff, scientists from the Institute of Ecology and
Biological Resources (IEBR) in Hanoi and the Hanoi National University, and volunteer
research assistants.
SOCIETY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EXPLORATION
Managing Director:
Ms. Eibleis Fanning
Development Programme Manager:
Ms. Elizabeth Humphreys
Research Programme Manager:
Ms. Nicola Beharrell
Operations Manager:
Mr. Matthew Willson
COLLABORATING SCIENTISTS
Dr Ha Van Tue
Botanist
Dr Tran Dinh Nghia
Botanist
Mr Pham Duc Tien
Mammologist
Dr Bui Tuan Viet
Entomologist
IEBR, Hanoi
Hanoi National University
IEBR, Hanoi
IEBR, Hanoi
FRONTIER-VIETNAM FIELD STAFF
Mr Nicholas Hardiman
Research Co-ordinator
Mr Martin Weil
Assist. Research Co-ordinator
Mr Gareth Goldthorpe
Assist. Research Co-ordinator
Miss Nguyen Thuy Giang
Liaison Officer (January-March)
Mr Le Xuan Dung
Liaison Officer (April-December)
Administrative support for the implementation of this project was provided by Mr Elizabeth
Tydeman and Ms Leanne Clarke (Project Managers), and Mr Nguyen Duc Long (Technical
Assistant). Financial and administrative support was provided by the Society for
Environmental Exploration. Technical support was provided by the Institute of Ecology and
Biological Resources, Hanoi.
The first draft of this report was reviewed by Ms. Nicola Beharrell, Programme Manager for
Research at Frontier.
Special thanks are due to Dr. Alexander Monastyrskii (Russian-Vietnam Tropical Centre,
Hanoi) for his identification of butterfly specimens and contributions to the butterfly chapter;
Ms. Ho Thu Cuc (Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Hanoi) for her identification
of amphibian specimens.
The authors would like to especially acknowledge and thank the provincial and district
authorities for their kind assistance, in particular the management board of Bai Tu Long Bay
National Park, the peoples’ committee and Forest Protection Department offices
administering Quang Ninh province and Van Don district, the local police and peoples’
committee departments in Minh Chau, Quan Lan, Ban Sen and Van Yen communes for their
support and guidance throughout and subsequent to the sixth month survey period.
Research Assistants
Phase 021
Phase 022
Phase 023
Phase 024
Alexander Ball
Barbara Brown
Antony Butcher
Emma Clarke
Simon Copperwheat
Jura Cullen
Matthew Gibson
James Gould
Euan Kinghorn
Faiysal Alikhan
Anthony Miles
Frank Phillips
Caroline Healey
Augusta Lewis
Freya Stothard
Nadia Musa
ii
Lindsey Cox
James Farr
Elizabeth Graham
Tim McCormack
Nicholas Gray
Anna Green
Peter Hancock
Jonty Haywood
James Hector
Abigail Macrobert
Louise Malcolm
Ben Vincent
Jack Hobhouse
Mattew Simpson
Michael Eld
Romilly Edelman
Nichola Wood
Andrew Sullivan
Ian Pottinger
Phillip Southan
Simon Roberts
Nicholas Prouse
Peter Myers
List of abbreviations used in this report
BAP
BARD
BTLB
DARD
DET
DPI
EA
EE
EU/EC
FFI
FIPI
FPD
FREC
Gov. SRV
IEBR
IUCN
MARD
MoET
MPI
NGO
NP
NPA
NR
NTFPs
PAHE
PARC
PNR
RDBV
WCMC
WWF
UNDP
Biodiversity Action Plan
Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development
Bai Tu Long Bay
(district) Department for Agriculture and Rural Development
Department for Education and Training
(provincial) Department of Planning and Investment
Environmental Awareness
Environmental Education
European Union/European Commission
Fauna and Flora International
Forest Inventory and Plannin g Institute
Forest Protection Department
Forest Resources and Environment Centre (division of FIPI)
Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
Ministry of Education and Training
Ministry of Planning and Investment
Non-governmental organisation
National park
National Park Authority
Nature reserve
Non-timber forest products
Poverty Alleviation and Hunger Eradication programme
(Protected Area Conservation project)
Proposed Nature Reserve
Red Data Book of Vietnam (used for Plants and Animals)
World Conservation Monitoring Centre
World Wide Fund for Nature
United Nations Development Programme
iii
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
1. Introduction and Project Aims
Conservation in Vietnam
Vietnam stretches from 23° 37.5’ N in the north to 8° 00.5’ N in the south, and has a
land area of 331,690 km2 (UNDP, 1997). The natural vegetation was once dominated
by tropical forests but these have undergone a rapid decline in the 20th century. In
1943, approximately 44% of the country's land area was forest. By 1983, this had
declined to 24% (MacKinnon, 1990). Good quality natural forests now cover only
around 10% of the land area and, of this, only around 1% could be described as
pristine (Collins et al., 1991).
The natural vegetation of lowland Vietnam is dominated by two broadly defined
types: tropical wet evergreen (and semi-evergreen) forest, and tropical moist
deciduous forest (monsoon forests) (WWF & IUCN, 1995). Wet evergreen forest is
found in areas with a regular, high rainfall (>1500mm per annum), and is largely
restricted in Vietnam to the southern and central regions (WWF & IUCN, 1995).
Monsoon forests experience a distinct dry season and are dominated by deciduous tree
species (Whitmore, 1984). They dominate inland and northern Vietnam, an area
classified by Udvardy (1975) as 'Thailandian Monsoon Forest'. At higher altitudes
(700m and above), lowland forest gives way to montane forest formations, which
differ from lowland forests in their distinctive physical structure and floral
composition (Whitmore, 1984; Collins et al., 1991). In addition to these terrestrial
forest types, coastal areas of Vietnam support mangrove and, in the south, Melaleuca
forests, and there are small areas of fresh-water swamp forest in low-lying areas of
southern Vietnam (Gov. SRV, 1994a).
Vietnam’s forests contain a wealth of biodiversity. In a recent assessment by the
World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Vietnam was ranked as the 16th most
biologically diverse country in the world (WCMC, 1992a). It is estimated that
Vietnam has about 12,000 species of higher plants (WCMC, 1992b), of which only
around 10,200 are currently known to science (Le Tran Chan et al., 1999). Vietnam
is known to be home to 273 species of mammal (including 5 endemic species), nearly
850 species of birds (including 10 endemic species), and at least 257 species of reptile
and 82 species of amphibians (WCMC, 1992b; Birdlife International, 2002; Nguyen
Van Sang and Ho Thu Cuc, 1996).
Unfortunately, the biological resources of Vietnam are currently under threat. Two
Red Data Books have been prepared for Vietnam: Volume 1, Animals (RDBV, 2000),
lists 366 threatened species; and Volume 2, Plants (RDBV, 1996) lists 350. Several
endangered species of mammal, including kouprey (Bos sauveli), Javan rhinoceros
(Rhinoceros sondaicus), tiger (Panthera tigris) and Asian elephant (Elephas
maximus) are facing imminent extinction in Vietnam. Forest degradation and the loss
of biodiversity have been caused by a number of factors. Two major wars since 1946
and several border disputes contributed to a loss of forest cover and increased levels
of poaching.
Between 1961 and 1971, 2.6 million hectares of terrestrial forest in South Vietnam
was subject to aerial herbicide bombardment at least once (Mai Dinh Yen and Cao
Van Sung in Cao Van Sung (ed.), 1998). Direct war damage was less extensive in
1
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
North Vietnam, although indirect forest loss, for example clearance to increase
agricultural production, occurred throughout Vietnam (MacKinnon, 1990). Overall,
around 14% of Vietnam's forest cover was lost between 1943 and 1975 (MacKinnon,
1990).
Since reunification in 1975, forest loss has continued due to a number of factors
generally connected to population growth. In 1994, the population of Vietnam was
approximately 72.4 million (UNDP, 1997), with a growth rate of 2.1% per year. In
1998, this figure had increased to 77 million with an increased growth rate of 2.3%.
Most of the population of Vietnam is concentrated on the intensively cultivated
alluvial plains (Ministry of Forestry, 1991). The highlands are more sparsely
populated, and it is here that the major forest areas can be found. However, the
population of the highlands has been increasing through natural growth and
immigration. During the period 1981-1989, over 500,000 people were assisted by the
government to migrate from the densely populated lowlands into the highlands
(Ministry of Forestry, 1991). Rapid population growth has resulted in clearance of
forest land for agriculture and increased exploitation of forest products. On average,
logging destroys 30,000 hectares of forest per year and degrades a further 70,000
hectares, whilst fire destroys 25,000 hectares (WCMC, 1992b).
The decline in the quantity and quality of Vietnam's native forests was addressed by
the publication in 1990 of the Tropical Forestry Action Programme for Vietnam
(Ministry of Forestry, 1991) which concluded that many protected areas were too
small and/or too degraded to satisfy their conservation goals and also pointed out the
lack of adequate management plans or inventories for many of the protected areas in
Vietnam. Since this time, the protected areas network has been revised and extended.
Vietnam’s first protected area, Cuc Phuong (now known as Cuc Phuong National
Park), was established in 1962. In 1998, there were 93 protected areas in Vietnam,
including 11 National Parks, 55 Nature Reserves and 27 Cultural/ Historical sites,
with a total decreed area of 985,280 ha or roughly 3 % of the national land area
(Birdlife International, 2001). In many of these sites, biodiversity inventories have
been conducted by Vietnamese institutions, such as the Forest Inventory and Planning
Institute (FIPI), aided by a number of foreign NGOs, including Frontier-Vietnam, the
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Fauna and Flora International (FFI) and
Birdlife International. Despite this, the Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) of 1994 was
still able to identify several reserve areas which lack basic biodiversity surveys and
management plans (Gov. SRV, 1994). In response to other recommendations in the
BAP, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development currently plans to further
extend the protected area network to a total of 2 million ha, representing 6% of
national land area (Wege et al., 1999).
The Frontier-Vietnam Forest Research Programme was established in 1993, in
collaboration with the Ministry of Forestry. Working together with the Institute for
Ecology and Biological Resources, Hanoi and Hanoi National University, it has
conducted research in numerous protected areas.
2
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Introduction to Quang Ninh province
Quang Ninh province lies on the flanks of the South China Sea, forming a coastal
corridor which stretches inland over an area of 5, 938km2. The population of the
province at the end of the last century was a little over 970,000, 42.8% of which was
urban – a higher rate than any other province in the north-east apart from Hanoi.
Population growth mirrors other provinces (c.2.2% in 1999), and unless economic
growth can keep pace, unemployment may become an increasing problem in the
future. Nevertheless, the provincial government is striving to reduce the growth rate to
1.2% by 2010, and eliminate poverty in the province. In 1998 those classed as ‘poor’
by the state (i.e. earning 5USD/month or less) constitute 16% of the population, but
the figure is declining. With a high over 6 literacy rate of 91.5% (5% higher than the
national average), 50% secondary school completion rate (1.6 times the national
average) and a labour force of 495,400 of which 30% are technical staff (making it
one of Vietnam’s leading provinces), the area has favourable conditions for
professional/vocational training and locally-driven development. Education and
training from an early age, and focusing ultimately upon vocational studies, are a high
priority by the provincial government for opening economic doors (DPI, 1999).
By comparison to most of the areas previously studied by Frontier, Quang Ninh
province has a rapidly growing industrial sector; secondary industry and construction
constitute approximately 35% of the GDP mechanism. Mineral exploitation for coal
and building materials is one of the province’s key growth credentials, with a long
term initiative developed for exploitation of the 3.5 billion ton coal reserve by means
of horizontal (470,000 million tons), open cast (215,000 mt) and vertical (2,837,808
mt) methods. Already there are large open cast areas/spoil areas in the area of Cua
Ong and Cam Pha, within sight of Bai Tu Long Bay. Additionally, the province has
1330mt of cement lime, 130 mt of cement clay, 75.6 mt of tile and brick clay, 14.6 mt
of fire-resistant clay, 150 mt of kaolin, 6.2 mt of sand for glass, 11.7mt of sand/gravel
for construction and 10 m cubic metres of granite. The province also has means to
exploit these resources; approximately 44% of the provincial budget went to the
central state budget in the late 1990’s (c.1,000bn VND), making it an important sector
of the northern growth triangle with its strong economic, transport, social and
scientific links to Hai Phong, Hanoi and the Red River delta. Overall growth
increased steadily in the late 1990s, reflected in the growth in trade and services.
Export/import/re-export markets also expanded at capital revenue ratios of 3:10:12
respectively, with machinery, building materials, agricultural equipment and
consumption goods forming the main imports. Foreign investment both direct and
indirect, is also rapidly expanding, and 14 of the 33 direct investment projects (which
totalled 832m USD) at the end of last century were industry/construction related (DPI,
1999; Le Ba Thao, 1997).
Industrial development is aided by the province’s relatively well-developed
infrastructure, which is continually improving throughout the province. Surfacing,
widening and bridging of roads on highway 18 from Hon Gai to Mong Cai
concentrates upon industrial links and mitigates seasonal flood problems, whilst the
rapidly expanding telecom system and power grid includes a 220KV line from Phan
Lai to Hoanh Bo to increase capacity for both industry and tourism around Ha Long
city. These improvements include rural transmission networks; 80 of the 143
3
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
communes (73% of households) had power by 2000 (DPI, 1999; Vietnam Statistical
Yearbook, 2000).
Tourism and services are perhaps the fastest growing sector of the economy, however,
accounting for 14-15% of the annual growth rate in the late 1990’s and continually
increasing to date. The provincial government is keen to account for this in its
industrial development initiatives, being aware of the potential (and already existing)
clashes between these sectors. Ha Long is the principle tourist centre with
approximately 120 hotels, about two-thirds of which are of ‘international standard’. In
1997-1998 the tourist revenue of c.120bn USD in Quang Ninh was six times that of
1991, and it is likely to increase in the next ten years also. The government’s concern
for the development of this sector is proved by the investment of c.44%of the
provincial GDP into services at the turn of the century (DPI, 1999).
Despite this overall trend to development, however, there are constraints, inequalities
and undesirable consequences which the provincial government recognises but may
experience difficulty in addressing. There are still shortages in trained human
resources, technology and capital for investment, leading to lack of efficiency in the
industrial sector. The environmental impacts of the mining industries are already
being felt in Ha Long city particularly through water pollution, and such impacts,
lacking adequate monitoring, are likely to expand to other areas as the industrial and
shipping sector advances. It is therefore essential that the provincial environmental
protection authorities are an influential voice in government, and that communication
of sustained monitoring practices by district environmental bodies is enhanced in the
coming years.
Whilst the rural areas may be more sheltered from the direct impacts of industry, the
very fact that their development is not synchronised with urban centre is likely to lead
to other human and environmental problems. Agriculture and forestry accounted for c.
19% of the provincial GDP at the turn of the century, and its future is uncertain (DPI,
1999). Food crop expansion is unlikely due to poor quality soils which generally
cover the province: it has the highest proportion (48%) of forest soils being finally
assessed as poor grade with a high number of limitations as per D Dinh Sam et al
(2001). The potential for cash crop/fruit tree expansion may be higher. There are large
areas of barren land in the province requiring reforestation efforts, whether through
natural rehabilitation or establishment of silviculture for the wood processing/mining
prop demand. There is in fact only 25.8% forest cover (150,000ha) much of it of a
very poor quality (DPI, 1999). Developing sustainable agricultural/silvicultural
systems province-wide with associated industries and provisions for environmental
conservation is to be a great challenge for the Quang Ninh authorities. The food
processing industry, integrally liked to infrastructure and tourism, is currently
scattered without co-ordination of growth in responding to markets. The government
plans to use the export market for agricultural/silvicultural products, whilst
internalising industry, but productivity has been affected by lack of capital investment
(both provincial and foreign), meaning unofficial capital markets (with high interest
rates) have become common.
4
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
The planned target for provincial reforestation is 55-60% by 2010, with zoning of
production forest (200,000ha for mining prop and construction timber, 30,000ha for
cash crop agro-forestry). The overall ambitions watershed protection and special-use
forest is less decisive, but the co-ordination of environmental concerns with tourism is
to be the direction taken. Given that Ha Long bay itself, for all its scenic beauty, is not
a particular hotspot of biodiversity (Duckworth et al, 1998), Bai Tu Long bay is likely
to be the ecological showpiece of the entire province. The main constraints and
challenges to environmental protection are industrial pollution (particularly mining)
and the lack of an established infrastructure to control waste management, expansion
of sea transport and exploitation of marine resources, unplanned urban development,
over-exploitation of terrestrial ecological resources and the lack of a management
infrastructure incorporating EIA and monitoring measures.
Marine resources, although not the subject of this report, are an integral component of
the provincial economy, especially in rural areas. Offshore fishing is expanding in
most coastal areas, with an estimated fishing capacity of 20-25,0000 tons/year
possible for the future. However, there is as yet little published provision for fisheries
monitoring. Tidal fishing of special products (crab, shrimp, squid, molluscs etc) is
abundant in coastal areas and is locally important for tourist/restaurant businesses as
well as for export (mainly up coast to China) of an estimated 25-30,000 tons/year.
With 40,000ha of tidal area and 20,000ha of strait and shallow ponds, the farming of
fish, shrimp and molluscs is being developed as a rural industry, although as a
relatively embryonic initiative it has yet to realise its full potential (DPI,1999).
Project aims
The overall aims of the work carried out by the Frontier-Vietnam forest project are:
•
To conduct baseline surveys of protected areas and Special Use Forests in
North Vietnam;
•
To investigate the socio-economic conditions of the human inhabitants in and
immediately connected with these areas, in order to evaluate the benefits derived from
the forest resources and the threats posed by human exploitation;
•
To provide information on the biological values of, and threats to, these areas,
and to assist in the development and execution of management plans in those areas.
The specific aims of the survey in Bai Tu Long bay National Park were:
• To conduct vegetation surveys in order to describe the dominant forests types
present and to identify threatened assemblages and species occurring within the study
area;
• To collect baseline biodiversity and ecological data for selected groups of taxa
including birds, moths, and mammals through the collection of specimens (not birds
or medium to large sized mammals), observation in the wild and interviews with local
people;
• To collect information regarding the socio-economic status of local inhabitants,
with a particular emphasis upon patterns of natural resource use; and to interview
local forest protection officials in order to determine their views concerning the Park’s
management and practical conservation policies being undertaken;
5
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
• To assess the ecological integrity of the Park boundaries and delineation of the
buffer zone.
• To combine a literature survey of other work done at Bai Tu Long and other
relevant areas with the results of Frontier’s fieldwork to provide a comprehensive and
up-to-date description and evaluation of the National Park.
• Note that the first year of fieldwork done by Frontier-Vietnam, which is the subject
of this report, concerned terrestrial areas of the National Park only.
6
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
2. DESCRIPTION OF BAI TU LONG BAY
2.1 General Description and Survey Details
2.1.1 Site Location and Access
The existing boundaries of Bai Tu Long Bay National Park (BTLBNP) as defined in
the scientific appraisal presented by FIPI in 2000 are within the co-ordinates
20°15.11’’ - 21°30.10’’N and 107°46.20’’E. The area is situated c. 60km from Cat Ba
island National Park, 30km from the mainland and c.20km from Cai Rong. The total
area of the national park is 15,783ha, of which sea area is 9,658ha and land 6,125ha,
although the boundaries on the eastern area were, at the time of the park’s investment
plan release in 2000, not entirely defined. The islands contained within the national
park are those considered linked to the former nature reserve island of Ba Mun (see
section 2.1.3 below); these are Sau Nam and Sau Dong islands to the north, Tra Ngo
islands to the west incorporating Soi Nhu cultural-historical site, and the northern
extremity of Minh Chau commune, cutting across the sand bank at Hon Triu-Quang
Chau. Three communes of Van Don district are included in the park, but the park
boundaries are not synonymous with administrative borders. These are Minh Chau
(northern Quan Lan island, Ba Mun island and Hon Trui; 2,240ha or 82% of the
commune area), Van Yen commune (Tra Ngo islands, Sau islands, Hon Vanh, Dong
Ma and a number of small islets in between; 3,761ha or87% of the commune area)
and Ha Long commune (incorporating Soi Nhu; 124ha, or 6% of the commune area).
Map 1 shows the location of the national park in the Quang Ning archipelago.
The area is easily accessible through the shallow waters from Cai Rong port on Van
Don island, and the Co To island group, 18km to the east of the national park is
visible on clear days. It is also easily accessible from Hon Gai (Ha Long city
industrial/commercial zone) via Cua Ong industrial zone and the vehicle ferry to Van
Don island, or directly from Bai Chay (Ha Long city tourism zone) by ferry or, since
2001, the Ha Long-Mong Cai hydrofoil, which stops at Cai Rong.
2.1.2 Biogeography
Following the bio-geographical classification of Mackinnon and Mackinnon (1986),
Bai Tu Long lies within the bio-unit 6a (South China) of the Indochinese sub-region.
According to the ‘eco-region’ classification developed by Wikramanayake et al
(1997), the area falls within the Northern Indochina Subtropical Forest Region.
7
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
MAP 1: LOCATION OF BAI TU LONG BAY NATIONAL PARK
IN NORTH VIETNAM
2.1.3 History and Status
The forest on Ba Mun island was categorised as national special use forest in
Document 41TTg 24/01/77 (Gov SRV, 1977), which protected the island area and
surrounding inter-tidal area and made the area one of the first special use forests in
Vietnam. However, due to lack of investment of resources for the district FPD,
protection activities could not keep pace with exploitation. In light of the increasing
pressures being placed upon Ba Mun’s biodiversity, MARD issued document
1784KHQD in 1998 designating the island a nature reserve to bring it in line with
more recent environmental legislation and to review the state of the island’s forest. In
June 2000, MARD permitted Quang Ninh province to formulate a strategy to expand
the area into a national park in Document 2150/BNN-KL. The vice prime-minister
came to personally inspect the area with representatives of FIPI, MARD and MOSTE
in August of that year to promote the development of an investment plan for the
future development and environmental protection of the national park, which now
8
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
accompanies the World heritage Site at Ha Long Bay in promoting the province’s
tourism capacity.
2.1.4 Management
The faunal and floral composition of the islands provided the basis for delimiting the
boundaries of the park, yet this study indicates that there is a case for either further
revision of these boundaries on the same basis, or for a special zoning of the buffer
zone. The general management directions planned for the national park in the
investment plan defines areas of strict protection as those to be completely devoid of
any exploitation of terrestrial biodiversity, and controlled and monitored exploitation
of marine biodiversity, although the exact delimitations of these zones are still open to
debate regarding their precise definition . There is to be no commercial activity in
these areas, which shall serve the purpose of scientific research and controlled tourism
according to the national park’s stipulations. Ecological rehabilitation areas within
the park are for the replanting of local tree species and rehabilitation of existing
forest, using agro-forestry (fruit trees), at least in the short term, as part of this
rehabilitation but with no associated settlements.
The national park is managed by its specially appointed authority (NPA), which has
its headquarters in Cai Rong and outposts throughout the national park. It is divided
into four departments: administration, protection, science and conservation. The
protection department is responsible largely for direct policing activities and cooperation with other government security bodies in the area (maritime police,
commune police, border army). The science department’s research and monitoring
role is the one most directly relevant to the developing understanding of the national
park’s ecology, whilst the conservation department is responsible for
promotional/awareness raising/education and community initiatives in the localities
affected by the national park, including the development of the visitor’s centre and
ecotourism. In the long-term, information flow will ideally flow from the monitoring
activities of the science department into concrete information for practical
interpretation by the other two departments in their activities, as well as the science
department’s own rehabilitation and research efforts.
The buffer zone of the national park is currently not precisely defined, but in FIPI’s
appraisal the communes comprising the buffer zone area are identified as:
Category 1: communes with land outside the national park
Quan Lan, the island south of Ba Mun which is split into Quan Lan and Minh Chau
communes. The wealthiest commune in the area apart from Ha Long, economy based
upon onshore and offshore fishing, sea transport and services.
Ban Sen, to the west of Ba Mun and the largest and poorest commune in the area.
Dependent upon forest and some small scale fishing.
Category 2: national park HQ
Cai Rong town, the administrative centre of the district with an economy based upon
offshore fishing and associated boat maintenance, sea transport and services
including, increasingly, tourism.
Category 3: communes with land within the national park
9
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Minh Chau commune, which also incorporates a number of villages on the thin stretch
of land on the northern third of QuanLan island. Slightly less developed than Quan
Lan, but also with an economy based around the exploitation of marine resources –
including inshore and, increasingly, offshore fishing, plus collection of speciality
seafood.
Van Yen commune, which also incorporates land on Van Don island. Relatively poor
commune, again with an economy traditionally utilising forest resources.
Ha Long commune, with a small land area including Soi Nhu, which is uninhabited.
Some economic activities are linked with Cai Rong town (such as the Japanese Pearl
Orient Co. oyster farms on the edge of the national park), which geographically lies
within Ha Long’s boundaries but is viewed as aseperate administrative unit.
The boundaries and role of the buffer zone areas will be discussed towards the end of
this report, and the management recommendations in chapter 7 shall take the
respective roles of the national park authority departments into consideration.
2.1.5 Past Studies of the Region
Between 1930 and 1940, Vietnamese and French botanists surveyed the vegetation of
Ba Mun island, in order to assess the economic value and composition of the flora, in
terms of what could be exploited for construction and other local industry. Between
1961 and 1962, and 1971-1972 Hanoi National University also undertook a joint
survey with the FPD in order to understand the species composition here. In 1996-7, a
team of surveyors and planners from Quang Ninh FPD carried out a further
investigation into the structure, composition, distribution and regeneration stages of
the island.
In order to substantiate Quang Ninh’s authorities in formulating the strategy for
expanding Ba Mun nature reserve into the national park, FIPI undertook a survey of
the flora and fauna in the islands of the national park, with the aim of producing
inventories, distribution information and assessments of the area’s conservation and
economic importance. Their surveys incorporated socio-economic studies, trapping of
bats and small mammals and interview techniques/transects for larger mammal
identification, bird, butterfly, amphibian and reptile surveys, and identification of
vegetative components of the national park. A summary of the findings of the
biodiversity surveys are provided below, and in the inventories provided in this report
(where a species listed was seen on the FIPI surveys, it is indicated in the legend). A
literature survey incorporated in the report the contents of the FIPI investment plan
written in 1998, and a rapid marine assessment of Ba Mun’s surrounding waters
(substantiated by direct surveys FIPI), written by the Hai Phong Institute of
Oceanography in June 2000. The latter component is not included in this report. The
Institute of Geography (also part of the NCSTE) has also undertaken surveys of the
area in the last 10 years.
10
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Taxonomic group
Orders
Families
Species
Mammals
Birds
Reptiles
Amphibians
Lepidopteran insects
6
9
2
1
1
13
28
12
1
8
21
58
23
3
35
Figure 2.1: Summary by taxonomic group of fauna recorded by the surveys
undertaken by FIPI in 1998-2000
The FIPI study acknowledged the fact that island biogeography influenced levels of
species richness, that biodiversity (especially species attractive for hunting and
fishing) is declining, but that the regenerative capacity of the vegetation is high.
The vegetation surveys followed a transect methodology to identify species on
different gradients, unlike Frontier’s surveys which used a plot methodology
(containing structural transects) to reflect the main vegetation types over as wide an
area possible. The FIPI study, operated by Vu Van Can, identified 117 families
represented by 337 genera and 494 species of vascular plants, a similar level of
diversity as exhibited in other similar protected areas in VN.
Phylum
Family
Genus
Species
Psilophyta
1
1
1
Lycopodiophyta
1
1
1
Polypodiophyta
15
28
45
Pinophyta
3
4
4
Magnoliophyta
97
303
442
Magnoliopsida
83
246
363
Liliopsida
14
57
80
_____________________________________________________________________
Total
117
337
494
_____________________________________________________________________
Figure 2.2: Summary by phylum of flora recorded by the surveys,undertaken by FIPI in 19982000
11
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
No.
National park
Area (ha)
Families Genus Species
1
Ba Mun/surrounding
13.373
117
337
494
2
Cat Ba N.P.
15,200
149
495
745
3
Son Tra N. R.
4, 370
90
217
289
4
Con Dao
15, 043
71
191
361
_____________________________________________________________________
Figure.2.3: Comparison regarding floral diversity between Ba Mun and other protected areas in
the region.
Eleven species were identified by Vu Van Can (2000) which are listed in the RDBV
or the IUCN Red List 2000 (see chapter 3 for details).
2.1.6 Period of Study and Survey Locations
The Frontier-Vietnam survey spanned four work phases conducted in 2002, from midJanuary to mid-December, in order to gain a cross-seasonal perspective. Base camps
for the survey teams were situated at the northern tip of Minh Chau commune, the
north-eastern bay on the large Tra Ngo island, the local school on Ban Sen island near
Quyet Tien village (during the monsoon season), and then to the same site on Tra
Ngo. This enabled adequate access to the main islands of the national park in order to
undertake survey work on both limestone and non-limestone forest, both inside the
boundaries and in the buffer zone, which contains areas of significant ecological
importance. Satellite camps were located throughout the forested areas, but were at
times greatly restricted by logistical constraints of access, safety and (especially)
water for the large survey team of typically 14-15 people. Survey site locations are
illustrated in Map 2, and geo co-ordinates are provided in Chapter 3.
2.2 Physical Environment
The following information is summarised from data provided in the scientific
appraisal by FIPI and supplemented by Frontier survey data.
2.2.1 Climate
The climatic regime of Bai Tu Long bay is heavily influenced by local factors of sea
current and tide, and the strong westerly prevailing wind, which in turn influences
localised vegetation patterns (see chapter 3). The average temperature is 22.8° C
(37.3°Cmax/4.6°C min), the average annual rainfall is 2400mm, although outside the
rainy season of May to October, the average falls to 200mm. Humidity is high at 84%
in the wet season, dropping to 70%in the winter months. Heavy rain accompanies
storms between July and September, which also affects the salinity of the shallows.
2.2.2 Topography, geology and hydrology
Much of the landscape of Bai Tu Long Bay, as with neighbouring Ha Long Bay, is
strongly characterised by dramatic outcrops of limestone tower karst, forming a
topographical patchwork of sheltered valleys and gorges interspersed with steep,
rocky cliffs. This karst scenery is comprised of Carboniferous-Permian limestone and
12
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
dolostone with patches of sandstone and shale, and marine sediments from the
Holocene epoch in the Quaternary period. The limestone is well-bedded, with
numerous fossils of coral and other life-forms which can be used to aid ageing. The
area is part of the wider continental shelf formed from tectonic movements during the
Caledonian and Hercynian orogenies, causing a strong faulting and folding. Now, the
landscape has become a seascape due to (overall) rising sea levels since the early
Holocene epoch c. 7,000 years ago, which has left much of the lowlands underwater,
encouraged coral development (although there are no reefs as such) and resulted in a
dramatic aesthetic of karst cliffs rising sharply out of the water. Only on the higher
altitude islands such as Tra Ngo and part of Ban Sen is any significant stretch of
terrestrial limestone left, and on Tra Ngo sea caves exist leading to inland lagoons.
Access over this terrain is extremely difficult, accounting for the relatively in-tact
forest block; slope angles on the karst are often over 45º,and a number of caves,
crevasses and subterranean gorges have formed in or under the limestone from
erosion and chemical weathering, performing some important ecological functions
(Nguyen Cao Huan et al, 1997).
Unlike most of Ha Long bay, however, significant parts of Bai Tu Long bay are
composed of non-limestone islands of sandstones and shale, some of which are very
low-lying and still covered by the deposits of the sea level fluctuations of the past
7,000 years. Quan Lan island is one such island, much of which is formed of very
sandy, infertile soils. On the northern area of the island, the white sand beaches, high
in silicon content, are equivalent to the luvic arenosols classified in Do Dinh Sam et al
(2001) more common in southern areas of the country with much of the area being
composed of halic arenosols or ‘yellow’ sandy soils. This makes the soil on much of
Quan Lan (especially at low elevations) loose, subject to saltation processes from sea
winds, low in humus content and sometimes low PH content. Where fertiliser is used
on some areas of the island, there is a higher content of available P2O5, but generally
the land is unsuitable for agriculture, especially systems demanding water retention
such as paddy Frontier socio-economic surveys/ Do Dinh Sam et al, 2001). The soil
temperature is also high in exposed areas (surface soil may reach 64°C), meaning high
evaporation rates. The soil on much of the national park is ferralitic soil largely on
sandstone, and is much more fertile, leading to the rich extant vegetation. Calcareous
limestone soils, meanwhile, support more specialised plant communities with highly
fertile, well-aerated soils valley floors previously supporting tall forest. Overall, the
soil structure of the national park has not been studied in depth, but incorporates
similar regimes to Cat Ba national park to the south, including black calcareous soils
on slopes; brown soils developed on recent alluvium within valleys and on lower
slopes; clay soils found on flats, seasonal swamp and waterlogged areas; ferallitic
soils with deep layers; silt and clay soils found in swamp mangrove and wetlands;
white sand beaches; and bare rock on shores and karst hills (Kim, Jong-Won and
Nguyen Nghia Thin, 1998).
There are virtually no over-ground water bodies within the main limestone area of Tra
Ngo and south-western Ban Sen, as most precipitation percolates through the
limestone and collects in or below the limestone bedrock in deep underground ‘wells’,
forming a well-developed subterranean drainage system marked by seasonal
fluctuations. On the northern (non-limestone) part of Tra Ngo there are two nonseasonal streams (Khe Ong Tich: 1.2km, and Khe Cai Lim: 1.4km), plus three on
small Tra Ngo (Khe Nam: 2.1km, Khe Dong: 2.6km and Khe Tay: 1.1km) and four
13
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
on Ba Mun (Khe Cuong: 2.5km, Khe Che: 1.4km, Cao Lo: 2.4km and Khe Ton Ba:
2km).
2.2.4 Vegetation
The natural climax vegetation of Bai Tu Long Bay National Park as classified by Thai
Van Trung (1978) is ‘lowland tropical evergreen forest on limestone’ and ‘low
montane broadleaved evergreen forest’ equating to ‘forest on limestone’ and ‘submontane dry evergreen forest’ in the definitions developed by Mackinnon and
Mackinnon (1986; 1997). The forest is composed of a mixed dominance of species
and families, largely tropical/sub-tropical evergreen, with traditionally dominant
species including valuable timbers such as Hopea chinensis, Erythrophloem fordii,
Madhuca subquinquiconalis, Vatica odorata and Aglaia gigantean. Vegetation
structure and composition varies between islands, depending upon disturbance
regimes, aspect and slope (particularly on Ba Mun, which is exposed to strong
onshore winds), dominant substratum (limestone/ sandstone) and soil quality. There is
little altitudinal variation in vegetation as the area is entirely lowland, and
structural/taxonomic variations on hilltops and valleys are a result of the above listed
factors only. Much of the forest is subject to localised exploitation through selective
logging, particularly on the more accessible sandstone islands.
The national park also contains the northernmost areas of continuous mangrove forest
in Vietnam, almost all of which are little disturbed and some of which are relatively
mature. These are especially prominent in the sheltered bays and lagoons of Ba Mun,
Ban Sen and Tra Ngo which have accumulated sediment, but thinner stretches fringe
many of the sandstone island shorelines, totaling 175ha with a species dominance of
Agyceras corniculata, Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, Kandelia candel, Rhizophora stylosa
and Avicennia marina. Most of the mangrove forest in the area is entirely natural,
giving it a historically high biodiversity value in the wildlife communities it supports.
Mangrove forest was not surveyed in the vegetation component of Frontier surveys.
There is a miscellaneous but also distinctive and important climax vegetation type in
the archipelago found on the northern area of Quan Lan island in Minh Chau
commune. This is composed of a canopy of Eugenia sp. Over a sparse understorey,
which is more typical of southern-central sandy coasts of Vietnam. This also provides
a haven for wildlife (especially birds, insects and reptiles) and the park boundaries
were especially extended to include it. It is protected under forest stewardship with
nearby villages (FIPI, 2000). A summary of the main natural vegetation types found
in the area is provided in Chapter 3.
14
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
15
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
16
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
17
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
3. VEGETATION
3.1 Introduction
Vietnam's flora is composed of at least 8,000 vascular plant species (IUCN, 1986).
Recent statistics put the known figure of plant species as 10,192 (Le Tran Chan et al.,
1999), including cultivated and introduced species, though there is a consensus within
Vietnam that the true figure is over 12,000. The geographical position of the country,
together with the wide range of environmental conditions, allows a wide variety of
floral elements to survive here. Three main elements can be distinguished, the SinoHimalayan, Indian and Malesian elements (Whitmore & Grimwood, 1976). In
addition to these there are endemic elements; 11.9 % of Vietnam’s currently known
vascular plants are endemic (Le Tran Chan et al., 1999). Areas of particularly high
botanical biodiversity in Vietnam were mapped by Schmid (1993). The forests of
Vietnam have particular significance for the conservation of biodiversity of both
plants and animals.
The physical and biological characteristics of forest at any site are influenced by local
climate, geology, altitude and topography (Whitmore, 1984), as well as biotic, human
and historical factors. The varied topography characteristic of limestone tower karst
areas combined with complex patterns of substrates (ranging from bare rock or talus
and scree on outcrops to thick soil layers in valley floors) may also create a wide array
of microhabitats in which edaphic factors such as water stress and nutrient availability
bear a strong influence upon the development and distribution of vegetation
communities present. The dark, clay-rich ferralitic soils in the valley floors of the
limestone areas are often deep and highly fertile with aeration and water retention
balances suitable for strong forest regeneration (and, where accessible) cultivation.
This soil is also found on the gentle low slopes of non-limestone areas, accounting for
the rich vegetation in terms of both structural and species diversity. The soil and
greater exposure on the hilltops tends to lead to a lower canopy forming and a more
broken structure, a pattern accentuated on the steep eastern slopes of Ba Mun and the
Sau islands, where the forest is less disturbed but exhibits a more stunted growth, low
and irregular canopy, and potentially a number of species of herbaceous plant not
found in the western areas. Human influences on the environment throughout history
have resulted in a mosaic of derived habitats such as savannah, scrub and heavily
degraded forest.
The natural climax vegetation of Bai Tu Long Bay National Park as classified by Thai
Van Trung (1978) is ‘lowland tropical evergreen forest on limestone’ and ‘low
montane broadleaved evergreen forest’ equating to ‘forest on limestone’ and ‘submontane dry evergreen forest’ in the definitions developed by Mackinnon and
Mackinnon (1986; 1997).
The aims of the fieldwork conducted during the 2002 Frontier-Vietnam survey were
to describe the dominant forest types occurring within Bai Tu Long Bay National
Park and to identify threatened assemblages and species occurring within the study
area. A species inventory for Ba Mun island has been compiled by the Forest
Inventory and Planning Institute as part of the proposed National Park’s technical
report. The permanent vegetation survey plots used by Frontier instead establish a
basis for future monitoring of ecosystem exploitation, regeneration and development.
18
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
3.2 Methods
3.2.1 Forest Plots
3.2.1.1 Site selection
Vegetation survey plots were established at 14 locations (FPA-FPN) distributed
throughout the principal islands of the Bai Tu Long archipelago. All were located
within the boundaries of the national park except for FPI-FPK and FPN, which were
located in Ban Sen commune. The purpose of surveying vegetation at these latter sites
was to provide supporting data for a recommendation of this survey that either the
buffer zone islands receive a strict zoning of protection regimes, or that the
boundaries of the national park be extended to incorporate certain areas of the buffer
zone, in that it contains areas composed of the forest type that is broadly homogenous
with the national park and thus provides an extended area of contiguous habitat for the
faunal and floral species it supports (see section 3.6).
Vegetation work was aimed primarily at those areas supporting contiguous forest,
rather than the areas of scrub forest and bare land which lie mainly in the buffer zone.
Within the limestone forest areas in particular, logistical constraints meant that the
full altitudinal gradient affecting structure and dominance of forest ecosystems on
limestone could not be quantitatively recorded by means of vegetation plots:
vegetation at the karst summits generally exhibits different characteristics to the
slopes and valleys. Even on non-limestone areas, the lack of water availability and
other constraints for the survey team meant that certain areas were not surveyed
according to the plot/transect methodology and were only visited for opportunistic
observation. Sites for survey were selected according to considerations of health and
safety of the survey team, and as to how representative the site was of the surrounding
forest. All main forest types and topographical/disturbance/aspect regimes were
sampled except, notably, for the eastern flank of Ba Mun island, which will be better
surveyed more intensively by a smaller team in the future (see section 3.6).
3.2.1.2 Forest trees
At each site, a 50m x 50m (1/4 hectare) plot was established. Plot boundaries were
measured using compasses starting in the southwest corner and marked out using
barrier tape. Within each plot the ‘diameter at breast height’ (DBH) of each tree with
a DBH of 6cm or greater at 1.3m above ground level was measured and identified to
genus level (or species level where possible) and its position mapped within the plot.
As with all Frontier surveys, species identifications were not generally made as these
require herbarium specimen collection of key reproductive and physiological features
of each plant with specialist identification in Hanoi, which was too time consuming
for this baseline survey. Plot characteristics were also recorded (canopy height,
aspect, slope, altitude).
Vegetation transects were also undertaken for most plots, except in occasional
circumstances (FPF) when time considerations prevented this. These transects fitted
within the eastern sector of each vegetation plot from co-ordinates 40, 0 – 50, 0 and
40, 50 – 50, 50. These led to the production of two-dimensional forest structure
19
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
diagrams to aid understanding of the structural features of the non-limestone and
limestone forest, and under different levels of disturbance. For each tree in the
transect, trunk co-ordinates, DBH, canopy extent and heights of canopy and bole were
recorded.
3.2.1.3 Ground flora
In each of the forest plots, the ground flora was studied using 25 2m x 2m quadrats
placed diagonally through the plot starting in the southwest corner (covering 4% of
the plot area). Within each quadrat all tree seedlings, shrubs, herbs, lianas and palms
were identified and the number of individuals recorded.
3.2.2 Botanical Collection
No botanical specimens were collected during the present survey. However, some
opportunistic observation and collection for field identification was carried out by the
research teams in more inaccessible, higher altitude areas where vegetation plots
could not be done. Identifications in the field were made using Vietnam Forest Trees
(FIPI, 1996) and Cay Co Vietnam (Pham Hoang Ho, 1991). Ground mapping and
opportunistic observation are also undertaken to be used in conjunction with already
existing data both from Frontier surveys and those of other organisations.
3.3 Results
3.3.1 Site description
A summary description of each forest plot is given below in figure 3.1 below.
Plot
Co-ordinates
Altitude (m) Slope (?)
Aspect
Ba Mun
157
20
N
Sau Nam
154
30
SE
Sau Nam
137
30
S
Ba Mun
74
15
NE
Ba Mun
161
30
S
Ba Mun
200
32
W
Tra Ngo
100
45
NE
Tra Ngo
90
40
E
Cong Nua
(Ban Sen)
Ban Sen
60
45
E
193
38
SE
Ban Sen
165
30
E
Island
FPA
FPB
FPC
FPD
FPE
FPF
FPG
FPH
FPI
FPJ
FPK
UTM 48Q 76821
UPS 23 24907
UTM 48 Q 76716
UPS 23 40804
UTM 48 Q 76794
UPS 23 41721
UTM 48 Q 70318
UPS 23 29559
UTM 48 Q 71072
UPS 23 33259
UTM 48 Q 71130
UPS 23 33420
UTM 48 Q 65304
UPS 23 33249
UTM 48 Q 66625
UPS 23 34958
UTM 48 Q 57488
UPS 23 19539
UTM 48 Q 59828
UPS 23 22480
UTM 48 Q 62028
20
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
FPL
FPM
FPN
UPS 23 20412
UTM 48 Q 68707
UPS 23 25245
UTM 48 Q 67612
UPS 23 35189
UTM 48 Q 59304
UPS 23 18412
Ba Mun
230
40
W
Tra Ngo
30
42
N
Ban Sen
112
44
NE
Figure 3.1. Summary description of forest plots.
3.3.2 Forest Plots
3.3.2.1 Tree flora
A summary of data on forest trees derived from forest plots FPA – FPN is given in
Figures 3.2 and 3.3. For each of the sites, the total basal area of wood was calculated
for every tree family in the plot, so that the relative predominance of each plant family
within the tree flora at each site could be ascertained. Full details are given in
Appendix 2. Nomenclature follows Le Tran Chan et al. (1999). The dominant plant
families at each site are listed overleaf in Figure 3.3.
Site
FPA
FPB
FPC
FPD
FPE
FPF
FPG
FPH
FPI
FPJ
FPK
FPL
FPM
FPN
No. of Tree No. of Tree No.
of Total Basal Area
Families
Genera
Individuals m²
m²/ha
19
29
327
5.62
22.49
23
28
377
6.83
27.34
15
15
290
7.32
29.29
22
29
302
5.19
20.77
21
32
251
3.62
14.48
25
31
505
5.18
23.36
19
29
272
6.36
25.44
18
26
261
10.29
41.19
14
16
151
5.69
22.79
22
27
401
5.10
20.42
18
28
291
3.36
13.43
22
25
229
6.00
24.00
18
22
115
7.13
28.53
14
15
299
8.18
32.75
Mean DBH
(cm)
12.36
12.03
13.08
12.26
10.83
10.43
12.10
15.67
14.95
11.22
10.74
14.13
20.58
14.68
Figure 3.2. Summary of forest plot data derived from forest plots FPA-FPI.
21
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Site
Family
% Basal Area
FPA
FPB
FPC
FPD
FPE
FPF
FPG
FPH
FPI
FPJ
FPK
FPL
FPM
FPN
Fagaceae
Myrtaceae
Fagaceae
Fagaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Elaeocarpaceae
Fabaceae
Annonaceae
Fagaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Myrtaceae
Fabaceae
Moraceae
24.30
36.29
50.90
32.17
21.98
25.45
29.96
41.19
25.43
40.82
13.70
27.61
38.69
22.46
Figure 3.3. Dominant Families with respect to basal area of wood.
3.3.2.2 Ground flora
A summary of the ground flora data derived from the nine forest plots (FPA-FPI) is
given in Figure 3.4.
Plot
Total No.
Stems
FPA
FPB
FPC
FPD
FPE
FPF
FPG
FPH
FPI
FPJ
FPK
FPL
FPM
FPN
1099
419
752
1811
609
705
743
629
760
1508
1048
759
512
5.6
of No. of
Families
32
25
21
28
27
30
39
40
24
27
33
30
29
29
No. of
Genera
Average No.
Genera / Quadrat
51
32
27
34
34
37
52
54
27
35
53
36
42
38
11
8
7
12
9
10
9
9
6
10
9
9
6
9
Figure 3.4. Summary of ground vegetation data derived from forest plots FPA-FPI.
3.3.2.3 Disturbance
A summary of the disturbance surveys in those plots in which they were undertaken is
given below in Figure 3.5.
22
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Plot
Number of cut stems in plot
Average DBH of cut stems
FPA
FPB
FPC
FPD
FPE
FPF
FPG
FPH
FPI
FPJ
FPK
FPL
FPM
FPN
39
43
30
62
68
No survey
33
0
3
65
98
25
0
0
19.71
15.63
13.65
21.85
24.81
24.15
0.00
18.7
14.80
19.94
20.76
0.00
0.00
Figure 3.5: summary of disturbance survey data derived from Frontier forest plots
3.4 Discussion
As part of FIPI’s surveys of Ba Mun island in 2000, Vu Van Can found the most
diverse families to be Annonaceae (11 species), Verbenaceae (13), Asteraceae (15),
Fabaceae (15), Moraceae (15), Cyperaceae (15), Poaceae (16), Rubiaceae (17),
Lauraceae (18) and Euphorbaiaceae (31). A summary description of the vegetation of
the principal islands of the national park and buffer zones is provided below.
3.4.1 Ba Mun
Taxonomic diversity: A total of 36 families of tree have been identified with a DBH
of over 6 cm in all of the plots, making up the shrub, understorey and canopy layers,
whilst 61 families have been found to comprise the ground flora, many (36%) of
which are woody saplings of the same family and genus as the trees but also with a
high proportion of shade intolerant, competitive pioneers taking advantage of
openings in the canopy (made largely by felled timber – see disturbance survey results
below). The woody families are represented by 71 genera in the Frontier plots,
indicating a relatively high corresponding species diversity in relation to the size of
the island. At the higher trophic levels, single-family dominance lies unequivocally
with Euphorobiaceae (average 11.6% basal area across the Ba Mun plots) and
Fagaceae (average 15.66%), although Lauraceae (9.1%) may have had more codominant status in the past, the latter containing the genus Litsea, a popular timber
species used in furniture-making locally. This is implied by the fact that Lauraceae
and Euphorbiaceae are oftn co-dominants in the woody ground flora but not in the
canopy or understorey layers. Although no formal identifications accompanied the
disturbance survey, it was that significant proportions of the cuts were Litsea, as well
as the most popular species of Vatica, Aglaia, etc. Other common families include
Elaeocarpceae (average 6.9%) and Moraceae (average 3.8%), the latter being more
common on limestone but which includes Streblus and Ficus species quite ubiquitous
throughout the national park. There are scatterings of specimens from the families
23
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Proteaceae (Helitia), Burcuraceae (Canarium) and Illiaceae (Illicium) in the shrub and
understorey layers, and the rest of the families occur at similar frequencies.
Generic diversity is more complex: although the forest on Ba Mun tends to follow a
pattern of familial and to a lesser extent generic dominance, the composition at the
generic level can vary quite considerably according to slope, aspect and related soil
and microclimate factors, as well as due to stochastic effects and disturbance levels:
for example, plots three and four on Ba Mun were placed very close together, yet plot
four contained twelve extra genera not found in plot three. Plot four showed more
significant signs of disturbance and could be classed as regeneration forest. This
pertains to the objective of these plots being for the purpose of providing an overview
of the broad ecological and conservation features, rather than providing a
comprehensive species list. The dominant genus in the plots on Ba Mun is Glochidion
(Euphorbiaceae), which comprises over 30% of the trees in these plots. In some areas
Syzygium (Myrtaceae), Litsea and Cinnamomum (Lauraceae) are also common.
The forest structure here, as in other areas of non-limestone forest such as Sau islands
and northern Tra Ngo, is broken and discontinuous, partly due to tree falls opening
gaps in the upper and middle canopies, partly due to a long history of selective
logging, which has left few large trees of the more valuable species such as Madhuca
subquincundialis, Mallotus hookerianus or Eurycoma longifoliata. The middle storey
is generally blurred and indistinct, often composed of dense thickets of Calamus,
lianas such as Bauhinia, Caesalpinia and Clematis and regenerative tree species
including Mallotus paniculatus, Elaeocarpus griffithi and various members of
Fabaceae and Euphorbiaceae.
An area not studied extensively on the Frontier surveys was the steep eastern flank of
the island, characterised by areas of bamboo forest and low-canopy forest containing
botanical elements which may be somewhat different to the sheltered western side.
Planchonella obovata, Scolopia chinensis, Flacourtia sp. and Hibiscus tiliaceus were
noted as numerous here on previous surveys, with Nageta fleuryi comprising high
proportions of ground flora. (Vo Tri Chung, 2000). The canopy is very closed in the
eastern forest meaning ground flora is not ubiquitous, the canopy lower (c. 5m) and
more continuous, with only two distinct layers. In some areas strips of dense bamboo
forest form a band mid-way on the seaward slope.
Disturbance: The disturbance levels were found to be fairly high on Ba Mun, with a
mean of 17.60% of trees (with a DBH above 6cm) cut within the survey plots. Tree
density was sometimes correspondingly high, with 505 trees on the fourth plot
(averaged at 323 trees/plot) with dense ground flora and mean overall DBH somewhat
low at 12.00cm. Standard deviation is high, however, with a few trees measuring over
63cm DBH in the central areas and up to 116cm DBH on the higher slopes (FPL).
Some areas of Ba Mun comprise derived scrub or Imperata savannah from long
periods of cutting between 1975 and 1995; these tend to be near the coast, whilst
better quality forest is to be found further east within the central cusp of the island,
where timber extraction is of course less convenient. Saccharum spontaneum,
Erianthus arundinarium Iand Imperata cylindrical are also common in these areas.
There is extensive bamboo and riparian forest along the valley floors. This vegetation
24
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Erianthus arundinaceumtype is partly also an indirect result of previous logging activities,
with drainage features also affecting its distribution.
3.4.2 Tra Ngo
Taxonomic diversity: Tra Ngo is relatively small but has two main features which
affect its floral composition and disturbance regimes: firstly, it is composed of an area
of limestone karst scenery in the south and central parts of the island which a
forbidding landscape for timber extraction, and which also restricts floral diversity to
those species which are able to grow on shallow soils with a relatively high
concentrate of calcium and magnesium; secondly, the island is of a mixed substrata,
with a northern area based upon sandstone, gravel and schist, which supports lowcanopy secondary semi-evergreen forest which continues on ‘little Tra Ngo’ to the
north, and which has historically been used for timber resources for previous (now
deserted) small scale settlement. The three vegetation plots
established by Frontier are essentially limestone plots, although one incorporates
some sandstone. All three are predictably characterised by a dominance of Streblus
sp. (Moraceae), which comprises 26.96%, but Saraca (11.4%,) and othe members of
the Fabaceae and Fagaceae are also important components of the woody vegetation.
Streblus generally contains understorey species, but this genus, plus Saraca and some
specimens of Cinnamomum formed the larger trees in the plots.
A total of 24 families and 37 tree genera were found on these plots, less diverse than
on Ba Mun at these trophic levels but still a diverse habitat which will support a
number of faunal groups. For example, Ficus sp. are more common in limestone
habitats in Vietnam, and are highly important ecologically for supporting bird and
mammal (Calliosciurus, Macaca etc) populations due to their aseasonal fruiting,
plentiful fruit crop and ease of harvest. Other important trees not found in these
vegetation plots but which are present on Tra Ngo’s limestone include Spondias sp., a
softwood which grows tall with an extensive canopy, but which has little economic
value and is therefore often found as large specimens providing shade for the forest
floor. The ground flora on the forest floor is generally sparse due to the paucity of
soil, but it is also highly diverse, with 57 families having been represented on plots
(12 of these were only found on the plot on undisturbed limestone forest) by 96
genera, dominated by Streblus and Aglaia (Meliaceae) saplings as well as many
specimens of Ophiopogon (Haemodoraceae) and Athyrium (Athyriaceae). Overall, the
limestone forest is more clearly structured in its canopy layers, unlike the more erratic
and variable areas on the sandstone islands to the west.
Disturbance: Disturbance levels vary considerably on Tra Ngo, with the northern area
consisting largely of successful regenerative growth and much of the limestone forest
showing signs of very little disturbance indeed: even in parts of the peripheral area
where Frontier’s second plot here was established there was no sign of cut trees.
Disturbance on the first plot (FPG), much of which was further off the limestone, was
higher at 11% of trees cut, but 64% of these had regrowth and this island has great
potential for being the best example of a continuous stretch of climax vegetation in
the park. Neither of the other two plots on Tra Ngo exhibited any signs of selective
logging. However, a priority must be made for protection activities within the central
lagoon, which holds extensive, mature mixed species mangrove forest but is also
25
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
accessible to people through a nearby sea cave, who use the access point for timber
collection of the surrounding slopes
3.4.3 Sau Nam
Taxonomic diversity: Sau Nam island apparently exhibits a slightly lower taxonomic
diversity (26 families represented by 33 genera on two vegetation plots) than Ba Mun
or Tra Ngo, which is most likely partly due to a combination of smaller size and
monotypic substrata (sandstone/schist). Interestingly, the two plots exhibit quite
different taxonomic dominance hierarchies the first with a fairly evenly mixed
composition of Euphorbiaceae, Sapotaceae, Myrtaceae (Syzygium), Clusiaceae
(Garcinia) and Lauraceae (Litsea), the second composed largely of Vatica sp.
(Dipterocarpaceae – 12.3%) Castanopsis sp. and Ormosia sp. (Fabaceae – 11.7%),
Madhuca sp. (Sapotaceae – 7.6%). Ground flora is
somewhat more diverse (29 families and 42 genera) – in plot 1 here there are many
Litsea saplings, whilst Castanopsis (40.6%) and Vatica (9.5%) saplings and shrubs
dominate the second.
Disturbance: Representatives of Fabaceae and Dipterocarpaceae are entirely absent
from plot 1 on Sau Nam, which has correspondingly more evidence of timber
extraction (43 cuts rather than 30 in plot 2). Plot 2 evidently still contains relatively
high proportions of regenerative economically valuable hardwoods used locally for a
variety of products or sold for transport to other areas. It may be that this in many
ways better represents aspects of the climax vegetation on Ba Mun, where Vatica is
now much less common and Glochidion has successfully regenerated. A literature
survey of previous surveys could possibly confirm this, and if it is the case, it may be
relevant to monitoring of natural regeneration and forest rehabilitation on Ba Mun and
Sau Nam, and forest modeling for research purposes on Tra Ngo, as mentioned in the
investment plan.
3.4.4 Ban Sen
Taxonomic diversity: The plant diversity of Ban Sen commune may be among the
highest of any of the islands of Bai Tu Long even though it lies outwith the national
park boundary: this is primarily because it contains both limestone and non-limestone
forest, both in high proportion. The state of the non-limestone forest on Tra Ban
island is poor and is rapidly deteriorating, but has high potential to recover if the local
dependence upon timber and other forest products is addressed. 33 families were
represented in the tree flora over all the four vegetation plots done in this commune,
with 60 among the ground flora. Overall 29 of the 97 genera (43% of families) of
ground flora were woody saplings of tree species, although the proportion was much
more in this regard in limestone areas, where Streblus sp. (Moraceae), Aglaia sp.
(Meliaceae), Pometia sp. (Sapindaceae) and Polyalthia sp. (Annonaceae) are
particularly dominant. On plot FPI on Cong Nua, Polyalthia is the most dominant at
25.43% of the basal area of wood, whilst Streblus (22.46%), Pometia (11.42%) and
Michelia (20.41%) are the more expected limestone dominants in FPN on south west
Tra Ban. All of these genera are overshadowed by larger specimens of upper canopy
trees, particularly Elaeocarpus (18.25% of basal area wood on plot FPN) and
Choerospondias (Anacardiaceae), Colona (Tiliaceae), Pometia (Sapindaceae) and
Diospyros (Ebenaceae). Some of the larger specimens in the plots measured almost a
26
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
metre in DBH, and there were also sizeable specimens of Litsea (Lauraceae) and
Dipterocarps measuring over 40cm DBH which, whilst not upper canopy trees, had
been allowed to grow far beyond the size allowed by the loggers of non-limestone
areas.
Disturbance: As is well known in the national park area, Ban Sen receives the most
selective logging of larger tree specimens so that local people can complement their
meagre incomes with revenue from unprocessed wood. As such, the more accessible
areas on Tra Ban island where there is a complex network of paths for timber
extraction to the villages and water, have among the lowest average DBH and basal
area values in the cross-section surveyed in the Frontier plots. FPJ, nearest
civilisation, contained the most individual trees of any plot (401), and a low mean
DBH of 11.22cm and a strong characterisation of emergent lower-mid storey
trees of the Fagaceae (Quercus) and Dipterocarpaceae (Vatica). FPK, further from
any villages but also easily accessible, had the lowest basal area value of 13.43m2/ha
and a mean DBH of only 10.74cm. Overall, the mean DBH of non-limestone plots
throughout the park was 11.90cm. Compare this with the limestone plots on Tra Ngo
and Ban Sen, with an overall average DBH of 15.60cm, and it is clear that nonlimestone forest is the most in need of protection. This is also reflected in Fig. 3.5
which shows that three of the five limestone plots suffered no selective logging, and
this was felt to be fairly representative of the overall situation. The fact that Ban Sen’s
plots were not significantly less in their basal area and mean DBH values than a
number of the Ba Mun plots indicates that Ba Mun is the most in need of direct and
immediate attention for the forest protection authorities given its high diversity of
plant life, whilst Ban Sen, being in the buffer zone, is the most in need of
rehabilitation schemes given that it has the potential to harbour at least as much plant
diversity as most of the islands in the national park. As such it will be recommended
in this report that either the boundaries of the national park be adjusted to incorporate
areas of Ban Sen commune, or that these areas, along with other areas in Minh Chau
commune, be zoned especially in the buffer zone programme to enhance their status
as ‘special use’ protected areas (see Recommendations chapter).
3.4.5 Important flora of Bai Tu Long
Of the species recorded by FIPI in 2000 on Ba Mun, island, 11 are at risk either in
Vietnam or globally, the principle timber species being Cibotium barometz, Hopea
chinensis and Chukrasia tabularis. Other species found in the area, however (such as
Aglaia gigantea and Vatica sp.) are also commonly used, and their extraction
threatens the ecosystem’s integrity. A number of other species are likely to be found
with future botanical species surveys of the nationa park, both on Ba Mun and other
islands, and the list of species of conservation concern is also likely to increase.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Morinda officinalis
Goniothalamus chinensis
Cibotium barometz
Nageia fleuryi
Psilotum nudum
Chukrasia tabularis
Strychnos cathayensis
Licuala tonkinensis
DD (RDB 1996)
R (RDB 1996)
DD (RDB 1996)
V (RDB 1996/Hilton-Taylor, 2000)
DD (RDB 1996)
DD (RDB 1996)
R
(RDB
R (Hilton-Taylor, 2000)
1996)
27
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
9
10
11
Argusia argentea
Hopea chinensis
Smilax glabra
R (RDB 1996)
V (Hilton-Taylor 2000)
V (RDB 1996)
Figure 3.6: Plant species of conservation concern so far recorded on Ba Mun island (FIPI, 2000)
132 of the 494 species so far recoded here, in 43 families, are woody plants, and the
national park authority classify them into
1) Valuable timber species, 3/132 sp (2.27%)
2) Hardwood, 8/132 sp (6.06%)
3) Medium value; often not timber trees but medicinal plants, pole wood or other
purposes, 35/132 sp (26.51%)
4) Miscellaneous, 86/132 sp (65.15%)
A number of non-timber species are traditionally exploited in the national park. 82 of
the 494 species recorded by FIPI (16.6%) had medicinal value, above average for
much of northern Vietnam especially in such a small area (Vu Van Can, 2000). These
are principally from Araceae, Verbenaceae, Araliaceae and Rubiaceae and are
generally ground flora species such as Morinda officinalis, now somewhat reduced
through traditional exploitation (Vo Tri Chung, 2000). 32 of the species belonging to
24 families are edible either through their fruit or leaves, and 8 species are poisonous
and have been exploited for use in pesticides in some areas of the country.
Ornamental species, particularly bonsai, are also taken from the forest, of which there
18 species (Vu Van Can, in FIPI, 2000). A list of plants for Ba Mun island from
previous surveys (FIPI, 2000) is provided in Appendix 1, along with the plants’ uses.
3.4.6 Threats to forest conservation in Bai Tu Long
The over-riding threat to forest conservation in the Bai Tu Long area is selective
logging which has taken place most vociferously on Ban Sen but also on Ba Mun
despite having been protected for over 25 years. The problem of logging on Ba Mun
is partly a factor of it’s accessibility by sea on the western side, which provides
sheltered bays and gentle slopes for people from surrounding settlements to access the
remaining timber species that grow in relative abundance there. The
sandstone/schist/gravel substrata provides easy terrain for transportation of processed
cuts, with a complex network of well-established paths extending both along the
island through the valleys and directly east over the ridges that form the spine of the
island. These paths link up to lead principally to the two sheltered mangrove-lined
bays found on the southern part, and these are used for boat harbour. As commented
in section 3.4.1, the logging on Ba Mun has altered the taxonomic dominance in some
areas, with few large specimens of valuable timbers like Erythrophloeum fordii
remaining, instead being replaced by other emergents over lower canopies, such as
Ficus.
The paths lead directly to the shallow, stony shores of the island all the way up, and
even in some cases onto the east seaward side of the island, which is much steeper
and less sheltered. There are at least four logging chutes leading down to the rocky
shore on this side in the southern area of the east coast, and at least two recently used
camps, which may either be connected with logging or for sheltering fishermen in
rough weather. There are much fewer large trees in the eastern seaward slopes, mainly
due to the onshore winds stunting the height, and the main botanical interest here is in
28
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
the ground flora, which is of no interest to loggers. However, aside from logging and
miscellaneous collection of other useful plants (which seems to have all but stopped
with the combined communication of the border army and the FPD regarding
prohibited practises), there is no silviculture or grazing of animals or indeed any other
form of human development which affects Ba Mun’s habitats detrimentally, setting it
apart from most lowland forest in the country.
Sau Nam, meanwhile, has the advantage of being slightly more remote from the
buffer zone communities than Ba Mun, but it is also easily traversed and relatively
small, making edge effects from clearance and selective logging more damaging to
the islands ecological integrity. Historically, there has been a single resident on this
island, who has a forest allocation contract with the Forest Protection Dept., involving
environmental protection of natural forest plus silviculture of Eucalyptus (see socioeconomic section). However, as the disturbance surveys of the Frontier plots showed,
logging on Sau Nam’s shores is a threat of similar level to that of Ba Mun.
Elsewhere in the national park, the situation broadly falls into two categories:
limestone forest which suffers very little logging at all due to the rugged terrain, and
non-limestone areas of northern Tra Ngo and miscellaneous islands such as Lo Ho,
which have very little tall forest left and in soe cases support limited silviculture. The
exception is the central lagoon area of Tra Ngo which is accessible through a low sea
cave, and which is regularly visited by loggers who move over the mangroves into the
foothills to extract timber by boat. This area has already become a priority patrol area
for the park authority, who caught loggers in the area during the Frontier survey.
The area arguably most under threat at present, partly due to its status outside the
national park’s protected area, is Ban Sen commune’s extensive hill forests. The
unsustainable logging activity which continues there may at the present rate result in
the deforestation of the entire island over the next 20 years, which could be a severe
blow directly to the forest ecosystems and indirectly to the associated ecosystems
through the changes in microclimate brought on by loss of watershed forest and
increased erosion. It would also affect the natural beauty of the area and decrease the
national park’s ecotourism potential, as there are already a number of paths on the
island which could be used for tourist trails, commanding spectacular views of the
bay. Indeed, the problem is not limited to the sandstone hills: in the limestone areas of
Cong Nua, which also have established trails in some parts, the clearance of valley
floors for cultivation (mainly of orange) has recently disrupted the contiguity of the
forest block and opened the area for increased human disturbance.
A problem which the FPD face regarding timber extraction is the coastal nature of the
national park, which means that without extensive resources to track the major sea
routes which loggers use, it is difficult to monitor the sources and destinations of the
timber cuts. The usual measures of using road checkpoints on major routes out of a
protected area cannot suffice here, and the FPD investment plan has already made
ample provision for sea craft to patrol the area, backed up by viewing posts in 16
different locations, although these will take time to be established and the funds were
not forthcoming at the time of survey. However, it is generally held that most logging
is done by local people from the nearby islands for extra income, and there does not
appear to be a large external market (either by road or sea) for cut timber at present.
29
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
The national park authority are well aware of the problems facing them in forest
protection, and with a combination of resources and initiative, may be able to both
protect and rehabilitate the ecosystem in a sustainable way. Provision has been made
in the investment plan for a mixture of staff training (240 million VND), botanical
nursery establishment (200 million VND), establishment of rehabilitation and
regeneration research areas on Lo Ho and Tra Ngo (8,000 million VND), restoration
programmes including agroforestry with fruit trees (2,327 million VND) and research
measures of main forest type dynamics and species specific conservation (1, 960
million VND) over five years. However, at present, the means to undertake such
activities within this timescale remain unforthcoming, and it is patrolling and
awareness raising which is likely to be the main expenditure in terms of time and
money for the park authority. For recommendations regarding strategy for
conservation of vegetation resources, see chapter 7.
30
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
4. FAUNA
4.1 HAWK MOTHS
4.1.1 Introduction
Although much work has been conducted on the Sphingidae (hawkmoths) in SouthEast Asia as a whole, the group remains relatively little studied in Indochina. For
example, An Annotated Checklist of the Sphingidae of Vietnam (Kitching & Spitzer,
1995), lists 117 species for the country, whilst stressing that knowledge regarding
both the content and (particularly) distributions of the fauna in the country are as yet
incomplete. Frontier-Vietnam surveys Sphingid moths in order to extend this
knowledge. They are a group for which preliminary field observations are relatively
easy, and knowledge regarding their ecological roles, both in feeding and as prey, is
well developed relative to many other moth families.
The 2002 Frontier-Vietnam survey appears to be the first research regarding the hawk
moth fauna of Bai Tu Long Bay National Park. The aim of the survey was to compile
a species inventory for the national park.
4.1.2 Methods
Sphingids were surveyed using light trapping equipment consisting of a mercury
vapour lamp, mounted in front of a large, erect white sheet (approx. 3m x 2m).
Specimens were selectively collected by hand from the sheet and immediate
surrounding area, anaesthetised in a jar charged with ethyl acetate and killed by
injection of a small quantity of ammonia into the thorax. Details on mercury vapour
lamp collection are given by Austin (in Sutherland (ed.) 1996). For each collected
specimen, data regarding the location, habitat type, altitude, date and collector were
recorded. Specimens were stored in paper envelopes, using paradichlorobenzene as a
preserving agent.
Overall, a total of 512 hours of light trapping were conducted within the proposed
Nature Reserve over the course of 49 nights, between February 25th and November 9th
2002. During the first work phase (January-March 2002), survey effort was
particularly low due to the marked presence of local squid fishing boats in the bay
every night, all of which used rows of high-power halogen bulbs to attract squid to the
water surface. This effectively negated the capability of the Frontier light trap to
attract moths, and only two individual sphingids were seen (one during daylight
hours). During the summer months (May to August), trapping survey effort was
relatively intense due to higher levels of activity, and trapping typically took place
from 1900 hours until first light at approximately 0500 hours: on 7 of the 36 summer
trapping nights, trapping ceased after 4 – 6.5 hours after the starting time at dusk.
During the final work phase from October to December, the survey effort for
Sphingids was reduced after November due to very low numbers of specimens
appearing on the trap, whilst survey effort was shifted to other groups. The species
information provided in Inoue et al (1997) indicates that from their records, for well
31
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
over a third of Thai species of hawk moth, the adult (flying) period lies outside these
autumn months, and this may also be the case in Vietnam. However, it is still
important for further studies to continue trapping at this time of year as some species
have only been caught during these months and may be highly specific in their period
of activity. Light traps were constructed in the vicinity of the base camps for each
work phase, located with sufficient distance from the camp to ensure that the vapour
bulb was the only significant light source in the area, and positioned at the highest
feasible vantage point to enable maximum light broadcast over the surrounding island
forest and scrub areas.
Preliminary field identification of Sphingids were made using Moths of Thailand
(Sphingidae) (Inoue et al. 1997).
4.1.3 Results
A total of 33 species belonging to 19 genera were provisionally identified over the
course of both expeditions; these are listed in Appendix 4.
4.1.4 Discussion
Of the 33 species recorded during the survey, three are not listed in Kitching and
Spitzer (1995): Clanis titan, Rhagastis hayesi, and Meganoton rufescens theilei. It
should be noted, however, that all identifications are as yet provisional, and all three
of these species have been likelwise provisionally identified by other FrontierVietnam surveys. Clanis titan was identified in Pu Hoat Nature Reserve (Osborn et al
2000), as was Rhagastis hayesei, a species also identified from surveys in Huu Lien
Nature Reserve (Furey et al, 2002) and Cat Ba National park (Furey et al, 2002).
Meganoton rufescens was also identified during the latter two surveys
The species most commonly caught on the trap were Theretra nessus, T. clotho, T.
suffuse, Acosmery anceus subdentata and Acosmeryx shervellii. On the basis of
previous surveys by Frontier (including those refered to above) these species are
among the more common in Vietnam generally, and are found both in scrub and
forest habitats. Most of the species were generally represented by only one or two
individuals on the trap at any one time, and for some species, such as some species of
Rhagastis, Hippotion boerhaviae and Acosmericoides leucocraspis only one specimen
was recorded throughout the four work phases, perhaps indicating either lower
population densities or populations more distant from the light trap, further inside the
forest over which the light was broadcasted.
It seems probable that the species recorded in this survey exist at highly variable
population densities in the area, which may in some cases depend upon their degree of
specialisation to their habitat. Species such as Theretra suffusa and Acosmeryx
sericeus (common in the national park) appear on the basis of current knowledge to
exhibit specific food plant preferences, whilst others (Marumba dyras, Acherontia
lachesis, etc) are more versatile. Common food plants for Bai Tu Long bay’s
Sphingid moths include species of Grewia (Tiliaceae), Vitis (Vitaceae), Begonia
(Begoniaceae), Impatiens (Balsalminaceae), Leea (Leeaceae), Dillenia (Dilleniaceae),
Wendlandia (Rubiaceae), Saurauja (Actinidiaceae), Rhus (Anacardiaceae), Quercus,
Castanopsis (Fagaceae), Calophyllum and Garcinia (Clusiaceae).
Although
32
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Sphingids as a group exhibit diverse feeding habits, different genera of Sphingid moth
exploit different feeding niches, and it may be that, given the relatively high plant
diversity in Bai Tu Long Bay National Park, many more species exist in the area than
have been identified so far. Even though the survey by Frontier was extensive, it is
unlikely to have been exhaustive, and although the survey results for Frontier’s survey
in Cat Ba National Park were broadly similar (Furey et al, 2002), there were many
species recorded there which were not recorded at Bai Tu Long, which may yet prove
to be present. There are undoubtedly a number of day flying species present (which
are not attracted to the lamp) that were not recorded during the present survey. With
further survey work, it is highly probable that additional species will be discovered
within the National Park.
4.1.5 Conclusions
Levels of species richness would appear to be somewhat less than other protected
areas in northern Vietnam. For example, 43 species were recorded at Kim Hy
proposed Nature Reserve (Hardiman et al, 2003), 53 species have been recorded at Pu
Hoat proposed Nature Reserve (Osborn et al. 2000) and 51 species at Huu Lien
Nature Reserve (Furey et al. 2002. Much higher levels of species richness have been
recorded at other sites such as the Pu Mat and Hoang Lien Nature Reserves, which are
known to host 83 and 78 species respectively (SNFC, 2000; Tordoff et al. 1999).
Frontier-Vietnam’s surveys in Cat Ba National Park over two months in 2000 yielded
29 provisional species records, indicating a much higher success rate both in terms of
species richness and the number of individuals attracted to the trap. The numbers of
individuals of any species actually attracted to the trap were also significantly lower
than in previous surveys. During July-September 2002 (the peak survey time) there
were an average of 21 individuals observed on the trap per night, against an average
of 36 during the same work phase of Frontier’s previous project at Kim Hy Proposed
Nature Reserve (Hardiman et al, 2003). The reasons for the relatively low densities of
moths attracted to the trap in Bai Tu Long are unclear, as during the summer months
(when adult population densities would appear to be higher), the survey effort,
weather conditions and trap positions were favourable to a higher success rate than
was experienced. The diversity of habitat and proven plant diversity (see chapter 3)
available to lepidopteran species in the area would also point to potential for higher
diversity than was noted. Although the winter months saw reduced survey effort for
reasons associated with weather, other survey demands and (primarily) light
competition from squid boats, the survey was also extensive and completely crossseasonal.
Any conclusions drawn as to the actual moth diversity in the National Park area must
be guarded, however, until the results are substantiated by further surveys. Lower
diversity may be partly because the individual land areas of the survey sites on each
work phase were much smaller than most areas previously surveyed by Frontier,
which may affect both records of population numbers and species richness. Although
the island nature of the National Park may account for lower diversity, this is
somewhat unlikely as lepidopteran species tend to disperse fairly well over water,
especially strong-flying/migratory groups such as most of the Sphingidae, and the
islands are not remote from the mainland. They are remote, however, from any other
continuous forest blocks.
33
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
It is difficult to make inferences about overall levels of diversity, but these results
indicate that Bai Tu Long National Park may be considered to harbour somewhat less
diversity of species of Sphingid moth than is usually found in north Vietnam’s
forested areas. However, those species that are present are likely to be of high
ecological significance, as with other areas of greater species diversity. The current
conservation importance of these species is not known; many of the species are
widespread in Asia, but may depend upon forest areas such as that in Bai Tu Long
bay for the successful proliferation of their food plants.
4.2 BIRDS
4.2.1 Introduction
Vietnam hosts a diverse avian fauna. A recent checklist (Vo Quy and Nguyen Cu,
1995) gives a total of 828 species, although this omits several species found within
the country. More recent estimates, including several newly described species (eg.
Eames et al, 1999a; Eames et al, 1999b), place the national total at around 850 species
(representing approximately 9% of the world total). Approximately 200 of these are
non-resident migratory species (Gov. SRV, 1994). Four ‘endemic bird areas’ of
particular importance to the conservation of endemic bird species have been identified
by Birdlife International: the Annamese lowlands, the Kon Tum plateau, the Da Lat
Plateau and the southern Vietnamese Lowlands.
The principal aim of the bird survey conducted by Frontier-Vietnam in Bai Tu Long
was to complement or confirm the existing species list for the national park detailed in
the scientific appraisal (FIPI, 1999), based upon survey results by FIPI, which
identified 58 bird species in this area, from 28 families and 9 orders, and also to
identify threats facing the existing bird populations as a part of the Bai Tu Long
archipelago ecosystem.
4.2.2 Methods
The bird survey was conducted throughout the area of the Bai Tu Long National Park
and the buffer zones between January and September 2002. Typically, four to five
days were spent in each of the principal study areas, and continuous observations
were made within the vicinity of each base camp, leading to particular concentrations
of sightings at the northern end of Minh Chau on Quan Lan island, in the sheltered
bay of eastern large Tra Ngo, and in the scrub/forest areas around Ban Sen village.
Attempts were also made to gain a comprehensive impression of the species
distribution and principal areas of bird activity, species composition and abundance.
Special emphasis was placed on forest habitat, although a considerable amount of
time was inevitably spent in areas of scrub due to the preponderance of this habitat in
the buffer zones, and also in important tidal areas. All bird observations were made
between the altitudes of 100m and 300m.
Field observations were made using binoculars and recorded using either a portable
tape recorder or notebooks. For each sighting, information regarding date, habitat,
altitude and abundance was recorded. Observations were made throughout the day,
although the majority of survey effort focused on the periods following dawn and
34
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
prior to dusk, the times of highest bird activity. No mist netting for birds was
conducted. Two species were identified after having been found dead either by natural
causes or after having been found in a hunter’s trap. Anecdotal evidence was also
compiled by interactions with local villagers in both communes, some of whom also
caught birds for food or market.
The literature used in the field for identification was Birds of South-east Asia (King et
al., 1975), A guide to the birds of Thailand (Lekagul & Round, 1991), A Field Guide
to the Birds of Thailand and South-east Asia (Robson, 2000) and Birds of Hong Kong
and South China (Viney et al., 1994). The sequence and nomenclature used in this
report follows Inskipp et al (1996).
4.2.3 Results
Reasonably good physical coverage of the national park area (both current and
recommended) was achieved, but due to logistical access constraints, much of the
limestone forest on Tra Ngo and Ban Sen could not be surveyed comprehensively. In
total, 87 species arranged in 29 families were recorded. These are listed in Appendix
5, together with information regarding basic ecological distributions, abundance,
conservation status and endemism. 63 of the species recorded by Frontier had not
been recorded in the surveys made by FIPI, but some require further confirmation as
to their identification:
Large-tailed nightjar (Caprimulgus macrurus): A single pair of these was seen at
the first satellite camp site over derived savannah areas near the southernmost bay on
Ba Mun island, but due to poor light and their perpetual flight a certain identification
was not obtained. However it is highly likely that they were this species given the
range demarcations given in Robson (2002).
Grey plover (Pluvialis squatorala): This may have been a misidentification of the
Pacific golden plover (P. fulva) observed by FIPI (2000).
Little ringed plover (Charadrius dubius): This may have been a misidentification of
other species of plover, as these species observed in Minh Chau were at times seen
from too great a distance to obtain a certain identification without a telescope.
Crested goshawk (Accipiter trivirgatus): This species has a call not dissimilar to the
Japanese sparrowhawk (A. gularis), which was a certain identification on both
Frontier and FIPI surveys, and was seen at too great a distance to obtain definite
identification without a telescope.
Lesser coucal (Centropus bengalensis): This may potentially have been a
misidentification of the more common greater coucal (C. sinensis),which has been
previously observed in the area (FIPI, 2000).
35 species were observed by FIPI (2000) but not on the Frontier surveys, making the
total figure 122 species recorded for the national park; some of these also require
verification:
35
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Common snipe (Gallinago gallinago): This may have been confused with the
Eurasian woodcock (Scolopax rusticola) which was observed from a captured
individual on the Frontier surveys in February 2002.
Herring gull (Larus argentatus): This species may not occur in the area and may
have been recorded as the most likely. Gulls are not common in the bay and further
study is required to ascertain the species present.
4.2.4 Discussion
Although some species were recorded during the present survey which are additional
to the existing FIPI list, it is probable that a number of shy, understorey, nocturnal and
high-flying (Apodidae, Accipitridae, etc) species went unrecorded during the survey.
A number of recorded sightings made during the survey have not been included as
they were deemed insufficiently verified to be included in the species list, and some
records included in appendix 5 would benefit from further confirmation.
4.2.4.1 Range extensions and Altitude reductions
No range extensions from Robson (2002) were recorded during this survey. Two
species recorded represent altitude reductions:
SPECIES
ROBSON (2002)
FRONTIER
White-bellied green pigeon (Treron sieboldii)
400-900m
150m
Black breasted thrush (Turdus dissimilis)
400m (winter)
5m
Figure 4.4.1
Altitude reductions for bird species Kim Hy proposed Nature Reserve.
The presence of these species in a predominantly low elevation site such as Bai Tu
Long suggests that potentially, at least, they could be normally resident at lower
altitudes in northern Vietnam. Given the national rarity of the type of lowland
subtropical forest found on Ba Mun and the Sau islands in the national park, it may be
that these species were either previously present at these altitudes in other areas
before much of their lowland habitat was destroyed, or they are remnant from
previous populations elsewhere in the district at higher altitudes and have ‘forced’
down due to retreating suitable habitat.
4.2.4.2 Species of conservation interest
No species currently listed as of national or international conservation concern were
recorded during the survey period, although two species so far recorded in the
national park are listed in CITES appendices:
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus): one specimen of this species was identified in
February 2002 from a captured individual which was later released, and had been
previously observed during the FIPI surveys (FIPI, 1999). The species is listed on
CITES Appendix 1 (Birdlife International, 2002).
Oriental pied hornbill (Anthracoceros albirostris): These are common and easily
observable in the national park, especially in limestone forest on Tra Ngo and Ban
36
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Sen. They had also been previously recorded (FIPI, 1999) and are listed on CITES
Appendix 2 (Birdlife International, 2002).
4.2.4.3 Habitat distribution and conservation threats
The birds observed were observed over four principle habitats: agriculture, scrub,
forest and water-related habitats (principally marine tidal areas such as mangroves,
estuaries, mudflats and sandbanks, but also small rivers and ponds).
Only ten of the 87 species observed by Frontier were observed over agriculture, which
is more indicative of the comparative lack of agriculture in the area than the birds’
choice of habitat. These were generally species either very commonly seen near
human habitation such as the long tailed shrike (Lanius schach) or ones making use of
the flooded paddy fields as a wetland habitat such as the white breasted waterhen
(Amaurornis phoenicurus). More species were seen over other types of humanderived habitat such as scrub or silviculture: 36 species were seen in this habitat,
many of which were also observed in forest (46 species). Some species are thought to
be more specific to less disturbed forest, however. The streaked wren babbler
(Napothera brevicaudata), found to be common throughout the limestone forest on
Tra Ngo, is endemic to this habitat. A number of thrush (Turdus: Muscicapidae)
species as well as certain species of flycatcher (Muscicapinae) and robin (Saxicolini,
Muscicapidae) also exhibited notable preferences for forest habitats. Most bird of prey
were observed over forested habitat, where the density of bird and small mammal life
is relatively high but there are enough open areas (especially over limestone forest) to
hunt over. The notable exception to this is the black kite, Milvus migrans, which is
almost always seen over open sea in the bay in this area and appears to feed
predominantly upon fish. Some species also certainly prefer more open areas of scrub
and derived savannah which are scattered between the forested areas of the national
park, in particular the brown hawk owl (Ninox scutulata) and nightjar species
(Caprimulgus sp.)
It is not only within the national park boundaries, however, that these habitats exist,
and the greater degree of human economic activity within the buffer zone may
conflict with the area’s ecological integrity as forest becomes increasingly fragmented
on Ban Sen for example. Ban Sen’s limestone forest is an especially important area of
the buffer zone for bird life, having retained the diversity of niches to support various
forest specialist species. These include use of mature trees for nesting by
woodpeckers, middle-canopy mixed feeding flocks of drongos, warblers, yuhinas and
bulbuls, and utilisation of the dark understorey by species such as babblers and
bushchats. Whilst the more open areas of natural regenerative forest growth in the
interior limestone basins are beneficial for species thriving in forest-edge and scrub
forest environments such as the white rumped shama (Copsychus malabaricus),
further inhibition of this regeneration would destabilise these local environments and
potentially damage local breeding forest bird populations. It should therefore be a
concern for the forest protection authorities to prevent existing small-scale utilisation
of the valley floors for agriculture within the forest blocks on Tra Ban and Cong Nua
islands to escalate, endangering the security of the extant forest avifauna. . Selective
logging and the collection of smaller poles for fuel wood also helps to degrade the
natural habitat upon which some bird species depend, although a number of species
37
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
are relatively versatile in their habitat preferences, and some forest-dwelling birds
adapt to scrub conditions on the forest fringe
The coastal nature of the national park is extremely important for its avifauna: not
only has it gone some way to preserve the quality of the islands’ forest habitats, but it
also diversifies the habitats and thus the availability of food resources significantly
not just for resident species but also for winter visitors principally from China, and
passage migrants on their way to Australasia and Indonesia. The national park itself
contains about 40 islands, with all non-limestone islands providing extensive areas of
shoreline foraging ground at the sheltered forest edge. It also contains important areas
of estuary and mangrove such as in central/southern Ba Mun and, most significantly,
in the central lagoon area of Tra Ngo. It is these areas which support species such as
common kingfisher Alcedo atthis, Chinese pond heron Ardeola bacchus and rock
thrush species (Monticola spp.).
Again, it must be a major feature of the national park’s management that the buffer
zone is treated with special attention where bird conservation is concerned, which
primarily means conservation of their habitats and food resources as there is little
direct hunting of bird species here. Not only does the buffer zone support some
important areas of forest, but it also includes large tracts of important inter-tidal
habitats for marine bird life and its associated prey. Of particular note are the northern
areas of Quan Lan island’s western shores (in Minh Chau commune) with extensive
areas of sand and mudflat which support large colonies of waders, as observed in the
spring of 2002. These include plover species, dunlin (Calidris alpine), sandpiper
(Actitis hypoleucos) and redshank (Tringa tetanus). These waders are generally
winter visitors utilising the rich feeding grounds of this relatively unpolluted area.
Kingfisher species also utilise the nearby habitats where shoreline meets scrub and
agriculture. In fact, much of the western area of Quan Lan island is likely to provide a
sheltered refuge for migrating seabirds, with the more windswept eastern shores being
less populated. This island is likely to be the main recipient of beach tourism in years
to come, and whilst these western areas are likely to go largely undeveloped as the
main sandy beaches are concentrated more on the eastern side, this is another example
of why tourist development must be undertaken sensitively if it is to be harmonious
with the natural environment. It is likely that, as ecotourism will be a major factor in
attracting western visitors to the area, any unsightly development affecting natural
habitats will diminish the national park’s reputation.
Monitoring of bird populations and their local movements will be a necessity in the
national park for the science department in order to prioritise areas for special
protection, and this will have to be carried out for the full length of the year in order
to take account of winter visitors and migrants in the area: 56 of the 122 species
provisionally identified for the national park have fallen into this category (Robson,
2002). This means that 46% of the park’s avifauna identified so far will be severely
affected if disturbance, pollution or the over-exploitation of their inter-tidal
invertebrate food source is intensified too much, and many of the birds are likely to
choose other areas on the coastal flyway for feeding. Investigations into the preferred
prey for these birds may lead to the need to monitor local peoples’ use of their highly
prized marine resources, which are an important source of income for many families.
There was some evidence of direct hunting in the area, largely for sale to local and
provincial towns. Popular caged species in Cai Rong include red whiskered bulbul
38
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
(Pycnonotus jocnosus), hill myna (Gracula religiosa), and black throated
laughingthrush (Garrulax chinensis). In itself this is not a significant threat to bird
populations, but coupled with other more widespread issues, exacerbates the problem
of disturbance to breeding populations, especially if less common species are
inadvertently affected.
4.2.5 Conclusions
In no other animal group does the rich diversity of habitats and their overall quality in
the national park make itself more apparent than in its bird life. It is this charismatic
group which will appeal to tourists to the area but which is also among the most
sensitive to the development the area is likely to see. The number of species here is
high compared to similar coastal areas such as Cat Ba national park (previous surveys
by Frontier and Birdlife International have found 67 species belonging to 26 families:
Furey et al, 2002), but a number of these are winter visitors and passage migrants
which may choose other areas to forage if restrictions are not made to the use of their
habitats in the near future.
4.3 MAMMALS
4.3.1 Bats
4.3.1.1 Aims and methodology
The aim of the Frontier bat survey was to compile a species list as comprehensive as
possible for the proposed National Park, in the absence of any specific previous
surveys on this group. The data detailed in the current report were gained from live
trapping using mist nets and harp traps, with the exception of the record of Cynopteris
sphinx, which was taken from evidence by previous surveys (FPD, 2000). The
primary literature used to make field identifications of both small mammals and bats
were:
•
•
•
The Mammals of the Indo-Malayan Region. Corbet & Hill, 1992;
Mammals of Thailand. Legakul & McNeely, 1988;
Bats of the Indian Sub-continent. Bates & Harrison, 1997.
All elements of the bat survey took place at, or nearby, the study sites near the
Frontier base camps and satellite camps in the forest on Ba Mun, Tra Ngo, Sau Nam,
Ban Sen and Minh Chau islands. The principal sites are described in appendix 6b,
although exact positions of the trapping equipment varied slightly at those sites
depending upon perceived trapping success. On occasions, trapping did not take place
at satellite camps due to the areas unsuitability for mist netting and the logistical
problems of transporting the harp traps great distances over limestone karst; this was
especially the case during the later stages of the project in the limestone area of
southern Ban Sen and Tra Ngo islands. However, many limestone areas were
surveyed and the trapping was fairly comprehensive throughout the national Park
area. Further observations of bat roosts where trapping was not feasible were noted.
39
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Trapping was conducted along perceived flight corridors through the forest, foraging
areas and potential roost sites such as caves. Altitudes of trapping sites were generally
low, and ranged from 10m to 120m. Although the highest peaks of the National Park
are over 400m, differences of terrain, vegetation, proximity to water and levels of
disturbance were deemed in this case to be of more significant than altitudinal
variation by the survey team. Logistical factors also limited choice of bat survey site
in some cases.
Trapping equipment consisted of two harp traps (4-bank design; one at base camp
sites and, when possible, one at satellite camp sites) and mist nets (6×3m, 9×3m; used
mostly at satellite camps). The harp traps were set-up in situ and activated shortly
before dusk to avoid catching day-flying birds. Traps were then checked for captured
animals at 2000 hours (around 2 hours after sunset, peak activity for most bat species)
and left active over-night to be checked again at 0700 hours, when many bats are
returning to their roosts. During day-light hours the traps were left in situ but
deactivated by the removal of the capture-bag. Mist nets were activated in situ shortly
before dusk. Due to the stress caused to captured animals and the potential damage to
the nets themselves, these were attended constantly by rotational teams between 1900
and 0000 hours.
Captured animals were provisionally checked at the trap. Basic biometrics including
forearm length, sex and pelage were recorded for all individuals, and species already
collected on the survey were promptly released at the trap sight where they were
caught. Potentially new species to the survey were taken as voucher specimens. These
were killed using diethyl ether soaked in cotton wool in an airtight container: the
specimen was placed inside the container and subsequently injected in the main
muscle cavities with 10% formaldehyde solution, prior to storage in 70% ethanol
solution. All voucher specimens are coded and stored at the IEBR in Hanoi.
4.3.1.2 Results
The identifications of bats were detailed but did not extend to dental records at the
time of writing, and the identifications must only be considered provisional, if
confident, at this stage. The bat survey met with very limited success until late
February 2002, at which point the temperature began to rise and insect and associated
bat activity increased. Two species of regional conservation concern were recorded,
both in relatively low numbers; these were Hipposideros turpis, listed as
‘Endangered’ (IUCN; 2000), and Rhinolophus marshalli, listed as ‘Lower risk/near
threatened’ (IUCN;2000). Both species were also recorded at Cat Ba National Park in
Frontier-Vietnam surveys during 1999. H. turpis is typically a cave-roosting bat, but
in this survey was caught on Ba Mun island, a non-limestone area. The species would
benefit from conservation measures associated with protecting both cave sites and the
forest areas they rely upon for foraging for small insects, as there may be populations
elsewhere in the National Park not detected by frontier’s surveys (see section 4.5.3 of
this chapter and chapter 7).
The most widespread bats in the National Park appear to be Rhinolophus pearsonii,
Hipposideros larvatus and Aselliscus stoliczkanus, all of which were found
throughout the area and, in the case of H.larvatus, are likely to be present in fairly
large roosts. Evidence of this was found in June on Tra Ngo island, where a number
40
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
of cave sites were surveyed at the rim of the limestone forest area. H. larvatus was
found in very large numbers, with over 70 individuals in the trap on one night of
trapping mainly consisting of this species. It was not ascertained at the time of writing
whether this was the alongensis subspecies which appears to be restricted to the Ha
Long bay area (Duckworth & Watson, 1998), but further analysis of the specimens
may prove conclusive in this respect.
Some of the species are typical of good quality lowland forest habitats such as that
found on Tra Ngo and much of Ba Mun, such as Murina cyclosis, whilst other species
such as Taphozous melanopogon are much more versatile in their habitat preferences,
roosting in large caves on Ban Sen in this National Park but also to be found in more
urban areas. They tend to be found nearer the cave mouths in large roosts, some of
which may be of single-sex composition. The young of this species have a particularly
high mortality rate for reasons which are unclear, but if cave roosts on Ban Sen and
other limestone islands are given adequate protection from disturbance (see chapter
7), then the species should not be at risk locally. As the bat is often found in sea
caves, it may be that the large sea-cave in central Tra Ngo also harbours this species.
4.3.2 Non-volant mammals
4.5.2.1 Introduction
The mammalian fauna of Bai Tu Long Bay National Park had been documented prior
to Frontier’s survey by the FPD in Van Don district from the results of the scientific
surveys done by FIPI in August 2000. These surveys produced an inventory and
distributional information from live trapping, footprint transects, direct observations
and interviews with villagers who were previously hunters (FPD, 2000). The list
compiled included 18 mammal records which Frontier surveys supported; some
records in the FIPI surveys were not supported by Frontier, notably of the leopard
Panthera pardus, which although perhaps having a historical presence in the area, is
now unlikely to exist in the National Park. Another mammal record not supported by
Frontier’s survey (and not included in appendix 6c) is the serow (Naemorhedus
sumatraensis). No evidence of this mammal was recorded by Frontier either through
signs or observation, and no villagers with hunting experience identified it as present
in Bai Tu Long (Frontier interview surveys were not, of course, comprehensive for all
hunters in the area). It may be, however, that remnant populations of the species do
exist in the National Park.
Apart from two extra species of rodent and one insectivore observed or found in the
mammal traps, Frontier’s non-volant mammal surveys tended therefore to confirm the
existing information to varying levels of confidence.
4.3.2.2 Methods.
The data detailed in the current report were gained from four principle sources:
•
Live trapping (Sherman traps);
•
Direct field observation;
•
Indirect signs (spoor);
•
Interviews with hunters.
41
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
The primary literature used to make field identifications of mammals were:
•
The Mammals of the Indo-Malayan Region. Corbet & Hill, 1992;
•
Mammals of Thailand. Legakul & McNeely, 1988;
•
A Field Guide to the Mammals of Borneo. Payne, Francis & Phillips, 1994;
•
The Mammal Tracks of Thailand. Kanjanavanit, 1997;
•
Field Guide to the Key Mammal Species of Phong Nha-Ke Ban. Pham Nhat
and
Nguyen Xuan Dang, 2000.
Live trapping: Small mammal trapping was carried out, when possible, at or near
Vegetation surveys sites using 15 Sherman traps provided by Mr Pham Duc tien of
the IEBR. These were laid out along a transect within a suitable area (i.e. near to a
path but within the forest) with an approximate spacing of 10-15m between each trap.
Traps were baited with either rice seed, dry noodles or peanuts placed inside the trap
itself with a small amount scattered around the trap entrance to act as an attractant.
They were activated shortly before dusk and checked for captured animals
approximately two hours after sunset. Traps were left active overnight, checked again
at sunrise and then left in situ, but deactivated, during daylight hours. The basic
biometrics (head-body, ear, tail, and hind-foot length, pelage and sex) of captured
animals were taken and those species already taken as voucher specimens on the
survey were immediately released. Those for which no specimen had been collected
were killed by placing the individual into an airtight container with cotton wool
soaked in diethyl-ether, in accordance with the UK Scientific Procedures Act (1986)
Code of Practice. Once the animal was dead comprehensive biometrics were taken
(including those detailed above) and the specimen tagged with a unique code. Storage
was facilitated by immersing the specimen in a 70% ethanol solution, and specimens
are kept at the IEBR in Hanoi.
Direct field observations: Direct observations were made on an opportunistic basis.
It was found that early morning bird surveys were ideal for observing mammals,
particularly squirrels. When a mammal was sighted, the observer would record as
many details as possible (e.g. general description of body shape, pelage, behaviour,
site description) along with a rough sketch when relevant. The literature cited above
was then used to arrive at provisional field identifications.
Indirect Signs: Spoor (physical evidence of the passing of an animal in the form of
either scat, tracks, feeding signs or remains) were also collected or recorded on an ad
hoc basis. The method of recording varied with the type of spoor, whereby; droppings
and remains were collected and preserved (using cotton wool, soaked in ethanol, in an
airtight bag) for later identification, tracks were measured and sketched and when
possible, photographs were taken of feeding signs. Provisional field identifications
could thus be complemented by further analysis in Hanoi.
Interviews with Hunters: Much of the National park area itself is not inhabited by
humans, and hunter interviews were therefore carried out in villages of the proposed
buffer zone in Ban Sen commune. No hunter interviews were undertaken in Minh
Chau or Quan Lan communes, as the resident population are not traditionally
involved in such practices, as fishing is the fundamental basis of the local economy
and there is little forest left to harbour large mammals on the island anyway. Although
42
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Van Yen commune includes Tra Ngo island, the human communities of this
commune live on the much larger island of Van Don; whilst hunting of bushmeat is
very much part of their traditional lifestyle, it was reported that the activity was
carried out in the forests of Van Don island which have until recently provided ample
returns. Even on Ban Sen island, most of the village hunters in the commune had
since turned to more stable, profitable and legitimate sources of income, as the exhunters interviewed reported that the mammal densities had declined so significantly
as to make the pursuit unrewarding. Whilst prices for bushmeat and associated
medicinal parts have soared with the increased difficulty of capture (see below), the
overall lack of returns from hunting have made it largely unprofitable. Hunters were
seen at least three times on Ba Mun, once on Tra Ngo and once on Ban Sen, but their
origin was not made clear. During interviews, photographs were used to aid
recognition of the animal species described. All interview data is considered
provisional, and does not in itself constitute a definite record of the species identified
for the area.
4.3.2.3 Results
A total of 20 species were recorded from six orders: Pholidota (1 species), Insectivora
(1 species), Primates (1 species), Carnivora (8 species), Artiodactyla (3 species) and
Rodentia (6 species) with varying levels of confidence. The list has been included in
Appendix 6c and follows the sequence and nomenclature of Corbet and Hill (1992).
Live Trapping:
In areas of limestone karst live mammal few specimens were captured, and these were
mainly of Niniventer sp.: these results were predictable, and have been found in
previous Frontier surveys on limestone areas (e.g. Goldthorpe, in Hardiman et al,
2003). However, small mammal trapping carried out on northen (non-limestone) Tra
Ngo and Ba Mun islands yielded a high abundance but low diversity: Rattus rattus is
very common, alongside Niviventus sp. Both species are common throughout Vietnam
and are often associated with human activity. It is likely that, particularly in the case
of R. rattus, that their presence on the island is the result of accidental introductions
by, for example, loggers and fishermen. It is a common observation in many
conservation areas that where a highly successful and competitive species is released
into an ecosystem it will usually proceed to saturate the available habitats at the cost
of native species occupying a similar ecological niche. Couple this with the restricted
physical nature of the study sites (i.e. islands) and it seems highly likely that, in the
absence of monitoring and regulation, these two species of rat may continue to outcompete other small mammals that have previously filled the niches. It is therefore
likely that this trapping represents a truly low diversity, if high abundance, of small
mammals within the National Park. Although these two species will still provide the
prey stock for natural predators of small mammals, further ecological implications
such as the reduced availability of vegetative forage material for other non-mammal
species and damage to (especially ground-nesting) bird populations may yet prove
significant if un-monitored.
Direct Field Observations:
In addition to the trapped specimens, one other species, classed as “small mammal”
was recorded (Crocidura fuliginosa, the South-east Asian white-toothed shrew). This
individual was observed close to the base camp in Tra Ngo on the second work phase.
43
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
However, those most commonly mammals seen were the squirrel species
Callosciurus erythraeus, and the brush-tailed porcupine Atherurus macrourus. Both
were typically seen or heard in more forested areas suffering less disturbance, and
both are apparently abundant. Ratufa bicolour was observed only twice during the
year, implying that whilst probably stable, population densities of this relatively easily
observable animal are not high.
As few people in the area apparently continue to hunt (those that do were unwilling to
be interviewed), no specimens were observed in the possession of hunters during the
survey. However, the continuing presence of the Sambar deer (Cervus unicolor) on
Ba Mun was indicated through talks with the National Park authorities (see below).
The other deer species in the Park area, the muntjac Muntiacus muntjak, was regularly
heard near base camp on the forested northern tip of Minh Chau throughout phase
VNF021, and it is highly likely to exist on all of the other principal islands in the
Park.
Indirect Signs:
Footprints of the wild boar Sus scrofa were observed near a ridge on southern Ba Mun
during VNF021, and near the first satellite camp site of that work phase, the scat of a
carnivore species was also found in an area of derived savannah next to the camp.
This vegetation type is ideal for hunting of small mammals for both carnivorous birds
(a large owl species was also observed there; see chapter 4.3) and mammals due to the
relative ease of visibility in certain parts and the ease of predators’ concealment in
others. Although the scat could not be conclusively identified with a definite species,
it was thought that the Bengal cat Felis bengalensis was the most likely. In nearby
mangrove areas, scat and footprints of the Crab-eating otter Herpestes urva were
found, easily identifiable through feeding remains in the scat. This species, whilst not
especially endangered either nationally or in Bai Tu Long (it is not hunted
apparently), would benefit from monitoring in tandem with monitoring of water
pollution and benthic invertebrates upon which it depends for food; monitoring of
crab eating otters is relatively easy due to their recognisable signs. Another scat,
thought to be of a civet species was found towards the end of VNF022 on Tra Ngo
island; however, identification to species level from such evidence was not possible.
Interviews with Hunters:
This was the most revealing of the methods employed during the survey, as interviews
draw upon many years of experience and expertise in the local area by hunters, as
opposed to the more opportunistic methods available to the field team. Some of the
results of the interview survey were more remarkable for the hunters not identifying
certain highly ‘charismatic’ species thought to exist in the park. Any big cats, for
example, were reported to have been hunted to extinction. Information gleaned for
selected species is provided below:
Ursus thibetanus (Asiatic black bear).
U. thibetanus is listed as regionally “Vulnerable” by the IUCN and “Endangered” in
the RDBV. It has been included on CITES Appendix 1 since 1979. This species was
recorded in surveys by FIPI in 2000, which placed the distribution of the mammal as
Tra Ngo (small and large islands) and Sau Nam. However, the hunters interviewed in
the Frontier survey did not confirm the presence of this mammal in either of these
areas, and discussions with the National Park authority indicated that the species is
44
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
now only likely to be surviving on the main island of Tra Ngo in the less accessible
limestone forest block to the south, if at all. If this is the case, the terrain itself may be
sufficient to offer some protection to the remnant population, along with the
decreased popularity of hunting in the area referred to above. However, the dispersal
of this species back into its former range of what was most likely the entire National
Park area (and perhaps other areas outside the Park such as the limestone forest of
Ban Sen) is currently unfeasible due to the remaining hunting threat, the
medicinal/monetary value of the bears and the park’s proximity to China: although
hunting may have decreased it is still an issue, particularly for this species, the gall
bladder of which serves as a valuable ingredient in Chinese traditional medicine.
The FPD in Van Don have been keeping five bears (three males, two females) at the
town headquarters with the plan to re-introduce them to the wild, and begin the
controlled rehabilitation of this species in its former local range. These bears were
confiscated in Lai Chau province almost a year ago, when they were only a few
months old. There were initially six bears but one died due to ill health; the remaining
animals are kept in transportation cages and are fed on a diet of rice and vegetables
with half a litre of honey for each bear per month. The cost of keeping the bears is
400,000VND/bear/year, a cost which the FPD have trouble meeting: although they
are aware that the keeping conditions are far from ideal, they have little choice due to
limited funding. A previous attempt to release the bears on Ba Mun island failed and
the animals were retrieved. Recommendations regarding re-introductions are
provided in chapter 7 of this report.
Lutra lutra (Eurasian otter).
Listed as “Vulnerable” by both the IUCN red list (2000) and the RDBV, the Eurasian
otter is cited by Corbet & Hill (1992) as occurring throughout Vietnam. Further work
should be carried out in the area to determine its status, as it is not a commonly seen
species. It is likely that it is more common on islands with inland water bodies such as
Ba Mun and Ban Sen. There appears to be little or no hunting of this species
traditionally.
Naemorhedus sumatraensis (serow).
These are listed as “Vulnerable” by the IUCN red list (2000) and the RDBV, the main
threat appearing to be their extensive use in medicine. There is cross border trade in
serow parts between Vietnam, Laos, Thailand and China, the latter being a
particularly important market for large mammal products in Bai Tu Long. There was
no evidence found in Frontier’s surveys of this mammal, and it may well be that the
wildlife trade in the area caused its local extinction long ago. However, the FIPI
survey of 2000 includes it in the limestone forest of southern Tra Ngo, and it is still
possible that small remnant populations exist there. Further specifically designed
surveys using camera trapping equipment would help confirm this, but if it is present,
then expansion of the population from its very limited local range is presently
unfeasible.
Manis pentadactyla (Chinese pangolin)
Listed as globally ‘Lower Risk/near threatened’ (IUCN 2000) and ‘Vulnerable’ in
Vietnam (RDBV), this species is in decline throughout its range primarily due to
habitat destruction (although it is relatively adaptable to limited forest degradation
given survival of its insect food source), and due to hunting. The species is listed on
45
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
CITES Appendix II. Pangolins are traditionally hunted at a local level in Bai Tu Long
for their meat, which is believed to lower body temperature when eaten, and for the
skin and scales which have medicinal properties. Pangolins are thus relatively high
value animals for export to China through Mong Cai, and an adult will now fetch
approximately 500,000VND - five times the price of five years ago. The price has
increased due to the increasing scarcity of the animal locally; it appears to be
suffering similar declines to the southern Chinese populations, and for the same
reasons. They are sometimes difficult to catch because of their shy nocturnal habits,
and hunters must find terrestrial footprints leading to a burrow. A hunter on Ban Sen
reported that now there are only a few, if any, left on this island, but there are likely to
be more on Ba Mun and Tra Ngo. In other areas of high hunting pressure, the species
has retreated to higher elevations, and in Bai Tu Long, a lowland area, stable
populations of the species are now only likely to be found in less accessible limestone
forest blocks. Although concrete data is lacking, the solitary lifestyle, low fecundity
and extensive feeding ranges (a pangolin may travel 700m-1km per night to find
food) indicate that individuals of the species are likely to have large home ranges, and
the islands of Bai Tu Long are unlikely to be able to support dense populations.
Macaca mulatto (Rhesus macaque)
The Rhesus macaque appears to be the only species of primate in the National Park. It
is a relatively common primate species in Vietnam, but is declining with habitat
destruction and is listed as ‘Lower risk/near threatened’ globally by the IUCN (2000).
In Bai Tu Long, the most substantial population may be on the isolated Soi Nhu
island, and the boundaries of the Park are especially extended to incorporate them.
This island was not visited during the Frontier survey. However, historically, the
monkeys have been widespread on all of the main islands. Even on Ban Sen island,
where the larger mammals have been all but hunted to extinction, hunters reckoned on
perhaps 100-200 individuals remaining in the limestone area. Once again, the animal
is hunted, mainly for food (brains), but previously for their bones which were
apparently sold to produce medicine. Once again, this practise depleted the numbers
to such an extent that most hunters now do not bother to look for them due to their
scarcity. If one is shot, it will fetch a price of 80-100,000VND/kg – again somewhat
more than prices of 5-6 years ago. Group size was also reported to have reduced, the
average seen now being 5-7 individuals, rather than the normal 20-30.
Cervus unicolor (Sambar deer)
Although not listed by the IUCN, this species has become severely threatened locally
through hunting and immediate anti-poaching measures will be required to halt its
decline to extinction. Tracks were observed during the FIPI survey (FPD, 2000) of the
area, but the National Park authority also reported the shooting of a pregnant female
around the same time.
Muntiacus muntjak
Listed as ‘vulnerable’ in the RDBV, the status of this animal is unclear in the National
Park area. One individual was frequently heard at Minh Chau, and although the local
fishing communities of the island are unlikely to hunt it, those from neighbouring
islands (including Van Don, which now has a ferry directly to the forested area) may
take advantage of the deer’s loquacious nature and ease of location. The species is
likely to require similar protection measures as the Sambar Cervus unicolor.
46
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Prionailurus bengalensis (Bengal cat)
These animals sell for less than 100,000VND, are difficult to catch and are not prized
for their meat. However, they have been trapped on Ban Sen in the past because they
habitually entered farmsteads to eat chickens. The most recent sighting on Ban Sen
was in 2001, when a local villager trapped one intending it for sale in Cai Rong, but it
died the next day. The species is often found near human habitation and, although
there was no information available as to the populations within the National Park
boundaries, hunters on Ban Sen reported that there were many thought to be left in
both limestone and non-limestone forests on the island.
4.3.3 Conservation threats and potential
The island status of Bai Tu Long Bay National Park has affected its mammalian
natural history and will continue to be significant for future conservation measures.
Because of the small areas of the individual islands relative to most protected areas in
Vietnam, the carrying capacity of the islands for large mammal species, which tend to
have larger home ranges in relation to food availability and social habits, is much
reduced and the local population densities are likely to always have been somewhat
lower than other, larger forested areas, especially those inland where geographical
mobility is enhanced. This factor affects different species to different extents (for
example, a number of macaques occupy the small Soi Nhu island group, which is only
124ha) depending upon local/ecological factors, but is a general trend. The other
general trend in island biogeography is that species richness is often lower on islands,
especially natural marine islands, (as opposed to inland ‘habitat islands’ created as a
consequence of human activity) because they have generally been islands separated
from mainland species immigration for significantly longer. This is observed in the
Frontier survey; there is only one primate species present, for example, and the two
large carnivores (the tiger Panthera tigris is the subject of ‘ancient history’ in the area
according to a Ban Sen hunter) appear to have been hunted to extinction due to the
ease of access for hunters to their limited habitats: once an animal is contained on an
island it has little means of emigrating to another refuge. Bat diversity is of course
less affected by this, but their sensitivity to human disturbance makes their existence
similarly vulnerable. The large, more conspicuous megafauna is much more prone to
local extinction through unsustainable hunting pressure, and this fact will bear
significant consequences for any future action plan for local mammal conservation.
This section provides an appraisal of the priority threats and issues to the National
Park’s mammal fauna, and recommendations as to how to ameliorate these threats.
Habitat degradation, mainly in the form of logging, is also discussed in chapter 3 of
this report, and is a more long-term threat to mammal survival. Similar
recommendations apply for protection activities regarding both hunting and logging
patrols, and these are provided in chapter 7.
47
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC FEATURES OF BAI TU LONG BAY
5.1 Aims, methodology and results of the Frontier survey
The socio-economic component of Frontier’s surveys was undertaken as a subsidiary
to the science programme in work phases VNF021 (January-March 2002), and
VNF023 (July-August 2002). The surveys were conducted in Minh Chau, Quan Lan
and Ban Sen communes over the course of these four months. They employed certain
techniques described in Grandstaff et al, 1995 as Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
such as village mapping, but the survey as a whole did not comprise a PRA. Most of
the information in this chapter was taken from semi-structured interviews with the
chairmen of the commune Peoples’ Committees, the village leaders of three of the
principal villages in each commune surveyed, and two to three households per village
reflecting as much as possible the socio-economic profile of that community.
Statistics were taken from commune records, but unfortunately district Department of
Statistics records were not available at the time of survey. The national park authority
provided a great deal of information regarding the management of forest resources in
the area Interviews were conducted in Vietnamese and simultaneously translated
through Frontier’s Liaison Officers. Frontier’s surveys aimed to sample areas with
different living standards and economic strategies.
38 interviews were conducted in eight villages with local stakeholders from Na San,
Dong Linh and Dong Giang villages in Ban Sen commune, Quang Trung and Nam
Hai villages in Minh Chau commune, and Dong Nam,Ton Phong and Son Hao
villages in Quan Lan commune. The Peoples’ Committee of Van Don district was
also interviewed, and frequent discussions were undertaken with the national park
authority. Unless stated otherwise, the information and statistics in this chapter have
been taken from this personal communication. The results are discussed in the context
of recent socio-economic developments and plans in Quang Ninh province.
5.2 Demography and ethnicity
The population of the national park itself, unlike most others in Vietnam, officially
stands at zero, although there is an unofficial/temporary human population which,
whilst small, potentially has both positive and negative effects upon the natural
resources there. These are found in small numbers along the northern shores of large
Tra Ngo, the southern areas of Lo Ho (where they practice limited silviculture of
Eucalyptus camuldulensis), the northern tip of Minh Chau, where there is a small
shop to cater for incoming ferry passengers from Cai Rong, and on Sau Nam, where
there is a single residence which has been custodian of the natural forest there in
return for some land for Eucalyptus growing. There are a number of small family
fishing outposts at various corners of the park, but these are small scale and often
temporary. Nevertheless, these minor populations are likely to require monitoring to
ensure that the forest resources on the land proximate to them is not detrimentally
affected by their activities. This particularly applies to operations involving limestone
dynamiting, as is occurring in the centre of the national park.
48
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
The population of the various villages within the buffer zone communes is provided
in figure 2.4 below. All three commune Peoples’ Committees noted that
anthropogenic influences upon the landscape were far more linked to agricultural
expansion than to any significant expansion of village areas. There appears to be little
migration or immigration to or from the communes, having been traditionally
relatively isolated from mainland communities and their opportunities for
employment. However, one of the advantages quoted by Ban Sen and Minh Chau
Peoples’ Committees in the recently improved infrastructure (see section 2.3.3) was
that it was now easier for people to get off the island and learn of new economic
potential, implying that this was somewhat limited on the islands themselves. Indeed,
when asked about economic activities (section 2.3.4), a number of residents in Quan
Lan commune reported that at least some of their children had found work elsewhere.
On Ban Sen, however, the urge to leave has in the past been stronger and more borne
of necessity than desire, with about 2,000 people having left in the past 20 years or so
– mainly to find work in Ban Sen and thus easily keep the bonds of family. Two entire
villages moved off the island between 1990 and 1994. Although this can ease pressure
on the limited agricultural land in the commune, people tend to move as families, and
so money earned in employment in the various destinations rarely returns to the island
inhabitants. There is a small trickle of immigration into each commune (more so in
Quan Lan than the others; three families moved there in 2000), but this is small
enough to synchronise with natural growth. Immigration is usually through family
circumstances. Emigration and immigration patterns are also somewhat villagespecific, especially regarding village poverty such as at Dong Gianh on Ban Sen,
among the poorest villages in the entire area, which has approximately halved in size
over the last 20 years or so.
The ethnic composition of the area is generally uniform, being kinh (ethnic
Vietnamese) dominated. A tiny minority of Sau Riu ofa few individuals lives in Minh
Chau and Quan Lan communes, and a few Tay live on Ban Sen, but the greatest
ethnic minority proportion of the population has been the (usually economically
enterprising) Hoa ethnic Chinese. Most of these retreated over the border during the
conflict with China in the early 1980s, but a few families remain. Overall, however,
socio-economic issues concerning ethnic difference are basically non-existent in the
study area.
1993 saw the introduction of family planning to the area encouraging 1-2 children per
family. By 200, only 11% of people having children since that time had three children
in Quan Lan commune (although this rose a little in 2001 to 14%). Figures were not
available for other communes but it is likely that the initiative was less successful on
poorer communes such as Van Yen and Ban Sen. Fines are in place but rarely used
given the authorities understanding of the local situation. Also, in those communes
largely dependent upon marine resources such as Minh Chau and Quan Lan, the
pressure of population is less imminent than in those where paddy/cleared hill land is
in short supply, especially as fishing practices move to more plentiful offshore stocks.
49
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Commune/ village
Total area (ha)
Population
Households
Pop’n growth
rate (p.a.)
Minh Chau:
Quang Trung, Ninh Hai,
Nam Hai, Tien Hai
Quan Lan: Thai Hoa,
Dong Nam, Bac Doai,
Tan Phong, Tan Lep,
Son Hao, Yen Hai
Ban Sen: Na San, Ban
Sen, Dong Gianh, Da
Na, Dong Linh, Dien
Xa, Khai Hoang
Van Yen: Cai Bau, Dai
Mo, Dai Lang, Dai
Chuoi, ‘10/10’
Cai Rong (Ha Long
commune)
2,274
880 (979)
178 (187)
0.5%
3,018
3,356
(3,550)
714 (714)
1.5%
7,244
1,029
(1,058)
211 (223)
n/i
8,995
1,064 (n/i)
235 (n/i)
n/i
266
n/i
n/i
n/i
Figure 2.4: Summary population statistics for the communes of the national park and buffer
zones. Pop’n/household figures from FIPI (2000): figures in brackets from interview data for the
year 2001.
5.3 Infrastructure and access
Amongst the most tangible effects of the Doi Moi era are in the district’s
infrastructural development, but this is also an example of how development for
Quang Ninh’s rural communities is inevitably lagging behind the priority industrial
and tourist centres and routes. The infrastructure of the national park itself is nonexistent, being unpopulated, unless the relatively new road connecting the northern
Minh Chau ferry pier with the rest of the island is counted. This road was surfaced in
1998 and stretches down the main length of Quan Lan island, linking its villages and
preparing the way for the general improvement of the island for tourism purposes, as
well as improving the extent of communication and co-operation between communes.
There are very few vehicles on the island except for motorbikes, and those that do run
are generally connected with the island’s sand mine. Ban Sen is also beginning to feel
the benefits of a newly surfaced road, which is still being extended through the
western side of the island where most of the settlements are situated. Other villages
are still linked by unsurfaced roads or networks of paths running through the forest,
but a very small trickle of inquisitive tourists are already stepping onto the island for
day trips (made easier by ferry links) and can use the road access by motorbike taxi. If
the more remote villages can be connected easily with sea transport through
development of existing roads on Ban Sen, they may be better able to take advantage
of opportunities off the island. However, proliferation of roads on the island is
undesirable (and unlikely) if forest rehabilitation is to be successful. Meanwhile, in
some villages, such as Ton Phong in Quan Lan commune, voluntary villager efforts
instigated by the village leaders have led to the development of local intra-village
road links.
50
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
The other two principal infrastructure issues throughout the buffer zone islands are
water and electricity supply. Although Ban Sen has a few non-seasonal streams, Quan
Lan is severely lacking in natural water features, and has to have water pumped from
a reserve in the central area of the island. Further forest destruction on Ban Sen (and
possibly elsewhere in the area) is likely to disrupt the stability of the natural water
supply further. Electricity is also problematic. Quan Lan has recently (1998) received
a generator-powered grid, but it is not able to cope with anything but small-scale
household use at present, and is only available between 18:30 and 21:30. This is
widely considered a limiting factor to the island’s development both for tourism and
other services, and certain enterprises previously propped up by government subsidies
on the island were liquidated or moved after Doi Moi’s re-structuring due to the poor
infrastructure on the island (see next section). Although power supply is an ongoing
issue within the Peoples’ Committee meetings, it has not yet been made clear as to
when or how the islands will receive power in the future. The proposal in the FIPI
investment plan for the area to use wind power to generate electricity on Quan Lan
must be considered speculative for some time to come, and the priority on these
islands for the district authorities must now be improvement of Ban Sen’s power
supply.
The national park authority has planned various infrastructural upgrades for the
national park with the design of making tourist access to certain areas more easily
defined. The main component is 162km of concreted trails throughout Ba Mun
(48km), Tra Ngo (large: 38km, small: 21km), Sau Nam (17km), Lo Ho (8km), Soi
Nhu (2km), and Minh Chau (28km) with a total cost of over 6,804 million VND.
5.4 Education and health
Health facilities on the buffer zone islands are fairly rudimentary, as is typical in rural
areas, but have improved in recent years from foreign and government funding. The
health centres on Ban Sen, Minh Chau and Quan Lan provide first aid only, and new
supplies come in from the mainland on a monthly basis. The health centres on Van
Don island lend the commune centres money to purchase pharmaceuticals, which is
repaid with the sale revenue (only first aid is free for villagers). Although staffing is at
present considered by the health workers as adequate (generally about four people),
the facilities are sometimes not enough to stabilise casualties before they reach the
hospital in Cai Rong and they sometimes die in transit, as fast water transport is not
available. Although Quan Lan has amongst the best health care of the communes in
the district, having initiated various free health programmes (water hygiene,
reproductive health, vaccinations, vitamin supplement provisions, and pregnancy
care) through its seven staff, it remains basic.
Each buffer zone commune has at least one school incorporating primary and
secondary level education, and in 2001 EC funding went towards expanding the
schools so that they are able to support the entire communes’ demand. However, all
teachers interviewed felt that classrooms were still too small and dark, and that
teaching materials were too poor (the best are found in Quan Lan secondary – quoted
by the head teacher as one of the best in the district). Apart from funding, which is
supplied through decisions made by the district DET, the over-riding barrier to school
self-improvement is the teacher supply situation. As most pupils tend to finish
education after secondary level and return to traditional island activities such farming,
51
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
seafood collection and fishing or forestry activities, there are few ‘home grown’
teachers from the local commune, and most are from nearby towns such as Van Don
or even further afield. Because of the remote location of the country schools, townborn teachers are apparently unwilling to stay past their original contracts, often
leaving after between two and five years. Thus, although officially the schools have
enough teachers, who are trained regularly (at least every two years), the rapid staff
turnover can lead to a lack of consistency and low experience base in providing
quality education.
Generally, schooling conditions are as good as can be expected for rural areas in
Vietnam considering the funding and staffing issues, with low distances for pupil
travel, high attendance and graduation rates and (due to family planning) average
pupil:teacher ratios. The yearly costs to be borne by the pupil’s family are school fees
(54,000VND), materials (40,000VND), school improvements (50,000VND) and
miscellaneous costs such as health insurance, clothes and food. Few families
interviewed said they had problems meeting the costs, as despite the fact that children
will often return to traditional local activities, education is (increasingly) seen as a
priority for children in these villages. Especially in those places with more social
mobility such as Dong Nam village in Qua Lan, the children may be one of the few
who take up opportunities outside the commune, moving on to either college
education or vocational training elsewhere in the province, bringing money to the
family and the commune. At present, the number of school-leavers attracted to such
opportunities remains low either due to a lack of family funds to send them to high
school in Van Don, or because local activities provide more immediate returns.
Government priorities in promoting provincial education would be an integral aspect
of the area’s gradual synchronisation with the urban economies in the province.
Environmental education is incorporated into the curriculum through the subjects of
Geography, Morality and Science, with some aspects of conservation of biodiversity
incorporated in an international context at secondary level. However, a lack of
knowledge and understanding of these issues among teachers means that treatment of
the subject is fairly rudimentary. There are no fieldtrips regarding these issues, as the
children are more interested in trips to more urban areas to understand the various
opportunities and lifestyles there.
The Darwin-funded Biodiversity Awareness Project, started in 2002, is currently
working alongside the conservation department of the national park authority in an
initiative to integrate environmental awareness into local school curricula and develop
awareness-raising initiatives for both visitors and locals in the national park.
Information regarding this can be obtained on the Frontier website
5.5 Economic activities
The economic activities of the five communes that constitute the buffer zone are
weighted so distinctly as to warrant a division of the area both for the purposes of
explanation in this report, and ultimately for management by both the Peoples’
Committees and the national park authority. These broad divisions are as follows:
1.
2.
Ban Sen and Van Yen communes; agriculture and silviculture-based economy
Minh Chau and Quan Lan communes; marine exploitation-based economy
52
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
3.
Cai Rong: trade, administration and services-based economy
Division 1:
Van Yen commune, which includes both islands in the national park and areas of poor
natural forest land on Van Don island, largely mirrors Ban Sen in its levels of
infrastructure, traditional lifestyles and economy, and economic solutions. No
interviews were carried out in Van Yen commune during the Frontier survey, as the
management initiatives there are likely to take a similar course to those for Ban Sen.
According to the commune Peoples’ Committee chairman, most residents of Van Yen
have traditionally utilised the forest resources directly local to them on Van Don
island rather than travelling to the National Park.. Thus, although the sustainable use
of the remaining forest on Van Yen will be an issue to address for the national park
authority, priority is likely to be attached to Ban Sen commune, which has more direct
relationships with the park ecosystems. The major difference is the general lack of
silviculture in Van Yen commune, reflected in the FPD’s records of land allocation.
Most of Ban Sen’s population is concentrated along the surfaced road which extends
from the natural harbour in the mid-west of the island along the main fertile valley
floor, most of which has been reclaimed for paddy agriculture where possible. This
road finishes in Dien Xa village to the mid-north of the island. There is a road
currently undergoing construction to link the southern villages leading to Tra Ban, but
given the small size of these villages and the lack of paddy agriculture, the
infrastructural demands for this area have been second priority.
Paddy rice:
Of all of the islands in the buffer zone, Ban Sen has the most fertile soil for rice
agriculture, but it is still poor quality compared to many inland areas. Dong Linh is
the main rice farming village, situated near a large mangrove bay and surrounded by
paddy fields which yield two seasons per year (there are plans for a concrete irrigation
system to be extended to the area in 2003-2004). However, even here the rice grown
by individual families is almost entirely for subsistence and animal feed, and not all
families own rice land. There is little distinction between households in terms of rice
production, as lack of land means that significant discrepancies between rich and poor
are not exhibited: most families own between 1,000-2,000m2 and produce an average
of 1.2 tons/year (estimated by the villagers themselves). This yield has, as with most
areas of rural Vietnam, increased with the introduction of new strains and the
increased availability of machinery, fertilisers and pesticides, leading to tangible
improvements in living standards over the last 10 years. Households pool together to
obtain machinery such as rice shredders (600,000VND each), which can then be hired
out to other families for a charge of about 2,000VND/minute (a session with the
shredder typically takes c.45 minutes) – machinery has only been used in the last four
years or so. Pesticides have been used for much longer, Bazan being the main one
used at about 100,000VND outlay per season. Both pesticides and fertilisers (mainly
Urea, approximately 50kg/season) are readily available from Cai Rong, and together
they cost up to 500,000VND per season per household; a typical figure in north
Vietnam. New rice strains (the Chinese Khang Dan and, more recently, the more
productive Bao Thai) have been subsidised by the government since their introduction
three years ago, not by reducing the price of the seed (approximately 15,000VND/kg)
but by exempting villagers from the agricultural tax of 150kg rice per 1,000kg
produced.
53
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
With an expanding population, however, pressure is mounting on the villagers to seek
alternative livelihood strategies to rice farming. Some villagers interviewed felt that it
was the wealthier households who had enjoyed the most benefits of government aid,
as they were the ones who were more inclined to take advantage of the initiatives,
largely due to adequate initial capital (and therefore ‘credit score’) for loans. There
was a widespread feeling that rice farming, being essentially limited by an acute
shortage of available land, is reaching a saturation point, and that there is little point
in financially fuelling this sector of the economy further for the sake of diminishing
returns. The shortage of land on the island could potentially work in the favour of this
commune’s communities: they have long had to diversify their cultivation activities
into silviculture and livestock with different communities emphasising different
schemes. This experience could be important in cultivating a collective culture of
diversification in the future, which will be essential if the villagers wish to improve
their income and at the same time comply with tighter environmental controls over
their traditional source of income – the forest. The main alternatives at present are
livestock raising, small business, fish farming and (primarily) silviculture: in the
many villages which are unable to farm paddy rice, these are the only activities. It is
also these activities (as opposed to paddy rice farming) which apparently generate the
most marked differences in wealth between both villagers and villages.
Livestock:
Livestock raising is the most widespread economic activity common to all villages.
Most households own three or four buffalo, although the wealthiest households in Na
San own up to twenty, which are used to graze the grass in their eucalyptus
plantations (see below). In Dong Linh, they are used for plough draft. Pigs are also a
common source of income for those families able to afford the initial outlay for the
animals and their feed (which can constitute half of the revenue earned from their
meat), and chickens are the easiest source of protein for the poorer households. Some
villagers felt that livestock had a great deal of potential locally, but not all households
own animals. The poorer households in Na San and Dong Giang have at most a few
chickens. They are prevented by obtaining more not only by lack of funds, but also by
lack of understanding of the aid available to them and how to use it. A Dong Giang
villager reported that the interest rates of 0.7% on government lending for cattle and
buffalo were too high, yet the chairman of the Peoples Committee of Ban Sen
explained that there is in fact no interest on a number of government loans. Either
way, a local fear of debt from failed investment is currently a major barrier of the
economic consciousness of Ban Sen’s villagers, and not only in livestock raising.
Aquaculture:
Aquaculture in Ban Sen island is limited by three factors: firstly, access of the
households to the sea, secondly the inexperience of the villagers in marine or even
freshwater cultivation and exploitation activities, and thirdly the initial capital outlay
required. Although training is available in Van Don, and there is government
assistance specifically for development of this sector, speculation in the type of
marine-based activities common in Quan Lan and Minh Chau communes is still
relatively embryonic and largely limited to the wealthier families. Even these have to
pool their funds: one family must borrow approximately 10 million VND and work
with one or two other households (often relations) to fund a floating house in the main
harbour where most of the fish farming takes place. Once the cost has been met,
however, they can enjoy the benefits of reliable markets locally and (especially) for
54
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
export to China where they fetch a higher price. The harvest is also regular (about
once per year for the species used by one Na San family), the space and labour
requirements low and subsequent cost inputs (for fish feed) fairly low. The price for a
kg of this fish fluctuates between 120-160,000VND, and varieties which are easy for
beginners to cultivate are chosen. There is also the potential for diversifying and
raising crab in the same areas which is beginning to be realised by some villagers. It is
likely that the new initiative in aquaculture will be successful due to secure, easily
accessible and relatively stable markets, hopefully encouraging other villagers to
partake of the opportunity to begin to compete with the smaller inshore operations of
Minh Chau and Quan Lan, which are in the process of shifting to offshore fishing.
Obtaining the capital in first place will be difficult for villagers however, unless the
current income generating activities improve in efficiency.
Silviculture:
Silviculture, perhaps the most important mainstay of Ban Sen’s economy overall, also
requires not only investment which often can only be met by loans, but also an
investment plan. The history of silvicultural initiatives on Ban Sen has been
somewhat turbulent; from failures of the co-operatives in the 1970’s-80’s to market
the island’s (good quality) tea products, to a number of initial investments in
Eucalyptus camuldulensis proving unsustainable due to poor local seed/provenance,
villagers’ returns from silviculture have at best been mixed. The national park
authority will soon be working with the local government to implement reforestation
of the area according to the government’s 2010 programme, and restoration and
rehabilitation on Ban Sen will be a priority area for this. Silviculture/agro-forestry
will therefore need to become an efficient and profitable aspect of the island’s
economy if attention is to be drawn away from logging of natural forest and towards
sustainable forest cultivation.
The initiative to grow Eucalyptus was begun as part of a national programme c. 10
years ago in this area, and villagers were strongly encouraged by the government to
grow the new crop. Training is given in Eucalyptus cultivation by Van Don’s
Agriculture Centre. The trees were originally ‘white’ Eucalyptus (so called due to the
bark colour), but efficiency was greatly improved by the import of faster growing and
more easily managed ‘red’ Eucalyptus provenance from Vinh Phuc province and the
Hanoi Institute for Plant Technology. The first crops of red Eucalyptus are now being
reaped, as the tree takes about five years to grow, and the economic success of the
programme is therefore difficult to judge at this point. Recent decreases in price for
these trees to 20,000VND per tree (due to the increasing provincial crops) may affect
the future viability of this activity for some, but given that the trees are grown for
pole-wood to make pit props for the expanding mining industry, demand is unlikely to
wane for the foreseeable future. Some fertiliser is required for the seedlings, and
various types have been experimented with so far by those that can afford it. Although
the cultivation of Eucalyptus requires less overall labour input than paddy rice
farming, some villagers have felt that the returns of the Eucalyptus project have been
rather small given the amount of labour required to cut the grass beneath the trees to
reduce water/mineral competition. One villager had invested c.5 million five years
ago and felt the now mature crop was worth 7 million; the profit of 2 million VND
over five years did not appear to him sufficient to warrant further investment in
silviculture when he felt comparable profits could be made through pig farming in
half the time. There is, however, little alternative in terms of land use, so at the
55
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
moment Eucalyptus is a strong feature of the Ban Sen landscape around the villages.
For those with little land, extra employment can be gained at about 2300,000VND/month (sometimes as much as 700,000VND/month) by cutting grass on
other peoples’ plantations to fill an income gap. This has the advantage of being
aseasonal employment, but the wage may be somewhat meagre and the work rather
irregular.
The amount of land given over to Eucalyptus per household varies widely and
depends largely upon relative wealth and the extent of diversification, which in turn
can depend upon location: those villages near the main harbour and with access to
paddy land are better situated to diversify and make use of nearby water or paddy land
resources. Eucalyptus plantations are usually situated on the hill land near the
villages, but there are pockets away from villages, and young plantations fringe areas
of the main island of Tra Ban as well as some of the adjoining islands (including Lo
Ho). The villagers of Dong Linh, who are likely to own paddy land, generally only
have two or three hectares of silviculture, whilst wealthier families in Na San may
have 15ha. The poorer families especially in villages like Dong Giang, cannot afford
the seed input and labour time at all, even if they own enough land (land for this
purpose costs 30-50,000VND according to Na San’s village leader): in Na San two
thirds of households have land with Eucalyptus as opposed to one third in Dong
Giang. Approximately one million VND/ha is required for seed, and whilst there is
government aid for this, villagers once again quoted the 0.8% interest rates as being
too high to encourage borrowing.
The issue of interest rates is just one problem regarding the growing of Eucalyptus,
not only in Ban Sen commune but also elsewhere in more wealthy communes.
Although it has a clear economic advantage regarding secure demand for the
foreseeable future, it is likely to become less profitable as more people in the province
begin to yield their first and second crops and prices fall slightly (unless prices are set,
which is unlikely). Another problem more localised for Ban Sen is the ecological
characteristics of the tree, which not only reduces the aesthetic quality of the
landscape (and indirect cost for tourism if allowed to expand) but also lowers the
water table in an already poor soil, reducing its quality further. These Eucalyptus trees
tap water with deep roots and grow quickly by draining the soil. Whilst the land can
be managed specifically for this crop, the deterioration in land quality not only
impoverishes any biodiversity but also makes the soil less receptive to any form of
double-cropping and diversification in the future, meaning that extensive cultivation
of the tree may be (sometimes unwittingly) a long term decision: the longer the tree is
cultivated, the less flexible the soil becomes to other forms of cultivation such as fruit
trees, tea, and other forms of agro-forestry such as mixed cropping under Acacia
species, for example.
The national park authority have expressed a desire to halt the plantation of
Eucalyptus and attempt to establish fruit trees as the main tree crop, incorporating
natural forest rehabilitation under a shade of the commercial crop where appropriate.
Turning to fruit (primarily orange at the present time) would take the pressure off the
soil and allow for diversification through mixed cropping, as opposed to the relatively
intensive monoculture regime of Eucalyptus. It would therefore serve the dual
purpose of ‘borrowing time’ for both village economy and for biodiversity/watershed
protection: the villagers would benefit from a commercial crop during the gradual
56
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
improvement and diversification of the agricultural economy and expansion into other
sectors, whilst the conditions for ultimate regeneration of the natural forest would be
preserved. Given that livestock grazing is not currently a major threat to fruit tree
plantations, flexibility in location of fruit tree plantations could be employed in this
area so that fruit plantations could also be planted in areas closer to natural degraded
forest (but further from households) so that natural forest regeneration could be
undertaken along with this cultivation in the most relevant areas. If livestock does
become a more important economic trajectory as some villagers would like, it will be
important to ensure grazing systems are collectively employed to minimise damage to
fruit tree plantations.
The difficulty for the park authority in promoting this scheme will, however, be to
convince and ensure local people that there will be a long term market for their fruit
crops (as there is for Eucalyptus), which may require market research in co-operation
with the Peoples’ Committee. Fruit markets have been notably unstable in the past in
many areas of Vietnam depending largely upon consumer fashions (although market
for oranges is more steady than for apricots, for example); the local market is likely to
remain steady, perhaps increased by future tourism, although such products will never
have the market value of the sea products of Minh Chau and Quan Lan. The
(district/provincial) export market may be less predictable. Those families that are
willing and able are taking the safest choice at the moment: diversification, growing
the customary Eucalyptus plot, using buffalo to graze the grass in the plantations,
whilst growing orange and lychee nearer their homes alongside some limited garden
crops such as peanuts and using profits to invest in initiating a culture of marine
exploitation (mainly fish farming). Those without such means, whilst receptive to new
measures to improve their living standards, are cautious after the previous failures of
fruit and tea-growing in the collective era, and are only likely to invest with
assurances of stable long term markets and competitive prices. Currently tea
cultivation is an important activity for the poorer households, but many are forced to
borrow money or rice during the difficult winter months, and tea only fetches
12,000VND/kg. In Dong Giang village the village leader reported that 90% of
villagers had borrow for 4-6 months per year, and some families drifted further and
further into debts which are typically paid off through selling natural timber cuts.
Unable to diversify through lack of capital, these households will require prioritising
in the government’s ‘capital for the poor’ programme if they are to specialise
successfully. For the moment, only five households in Dong Giang village own any
Eucalyptus land, instead using the natural forest for timber collection.
Other economic activities:
Unlike Quan Lan, Minh Chau, Ha Long and even Van yen communes, Ban Sen has as
yet received no outside investment or non-governmental aid in its natural resources
for either industry, agriculture or tourism, and without this, economic growth on Tra
Ban island is lkely to remain slow. However, with the improved harbour and ferry
services to Cai Rong and other island ports in the area (which also serve to improve
indirect access to Ha Long city and Mong Cai), there has been room for very limited
services and trade with visitors. At present the presence of foreign day-trippers on the
island is a rather random occurrence for the more adventurous, but this may expand in
time. There are no beaches on the island, and neither is there any provision for visitors
in the form of guesthouses or cafes, but the dynamic commune Peoples’ Committee
already recognises the potential of the island’s beauty spots for tourism. These include
57
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
the large natural cave system near Dong Giang village, the extensive mangrove
system leading into the main paddy rice cultivation area, and the existing network of
paths and trails which will enable visitors interested in ecotourism to traverse the
central hills, many of which offer stunning views of the bay in all directions, and even
Co To islands on a clear day. It can therefore be expected that services related to
tourism such as boat transport around the bay, guide services through the forested
hills and the cave system, cafes and small-scale accommodation, will see an steady
increase in the near future. For further comment on this, see the recommendations
chapter. For now, the economy is supplemented not by tourism but by continued
unsustainable exploitation of the islands declining natural forest. Given that the
children of almost all of the interviewees currently worked in exactly the same
occupations as the interviewees themselves, this tradition is also likely to continue
unless through a mixture of education, awareness raising and economic improvement,
the villagers are able to change of their own accord.
Division 2:
Of the two fishing-based economies of the buffer zone islands, it is Quan Lan that has
traditionally integrated the most into the district and even provincial economy and
enjoyed a greater cash flow, but the gap between this and the neighbouring commune
of Minh Chau may narrow in the years to come as a direct result of the national park.
Minh Chau has received fewer government aid benefits than the poorer communes but
also experiences less of the economic development of Quan Lan.
Currently 18% of people in Minh Chau’s four villages are classed as ‘poor’ (i.e. they
earn less than 80,000VND/month), with three ‘very poor’ families on less than
50,000VND/month. This is places Minh Chau in an intermediate position in the
district economy; it has greater material wealth than communes such as Ban Sen and
Van Yen because it has easy island-wide access to marine resources and a strong
tradition in their exploitation, which brings in a higher and more continuous revenue
than the now dwindling forest products of the western communes. Yet until recently
both overland and sea transport infrastructure were basic and even now most
agricultural products collected or produced in Minh Chau are either transported to
Quan Lan or sold in Cai Rong’s markets. Before the Doi Moi era, 30% of Quan Lan’s
population was classed as ‘poor’, but this has now dropped to 13%.
Agriculture:
Despite being based upon trade in marine products, both communes support some
agriculture, and the techniques have improved at a similar pace to communes such as
Ban Sen. Paddy rice cultivation in Minh Chau and Quan Lan, however, is severely
limited by very sandy soil prone to waterlogging and drought, and with poor water
and mineral retention capacity: in Minh Chau only 30 ha is given over to agriculture.
New strains of Bao Thai and Khang Dan rice have made farming easier, but the
population has not traditionally relied upon subsistence rice farming for their food
security; the fields are noticeably less well-kept than on Ban Sen, and expertise is
comparatively less developed. There is only a one-season crop here as opposed to two
on Ban Sen. Chemical fertilisers generally do not provide the returns in yield to make
their purchase worthwhile, although there are three used to substantiate the more
widespread use of natural fertiliser; a figure of 160kg of fertiliser per season was
quoted by one of the wealthier households of Quang Trung village, somewhat less
than in areas where rice is a more widespread crop. Pesticides are not considered
58
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
necessary, machinery is rarely used and most rice produce is for the household’s own
consumption. Even the wealthier families only tend to turn up to 4,000m2 over to
paddy rice, but due to the income from marine products, few families experience
months of hunger and the Peoples’ Committee reported little wealth discrepancy
between villages and households.
As in Ban Sen and Van Yen, Eucalyptus trees are planted but not on the same scale,
as they are generally viewed as demanding high initial investment and slow returns –
some of the villagers said they were beginning to sell their trees even though they
were not technically large enough. Even though the government classes 2,700 ha of
land in Minh Chau as ‘forest land’, this is the generic term for not-cultivated scrub
land also and does not refer to silviculture. Apart from Eucalyptus, the pine
Casaurina equisetifolia is also planted along the shore lines for dune stabilisation,
although this wood can also be used for firewood and for mine props.
Livestock is likewise not as popular as Ban Sen and Van Yen communes. Although
many families own a couple of pigs which bring in a million VND or so each per
year(minus feeding costs) or provide a meal at lunar new year, only those with money
to speculate on their hill land take interest in cattle farming, and buffalo are not
traditionally necessary as draft animals due to the lack of paddy agriculture: they
therefore do not have the same capital storage value locally that they do in many areas
of Vietnam’s rural rice-farming areas. However, the local government believes that
cattle could be a useful investment in the future in order to draw peoples’ attention to
more productive terrestrial farming, and there are a significant minority in both
communes who have used parts of their government loans to invest in this.
In fact, rice has been a relatively recent introduction to both Quan Lan and Minh
Chau, having only been cultivated to any great extent since 1975: before that time
sweet potatoes and cassava were the main crops. Now villagers generally supplement
their crop with garden produce such as peanuts, soy bean, garlic, and green
vegetables. In neither commune is there little more than a passing interest in limited
subsistence farming, when far more profitable time is to be spent reaping the harvest
of the sea.
Marine resource use and aquaculture:
With scant forest resources even before modern times, it is the two communes’
traditional relationship with the sea which largely answers for their somewhat higher
economic status than many of van Don’s rural communes. These marine activities
include primarily fishing and sea transportation, both of which are becoming
increasingly wide-ranging geographically, and which are generally the preserve of
men. However, the collection of inter-tidal invertebrates on the shorelines, extensive
mudflats and sandbanks surrounding Quan Lan island is also a highly profitable
enterprise, usually engaged in by women. Both communes, but especially Minh Chau,
are becoming increasingly involved in squid fishing through links with the Cai Rong
fishing communities, and government initiatives are currently promoting new
experiments with shrimp and freshwater fish farming. Transport aside, the tourist
potential of the sea has been realised, but has yet to be exploited.
Whilst shallow-net inshore fishing in traditional-style small boats continues as normal
throughout Bai Tu Long bay, the area has experienced a manifold increase in offshore
59
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
fishing for both fish and squid, and as the inshore catches are very low, it is generally
only the poorest people who invest much time in this activity. This has been very
much a result of government loan and incentive to realise the full potential of both the
local domestic/restaurant market and the more lucrative Chinese market. To coordinate and maintain a large fishing boat operation requires the type of capital outlay
which few on the buffer zone islands possess: a typical 40 ton fishing boat of the type
regularly seen in Cai Rong harbour costs in the region of 700 million VND including
a year’ maintenance. The government provide a loan for this with a five-year nonrepayment period to enable some profits to be accumulated, which is followed by a
repayment period with interest - a scheme begun in 1996. The government has so far
provided Minh Chau commune with 1.45 billion VND in loans and subsidies for
fishing boats. Once the boat has been purchased, petrol, equipment and crew are the
main expenses, but maintenance is also required, with even regular jobs costing six or
seven million VND to fix. Lights on squid boats cost 500-700 million VND, and once
again the government can assist in their purchase through the Hunger Regulation and
Poverty Reduction programme, repaid over five years at 0.5% interest per month.
There were in fact only two large government-subsidised boats in the commune at the
time of survey, each with seven crew plus the owner; each of the crew are paid
between 800,000 and 1 million VND/month.
The fishing operates according to two main seasons. In the calmer autumn and winter
months the large boats go out 100km north into the South China Sea, whilst in the
stormier spring and summer they only venture 20-50km out – the climatic factors in
this pattern are obvious, but there may also be ecological reasons. It is the Chinese
market which is the greatest earner for islanders selling marine produce, but the prices
have apparently declined slightly in recent years and the local fishermen are not sure
why; it may simply be increased competition between local fishermen as more people
enter the industry. The local market certainly only provides a small slice of the sales
for squid. Prices are also seasonal: in early spring fresh squid is sold for 18,000
VND/kg, but by April and May the price drops to 16,000 VND/kg as the squid caught
is a smaller type (probably a different species but this is unconfirmed). The high
season is in August to October when the prices are 35,000 VND/kg and 24,000
VND/kg for the larger and smaller varieties respectively: between this time and lunar
new year, squid are both more abundant and more expensive.
Offshore fish and squid fishing undoubtedly brings the kind of revenue into Minh
Chau and Quan Lan which is needed to close the wealth gap between these rural areas
and the towns in the province. Yields are increasing as squid fishing boats are
increasingly using more advanced sonar and more powerful/reliable lights. Fishing
brings 2.5 billion VND into the commune each year compared with 1 billion VND for
livestock, agriculture and silviculture combined (Minh Chau Peoples’ Committee,
pers. comm.). In Quan Lan, 300 tons of squid are caught per year, plus 200 tons of
crab, and over 350 tons of other benthic invertebrates, some of which also feed into
the Japanese and Hong Kong markets. 2000 tons of fish are apparently caught per
year. Estimates are rough as much of the volume of these products is sold at sea to the
Chinese, but even given error margins, there is no doubt that the yield (reflected in
revenue) has increased dramatically since c.1999 and the numbers of people involved
in offshore fishing is steadily increasing. It will be essential for the national park
authority to liaise with the Haiphong Institue of Oceonography to use scientific cooperation and obtain methodologies for monitoring this major development in the
60
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
district both for the environmental and economic effects; discussion of marine
environmental issues in the national park is, however, outwith the scope of this report.
Another noticeable change for the villagers in both communes that has come with the
offshore fishing economy is the growing wealth disparity between the 10-20% of
families able to use their own accumulated capital or confidently afford the
government loans, and those who are either only able to work as employees on boats
or are unable to find work in this sector at all. More distinct roles and employeremployee relationships are beginning to become apparent unlike previously when,
give or take a margin of difference, people all fished inshore and wealth was more
evenly distributed. One family (families often pool resources to invest) in Dong Nam
village in Quan Lan owned four large boats – two for sea transportation and two large
offshore fishing boats, each of which have cost the family 5 billion VND since they
bought them three years ago: clearly the minority of families such as this will
capitalise on their profits in the future and the wealth gap will expand. Indeed, not all
of the original investments in fishing boats came to fruition: on villager from Son Hao
village in Quan Lan commune reported that although had borrowed the maximum
amount of money from the government Hunger Regulation and Poverty Reduction
fund, he had failed to maximise on the benefits of owning a large fishing boat because
he possessed neither the knowledge or experience to manage it. Afraid of spiralling
into uncontrollable debt, he chose to sell the boat, but inevitably lost money through
the enterprise. With 150 million VND needed to build a boat, the same amount to buy
the engine, 15 million VND for the net equipment, 60 million VND for the generator
(millions more if halogen bulbs are needed for squid night-fishing) and about 300
million per year for maintenance, naturally only those families willing to engage the
financial risk are able to fully capitalise on the new opportunities.
In both communes a more sure form of marine exploitation – and equally as profitable
– is the collection of inshore invertebrates at low tide, especially the sand worm
species which are dried and sold at highly inflated to the Chinese as a local delicacy.
They are also expensive for the local Vietnamese: before lunar new year, the price is
500,000VND/kg, dropping to a respectable 200,000 VND/kg later in spring (as many
local people eat some of what they collect themselves, they are effectively paying the
potential Chinese price). The price is seasonal as the sand worms appear closer to the
surface in warmer weather, burrowing deep in the winter. A family can collect around
100,000 VND worth in one day, especially if the children are at hand to help,
although the typical income from the activity is around 500,000 VND/month.
Although few people from other communes engage in this, it is still a competitive
activity, especially where targeting Chinese markets is concerned, when prices are
doubled. The typical system is for families to sell to a handful of ‘dealers’ on the
island who then sell the stock on for inflated prices, and it is usually these dealers who
profit the most from the enterprise. One villager from Dong Nam in Quan Lan
commune had an annual income of 15-20 million VND, meaning he could invest
further in shellfish farming.
Shellfish are collected on the seashore but are not considered a delicacy and fetch a
lower price: farming has not been widely taken up, the only major farm in Bai Tu
Long being for oysters, and this is foreign owned; the Japanese company tends to
employ workers from the mainland and Van Don island rather than the outer islands,
and speculation in this and other forms of marine product is embryonic in the buffer
61
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
zones. There is one villager in Nam Hai, Minh Chau commune, who has decided to
invest in shrimp farming, however, and other villagers will wait to see if he is
successful before taking the plunge themselves. In return for a competent investment
plan, the Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development provides a loan of 600 million
VND which covers the initial outlays and is to be repaid over six years at the usual
interest rate of 0.5%/month. As with the limited fish farming which occurs on the
island, the shrimp farming area is in special inland ponds rather than the sea, as the
terrain is suitable. Although shrimp can be sold on a three-monthly basis, there are
two main seasonal harvests per year, with an average yield projection of three tons of
shrimp in a 2 ha area. With a price estimate of 90million VND/ton, the annual return
would be a healthy 540 million VND minus 487,855,000 VND annual expenditure
(stock transport, shrimp feed, equipment etc) and a 25% tax of 13,036,000 VND the
net profit is estimated at 52,145,000 VND. Because the product is relatively versatile
in its markets (local and Chinese) and can be transported frozen by a boat which is
included in the scheme, along with 100% discount on the fixed assets in the scheme as
a further incentive. The potential for such projects’ success is high if they are
accompanied by the associated market provision needed, particularly regarding the
food processing industry. Presently, the provincial Peoples Committee recognises that
main obstacle to promoting and developing this industry is the competition from both
other provinces (which could indeed increase with improvements in infrastructure)
and from China (some of which is un-monitored), along with a lack of integrated
markets and supplies. Supply areas are scattered in the province whilst processing
plants are more centralised (QN Peoples’ Committee/WWF, 1999). As with
silvicultural initiatives –especially fruit trees – the local success rate will depend very
much upon the government’s ability co-ordinate and de-centralise the province’s
secondary markets. It will also depend upon improved infrastructure for transport and
production in rural areas generally. One resident of Dong Nam village in Quan Lan
commune was interested in setting up a food processing plant locally, but until there
is a reliable energy source this will be impossible.
For these reasons, the locals of the two marine-based economies tend to concentrate
upon the more stable choices of squid-catching and sea fishing, for which there is
plentiful local demand which does not require industrial markets. Fish farming of both
marine and freshwater fish is a lower-priority activity requiring little labour input and
yielding approximately 300kg per year: fish are sold during the summer months in
local commune markets and houses.
Other economic activities:
Minh Chau commune currently has little socio-economic diversity either in terms of
wealth bracket or sector, although the onset of tourism will no doubt alter this. Quan
Lan, however, has the advantage of a greater diversity base, with different families
engaging in a variety of activities outside farming, marine fauna exploitation and
cultivation and silviculture. These are principally sea transportation, hotels and small
–scale retail (shops and cafes), and employment at a glass-sand plant in the central
area of the commune.
Sea transportation includes transport of both people and goods, and has become
increasingly competitive in the last fifteen years, with many smaller companies failing
under the increased demands of the new system. One of the management board
members of a sea transportation company lives on Quan Lan where the company
62
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
headquarters are, although he works mainly in Hon Gai. He started as an engineer and
worked his way up over 20 years to manage schedules and contracts. The company
has shrunk in its capacity from employing 300 people to employing only 70 now, and
using only 150-ton capacity boats whereas it used to use boats many times this size.
Because they haul goods to China and south Vietnam, their competition is nationwide,
but a new joint-venture is likely to increase their efficiency and capacity. Other people
in the commune are involved in more local enterprise, one having retired from the
above company and bought two of their boats to use for fishing and for ferry services
(to Ha Long and Van Don), or for hiring out. Quan Lan commune’s undeveloped
status is not for want of local acumen or business interest.
The obvious other business interest for both communes is in tourism, but Quan Lan is
likely to capitalise on this the most, at least where local initiatives are concerned. The
commune’s government is looking into starting up a small eco-tourism company for
the increasingly steady stream of western tourists into the area, which may include a
scheme of re-forestation and rehabilitation of remaining hill forest land: Muntjac and
wild boar are still relatively common on the island, and the government feels that an
increased forest aesthetic for the island would diversify Quan Lan’s appeal from its
attractive villages and beaches. Once more, the continued appeal of both communes to
foreign tourists (especially westerners) will depend upon the provincial government’s
effective zoning of the provincial industrial and service regions, control of the everincreasing pollution of sea and land and sensitivity towards the beauty spots’ original
character in developing tourist facilities. A foreign company has already won a
contract to develop the unspoilt Minh Chau beach area for tourism, and other large
companies will undoubtedly follow suit. Unless local communities are allowed to
partake in tourist development themselves, they are likely to attempt competition with
larger outside companies leading to the kind of saturation of the market which has
been experienced in other tourist hotspots of Vietnam. Quan Lan commune certainly
has limited experience in responding to the needs of the industry even if it is
constrained by budget and infrastructure. If they are allowed by government policy to
capitalise on their increasing knowledge and understanding of tourism’s demands, and
monitored in their activity, tourism services are likely to bring increased prosperity to
this commune and, by way of proximity, other buffer zone communes in the process.
The Van Hai sand company in the centre of the commune provides a number of
villagers with a more immediate and steady wage of approximately 1 million VND/
month/person. Given that the company was on a recruitment drive for production
workers just before the time of survey, it appears that the company is expanding and
is likely to be a source of employment into the foreseeable future for unskilled and
semi-skilled local workers, including truck drivers. The company started on the island
in 1985, and about half of the workforce is local, each with accommodation provided.
Although the growth of industry in the national park and its buffer zone is undesirable
if the area is to fall purposefully into a tourism and environmental protection zone, the
existing company undoubtedly provides a further economic opportunity for the island
communities. No company representative was interviewed during the survey.
The versatility of Quan Lan’s economy compared with many of the province’s rural
areas is reflected in the diverse choices of vocation of the interviewee’s children.
These ranged from the more obvious local pursuits of collection of inter-tidal
invertebrates, fishing and farming to teachers (local and provincial), health care
63
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
workers, pharmacists, boat managers, and workers at provincial wood processing
plants. There was a higher proportion of villagers with children studying in Cai Rong
among the Quan lan interviewees, and a definite discrepancy in the places of work:
the children of Quan lan interviewees reported their children having studied at Thai
Nguyen and Ha Noi universities (mainly bach Hoa) in such vocational subjects as
telecommunications, civil engineering and environmental science. Most of the
children of interviewees in Ban Sen and Minh Chau communes reported their children
undertaking primarily local, traditional pursuits. However, Quan Lan also experienced
a greater wealth gap and social problems such as drug abuse, largely due to its higher
degree of contact with the provincial, national and international world at large.
Division 3:
Cai Rong town in Ha Long commune is officially part of the national park buffer
zone, and contains the national park authority’s offices for the administration of all
departments – the actual visitor centre is to be on Quan Lan island, however. It is the
wealthiest area in the district, with an average monthly income of 350,000VND (this
is 320,000VND in Quan Lan). Cai Rong is the main administration, business and
services centre of the district, providing markets and transport routes to markets for
the buffer zone communes: although people and produce can go direct to Hon Gai
from Quan Lan’s port, the overland route via Van Don and the industrial belt past Cua
Ong is currently the most widely used and reliable. The main ways in which this
community affects the national park apart from administrative and legal measures at
the government level is through the marine-connected economic activities
characteristic of Quan Lan and Minh Chau, but at a more developed and
commercialised level. Any agricultural and silvicultural practices of the residents of
Cai Rong, which are very few, are undertaken on Van Don island. The relationship
between the buffer zone island and the district capital in term of both these activities
and tourism services is likely to be one of complementary inter-dependence and
competition, which is likely to be balanced between the better facilities of Cai Rong
and the greater natural beauty of the islands.
5.6 Forest land management and development
Article 43 of the Land Law defines ‘forest land’ as all land identified as being
destined for silviculture, natural forest regeneration, reforestation, timber, nurseries,
forest research and experimentation (Gov. SRV, 1993), identifying three broad
categories;
1)
Production Forest: for silviculture and agroforestry to supply local demand
and for commerce, and to complement other forest types to protect the overall
environment.
2)
Protection Forest: for watershed protection, prevention of erosion and other
natural risks to human livelihoods and the broader environment.
3)
Special Use Forest: for the conservation of biodiversity, scientific research and
protection of historic, cultural and tourist sites.
The forest in the buffer zones and protection area of Bai Tu Long national park is
broadly classed as ‘special use’ on FPD maps. The overall aim of the forest
management in the area is therefore oriented towards natural forest conservation and
64
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
rehabilitation, but the mosaic of land cover and economic needs of villagers demands
different approaches towards combining rehabilitation and restoration with
silviculture and agro-forestry. In reality, the categories above are not clear-cut and are
adapted or combined according to the local situation. The FPD have thus contracted
land in the non-limestone areas with guidelines for both cultivation of perennial trees
and rehabilitation of natural forest, i.e. combining the aims of special use and
production forest. Virtually no limestone forest has been included in the forest
contracts.
Article 8 of Decree 02-CP (January 1994) states that Special Use Forests, defined in
the 1993 Land Law, are not to be allocated to households directly but are controlled
by special management boards which may enter into contracts with people living
locally to undertake protection and re-forestation activities at their own discretion, but
advised by the board (Castella et al, 2002, pp198-220). These contracts are typically
for a 50 year period. The allocation process begins with Peoples’ Committees
developing an allocation plan and delineating forest types, then disseminating this to
the commune authorities so that families desiring plots may apply through a request
form. Once any differences have been resolved the FPD draw up a land map with
each measured forest land plot for each household included. Stewards (usually village
households) have rights to thinning products and dry fuel wood, and depending upon
the stage of/capacity for forest regeneration, can practice limited agroforestry until the
canopy of natural forest species has closed – at which point the contract begins for
strict forest protection.
The figure paid to stewards of natural forest in Vietnam is typically 45-50,000
VND/ha/year, but arrangements vary from monthly payments to yearly or contractual
payments. In Bai Tu Long the latter is favoured by the FPD, with villagers receiving
parcels of land on 50-year contracts at the end of which the forest is inspected by the
FPD and the end payment is given, or the contract renewed if desired. The villagers
interviewed in the national park buffer zones were sometimes unclear as to the exact
arrangement regarding their forest protection land, and were largely more concerned
with the capital returns of their other forest land – they reported having to pay the
FPD 20-50,000 VND/ha for this land tenure in the first place, and the main reason for
villagers entering forest protection contracts for natural forest is that land for
Eucalyptus can only be obtained through this scheme.
The summary statistics regarding forest stewardship for the four principle buffer zone
communes are provided below in Figure 8.1. It can be seen from this that Ban Sen has
been targeted the most out of the buffer zone communes for forest stewardship in all
categories: the forest land areas with cultivation (including Eucalyptus) have since
expanded under the scheme. Indeed it is the commune with the second highest
number of stewards in the district and by far the most land under stewardship, almost
double that of Van Yen, the next in line. The mean land areas under stewardship
reflect this, and the presence of large tracts of natural forest on Tra Ban island are also
reflected in that Ban Sen commune has the highest proportion of stewards with strict
protection contracts, where they receive the contractual payment outlined above.
Villagers in all communes have applied mainly for scrub land however, targeted for
natural rehabilitation using commercial perennials as shade trees. Many villagers
expressed a desire to use this land for Eucalyptus but this should be avoided by the
national park authority for environmental reasons. Ban Sen also has the widest range
65
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
in stewardship land holding size, although most are between 5 and 35 ha. Some
villagers have apparently invested a great deal in the potential for agroforestry on this
land. Meanwhile inMinh Chau and Quan Lan communes the dual factors of very little
remaining natural forest on Quan lan island and the economic interests of the
population in marine activities accounts for their smaller holdings and concentration
on scrub land.
Commune
Ban Sen
Total
no.
stewards: 69
Van Yen
Total
no.
stewards: 46
Quan Lan
Total
no.
stewards: 23
Minh Chau
Total
no.
stewards: 24
Total (ha)
Average
holding/person (ha)
% stewards with this
category
Landholding
size
range (ha)
Total (ha)
Average
holding/person (ha)
% stewards with this
category
Landholding
size
range (ha)
Total (ha)
Average
holding/person (ha)
% stewards with this
category
Landholding
size
range (ha)
Total (ha)
Average
holding/person (ha)
% stewards with this
category
Landholding
size
range (ha)
Stewardship
land
2,394.6
34.7
Poor forest
Cultivated
Scrub
1,011.5
14.7
60.1
0.9
1,323.0
19.2
100
88
10
74
1.5-103.7
1.5-103.7
5.0-13.5
2.0-77.7
1,280.5
27.8
738.4
16.1
0.0
0.0
542.1
11.8
100
78
0
74
2.5-63.6
2.5-56.7
-
4.0-63.6
305.6
13.3
6.5
6.5
2.2
2.2
296.9
12.9
100
4
4
100
2.2-45.6
6.5
2.2
3.0-45.6
158.7
6.6
0.0
0.0
16.8
0.7
141.9
5.9
100
0
12.5
100
1.5-26.5
-
4.5-6.8
1.5-26.5
Figure 5.1: Summary statistics for the Bai Tu Long bay forest stewardship scheme
(FPD records, 2001)
It was not made clear as to whether the government Programme 327 had operated in
the area, which offers incentives for tree-planting and agroforestry development, and
only the PAHE loans apparently being used widely for Eucalyptus seedlings. It
appears that so far, reforestation has been only in the form of single-species
plantations. The national park’s investment plan includes a budget allocation for
reforestation and rehabilitation, but there is no detail as to methodologies and
integration into socio-economic schemes where the buffer zone areas are concerned in
the scientific appraisal. Fruit trees are likely to be the main crop to mix with key
natural species, but it will be essential to formulate a rehabilitation plan for the area
including species inventories, planting densities, timescales (including any soil
fertility restoration stages which may be required, especially if land with or near
Eucalyptus is turned over to reforestation) and itemised budgetary requirements.
66
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
The forest stewardship scheme’s success will depend largely upon the perceived
returns for the villagers, especially in poor communes such as Ban Sen where
livelihoods could depend upon it. Given that across the buffer zone communes,
predictably little appreciation or understanding of environmental conservation or the
creation of a national park was displayed by villagers, it is unlikely that the long term
benefits for nature and tourism will be enough of an incentive to encourage
investment of time and money in assisted rehabilitation and reforestation, especially
where allocated forest land is scattered and far from the village concerned. The wide
disparity between forest stewardship land holding size between households in the
communes where it matters the most points to both increasing discrepancies in wealth
(see section 8.4, Division 1: silviculture) and the differences in levels of both
confidence and interest in the scheme. This comes after previous disillusionment with
government-directed forest land policy (very apparent in Dong Giang village, for
example), but is also a reflection in the different ways forward which villagers
themselves think are realistic. Some are interested in livestock, others in opportunities
outside the commune, whilst others are too set in traditional reliance upon natural
forest resources. The villagers of all communes are most interested in what will
provide immediate returns and profits; this was a reason expressed in Minh Chau for
the relative unpopularity of Eucalyptus silviculture, so unless payments for
stewardship are made on a yearly basis instead of after 50 years, the scheme is
unlikely to be especially attractive. Even for those who do engage in it, the sense of
responsibility and ‘ownership’ of the land is unlikely to be strong for the sake of a
distant and unsure payment, meaning that the usual activities which degrade the
natural forest are not likely to be curbed.
67
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
7. RECOMENDATIONS
The Bai Tu Long archipelago evidently has a wealth of natural and human resources
which, if pooled in an appropriately sustainable way, should promise a new era of
development for the area through integrated tourism, conservation and socioeconomic measures. The national park itself contains two main ecosystems: forest on
limestone, which is currently well represented within the protected areas system in
Vietnam (see Wege et al. 1999), and lowland subtropical forest on sandstone, which
is a vegetation type almost entirely extinguished in Vietnam. Previously, brief visits
and reconnaissance surveys (e.g. Duckworth et al 1998) have claimed that Ba Mun
has an ‘outstanding coverage’ of ‘extensive primary lowland forest’. Whilst this is
unfortunately not the case, as much of Ba Mun (including hill tops) has been
subjected to various intensities of logging, the overall coverage and potential for
natural, unassisted rehabilitation on the island is highly promising. The various
islands are home to a number of rare species of plant and animal, although the status
of some of the larger mammal species is uncertain. The existence of a number of
extensive cave complexes in the local area plus much undisturbed limestone forest
provides good habitat for bats, which were found in large numbers at such areas. The
area also appears to have significant importance as a migratory bird area, especially
for seabirds/waders, of which large numbers were observed in Minh Chau. Other
groups, especially insects, will require further study before their true diversity and
ecological relationships are understood.
Unfortunately the area is under threat from exploitation of its terrestrial (and marine)
resources, and has been used extensively by local people for many years as a source
of income, fuel wood, food, medicine and other means, and this has resulted in
widespread, although not irreparable, damage to the original ecosystems, few of
which could still be said to be ‘primary’. In order to protect the ecosystems in future
and enhance the area economically, broad recommendations are given below, with
some more specific points where necessary. These recommendations are meant as
guidelines only, and should be followed in the context of changing developments and
specialist advice.
7.1 General
This report has identified certain gaps in the protection system relating to the extent of
the national park.
The boundaries of the national park should ideally be extended to include the
buffer zone communes of Minh Chau and Ban Sen, so that special-use status can be
conferred to this entire area, which can then be zoned according to management.
Given that the terrestrial area of the national park is small by comparison to many
other national parks and nature reserves in Vietnam, the extension of the boundaries
would not significantly affect the workload of the NPA (which must work on buffer
zone programmes anyway), but it would give vital protection to extensive areas which
have been somehow excluded from the park and yet display environmental
characteristics which would enhance the diversity of species and landscapes of the
protected area. Continuous areas of limestone forest on Cong Nua island and southwest Tra Ban island (Ban Sen commune) should be included as a matter of priority,
which would automatically extend the boundaries over the forested limestone
68
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
outcrops to the south of Tra Ngo, which are utilized by many bird, insect, bat and
other mobile species deriving from adjacent Tra Ngo, but which currently go
unprotected. The extensive mangrove areas of Ban Sen could also be monitored more
easily by the science department, and the reclamation of Eucalyptus land for natural
restoration schemes as proposed in the FPD investment plan would again carry more
legal backing with protected status when dealing with local people who may view the
scheme unfavourably. Cong Nua has already experienced clearance for silviculture in
the valleys, yet this development is inappropriate given the good quality of the
original habitat (see chapter 3 and appendix 2). Similarly, the non-limestone forest is
likely to suffer further without legal protection, and lack of legal controls may also
lead to Ban Sen’s caves being inappropriately developed for tourism. Minh Chau’s
western inter-tidal flats are also at risk from this, where sea bird migrants may be
disturbed by visitors if development is given a free reign. It would therefore seem
ideal to include Minh Chau and Ban Sen in the national park programme in a more
integral and formal way. If it is impossible to extend the actual boundaries of the
national park at all, it is essential that the buffer zone communes be zoned effectively
to achieve the nearest possible result.
Effective communication of between the NPA and government at all levels will be
essential to the success of the socio-economic activities of the conservation
department, and therefore of the national park overall. The NPA and Van Don
government were, at the time of survey, discussing respective responsibilities
regarding tourism development in the area. The NPA would be likely to find their
voice heard more authoritatively if they were able to use legal language concerning
special use forest protection regarding future development on these islands. As the
national park is likely to become a strong feature of the province’s tourism economy,
this fact should provide the NPA with a lever in discussions at provincial and district
levels regarding provincial issues with local impacts, such as market integration for
rural communities in key sectors and provision of better infrastructure (especially
water and electricity) vital for economic development. On the other hand, at the local
level, a number of villagers in Ban Sen commune had no idea about the national
park’s existence or relevance, and more effective publicity through local government
will prove invaluable before any socio-economic and conservation schemes are
undertaken.
There should be a consensus upon effective zoning of the buffer zones/national park:
Quan Lan and Cai Rong fulfill functions of tourist/economic zones, where
accommodation, food and transport are likely to be concentrated, with some limited
additional development for southern Minh Chau (outside the national park boundary)
and to a lesser extent Ban Sen. Quan Lan’s beaches are likely to become an attraction
in themselves, but Minh Chau also has beaches and is likely to be the starting point
for tours of the national park itself. With a lack of beaches and infrastructure, Ban Sen
is unlikely to be prioritized for touristic development, but it will undoubtedly receive
visitors and should make provision for this, including self-promotion. Tourism may
be one short-term way for local villagers to perceive direct benefits from keeping their
local forest in good condition in the long term. In as many ways as possible, local
people should be involved in the tourism development (one foreign company has,
however, already won a contract to build a small resort in Minh Chau) , otherwise
there may be problems of over-saturating the market as has happened to an extent in
69
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Ha Long bay, and local people’s real benefits from their own area will be much
diminished. The NPA must ensure tourism is developed sensitively; the plan for a
3,600 million VND cable car development over the islands originally suggested in the
investment plan should be dropped, for example, in lieu of more pressing needs of the
next five years, such as field equipment to enable training of field staff, and
patrolling.
Ban Sen should be zoned as a special economic/ rehabilitation zone (whether
included in the national park or not), with increased financial provision, awareness
raising activities, and income generative schemes to wean the local populace off
forest-resource exploitation and into wider markets and opportunities (see section
7.3). The bulk of the science department’s rehabilitation schemes (including agroforestry and restoration of reclaimed Eucalyptus) could take place here in time.
Cong Nua and the limestone forest of southwest Ban Sen, along with southern Minh
Chau commune (including its inter-tidal areas) should be zoned as a special
protection area, as it supports species assemblages integral to the area’s wider
ecosystem and some locally unique ecosystems. Any human use of resources here
such as plantations or collection of tidal zone food animals should be ideally
prohibited but at least monitored carefully, restricted and not allowed to expand.
7.2 Role of the protection dept.:
The fundamental threat to Bai Tu Long’s terrestrial ecosystems is selective logging of
key timber species, generally for sale in local (district) markets but also possibly
transported elsewhere by boat. The district FPD have had a great deal of experience in
dealing with logging activities but have traditionally lacked resources for effective
patrolling and have been unwilling to press serious charges against loggers given their
understanding of the poverty of much of the local population. However, the inception
of the national park should bring changes to this: greater stringency will be needed,
and the initial funds for the national park in the first five years (the timescale of the
current investment plan) should prioritise funds into basic patrolling activities and
resources so that the NPA’s presence is tangible in the national park area. This must
be accompanied by activity by the conservation department of the NPA so that a
positive image of the national park can also be promoted, in terms of opportunities as
well as restraints Funding of basic patrolling activities must take priority over some of
the more ambitious aspects of the FPD’s investment plan for tourist development in
the area .
The protection department should use patrols to obtain data regarding any changes in
tree species cut in response to decreasing ambient tree size available to loggers, so
that predictions can be made as to new threats to different species. When loggers are
caught in the area, their intended destination of sale, their place of origin and details
of the occupations etc should be sought to help prioritise particular areas for the
activities of the conservation department. It would also be prudent to gradually
increase the instances of penalties against loggers, so that local villagers are
encouraged to pursue legitimate means of income generation and view logging as a
risky business financially. Such measures will of necessity have to be co-ordinated
with the activities of the conservation department in improving the socio-economic
conditions of the buffer zone communities, as many villagers on Ban Sen may have
70
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
few other choices of earning a living. As such, the penalties for wood cutting should
start as more lenient than for hunting of mammals (which should be strictly
prohibited) and more gradually increase in stringency once awareness – raising
activities have been more thoroughly implemented over the next two years. The main
logging areas and priorities for patrol are similar to those for hunting as detailed
below.
Hunting is the most immediate but also the most elusive threat posed to mammals in
Bai Tu Long, not least because it is not abundantly clear as to where the hunters
originate from. Popular local opinion places the vast majority of hunters active in the
area as being from Ban Sen commune, but there were very few available for interview
for Frontier’s surveys, as it was reported by the Peoples’ Committee and (ex-)hunters
alike that the majority had largely abandoned the pursuit due to lack of available
hunting stock. Hunters were both seen and heard on occasion on Ba Mun island, but
they were predictably not willing to discuss their activities. It seems likely that these
hunters are, however, from the local district at least, and whilst some may be from
Van Yen commune most Van Yen hunters still apparently use the forest closer to their
villages on Van Don island. It would therefore seem reasonable to concentrate
awareness raising of both the animals’ value whilst alive (conservation, future ecotourism etc), and of alternative economic activities, on Ban Sen commune as a matter
of priority for the conservation dept., whilst stepping up patrols on Ba Mun island as a
priority for the protection dept. of the park authority. This should be the spearhead of
an integrated action against hunting throughout the national park and buffer zone area,
closely involving local communities. Specifically:
1.
Southern Ba Mun should receive the most attention from the Protection Dept.,
as its western flank is highly vulnerable to both loggers and hunters. As it is also
relatively easy for the FPD to patrol, a firm and visible presence needs to be
established in the area which will deter hunters from using the area for access. The
most obvious and traditional landing points should be targeted first, including the
southernmost mangrove bay, which has a number of recently used camps and heavily
used paths in the area, and around which hunters were regularly heard on the Frontier
survey. The northerly path running through the riparian/bamboo forest to the next bay
along the island contains many access paths to the ridge forest which then lead to the
eastern areas, and this southern area can be patrolled efficiently and regularly. Patrols
should be regular but not too predictable, and should include night visits. Patrols
should be armed, and as the use of firearms for hunting is illegal in Vietnam’s
protected areas, all weapons should be confiscated from hunters on site before
escorting the hunters from the island. The FPD should not shy from imposing the
appropriate financial penalties on hunters, as this is likely to be the strongest
deterrent. Notices should also be used as a deterrent, carrying information on penalties
for hunting. In these ways potentially more hunters will be caught initially, the main
access route to the island will be controlled, and the FPD presence in the park as a
whole will be more effectively and immediately publicised. The patrolling of southern
Ba Mun should be undertaken alongside patrols of the sea routes between Ban Sen
and Ba Mun (principally the route from the Quyet Tien area, and the small-scale
human activity in the Ban Sen/Tra Ngo/Lo Ho sound).
2.
Because southern Ba Mun is so accessible it is likely that larger mammals
seek refuge on the eastern and northern areas of the island, where the forest is also
71
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
somewhat less disturbed. The northern area of Ba Mun is also readily accessible from
the western side, although somewhat less popular. This area, along with northern
Large Tra Ngo, Small Tra Ngo and the Sau islands to the north, should form the
second patrolling priority at least in the more immediate stages of the protection
programme, as they are more remote from the park authority and cover a larger area,
and are thus more demanding on staff time and resources. They are likely to harbour
as much if not more of the mammalian diversity as areas of southern Ba Mun and Ban
Sen, but patrols here will have less immediate impact upon the hunting which does
continue in these areas, but which appears to be somewhat less here than in the
southern areas.
3.
The third priority for hunting patrols is the limestone areas, principally on Tra
Ngo island. These are the last priority not because of their biological significance
(which is great) but because the terrain itself will tend to offer protection from most
hunters. However, there are exceptional areas in this category which should be
targeted as a matter of priority, and demand both immediate action and regular
patrols. These areas are
a)
the inland lagoon in the centre of Tra Ngo island, accessible through a
500m long sea cave at certain tide levels, and where there is not only an important
mangrove area surrounded by potentially the most important mammal refuge in the
area, but also a regular human presence at the time of survey: these were mainly
loggers, but hunting from here would also be feasible. Physically closing the sea-cave
access route to this area to the public (at least in the short term) could be a
consideration for the park authority.
b)
the small limestone islands situated between Tra Ngo and Ba Mun: not
only is there a significant bat roost in one of the caves, accessible by boat and known
to the FPD, but in the larger northern islands, dynamiting of the limestone rock on a
relatively large scale has been carried out for apparently some time. This activity is
undesirable inside a protected area, especially in such close proximity to one of the
most attractive and ecologically significant parts of the national park. Not only does it
scar the landscape, a factor which will not appeal to future tourists to the area, but it is
likely to disturb populations of bats both roosting on the island and in the adjacent
islands. It effectively negates that island for future colonisation for roosting or
foraging by bats and other non-mammalian mobile faunal groups. Although important
to local communities in other parts of Van Don district, this activity should be banned
immediately from the national park, with the relevant parties informed of the area’s
protected status and given notice to leave.
c)
use of the limestone areas around southern Ban Sen island, such as the
island of Cong Nua and the forest block opposite Quyet Tien village, should be
monitored by the Protection Dept. to ascertain continuing human activities there,
namely the clearance of fertile forest basins between karst hills for cultivation (which
has already occurred on Cong Nua) and associated use of forest resources, and the
development of the large cave complex (discussed in section 4.5.1.2 of this chapter
and appendix 6c) for tourism. The former affects the continuity of this valuable and
distinctive habitat, and is continuing as evidenced by a relatively recent clearance on
central Cong Nua island. The latter, although beneficial for helping to bring tourism
to the area, must be handled extremely sensitively if bat roosts are not to be disturbed.
In other areas of bat conservation concern (for example, areas of the Japanese Ryuku
islands where Hipposideros turpis is also found), restrictive fencing has been erected
72
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
to control tourist access routes in caves, and notices regarding appropriate behaviour
to protect the cave environment should be erected.
d)
The island of Soi Nhu should be of concern to the park authority given
the increasingly locally well-known presence of breeding macaque populations there.
Although hunting may have abated in many areas locally, this is more due to lack of
stock than any particular desire on the part of villagers to protect the environment, and
these primates should therefore be considered locally under threat. However, the
island is only accessible to the most hardy hunters, and as long as the area is kept
under careful observation, the macaques’ choice of environment will remain their best
protection.
Finally, other co-operative techniques should become a routine for the protection
dept. in the near future, which may indeed be established to an extent already. These
are principally the cultivation of an informant system using local people to watch for
and report hunting or other disruptive activity within the national park by means of
awareness raising by the conservation dept. (see below). However, it is unlikely that
any rewards can be given as incentive and local uptake of this is unpredictable. In the
absence of extensive staffing resources, however, such a culture would be useful to
encourage. Aside from local people, other authorities should also be consulted in
order to pool information and resources to prevent such activities as cross-border
trade of important species, principally through Mong Cai (a number of animals in the
national park are listed in CITES appendices). The border army, coastguard and Mong
Cai border controls will be the principle elements in such co-operation; it is a fact that
the military areas in Bai Tu Long bay are those with the better forest because local
people have a better understanding of the idea of a military ‘no-go’ area than they do
of a forest for environmental protection. The NPA should also look into other
potential partners such as the oyster farming companies in the area which may use
protective patrol boats. For example, around Cat Ba National Park, oyster farming
operations protect their strong and growing commercial interest by patrolling certain
areas of the national park waters and challenging unknown people in the area
assertively. Such a level of vigilance is valuable for the park, although it is not clear
as to whether the park authorities there have used it for their benefit (Duckworth et al,
1998).
7.3 Role of the conservation dept.:
The above priorities are fundamentally for the attention of the protection dept., whose
role must also go hand-in-hand with a sound grasp of the national laws regarding
natural resource exploitation, the responsibilities of land managers such as the park
authority, and the powers it may exercise. However, unless the protection activities
are integrated with awareness raising activities regarding the alternatives to traditional
(largely unsustainable) natural resource exploitation, and the positive attributes of the
national park which will be felt by surrounding communities in time, law enforcement
alone will only present a negative idea of the new national park’s existence. The
opportunities it will provide for the villagers and the associated public and private
sector investment it is likely to engender must simultaneously be publicised to create
a culture of respect and optimism regarding local environment issues. The nature of
the awareness programme is outside the scope of this report and is the subject of the
associated Darwin-funded Frontier Biodiversity Awareness Project (2002-2003).
Socio-economic issues are the subject of chapter 9 of this report.
73
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Information about faunal diversity in the area, and the national park’s projects to
conserve and (where applicable) rehabilitate that diversity, must form part of the
information-sharing process, principally through the visitor centre. The mammal
component of this, for example, will draw upon their ‘charismatic’ value as a group
for future eco-tourism (even though they are much less likely to be observed, it is
important for tourists to know that they are present and being protected effectively). It
will explain their ecological and economic values and threats in both the national and
local context, and how they may be used sustainably. It will explain their ecological
needs and what is required to ensure their survival. This information can be gleaned
from the activities and findings of the science dept. and other surveys, and may feed
into the protection regime, for example by encouraging the informant system
regarding reporting of hunters and collective responsibility regarding habitat
disturbance.
A pivotal role of the conservation department will, however, lie in practical
improvement and development of socio-economic schemes in the local area, directed
by its own socio-economic research and the science department’s scientific
monitoring, to improve the quality of life of buffer zone residents whilst reducing
their impact on their natural resources. The main issues are directly connected with
the main income generating activities outlined in the socio-economic chapter:
agriculture, silviculture, aquaculture, forest stewardship and increasing outside
opportunities and awareness of them.
- Agriculture and silviculutre: Although rice may be a subsistence crop on Ban
Sen, and many families will continue to grow it in the future, there should be
encouragement to use integrated diversified farming systems, such as promoting
livestock not just for revenue from meat and plough draft but also for manure
provision as fertiliser for fields. If grazing systems for livestock could be incorporated
into agro-forestry initiatives such as growing maize (for pig feed or market sale) or
cassava under forest trees such as Cinnamomum cassia or Dendrocalamus
membranaceus, perhaps as a gradual replacement of some of the Eucalyptus
plantation, then a number of goals could be reached at once. Fruit trees such as orange
(which the FPD envisage as the main fruit crop of the area) could also be planted
under forest trees such as Erythrophloeum fordii initially, so as to provide an income
for the first part of forest stewardship before natural forest matured and it became a
true protection contract. Ha Bac province has undergone various trials in such
endeavours (Do Dinh Sam et al, 2001), and it would be worthwhile for the
conservation department to keep abreast of developments most suitable to the area. In
particular, the differences in topography and soil type must be considered in
developing agricultural/silvicultural systems. For example, Minh Chau may benefit
from an entirely different system, still increasing its share of livestock (breeds have
been developed especially suited to coastal conditions), but using Casaurina
equisetiflia such as has been planted to the rear of its north-eastern white sand beach.
This species, like Eucalyptus, is appealing due to its fast growth rate and use for both
mine props and fuel wood, but also consolidates sand, protecting any crops of the
nearby villages. It has a high calorific value and burns well, and also maintains a
better local environment, such as through stabilising air and soil temperature and
maintaining high water table for other plants and crops nearby (the opposite effect to
Eucalyptus). Regardless of the choice of replacement, the NPA’s plans to reduce the
74
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
proportion of Eucalyptus in the area – and perhaps phase it out completely in time –
is sensible as not only do the trees cause certain environmental problems (see chapter
8) but such single species Eucalyptus plantations have proved more susceptible to
disease in other areas such as Quang Binh, Quang Tri and Thua Thien Hue provinces
(Do Dinh Sam et al, 2001). Whichever scheme the NPA adopts, specialist advice
should be sought regarding the best methodologies, most suitable tree species (natural
and commercial) and provenances to the local conditions (which vary greatly between
islands), timescales and costing – including incentives for local people.
- Aquaculture and marine activities: The success of aquaculture in Bai Tu Long
remains to be seen, and it may be continued as only a subsidiary activity. However, it
is another aspect of the gradual diversification which is profiting many families in the
area. Duckworth et al (1998) have noted that in other areas of Vietnam impoundment
and subsequent management practices have been poor leading to low yields and early
closure of the system, sometimes actually leading to the impoundment of fresh areas
and associated habitat degradation in marine areas. Elsewhere in the province,
aquaculture is well developed in various forms and advice should be sought as to best
management practise. In particular, care should be taken not to expand aquaculture
into important natural habitats around Quan Lan island.
- Forest stewardship: This scheme may need to be overhauled somewhat in the
near future, partly because of the planned alterations regarding Eucalyptus growing
and the proportions of production forest to agro-forestry/regeneration, but also
because under the present system the wait for returns for villagers from their forest
land is long – even if they have silviculture they must wait for the trees to grow before
they can sell. Without tangible benefits, villagers are less likely to take responsibility
for their forest stewardship areas (as evidenced on Ban Sen, which has amongst the
most stewardship land in the district but the most highly distrurbed forest in the
archipelago). The NPA’s compensation scheme for families losing Eucalypus land
must involve more long term replacements (i.e. not just a single money payment) for
the loss of the land’s 20-year potential – ideally an opportunity to be involved in agroforestry. The NPA must also begin to pay annually for stewardship of natural special
use forest at the national rate, as stipulated in the land law (Gov. SRV 1993),
redirecting money from low-priority budget items if necessary. The involvement of
local villagers especially of Ban Sen commune in a well-integrated, well informed
forestry initiative must be considered a high priority for the NPA.
7.4 Role of the science dept:
With regard to all groups detailed in this report, the principle recommendation that
must be made here is for continued survey, preferably by means of specialist groups
of scientists co-operating in the field with the science department in order to build the
department’s expertise in identifying and monitoring local fauna and flora. Collection
of specimens would be useful in order to build up a comprehensive scientific
collection at the national park’s headquarters, but only when appropriate storage
facilities are available and taxonomic capability within the science department
developed enough to ensure that duplicate specimens are not being taken in field
surveys.
75
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
At this stage the composition and ecological relationships of Bai Tu Long’s
lepidopteran fauna is only partially known, and therefore the main recommendation
from this study must be that further studies are made by the science department of the
national park. Although this s not likely to be an immediate priority, this department
should make provision for lepitdopteran fauna as ecological indicators to be studied in
the future by incorporating a species database in any computer records they are to
develop at the Cai Rong headquarters. The format should include common and
scientific names and, if possible, the identification authority. Basic ecological and
biogeographical information should also be included where available. It would also be
desirable for the national park to develop a holding capacity for lepidopteran
specimens if it is to encourage further scientific research in the area, as specimens are
by law not to be taken outside the national park and taxonomic expertise is not always
available in direct field research. Holding capacity requires a permanently airconditioned room and adequate storage space, however, and this is not likely to be
available for the foreseeable future.
Birds are more easily studied and field guides should be obtained by the science
department to aid the accumulation of a thorough knowledge of the species and the
habitats they utilize in the national park and buffer zones (see chapter 5). Whether the
national park boundaries are altered or the buffer zone is specifically zoned, special
attention should be paid by the science department to any adverse effects of
increasing tourist numbers, collectors of inter-tidal invertebrates and water pollution
on the small sea bird colonies of Minh Chau, Quan Lan island. Some of these
activities will be integrated into the marine conservation activities of the science
department which are yet to be defined.
With regard to mammal conservation research, the science department’s initial
research priority should be to ascertain through further field expeditions the likely
presence of the various mammal species in the area, preferably with the help of other
national/international field teams if possible. Although the Frontier surveys have
provided baseline information along with previous studies, a more focused approach
to this faunal group (and others) involving the use of camera trapping equipment
would provide more concrete results. As such research may be delayed for the present
due to budget/resource insufficiency, the science department’s role for the moment
may be restricted. Familiarity with the ecology of the various species within the park
should be sought, including feeding, reproductive and territorial behaviour which may
influence any future re-introduction/re-enforcement initiatives.
The implementation of re-introduction initiatives should be delayed until financial
resources are sufficient and the protection regime fully complements the programme
of re-introduction. This is especially pertinent to the Asiatic black bears currently
being kept in Van Don. Because of the nature of the weaning of the five bears
currently in captivity there, and the precedent difficulties in re-introducing the species
in the national park, it is unfeasible for these bears to be released into the wild, and it
is recommended that the animals be transported to an alternative sanctuary. This
recommendation is in accordance with the guidelines set by the IUCN Species
Survival Commission Re-introduction Specialist Group (IUCN, 1995), which
emphasise the following in particular:
76
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
1)
Re-introduction is a lengthy, complex and expensive process, requiring longterm financial and institutional support.
2)
The re-introduction area should have assured, long-term protection including
the reduction to a sufficient level of the causes of the species’ local extirpation
(hunting, in the case of Bai Tu Long).
3)
It is desirable that source animals come from wild populations genetically
similar to the original native stock (e.g. of North-east Vietnam) also displaying similar
ecological characteristics. If captive stock are to be used, it must be from a population
which has been suitably managed for survival in the wild, the likelihood of survival
being approximate to that of a wild counterpart. Re-introductions should not take
place merely because captive stocks exist, nor solely as a means of disposing of
surplus stock.
4)
A multi-disciplinary approach should be taken in the re-introduction
programme, incorporating where possible NGOs, funding bodies, universities, and
veterinary institutions so as to cover the various aspects of a carefully planned reintroduction programme.
5)
The provincial, national and international legislation and regulations
concerning re-introductions should be consulted at the planning stage.
6)
Population and habitat viability analysis in specific relation to the species’
requirements is necessary in order to estimate the carrying capacity of the release
area, and surveys for existing populations undertaken to determine existing
populations.
The IUCN SSC notes referred to above are consistent with academic research on
release of captive-bred Asiatic black bear re-introduction (e.g. Sharpe & Mason,
2002), which has studied the difficulties of newly released bears in suppressing
behavioural persistence (observed in the captive bears in Van Don) developed in
captivity, leading to reduced survival rates in the wild. They are also consistent with
past experience in similar circumstances as Bai Tu Long, such as the efforts of the
TSCWA projects in Thailand (TSCWA, 2002) and at the Pakhui Wildlife Sanctuary
in India, both of which have attempted release of captive bears through the creation of
rehabilitation sites where the animals receive a staggered release into the wild.
A portion of the national park budget has been allocated to the building of a wildlife
rescue centre, or ‘area’, on Ba Mun, with similar goals to that in Cuc Phuong National
Park, with facilities on three islands (most probably including Tra Ngo) for keeping
animals in captivity and semi-captivity for re-introduction into the wild or scientific –
especially genetic – research for conservation purposes (there is also a marine
equivalent planned at four times the price of the terrestrial project). This sanctuary
would cost 1. 5 billion VND and was most likely to have been a long-term initiative
for when appropriate funds were forthcoming. At present the facilities and staff
numbers and expertise are not present in the national park authority, which plans to
consult with Cuc Phuong on the idea’s feasibility. The feasibility of running a wildlife
sanctuary here is linked to the above problems noted for the current captivity of the
black bears. It may be more appropriate to situate a Cuc Phuong style centre outside
the national park area, leaving the park area itself with fully natural ecosystems and
concentrating upon natural habitat rehabilitation schemes for the foreseeable future, as
any development within the national park boundaries as they stand is likely to be
more of a disturbance than a benefit. Once the necessary resources have been obtained
(in time, from tourism) and the conservation situation is suitably secure in the park
77
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
area, it may be that a compound for captive animals could be constructed in the
vicinity of the visitor centre on Quan Lan island where it could serve a role in
awareness raising regarding mammal conservation practises for the many visitors
anticipated to the island.
Aside from these specific recommendations, the conservation of fauna in Bai Tu Long
is directly related to the conservation and management of existing natural and seminatural habitats. Moths and butterflies are not under a specific human threat, apart fro
the use of pesticides which are not used sufficiently in this area to warrant any
preventative action. Birds are captured occasionally but only on an opportunistic basis
which is difficult to prevent systematically, and this is the case with other groups
apart from mammals (and even here hunting seems to have declined). A major role of
the science department will be the rehabilitation and monitoring of existing habitats.
The NPA already has a detailed provision for habitat survey, restoration,
rehabilitation and conservation outlined in the investment plan (FPD 2000). This
involves a programme of 1) training, 2) research by forest plot and transect
methodologies to understand structural and species diversity further, 3) enrichment
planting using local species (Quercus and Canarium enrichment planting has been
successful in Ha Bac province; Do Dinh Sam, 2001), 4) estimation of forest resources
for future planning and even the development of a ‘model forest’ on Lo Ho island (50
ha of currently bare land) and Lach Cong (350ha of Tra islands), the latter being more
ambitious in the short term of the five year plan. At the time of survey, the 17, 704
million VND budgeted for these operations was being withheld due to the lack of
expertise in such activities in the three-staff scientific department, and whilst the aims
are commendable as a long term plan, it is likely that the science department will have
to secure enough funding for the training aspect (by Vietnamese and foreign experts
where available) before tackling the other measures in the order given above.
Overall, it is of pressing concern that the NPA concentrate its efforts and funding
upon conservation of existing habitats in situ and with the active involvement of local
people rather than attempting expensive, time consuming restoration or reintroduction activities, until both monetary and human resources are readily available
If facilities and contacts are available, then regular and standardised surveys of the
Bai Tu Long bay area using GPS receivers and remote sensing techniques will be the
best way of monitoring the changes in land cover over the years, and even without
GIS representations, the standardised methodologies for ground truthing are useful
field skills for the science department to develop. Field data collection methodologies
for this can be found in Leisz, S., Dao Minh Truong, Le Tran Chan and Le Trong
Hai’s chapter on ‘Land cover and land use’ in Le Trong Cuc et al (2001). This would
provide visual feedback to substantiate other data collected regarding the success of
any activities referred to in this chapter, and enable more precise monitoring.
78
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anon. (2001) Selected Scientific Reports of Tropical Ecology: Vietnam-Russian Tropical
Centre: Period 1988 – 2011. Vietnam-Russian Tropical Centre, Hanoi.
Anon, (2002), Draft for Discussion at the National Workshop, Halong City: Management
Strategy for a Protected Area System in Vietnam 2002-2010
Ashton, P.S., (1991) Toward a Regional Classification of the Humid Tropics of Asia, Tropics,
Vol.1, pp 1-12
Asian Development Bank/ EVS Environmental Consultants Ltd (1996) Coastal and Marine
Environmental Management for Ha Long Bay, Ha Long city.
Bates, P. J. J. & Harrison, D. L. (1997) Bats of the Indian subcontinent. Harrison Zoological
Museum, Sevenoaks.
Birdlife International (2000) Threatened birds of the world. Barcelona & Cambridge, UK.:
Lynx Edicions & Birdlife International.
Birdlife International, FIPI, EU (2000), Guidelines for Feasibility Studies and Investment
Plans for the Designation of Special Use Forests: Technical Annex, Hanoi
Birdlife International and the Forest Inventory and Planning Institute (2001) Sourcebook of
Existing and Protected Areas in Vietnam. Hanoi, Vietnam : Birdlife International Vietnam
Programme and the Forest Inventory and Planning Institute.
Birdlife International (2002) Birdlife International Vietnam
Http://www.wing-wbsj.or.jp/~vietnam. Accessed on: 25/11/02.
Programme
Website:
Cao Van Sung. Ed. (1995) Environment and Bioresources of Vietnam: Present Situation and
Solutions. The Gioi Publishers, Hanoi.
Cao Van Sung and Nguyen Minh Tam (in press) Rodents of Vietnam. Institute of Ecology
and Biological resources, Hanoi.
Carleton University (2002) Karst. Introduction to Geoscience
http://chat.carleton.ca/~iegorov/67-105/green/. Accessed on 14/03/02
(on-line
manual).
Castella, J-C., Quang, D.D. (eds.), (2002) Doi Moi in the Mountains: Land use Changes and
Farmers' Livelihood Strategies in Bac Kan Province, Vietnam, The Agricultural Publishing
House, Hanoi
Chan, L.T. (ed.), Some Basic Characteristics of Vietnam's Flora, National Centre for natural
Science and Technology. Science and Technics Publishing House, Hanoi.
Chu, H.C. (ed.), (1998) Results of Scientific Research on Silviculture in Vietnam, Agriculture
Publishing House
Cohen, L., Fowler, J., Jarvis, P. (1998), Practical Statistics for Field Biologists. John Wiley &
Sons Ltd., Chichester.
Collar, N.J., Crosby, M.J., Stattersfield, A.J. (1994) Birds to watch 2: The world List of
Threatened Birds. Birdlife International, Cambridge, UK.
79
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Collins, N. M., Sayer, J. A. & Whitmore, T. C. (1991) The conservation atlas of tropical
forests; Asia and the Pacific. IUCN. Gland and Cambridge.
Corbet, A. S. & Pendlebury, H. H. (1992) The butterflies of the Malay Peninsula. Malayan
Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur.
Corbet, G. B. & Hill, J. E. (1992) The mammals of the Indo-Malayan region; a systematic
review. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cuc, L.T. & Rambo, A.T. (eds.)(2001), Bright Peaks, Dark Valleys: A Comparative Analysis
of Environmental and Social Conditions and Development Trends in Five Communities in
Vietnam's Northern Mountain Region, East-West Centre, Vietnam National University,
Hanoi; The National Political Publishing House
D’Abera, B. (1982-96) Butterflies of the Oriental Region. Volumes 1-3. – Hill House,
Melbourne.
DeGraaf, R.M.& Miller, R.I, (1996) Conservation of Faunal Diversity in Forested
Landscapes, Chapman & Hall, London
Department of Planning and Investment, (DPI, Peoples’ Committee of Quang Ninh province)
(1999) Directions of Sustainable Development in Quang Ninh province, WWF Vietnam
Programme, Ha Long
Devyatkin, A.L. & Monastyrskii, A.L. (1999) Hesperiidae of Vietnam 5: An Annotated List
of the Hesperiidae of North and Central Vietnam. Atalanta 29 (1/4): 151-184, Colour plate
XII.
Do Dinh Sam, (2002) Status and management of the Asiatic black bear and sun bear in
Vietnam, Birdlife International website downloaded 09/11/2002.
Do Dinh Sam & Nguyen Ngoc Binh (2001) Assessment of Potential Productivity of Forest
Land in Vietnam, Statistics Publishing House, Hanoi.
Duckworth, J.W., Salter, R.E and Khounboline, K. compilers. (1999) Wildife in Lao PDR:
1999 Status Report. Vientiane: IUCN-The World Conservation Union / Wildlife Conservation
Society / Centre for Protected Areas and Watershed Management.
Duckworth, J. and Walston, J. (1998) Reconnaissance bird and mammal survey of Hai PhongHa Long – Cat Ba – Cam Pha – Ba Mun area, Hai Phong and Quang Ninh provinces,
Vietnam, with emphasis on the endemiclangur. Report to the World Bank, Hanoi.
Eames, J.C., Le Trong Trai and Nguyen Cu (1999a) A new species of laughingthrush
(Passeriformes: Garrulacinae) from the western highlands of Vietnam. Bull. Brit. Orn. Club.
119(1): 4-15.
Ehrlich, P. R. (1988) Tomorrow’s world: why saving biodiversity is today’s priority. World
Birdwatch 10 (2): 6-7.
FIPI (1996). Vietnam forest trees. Agricultural Publishing House, Hanoi.
FIPI (1997) Investment Plan for Kim Hy Proposed Nature Reserve, Na Ri district, Bac Kan
province. In Vietnamese.
80
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
FIPI, Japan International Co-operation Agency (1998) Results of Scientific Research on
Silviculture in Vietnam. Agriculture Publishing House, Hanoi
FPD (2000) Investment and results in building and management in Bai Tu Long National
Park (unpublished, in Vietnamese).
Francis C. M., Khamkhoun Khounboline and Aspey, N. (1996) Report on the 1996 survey of
bats and small mammals in the Nakai-Nam Theun NBCA and nearby areas, Bolikhamaxy and
Khammouane Provinces. Centre for Protected Areas and Watershed Management/World
Conservation Society Cooperative Programme, Vietniane, Lao PDR.
Frontier Vietnam (2002) Furey, N., Canh, L.X. & Fanning, E. (eds) Cat Ba National Park.
Frontier-Vietnam Forest Research Programme Report No. 16. The Society for Environmental
Exploration, London and the Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Hanoi.
Frontier Vietnam (2002) Furey, N. and Fanning, E. Huu Lien Nature Reserve. FrontierVioetnam Forest Research Programme Report No. 17. The Society for Environmental
Exploration, London and the Institute of Ecology and Biological resources, Hanoi.
Geissmann, T. and Vu Ngoc Than (2000) Preliminary results of a primate survey in
northeastern Vietnam. With specieal reference to gibbons. Asian Primates; Newsletter of the
IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. Vol. 7, No. 3. Pg; 1-3.
Geissmann, T., Nguyen Xuan Dang, Lormee, N. and Momberg, F. (2000) Vietnam Primate
Conservation Status Review. Part 1: Gibbons. Fauna and Flora International, Indochina
Programme, Hanoi.
Gilmour, D.A. & San, N.V. (1999), Buffer Zone Management in Vietnam, IUCN Vietnam,
Hanoi
Global Environment Facility/IUCN (1999) Proposal for PDF Block B grant: Integrated
Management of the Northwest Tonkin Archipelago (draft), unpublished.
Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (1994a) Biodiversity action plan for
Vietnam. Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Global Environment Facility
Project, Hanoi.
Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. (1994b) Selected Government Decisions
on Forestry during 1992, 1993 and 1994. Ministry of Forestry, Hanoi.
Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, (2001) Regulation on Management of
Special-Use Forest, Protection Forest and Production Forest (21st Draft), Hanoi
Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (2002), The Comprehensive Poverty
Reduction and Growth Strategy (CPRGS), Hanoi
Hancock, D.L. (1992) The Princeps fuscus complex (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Aust. Ent.
Mag. 19(1), May: 1-8.
Heywood, V.H. (executive ed.) (1995), Global Biodiversity Assessment, UNEP, University of
Cambridge press
Hill, M.J., Le Mong Chan., Harrison, E.M. (1996) Site description and Conservation
Evaluation : Ba Na Forest Reserve, Vietnam. Frontier-Vietnam Scientific Report. Society for
Environmental Exploration, London.
81
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Hill, M. J. & Hallam, D. (1997) Na Hang Nature Reserve 2; Tat Ke sector. SEE Vietnam
Forest Research Programme Report No. 9. Society for Environmental Exploration, London.
Hill, M., Hallam, D. & Bradley, J (1997) Ba Be National Park. SEE Vietnam Forest Research
Programme Report No.8. Society for Environmental Exploration, London.
Hill, M. J. & Monastyrskii, A. L. (1999) Butterfly fauna of protected areas in North and
Central Vietnam; collections 1994 – 1997. Atalanta 29 (1): 185-208.
Hilton-Taylor, C. (compiler) (2000) IUCN Red List of threatened species. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Hodgson, G, Hresko, E, Ovel, C, Hoang Van Thang (eds) (1997) Coastal Biodiversity
Priorities in Vietnam: proceedings of the workshop, Hanoi.
Hutson, A. M., Mickleburgh, S. P. and Racey, P. A. (compilers) (2001) Microchiropteran
Bats: global status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Chiroptera Specialist
Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Indiana Department of Natural Resources Caves and karst resource management policy
http//www.caves.org/conservancy/ike/idnr.htm (accessed on 12/09/2002)
Inger, R.F., N. Orlov & I. Darevsky (1999) Frogs of Vietnam: a report on new collections.
Fieldiana Zool. New series, No. 92. 46pp.
Inoue, H., Kennett, R. D. & Kitching, I. J. (1997) Moths of Thailand vol. two: Sphingidae.
Chok Chai Press, Bankok.
Inskipp, T., Lindsay, N. and Duckworth, W. (1996) An annotated checklist of the birds of the
Oriental region. Oriental Bird Club, UK.
IUCN (1986) Plants in danger: what do we know ? IUCN, Gland and Cambridge.
IUCN/SSC Guidelines for re-introductions (approved by 41st meeting of IUCN council),
Gland, Switerland, 1995
Kananavanit, O. (compiler) (1997) The mammal tracks of Thailand. Green World
Foundation, Thailand.
Keast, A., (1985) Tropical Rainforest Avifaunas: An Introductory Conspectus, ICBP
Technical Publication no. 4, Ontario
Kim, J W. and Nguyen Nghia Thin (1998) The vegetation of Cat Ba National Park in
Vietnam, Korean Journal of Ecology, Vol 21, II, Seoul.
King, B., Woodcock, M. & Dickinson, E.C. (1975) Birds of South-East Asia. Collins,
London.
Kitching & Spitzer (1995) An annotated checklist of the Sphingidae of Vietnam. Tinea 14 (3):
171-195.
Le Ba Thao (1997) Vietnam – the country andits geographical regions, The Gioi, Hanoi
82
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Le Quang Trung & Trinh Dinh Hoang (2001a) The eastern black gibbon (Nomascus sp. cf.
nasutus) survey in Kim Hy Nature Reserve, Na Ri District, Bac Kan Province – June, 2001.
(unpublished report).
Le Quang Trung & Trinh Dinh Hoang (2001b) The eastern black gibbon (Nomascus sp. cf.
nasutus) survey in Kim Hy Nature Reserve, Na Ri District, Bac Kan Province – October,
2001. (unpublished report).
Le Sau, Vu van Dung, Nguyen Huy Dung and Pham Quoc Hung (2000) Protection and
sustainable development of forest and biodiversity in limestone areas of Vietnam. Hanoi,
Forest Inventory and Planning Institute. In Vietnamese.
Le Tran Chan, Tran Ty, Nguyen Huu Tu, Huynh Nhung, Dao Thi Phuong and Tran Thuy Van
(1999) Mot so dac diem co ban cua he thuc vat Viet Nam [Some basic characters of
Vietnamese Flora]. Science and Technics Publishing House, Hanoi.
Le Trong Cuc & A. Terry Rambo (eds.) (2001) Bright Peaks, Dark Valleys: A comparative
analysis ofenvironmental and social conditions and development trends in five communities
in Vietnam’s northern mountain region, National Political Publishing House, Hanoi
Lekagul, B., Askins, K., Nabhitabhata, J., & Samruadkit, A. (1977) Field guide to the
butterflies of Thailand. Association for the Conservation of Wildlife, Bangkok.
Lekagul, B. & McNeely, J. A. (1988) Mammals of Thailand. Saha Karn Bhaet Co.Ltd.,
Bangkok.
Lekagul, B. & Round, P. D. (1991) A guide to the birds of Thailand. Saha Karn Bhaet
Co.Ltd., Bangkok.
Lunde, D. & Nguyen Troung Son (2001) An identification guide to the rodents of Vietnam.
American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA.
MacKinnon, J. (1990) Report for the Forestry sector review tropical forestry action
programme, Vietnam. Ministry of Forestry, Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Hanoi.
MacKinnon, J. and MacKinnon, K. (1986) Review of the protected areas system in the
Indomalyan Realm. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge.
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, (1997) Summary Report on Planning, Organisation
and Management Work on the Special-Use Forest System (Draft), Hanoi
Ministry of Forestry (1991) Forestry sector review tropical forestry action programme,
Vietnam. Ministry of Forestry, Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Hanoi.
Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, (2001), Vietnam Biodiversity Awawreness
Programme, Hanoi
Monastyrskii, A.L & Bui Xuan Phong. 1998. Faunistic composition and seasonal distribution
of hawk moths (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae) of mountain tropical forest in Tam Dao and Ba Vi
National Parks. In 1998 Anthology of Science Reports Book 1: Tropical Ecology and
Medicine. Vietnam-Russia Tropical Centre, Hanoi.
Monastyrskii, A.L. & Devyatkin, A.L. (2000) New taxa and new records of butterflies from
Vietnam. Atalanta 31 (3/4): 471-492. Colour plates XVIII-XXIa.
83
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Morell, R. (1972) Common Malayan Butterflies. Longman Malaysia SDN. Behard.
National Environment Agency (Vietnam), SIDA, IUCN, (1998) The Vietnam Biodiversity
Action Plan: Three Year Review Workshop (proceedings), Hanoi
Nguyen Cao Huan and Yong Il Lee (1997) Geological and geomorphic characteristics of Cat
Ba Island and National Park, Vietnam, Ecosystems and Biodiversity of CBNP and Ha Long
Bay, 47-69, Seoul and Hanoi
Nguyen Huy Dung and Vu Van Dung (1999) Report on the biodiversity of the on limestone
area in Lang Son province. Paper presented at National seminar of the MacArthur
Foundation Grantees in Vietnam, Hanoi, 2 3 October 1998.
Nguyen Quang Trong, Nguyen Van Sang & Ho Thu Cuc (1999) Preliminary results of
Amphibian and Reptile Research in north central Vietnam. Institute of Ecology and
Biological Resources, Hanoi.
Nguyen Quang Trong (2000) Amphibian uses in Vietnam. Froglog (newsletter of the
Declining Amphibian Population Task Force) 38: 1-2.
Nguyen Troung Son, Nguyen Xuan Dang and Hendrichsen, D. (2000) Preliminary results of
surveys of bats (Chiroptera) in Phong Nha-Ke Bang (Quang Binh) and Huu Lien (Lang Son).
Tap Chi Sinh Hoc (Journal of Biology) 22 (15 CD: 145 – 150. In Vietnamese.
Nguyen Van San and Gilmour, D. (1999) Forest Rehabilitation Policy and Practice in
Vietnam, in Forest Rehabilitation Policy and Practice in Vietnam. Proceedings of a National
Workshop, Hoa Binh – Vietnam, 4th to 5th, November 1999. IUCN, Hanoi.
Nguyen Van Sang and Ho Thu Cuc. (1996) Danh Luc Bo Sat va Ech Nhai Vietnam. {List of
Reptiles and Amphibians of Vietnam : In Vietnamese}. Publishing House for Science and
Technology, Hanoi.
Osada, S., Uemura, Y. and Uehara, J. (1999) An illustrated checklist of butterflies of Lao
P.D.R. Moyuko-Sha, Tokyo. (In Japanese)
Osborn, T., Fanning, E. and Grindley, M. (2000) Pu Hoat Proposed Nature Reserve.
Frontier-Vietnam Forest Research Programme Report No.15. Society for Environmental
Exploration, London and the Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Hanoi.
Payne, J., Francis, C. M. and Phillips, K (1994) A field guide to the mammals of Borneo. The
Sabbah Society, Malaysia.
Pinratana, A. (1977-96) Butterflies of Thailand. Volumes 1-6. Viratham Press, Bangkok.
Pham Hoang Ho. (1991) Cay co Viet Nam [Flora of Vietnam: in Vietnamese]. Vols I-III.
Montreal.
Pham Nhat and Nguyen Xuan Dang (2000) Field guide to the Key mammal species of Phong
Nha-Ke Bang. Fauna and Flora International – Indochina Programme, Hanoi.
RDB. (2000) Sach do Viet Nam [Red data book of Vietnam. Vol. 1, animals: in
Vietnamese].Science and Technics Publishing House, Hanoi.
RDB. (1996) Sach do Viet Nam [Red data book of Vietnam. Vol. 2, plants: in Vietnamese].
Science and Technics Publishing House, Hanoi.
84
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Richards, P.W. (1996), The Tropical Rainforest: An Ecological Study, 2nd ed., Cambridge
University Press, England
Robson, C. (2000) A field guide to the birds of Thailand and South-east Asia. New Holland.
Schimd, M. (1993) Vietnam, Kampuchea and Laos. in: Campbell, D. J. & Hammond, H. D.
(eds.). Floristic inventory of tropical countries. New York Botanic Garden & WWF, New
York.
SNFC (2000) Pu Mat: A biodiversity survey of a Vietnamese protected area. Greiser Johns,
A. Ed. SNFC Project, Vinh, Vietnam.
Sharpe, S & Mason, G. (2002) Behavioural persistence in captive bears: implications for reintroduction, 14th international congress on bear research and management, Steinkjer
Spitzer, K., Novotny, V., Tonner, M & Leps, J. (1993) Habitat preferences, distribution and
seasonality of the butterflies (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea) in a montane tropical rainforest,
Vietnam. Journal of Biogeography 20: 109-121.
Sung, C.V. (ed.) (1998), Environment and Bioresources of Vietnam: Present Situation
and Solutions, The Gioi Publishers, Hanoi
Sutherland, W.J. (ed.) (1996) Ecological census techniques: a handbook. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Thai Van Trung (1978) Forest Vegetation of Vietnam. Hanoi, Science and Technology and
Publishing House, Vietnam.
Thao, L.B., (1997), Vietnam: The Country and its Geographical Regions, The Gioi
Publishers, Hanoi
Topal, G. (1970) The first record of Ia io Thomas, 1902 in Vietnam and India, and some
remarks on the taxonomic position of Parascotomanes beaulieui Bourret, 1942, Ia longimana
Pen, 1962, and the genus Ia Thomas, 1902 (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Opusc. Zool.
Budapest, X, 2,.
Tordoff, A., Fanning, E. & Grindley, M. (2000) Ben En National Park. Frontier-Vietnam
Forest Research Programme Technical Report No. 14. Society for Environmental
Exploration. London.
Tordoff, A., Swan, S., Grindley, M. & Siurua, H. (1999) Hoang Lien Nature Reserve.
Frontier-Vietnam Forest Research Programme Technical Report No. 13. Society
for
Environmental Exploration. London.
Tordoff, A. W., Vu Van Dung, Le Van Cham, Tran Quang Ngoc and Dang Thang Long
(2000) A rapid survey of five sites in Bac Can, Cao Bang and Quang Ninh provinces: a
review of the Northern Indochina Subtropical Forests Ecoregion. Hanoi: Forest Inventory and
Planning Institute. In English and Vietnamese.
TSCWA (Thai Society for the Conservation of Wild Animals) website [email protected] :
Projects: Black bear re-introduction. Downloaded on 22/11/2002
Udvardy, M. D. F. (1975) A classification of the biogeographical provinces of the world.
IUCN Occasional Paper No. 18. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland.
85
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
UNDP (1997) Human Development Report 1997I. Oxford University Press.
UNDP Ecotourism and biodiversity conservation in Viet Nam
http://www.undp.org.Viet Nam/projects/vie96010/cemma/ras93103.016.htm (accessed on
12/09/2002)
Viney, C., Phillipps, K., & Lam Chiu Ying (1994) Birds of Hong Kong and South
China.(Sixth Edition). Government Information Services, Hong Kong.
Vitalis de Salvaza, R (1919) Essai d’un traite d’entomologie Indochinoise. – Hanoi. (in
French)
Vo Quy & Nguyen Cu (1995) Danh luc chim Viet Nam [Checklist of the birds of Vietnam: in
Vietnamese]. Agricultural Publishing House, Hanoi.
Vu Van Can (2000) Vegetation of Ba Mun island. Unpublished, Hanoi
Wege, D.C., Long, A.J., Mai Ky Vinh, Vu Van Dung and Eames, J.C. (1999) Expanding the
Protected Areas Network in Vietnam for the 21st Century. An Analysis of the Current System
with Recommendations for Equitable Expansion. Hanoi, Vietnam. Birdlife International
Vietnam Programme.
Whitmore, T. C. (1984) Tropical rain forests of the Far East. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Whitmore, T. C. & Grimwood, I. R. (1976) The conservation of forests, plants and animals in
South East Asia. Volume II, part 1. Report for IUCN.
Wikramanayake, E., Dinerstein, E., Hedao, P. and Olson, D. (1997) A conservation
assessment of terrestrial ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific Region. WWF-US Conservation
Science Program, Washington, D.C., USA.
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (1992a) Development of a national biodiversity
index. A discussion paper prepared by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre,
Cambridge, UK. Unpublished.
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (1992b) Global biodiversity: status of the Earth’s
living resources. Chapman and Hall, London.
WWF & IUCN (1995) Centres of plant diversity. A guide and strategy for their conservation.
Vol. 2: Asia, Australasia and the Pacific. IUCN Publications, Cambridge.
Zhao, E. & Adler, K. (1993) Herpetology of China. Oxford, Ohio.
86
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
LIST OF PLANT SPECIES RECORDED FOR BA MUN NATURE RESERVE
(Vu Van Can, Sept. 2000)
Key to uses (described numerically in bold next to plant name where appropriate):
1: Timber 2: Paper/fibre 3: Essential oils 4: Vegetable oils group 5: Resin plants 6: Tanin
plants
7: Medicinal 8: Dye 9: Ornamental 10: consumption (human) 11: Consumption (animal)
12: Construction materials
1
2
PSILOTOPHYTA
Psilotaceae
Psilotum nudum (L.) Griseb
Cytheaceae
Cythea podophylla (hook) Copel.
LYCOPODIOPHYTA
Lycopodiaceae
Lycopodiella cernua (L.) Franco et Vase 9
(C.
POLYPODIOPHYTA
9
Adiantaceae
Adiantum capillus-veneris L. 7,9
A. flabellulatum L.7,9
Angiopteridaceae
Angiopteris confertinervia Ching et Tardieu
A. evecta (J. Forst.) Hoffm
A. yunnanensis Hiern
Athyriaceae
Athyrium pseudosetigerum C. Chr
Callipteris esculaenta (Retz) J. Sm
Benth
Dryopteridaceae
Nakai
Tectaria decurrens (J. Presl) Copel.
T. quinquefida (Baker) Ching
Aspleniaceae
Asplenium cheilosorum Kuntze ex Mett
A. yoshinagae Mak
Blechnaceae
Blechnum orientale L.
Davalliaceae
Davallia divaricata var. orientalis
Chr. Ex H. Wu) Tardieu et C.Chr
Nephrolepis cordifolia (L.) J. Presl
Dennstaetiaceae
Lindsaea ensifolia Sw.
L. orbiculata (Lam.) Mett ex Kuhn
[Microlepia hancei Prantl]
[Meridium aquilinium (L.) Kuhn]
Dicksoniaceae
Cibotium barometz (L.) J Smith
Gleicheniaceae
Dicranopteris dichotoma (Thunb)
D. linearis (Burm.) Underw.
Diptoptenygium blotiana (C.Chr)
D. chinensis (Rosenst.) de Vol.
Lygodiaceae
Lygodium conforme (C. Chr.)
L. digitatum J. Presl.
L. japonicum (Thunb.) Sw.
[L. microphyllum (Cav. R.Br.)]
Polypodiaceae
Colysis digitata (Baker) Ching
[C. elliptica (Thunb.) Ching]
87
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
3
Polypodiaceae (cont’d)
Drynaria bonii C.Chr.
Lepisorus chapaensis C.Chr. et Tardieu
[Microsorium dilatatum (Bedd.) Sledge]
Pseudodrynaria coronans (Wall.) Ching
Pyrrosia lanceolata (L.) Farw.
P. lingua (Thunb.) Farw. 7
Pteridaceae
Pteris deltodon Baker
P. ensiformis Bunn. f. 9
Stapf 1
[P. fauriei Heiron]
P. linearis Poir.
Stenochlaena palustris (Bunn.f) Bedd
Bhandari 9
[Selaginellaceae]
[Selaginella daederleinnii Hieron]
[S. frondosa Warb.]
Merr.
Thelypteridaceae
Chun
[Abacopteris simplex (Hook.) Ching]
Pronephrium simplex (Hook.) Holtt.
1, 7
PINOPHYTA
Hook
4
Aizoaceae
[Sesuvium portulacastrum (L.) L]
Alangiaceae
Alangium kurzii Craib 1
Amaranthaceae
Celosia argentea L. 7, 9
Anacardiaceae
Allospondias lakonensis
(Pierre)
Rhus succedanea L. 9
Annonaceae
Artabotrys
hexapetalus
(L.f.)
A. hongkongensis Hance
Desmos chinensis Lour
D. cochinchinensis Lour 7
Fissistigma polyanthoides
(DC)
Goniothalamus
chinensis
Merr.,
[Polyalthia plagioneura Diels]
P. thorelii (Pierre) Fin. Et Galnopp
Uvaria calamistrata Hance
U. microcarpa Champ ex Benth et
Xylopia vielana Pierre ex Fine,
Gagnep
Cycadaceae
[Cycas miquelii Warb.]
Gnetaceae
Gnetum latifolium Blume
Podocarpaceae
Pitar]
Nageia fleuryi (Hickel.) de Laub. 1
Podocarpus nerifolius D. Don. 1
(Lour)Hook
Apocynaceae
Alstonia scholaris (L.) R. Br. 1, 7
Alyxia hainanensis Merr. et Chun
Cerbera manghas L. ex Gaertn. 7
[Ervatamia diavaricata L. Burk.]
[Ervatamia tonkinensis Pierre ex
Melodinus tonkinensis Pit.
Srophanthus
divaricatus
Et Arn 7
MAGNOLIOPHYTA
MAGNOLIOPSIDA
Acanthaceae
Acanthus ilicifolius L. 7
Codonocanthus pauciflorus Nees
Leptostachya wallichii Nees
Aquifoliaceae
Ilex salicina Hand-Mazzer
I. subficoidea Hu
I. viridis Champ ex Benth
Araliaceae
88
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Thunbergia fragrans Roxb.
(Blume)Regel
Actinidiaceae
Seem
Saurauja roxburghii Wall.
5
Aristolochiaceae
Aristolochia saccata Wall.
Jac.
Asclepiadaceae
Dischidia acuminata Cost.
D. hirsuta (Blume) Deen
Hoya balansae Cost.
[H. sp.]
[H. pottsii Traill]
Asteraceae
Ageratum conyzoides L. 7
Bidens bipinnata L. 7
B. pilosa L. 7, 10
1, 7
Blainvillea acmella (L.) Philips.
[Crassocephalum crepidioides (Benth.) S. Moore]
Eclipta prostrate (L.) L 7
Emilia sonchofolia (L.) DC 7, 10
[Erigeron canadense L]
Eupatorium odoratum L.
Gynura barbaraefolia Gagnep.
Launaea sarmentosa (Willd.) Merr. et Chun 10
Senecio scandens Buch-Ham ex D.Don
[Vernonia andersonii C.B. Clarke]
V. cinerea (L. Less.) 7
Wedelia chinensis (Osb.) Merr. 7
Bignoniaceae
Markhamia stipulata var. Kerrii Sprague
Ooststr.
Oroxylum indicum (L) Kurz 7, 10
Staples
Boranginaceae
Argusia argentea (L.f.) Heine 7
Ehretia asperula Zoll. Et Mor.
Heliotropium indicum L. 7
Merr
Brassicaceae
Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. 7
Rorippa indica (L.) Hiern
Aralia armata (Wall.) Seem 7, 10
Brassaiopsis
glomerulata
Heteropanax
fragrans
(Roab.)
Schefflera alongensis R. Vig.
S. octophylla (Lour.) Hanns 1, 7, 10
6
Capparaceae
Capparis sikkimensis Kurz, var.
yunnanensis (Craib et W.W. Sm)
Chenopodiaceae
Suaea maritima (L) Dunn 10
Chloranthaceae
Sarcandra glabra (Thunb.) Nakai
Clusiaceae
Calophyllum membranaceum Gardn.
et Champ.
Cratoxylum formosum (Jack) Dyer
[C. polyanthumKorth]
[Garcinia bonii Pit.]
Combretaceae
Lumnitzera racemosa Wild.
Terminalia cattappa L. 1, 8
Connaraceae
Rouraea minor subsp. microphylla
(Hook et Arn.) D. Vidal 1
Convulvulaceae
Ipomoea mauritiana Jacp. 7
I. pes-caprare (L) Sw.
Merremia
boisiana
(Gagnep.)
M.umbellata (L.) Hall.f.
Xenostegia tridentate Austin
et
Dilleniaceae
Dillenia turbinata Fine et Gagnep.
[Tetracera asistica (Lour.) Hooggl]
Tetracera indica (C. Chr. Et Panz.)
Dipterocarpaceae
Hopea chinensis Hand-Mazz.
89
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Vatica
subsp.brevipetiolataHo1
Burseraceae
Canarium album (Lour.) Raeusch. Ex DC 1, 7, 10
C. parvum Leenh 10
odorata
Ebenaceae
Diospyros apiculata Hieron 1
7
8
Ebenaceae (cont’d)
D. buxifolia (Blume) Hieron 1
[D. eriantha Champ.]
D. pilosula (A.DC.) Hiern
Elaeocarpaceae
Elaeocarpus chinensis (G. Et Ch.) Hook f.
E. griffithii (Wright) A. Gray. 1
Euphorbiaceae
Alchornea rugosa (Lour.) Muell-Argent 2, 7, 12
Antidesma bunius (L.) Spreng. 10
[A. fordii Hemsl.]
C. godefroyana Kuntze
Canavalia lineata (Thunb.) DC 10
Dalbergia stipulacea Roxb. 8
Derris trifolia Lour.
Desmodium heterocarpon (L.) DC.
D. triangulare (Retz.) Merr. 7
D. triflorum DC. 7
Erythrina variegata L. 7, 10
Erthyrophloeum fordii Oliv. 1
A. hainanensis Merr.
Aporusa dioica (Roxb.) Muell-Argent
Bischofia javanica Blume 1, 7
Kurz. 1
Breynia coriacea Beille
B. fruticosa (L.) Hook.f. 7
Bridelia balansae Tutcher 1
B. monoica (Lour) Merr. 1
Croton tiglium L. 7
Endospermum chinense Benth. 1
Euphorbia hirta L. 7
10
E. thymifolia (L.) Poit. 9
Ho 1
Excoecaria agallocha L. 1
Glochidion littorale Blume
Camus 1
G. rubrum Blume 1, 10
10
Macaranga denticulata (Blume) Muell. Arg. 1, 2
M. kurzii (Kuntze) Pax et H.Hoffm.
Seem.
M. tanarius (L.)Muell. Arg.
Mallotus apelta Muell.-Arg. 2
M. hookeriunus (Seem) Muell.-Arg. 1
M. lanceolatus (Gagnep.) Airy Shaw
hainanensis(Merr)Sleum]
M. metcalfianus Croizat
M. paniculatus (Lam.) Muell.-Arg. 12
Phyllanthus amarus Schum et Thom.
O. emerginata Oliv.
O. fordiana Oliv.
Peltophorum dasyrrachis
Ormosia balansae Drake
(Miq.)
Pongamia glabra Vent.
Pueraria montana (Lour.) Merr.
P. phanseloides (Roxb.) Benth.
Saraca dives Pierre
Fagaceae
Castanopsis indica (Roxb.) A.DC. 1,
Lithocarpus calathiformis (Skan.)
L. corneus (Lour.) Rehd. 1, 10
L. fissa (Champ.ex Benth.)
A.
L. hemisphaericus (Drake) Barnett
L. silvicolarum (Hance) Chung 1
Quercus bambusaefolia Hance in
Flacourtiaceae
Homalium mollissimum merr.
[Hydrocarpus
Scolopia chinensis (Lour.) Clos.
Goodeniaceae
90
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
P. emblica L. 10
P. reticulatus Poir. 7, 8
P.urinaria L. 7
Sapium discolor (Khamp ex Benth.) Muell.-Arg.
Suregada multiflora (A. Juss.) Baill.
Fabaceae
Lindley et
Abrus precatorius L.
Bowringia callicarpa Champ. ex Benth. 7
Bauhinia touranensis Gagnep.
Caesalpinia bonduc (L.) Roxb. 7
7
C. crista L. 7
[Scaevola taccada (Gaertn.) Roxb.]
Hernandiaceae
Illigera rhodantha Hance
Junglandaceae
[Engelhardtia
roxburghiana
Wall]
Lauraceae
Actinodaphne pilosa (Lour.) Merr.
Beilschmeidia fordii Dunn 1
B. laevis Allen
B. percoriacea Allen 1
9
10
Caryodaphnopsis tonkinensis (Lecomte) 1
Cassytha filiformis L.
Cinnamomum damhaensis Kosterm 1
Hieron
Cryptocarya chingii Ching 1
C. cocinna Hance 1
Pellegr.
C. maclurei Merr.
Lindera pulcherrima (Wall. Ex Nees) Benth. Var
Roem.
Hemsleyana (Diels) H.P. Tsui
Litsea cubeba (Lour.) Pers. 7
Litsea monopetala (Roxb.) Pers. 7
L. verticillata Hace 1
Diels
Neolitsea connfertifolia (Hemsl.) Merr.
N. ellipsoide Allen
var.
N. zeylannica Merr.
Phoebe tavoyana (Meisn.) Hook.f. 1
Meliaceae
Aglaia gigantea (Pierre) Pellegr. 1
Chisocheton paniculatus (Roxb.)
Loganiaceae
Gelsemium elegans (Gardn. Et Champ. – Benth.)
Strychnos cathayensis Merr. 10
Binn)
Mimosaceae
Adenenthera pavonina var.
microsperma (Teij Sm. Et
Loranthaceae
Dendrophthoe pentandara (L.) Miq.
I.
[Viscum monoicum DC.]
V. ovalifolium DC.
Magnoliaceae
[Magnolia fistulosa (Finn. Et Gagnep.) Dandy]
Chukrasia tabularis A. Juss. 1, 7
Dysoxylum tonkinense Chev. Ex
Melia azedarach L. 1, 7
Xylocarpus moluccensis
(Lam.)
Menispermaceae
Cissampelos pareira L. 7
Diploclisia glaucescens
(Blume)
Limacia scandens Lour.
Stephania japonica (Thunb.) Merr.
discolour (Blume) Forman
Stephania sinica Diels
I. Nielsen 1
Albizia corniculata (Lour.) Druce
Archidendron chevalieri (Kosterm)
Neilsen
A. clypearia (Jack.) I. Neilsen 1
A. lucidum (benth.) I. Neilsen
Entada phaseoloides (L.) Merr.
Moraceae
91
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
[M. platypetala Hand.-Mazz.]
(L.)Vent.1,7,11
Malvaceae
Hibiscus tiliaceus L. 2, 7
King
Sida acuta Burm.f. 7
Thespesia populnea (L.) Sol ex Correa
Urena lobata L. 7
Melastomaceae
Blastus cochinchinensis Lour.
Medinilla assamica (C.B. Clarke) Chen.
Melastoma affine D.Don
M. candidum G.Don
Corner
M. malbathrica L. 7, 8, 10
M. normale D.Don
M. sanguineum Sims. 7
Memecylon edule Roxb.
M. ligustrum Champ. Ex Benth.
[Myoporum biontoides A. Gray]
11
Broussonetia
papyrifera
Ficus altissima Blume
F. auriculata (Lour.)
F. glandulifera (Miq.) Wall. Ex
F. heterophylla L.f. 7
F. hirta var. roxburghii (Miq.) King
F. lacor Buch.-Ham.
F. orthoneura Lev. Et Vanterp.
F. pumila L. 7, 9, 10
F. racemosa L.
[F. retusa L.-Sanh]
F. sarmentosa Buch.-Ham. Ex Sm.
ver. Impressa (Champ.)
F. simplicissima Lour.
[F. steophylla Hemsl.]
F. vasculosa Wall. Ex Mig.
Myoporaceae
12
Myricaceae
Myrica esculenta var. tonkinensis Chev.
Plantaginaceae
Plantago major L.
Myristicaceae
Knema conferta Warbg.
[Polysalaceae
Xanthophyllum hainanense Hu]
Myrsinaceae
Aegiceras corniculatum (L.) Blanco
Ardisia crenata Sims.
A. gigantifolia Stapf. 7
[A. kleniophylla DC.]
A. nigropilosa Pit.
A. quinquegona Blume
Embelia laeta (L.) Mez 7
E. ribes Burm.f. 7
Maesa perlarius (Lour.) Merr. 10
Polygonaceae
Polygonum chinensis L.
P. hydropiper L. 7
P. orientale L. 10
P. perfoliatum L. 10
Myrtaceae
Sleumer 1
[Decaspermum paniculatum Kuzz]
[Phodomyrtus tomentosa (Ait.) Hassk.]
Syzygium buxifolium Hook. Et Arn. 1
S. cumini (L.) Druce 1, 8, 10
S. oleinum Wight
S. tsoongii (Merr.) Merr. et Perry
Ochnaceae
Ochna integerrima (Lour.) Merr. 7
Portulacaceae
Portulaca oleracea L. 7, 10
Proteaceae
Helicia grandifolia Lecomte 1
Heliciopsis
termilanis
(Kurz)
Ranunculaceae
Clematis armandii Franch.
[C. chinensis Osbeck]
Rhamnaceae
[Berchemia lineate (L.)DC.]
Colubrina asiatica (L.) Brogn.
Paliurus ramosissimus Poir.
Rhamnus crenatus Sirb. Et Zucc. 7
92
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Oleaceae
Jasminum subtriplinerve Blume 7
Onagraceae
7
Ludwigia adscendens (L.) Hara 7
L. octovalis (Jacq.) Rav.
Oxalidaceae
Oxalis corniculata L. 10
Pandaceae
Microdesmis caseariaefolia Planch.
Miq. 1
Rhizophoraceae
Bruguiera cylindrical (L.) Blume 1
Carallia brachiata (Lour.) Merr. 1,
Kandelia candel (L.) Bruce 7
Rhizophora mucronata Lam. 1, 6
Rosaceae
Photinia benthamiana Hance
Prunus fordiana Dunn var. balansae
(Koehne) J.E. Vidal
P. javanica (Leij. Sm. Et Binn.)
Raphiolepis indica
Ker10
Passifloraceae
Passiflora foetida L. 7
Piperaceae
[Piper hainanense Hemsl.]
Et
Piper lolot C.DC.
Binn 1
P. sarmentosum Roxb.
13
Hedyotis capitellata var. mollis Pierre ex Pit. 7
H. hedyotidea (DC.) Hand.-Mazz.
H. lecomtei (Pit.) P.H. Ho
H. uncinella Hook.f. et Arn var. mekongensis
Pierre ex Pit.
Ixora coccinea L. 7, 10
Lasianthus cyanocarpus
1
Morinda umbellate L. 7
Mussaenda erosa Champ. ex Benth.
Psychotria rubra (Lour.) Poir. 7
P. serpens L.
P. tonkinensis Pit.
Randia dasycarpa (Kurz) Bakh.f.
1
R. spinosa Blume 7, 8
[Wendlandia uvarifolia Hace]
Rutaceae
Acronychia pedunculata (L.) Miq. 7
[Clausena excavata Burm.f.]
C. heptaphylla Wight et Arn.
Euodia lepta (Spreng.) Merr. 7
Glycosmis citrifolia (Willd.) Lindl.
Micromelum minutum (Forst.f.) Wight et Arn. 7
Severinia monophylla (L.) Tanaka 7
Zanthoxylum avicenniae (Lam.) DC.
(L.) Lindl. Ex
Rubus alceaefolius Poir. 7, 10
R. cochinchinensis Tratt.
Rubiaceae
Canthium dicoccum (Gaertn.)Tinn.
C. parvifolum Roxb. 1, 7
14
S. erianthum D.Do 7
S. violaceum Ortega 7, 10
Sterculaiaceae
Byttneria aspera Colebr.
Commersonia bartramia L. 1,7
Pterospermum heterophyllum Hance
Sterculia lanceolata Cav. 1, 7
Symplocaceae
Symplocos glomerata var. poilanei
(Guill.) Noot.
Symplocos lancifolia Sieb. Et Zucc.
Theaceae
Adinandra hainanensis Hayata
Camellia sasanqua Thunb.
Eurya acuminata DC.
E. ciliata Merr.
E. tetragonclada Merr.
Schima superba Gard. Et Champ.
Thymeleaceae
Wikstroemia indica C.A.Mey. 2
93
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Z. nitidum (Lam.) DC. 7
1, 7
Sapindaceae
Allophyllus livescens Radlk
Mischocarpus sundaicus Blume
Tiliaceae
Grewia paniculata Roxb. Ex A.DC.
Triumfetta bartramia L. 1, 7
Ulmaceae
Celtis cinnamomea Lindl. 1
Gironniera subaequalis Planch. 1
Trema augustifolia Blume
T. orientalis (L.) Blume 1
Sapotaceae
Eberhardtia aurata Pierre ex Dubard 1
Madhuca subquincuncialis H.J. Lam et D.A. Kerpel
[Mastichodendron wightiaum (Hook. Et Ar.) van Royen]
Planchonella obvata (R.Br.) Pierre
Urticaceae
Sarcosperma kachinense (King et Pall.) Exell
Elatostema balansae Gagnep.
Pellionia heteroloba Wedd.
Scrophulariaceae
Pilea peltata Hance
Bacopa monnieri (L.) Wettst. 7, 10
[Lideria ruellioides (Colsm.) Pennell
Verbenaceae
Avicennia marina (Forsk.) Vierh.
Simarubiaceae
Callicarpa nudiflora Hook. Et Arn.
Eurycoma logifolia W. Jack. 7
Clerodendrum
cryptophyllum
Turcz7,10
Picrosma quassioides Benn. 7
C. inerme (L.) Gaertn. 7
C. paniculatum L.
Solanaceae
C. phillipinum Schauer f. 7
Solanum americanum Mill. 7
Phyla nodiflora (L.)Greene 1, 7
15
Premna corymbosa (Burm.f.) Rottb. Et Willd. 7
Verbena officinalis L. 7
Vitex negundo L.
Kuhn
V. quinata (lour.) Williams 7, 10
V. rotundifolia L.f. 7
V. trifolia L. 7
Vitaceae
Ampelopsis cantoniensis (Hook. Et Arn.) Planch.
A. heterophylla Sieb. Et Zucc. 7
Spreng.
Caryatia tenuifolia (heyne) Gagnep.
Cissus modeccoides Planch. 10
Tetrastigma yunnanensis Gagnep.
Vtlis pentagona Diels et Gilg
LILIOPSIDA
Araceae
Back
Acorus gramineus Sol. 7
Amorphophallus tonkinensis Engl. Et Gehrm
Pothos chinensis (Raf.) Merr.
P. repens (Lour.) Druce 7
16
C. khoi T.V. Egorova et Aver.
C. leucochlora Buge
Cyperus radians Nees et Mey. ex
C. rotundus L. 7
Eleocharis geniculata (L.) Roem.
et Schult.
Fimbristylis cymosa R.Br.
F. ferruginea (L.) Vahl
Gahnia tristis Nees
Hypolystrum
nemorum
(Vahl)
Scleria ciliaris Nees
Dracaenaceae
Dracaena gracilis Wall. Et Hook. F.
Hemodoraceae
Liriope spicuta Lour. 7
Ophiopogon caulescens
(Blume)
O. latifolius Rodr.
O. reptans Hook.f.
Hydrocharitaceae
94
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Arecaceae
[Calamus platyacanthoides Merr.]
C. platyacanthus Warb. Ex Becc.
C. tetradactylus Hance
C. tonkinensis Becc.
Merr
Daemonorops pierreanus Becc.
Licuala spinosa Wurmb.
(Roxb.
L. tonkinensis Becc. 9
[Livistona cochinchinensis Matt.]
Phoenix hanceana Naudin 9, 10
Rhapis excelsa (Thunb.) Henry ex Rehd. 9
Commelinaceae
Commelina communis L. 7
C. diffusa Burm. F.
Pollia thyrsiflora (Blume) Endl. Et Hassk.
9
Cyperaceae
Bulbostylis barbata (Rottb.) C.B. Clarke 11
Hook.F 9
B. densa (Wall.) Hand.-Mazz.
Carex anomocarya Nelmes
Halophila beccari Aschers.
H. ovalis (R.Br.) Hook.f.
Liliaceae
Asparagus cochinchinensis (Lour.)
Chlorophytum laxum R.Br.
[Crinum asiaticum var. sinicum
ex herb.) Baker
Dianella ensifolia (L.)DC.
Marantaceae
Phyrium capitatum Willd.
P. placantarium (Lour.) Merr.
Orchidaceae
Calanthe triplicata (Willem.) Ames
Cymbidium dayanum Rchb.f. 9
Liparis nervosa (Thunb.) Lindl.
Pholidota imbricata Roxb.
Et
Tainia hongkongensis Rolfe
Tropidia curculigoides Lindl.
C. cruciata Wahlb. 3, 10
C. cryplochys Brongn.
17
Pandanaceae
Pandanus horizontalis John
P. tonkinensis martelli ex. Stone
Poaceae
[Bambusa cersissima Mc Clure]
Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. 11
Dactylocnetium aegypiacum (L.) Willd. 11
Digitaria setigera Roth. Ex Roem et Schult.
Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. 7, 11
Erianthus arundinaceus (Retz.) Jesweiel.
Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv. 7, 12
[Indosasa sat (Balansa) Nguyen]
lophatherum gracile Brongn. 7
Miscanthus floridulus (Labill.) Warb.
Neohouzeaua dullooa (Gamble) A. Camus
Panicum repens L. 7, 11
P. sarmentosum Roxb. 11
Setaria palmifolia (Koen.) Slapf. 11
Thysanolaena maxima (Roxb.) Kutze 7
Zoysia matrella (L.) Merr.
Smilacaceae
95
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Heterosmilax gaudicaudiana (Kunth.) Maxim.
Smilax corbularia Kunth
S. glabra Roxb. 7
S. perfoliata Lour. 7
S. synandra Gagnep.
Xyridaceae
Xyris pauciflora Willd. 11
Zannichelliaceae
Cymodocea isoetifolia Asch.
Zingiberaceae
Alpinia chinensis (Retz.) Rosc. 7
A. globosa (Lour.) Horaninov 7
Curcuma stenochila Gagnep.
Hedychium villosum Wall.
96
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
APPENDIX 2: VEGETATION DATA COLLECTED BY FRONTIERVIETNAM: BAI TU LONG BAY NATIONAL PARK, 2002
B.A. refers to Basal Area of wood
DBH refers to Diameter at Breast Height (1.3m)
FPA:
No.
Family
No. Genera
No. Trees
B.A. (m2 ha-1)
B.A. (% of total)
Mean DBH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Fagaceae
Magnoliaceae
Elaeocarpaceae
Fabaceae
Lauraceae
Euphorbiaceae
Dilleniaceae
Clusiaceae
Mimosaceae
Araliaceae
Theaceae
Sapindaceae
Ulmaceae
Sterculiaceae
Rubiaceae
Buseraceae
Sapotaceae
Tiliaceae
Actinidiaceae
3
2
1
3
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
80
23
16
55
36
16
10
19
20
1
5
7
8
2
3
1
2
1
1
5.46
3.77
3.31
2.65
2.20
0.91
0.81
0.80
0.68
0.54
0.47
0.41
0.25
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.02
24.30
16.76
14.74
11.78
9.79
4.04
3.58
3.56
3.03
2.40
2.07
1.82
1.10
0.30
0.24
0.21
0.12
0.09
0.07
12.1
18.0
24.4
10.8
11.3
10.5
11.1
11.0
9.9
41.5
15.5
11.8
9.13
8.3
7.5
12.6
6.6
7.8
7.5
TOTAL
29
306
22.49
100
12.36
No.
Family
No. Genera
No. Trees
B.A. (m2 ha-1)
B.A. (% of total)
Mean DBH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Myrtaceae
Theaceae
Sapotaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Clusiaceae
Lauraceae
Moraceae
Dilleniaceae
Rutaceae
Annonaceae
Elaeocarpaceae
Rubiaceae
Fagaceae
Myristicaceae
Ebenaceae
Simarubiaceae
Loganiaceae
Myrsinaceae
Sterculiaceae
Sapindaceae
Ochnaceae
Araliaceae
Melastomaceae
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
81
10
43
40
36
37
42
9
6
11
3
8
5
9
10
8
4
6
4
1
2
1
1
9.92
3.33
3.28
2.00
1.91
1.58
1.26
0.84
0.53
0.46
0.41
0.32
0.29
0.28
0.24
0.18
0.14
0.13
0.09
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.02
36.29
12.17
12.01
7.32
6.98
5.79
4.62
3.07
1.95
1.67
1.49
1.18
1.04
1.04
0.86
0.67
0.50
0.46
0.34
0.20
0.13
0.13
0.07
14.7
26.6
12.4
10.1
11.7
10.8
8.5
15.7
15.0
10.3
20.1
9.9
10.9
9.8
8.5
7.9
10.3
7.9
8.1
13.3
7.6
10.8
7.9
TOTAL
30
377
27.34
100
12.03
FPB:
97
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
FPC:
No.
Family
No. Genera
No. Trees
B.A. (m2 ha-1)
B.A. (% of total)
Mean DBH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Fagaceae
Sapotaceae
Myrtaceae
Lauraceae
Clusiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Fabaceae
Loganiaceae
Moraceae
Symplocaceae
Myrsinaceae
Melastomaceae
Simarubiaceae
Rubiaceae
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
66
85
52
27
10
16
11
11
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
14.91
6.03
4.52
1.19
0.90
0.55
0.35
0.33
0.15
0.12
0.08
0.08
0.04
0.03
0.02
50.90
20.59
15.45
4.07
3.07
1.88
1.18
1.13
0.52
0.40
0.26
0.27
0.14
0.09
0.05
19.2
11.3
13.0
9.8
14.0
9.3
8.9
9.0
21.9
6.6
11.0
8.7
11.2
6.3
6.9
TOTAL
15
289
29.29
100
13.1
Dipterocarpaceae
FPD:
No.
Family
No. Genera
No. Trees
B.A.(m2 ha-1)
B.A. (% of total)
Mean DBH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Fagaceae
Myrtaceae
Theaceae
Lauraceae
Euphorbiaceae
Ulmaceae
Fabaceae
Clusiaceae
Sapotaceae
Rubiaceae
Dilleniaceae
Anacardiaceae
Magnoliaceae
Symplocaceae
Rutaceae
Araliaceae
Loganiaceae
Myrsinaceae
Annonaceae
Icacinaceae
Flacourtiaceae
Verbenaceae
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
32
98
19
25
43
12
2
15
8
8
4
1
4
5
4
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
6.68
6.30
2.67
1.11
1.05
0.65
0.47
0.40
0.36
0.18
0.18
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.01
32.17
30.34
12.87
5.34
5.05
3.11
2.25
1.93
1.75
0.85
0.84
0.63
0.56
0.54
0.41
0.40
0.26
0.26
0.22
0.10
0.08
0.04
23.2
12.2
17.3
10.6
8.4
12.5
10.4
8.7
8.2
7.8
11.1
9.6
8.3
8.2
10.6
16.5
9.3
8.9
8.5
7.7
7.0
5.0
TOTAL
29
290
20.77
100
12.3
No
Family
No. Genera
No. Trees
B.A.(m2 ha-1)
B.A. (% of total)
Mean DBH
1
2
3
4
5
Euphorbiaceae
6
1
1
3
2
118
5
12
47
11
3.18
2.88
2.48
1.70
1.15
21.98
19.91
17.17
11.74
7.97
8.7
34.0
21.5
9.6
14.0
FPE:
Elaeocarpaceae
Ulmaceae
Lauraceae
Fabaceae
98
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Myrtaceae
Meliaceae
Rubiaceae
Tiliaceae
Sapotaceae
Dilleniaceae
Clusiaceae
Theaceae
Symplocaceae
Annonaceae
Rutaceae
Moraceae
Magnoliaceae
Icacinaceae
Anacardiaceae
Fagaceae
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
14
7
3
3
4
3
4
2
3
5
3
2
7
1
1
1
0.92
0.51
0.31
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.15
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.01
6.40
3.54
2.16
1.55
1.38
1.25
1.05
0.69
0.66
0.66
0.53
0.53
0.33
0.28
0.14
0.08
11.9
13.6
16.4
9.1
10.1
13.1
10.6
11.4
10.0
14.0
8.9
10.4
8.6
11.1
8.0
6.1
TOTAL
31
256
14.48
100
10.83
No.
Family
No. Genera
No. Trees
B.A.(m2 ha-1)
B.A. (% of total)
Mean DBH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Euphorbiaceae
Myrtaceae
Fagaceae
Lauraceae
Dilleniaceae
Sapotaceae
Symplocaceae
Loganiaceae
Magnoliaceae
Ulmaceae
Junglandaceae
Icacinaceae
Meliaceae
Clusiaceae
Rubiaceae
Fabaceae
Rutaceae
Elaeocarpaceae
Annonaceae
Myristicaceae
Myrsinaceae
Theaceae
Illiaceae
Buseraceae
Proteaceae
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
184
93
27
71
10
19
11
18
13
13
1
8
7
5
4
1
7
2
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
5.95
5.19
4.23
2.42
0.82
0.82
0.63
0.61
0.60
0.48
0.31
0.30
0.21
0.15
0.15
0.12
0.12
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
25.45
22.21
18.09
10.37
3.52
3.49
2.68
2.62
2.58
2.04
1.34
1.27
0.92
0.66
0.65
0.53
0.53
0.22
0.21
0.19
0.16
0.09
0.07
0.07
0.05
9.1
6.3
19.5
9.9
14.4
10.3
11.4
9.9
9.6
9.5
31.6
10.4
8.7
9.6
10.8
14.0
9.5
8.7
7.2
12.0
6.3
7.7
7.3
6.7
6.5
TOTAL
27
505
23.36
100
10.43
No.
Family
No. Genera
No. Trees
B.A.(m2 ha-1)
B.A. (% of total)
Mean DBH
1
2
3
4
5
6
Elaeocarpaceae
Moraceae
Meliaceae
Fabaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Clusiaceae
1
2
2
3
5
3
12
97
24
14
23
19
7.62
5.31
4.24
3.04
1.13
0.80
29.96
20.88
16.65
11.97
4.43
3.15
32.2
10.3
15.6
17.1
10.9
10.4
FPF:
FPG:
99
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Magnoliaceae
Lauraceae
Sterculiaceae
Actinidiaceae
Sapindaceae
Rubiaceae
Myrsinaceae
Annonaceae
Myristicaceae
Fagaceae
Anacardiaceae
Dilleniaceae
Proteaceae
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
9
12
9
7
8
8
6
1
4
2
1
1
0.77
0.70
0.42
0.35
0.23
0.22
0.17
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.02
0.02
3.04
2.74
1.65
1.36
0.91
0.85
0.68
0.50
0.42
0.37
0.33
0.06
0.06
10.2
13.3
9.7
10.1
10.1
8.6
8.2
8.1
18.5
8.4
11.1
7.0
7.0
TOTAL
31
272
25.44
100
12.1
No.
Family
No. Genera
No. Trees
B.A. (m2 ha-1)
B.A. (% of total)
Mean DBH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fabaceae
Elaeocarpaceae
Moraceae
Lauraceae
Meliaceae
Sapindaceae
Rubiaceae
Fagaceae
Sterculiaceae
Magnoliaceae
Dilleniaceae
Clusiaceae
Annonaceae
Theaceae
Myristicaceae
Actinidiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Anacardiaceae
2
1
2
3
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
50
10
52
13
17
10
16
29
8
10
2
4
3
1
3
3
2
1
17.36
11.70
4.72
2.00
1.24
1.10
0.63
0.58
0.47
0.43
0.27
0.24
0.12
0.11
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.02
42.15
28.40
11.47
4.85
3.01
2.66
1.52
1.42
1.14
1.04
0.66
0.58
0.30
0.27
0.19
0.16
0.13
0.05
22.3
41.8
13.3
14.1
12.7
15.9
10.4
7.8
11.5
9.7
18.1
13.1
10.2
19.0
9.0
8.3
9.0
8.2
TOTAL
25
234
41.19
100
15.7
No.
Family
No. Genera
No. Trees
B.A. (m2 ha-1)
B.A. (% of total)
Mean DBH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Annonaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Lauraceae
Anacardiaceae
Meliaceae
Tiliaceae
Moraceae
Ebenaceae
Sapindaceae
Myrtaceae
Apocynaceae
Sterculiaceae
Rutaceae
Verbenaceae
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
53
14
4
1
23
7
27
7
5
2
3
3
1
1
5.796
4.284
3.184
2.164
1.944
1.596
1.248
1.132
0.744
0.276
0.228
0.148
0.028
0.016
25.43
18.80
13.97
9.50
8.53
7.00
5.48
4.97
3.26
1.21
1.00
0.65
0.12
0.07
12.89
27.03
37.58
83.00
13.95
23.27
10.72
15.55
18.02
10.15
13.90
11.97
9.5
6.8
TOTAL
15
151
22.78
100
21.02
FPH:
FPI:
100
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
FPJ:
No.
Family
No. Genera
No. Trees
B.A. (m2 ha-1)
B.A. (% of total)
Mean DBH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Fagaceae
Dipterocarpaceae
Myrtaceae
Theaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Loganiaceae
Junglandaceae
Simarubiaceae
Fabaceae
Moraceae
Myrsinaceae
Clusiaceae
Anacardiaceae
Ulmaceae
Elaeocarpaceae
Lauraceae
Flacourtiaceae
Rubiaceae
Symplocaceae
Sapotaceae
Ebenaceae
Aquifoliaceae
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
127
88
60
21
23
12
6
13
11
3
11
3
3
2
5
4
3
1
2
1
1
1
8.33
2.93
2.28
1.82
1.22
0.69
0.51
0.39
0.35
0.27
0.27
0.24
0.22
0.22
0.20
0.20
0.15
0.05
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
40.82
14.36
11.19
8.93
5.97
3.39
2.50
1.92
1.72
1.33
1.31
1.15
1.08
1.06
0.96
0.96
0.73
0.25
0.19
0.06
0.06
0.06
12.7
9.6
9.9
14.7
10.8
12.3
14.5
9.2
9.8
14.5
8.5
13.0
15.1
16.2
10.1
10.5
12.1
13.0
7.7
6.4
6.2
6.4
TOTAL
26
401
20.42
11.2
No
Family
No. Genera
No. Trees
B.A. (m2 ha-1)
B.A. (% of total)
Mean DBH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
Euphorbiaceae
Fagaceae
Elaeocarpaceae
Fabaceae
Dipterocarpaceae
Lauraceae
Anacardiaceae
Clusiaceae
Sterculiaceae
Meliaceae
Magnoliaceae
Junglandaceae
Myrtaceae
Tiliaceae
Apocynaceae
Verbenaceae
Dilleniaceae
Myrsinaceae
4
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
28
44
14
28
18
22
10
34
10
18
16
4
17
9
1
3
2
1
1.84
1.49
1.35
1.27
1.25
1.08
0.91
0.90
0.67
0.61
0.56
0.42
0.39
0.39
0.14
0.10
0.05
0.02
13.70
11.09
10.03
9.46
9.27
8.03
6.77
6.69
4.99
4.56
4.18
3.14
2.92
2.91
1.03
0.72
0.37
0.12
11.9
9.6
13.7
10.3
13.2
11.1
13.5
8.6
12.5
9.6
10.0
14.0
8.4
10.3
13.6
10.1
8.9
7.1
TOTAL
29
279
13.43
100
10.74
No.
Family
No. Genera
No. Trees
B.A. (m2 ha-1)
B.A. (% of total)
Mean DBH
1
2
3
Myrtaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Elaeocarpaceae
1
2
1
45
100
10
6.63
4.40
3.15
27.61
18.31
13.11
16.9
10.4
26.3
20.42
FPK:
FPL:
101
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Lauraceae
Theaceae
Moraceae
Fagaceae
Dilleniaceae
Sapotaceae
Rubiaceae
Aquifoliaceae
Dipterocarpaceae
Symplocaceae
Meliaceae
Magnoliaceae
Loganiaceae
Flacourtiaceae
Annonaceae
Myristicaceae
Myrsinaceae
Buceraceae
Ebenaceae
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
27
3
3
7
4
5
5
1
3
3
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3.13
2.73
1.07
0.70
0.65
0.35
0.27
0.24
0.15
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
13.04
11.38
4.45
2.92
2.70
1.44
1.10
0.98
0.60
0.49
0.48
0.40
0.40
0.22
0.10
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.05
16.3
50.1
20.7
14.6
20.1
13.3
11.3
27.4
11.1
9.4
8.2
17.3
17.4
13.0
8.8
8.0
7.4
7.4
6.2
TOTAL
25
238
24.00
100
14.13
FPM:
No.
Family
No. Genera
No. Trees
B.A.(m2 ha-1)
B.A. (% of total)
Mean DBH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fabaceae
Moraceae
Apocynaceae
Lauraceae
Sapindaceae
Fagaceae
Sterculiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Araliaceae
Myrtaceae
Magnoliaceae
Junglandaceae
Annonaceae
Meliaceae
Actinidiaceae
Rubiaceae
Clusiaceae
Dipterocarpaceae
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
27
34
5
6
3
4
3
7
4
4
2
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
10.89
5.31
4.44
2.35
1.58
1.04
0.66
0.44
0.36
0.35
0.35
0.26
0.22
0.19
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
38.69
18.87
15.77
8.35
5.62
3.68
2.33
1.54
1.26
1.25
1.23
0.92
0.78
0.66
0.16
0.09
0.07
0.06
28.3
18.9
25.5
22.5
29.9
24.7
26.0
13.1
13.8
14.1
23.0
11.4
13.3
11.4
8.3
8.6
8.0
7.5
TOTAL
24
113
28.53
100
20.58
No.
Family
No. Genera
No. Trees
B.A. (m2 ha-1)
B.A. (% of total)
Mean DBH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Moraceae
Magnoliaceae
Elaeocarpaceae
Sapindaceae
Dipterocarpaceae
Lythraceae
Myrtaceae
Dilleniaceae
Fagaceae
Sterculiaceae
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
125
29
19
27
11
15
21
17
13
6
7.36
6.68
5.98
3.74
2.54
1.58
1.28
1.00
0.76
0.61
22.46
20.41
18.25
11.42
7.76
4.82
3.91
3.05
2.31
1.86
11.2
20.9
29.5
18.8
26.4
16.5
11.0
11.3
11.0
15.3
FPN:
102
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
11
12
13
14
Lauraceae
Euphorbiaceae
Rubiaceae
Meliaceae
1
1
1
1
6
4
4
2
0.55
0.52
0.11
0.05
1.68
1.59
0.32
0.15
14.9
19.8
9.1
8.9
TOTAL
15
299
32.75
100
14.68
103
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
APPENDIX 4: SPECIES LIST RECORDED FROM BAI TU LONG BAY
NATIONAL PARK, JAN-DEC 2002 (FRONTIER-VIETNAM)
Hawkmoths (Sphingidae)
Key:
NL
=
Not listed in Kitching and Spitzer (1995).
AYR =
All year round
All records listed are preliminary identifications only.
No.
Species
Month
Jan- AprMar Jul
?
AugSept
?
?
OctDec
?
1
2
Agrius convolvuli (L.)
Acherontia lachesis (Fabricius)
3
4
Meganoton rufescens thielei (Huwe)
Psilogramma increta (Walker)
5
Amplypterus panopus panopus (Cramer)
6
Ambulyx liturata (Butler)
7
Clanis titan (Rothschild & Jordan)
8
9
Daphnusa ocellaris (Walker)
Marimba cristata cristata (Rothschild)
10
Marumba dyras dyras (Walker)
?
?
11
Marumba juvencus (Rothschild & Jordan)
?
?
12
13
Daphnis hypothous hypothous (Cramer)
Acosmericoides leucocraspis (Hampson)
14
16
Acosmeryx
shervillii
(Boisduval)
(=
pseudonaga (Butler))
Acosmeryx anceus subdentata (Rothschild &
Jordan)
Acosmeryx sericeus (Walker)
17
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Acosmeryx pseudomissa (Mell)
?
?
18
19
Angonyx testacea testacea (Boisduval)
Macroglossum semifasciata (Hampson)
?
?
20
Hippotion boerhaviae (Fabricius)
?
21
Pergesa acteus (Cramer)
?
?
22
23
24
25
26
Theretra silhetensis silhetensis (Walker)
Theretra nessus (Drury)
Theretra boisduvalii (Bugnion)
Theretra latreillii lucasii (Walker)
Theretra
oldenlandiae
oldenlandiae
(Fabricius)
Theretra clotho clotho (Drury)
?
?
?
?
?
?
15
27
?
?
?
?
?
?
AYR
Almost
AYR
April
Almost
AYR
Almost
AYR
Sept.Dec.
Mar.Sept.
AYR
Mar.Nov.
Mar.Nov.
Jul.Sept.
AYR
Feb.Sept.
Almost
AYR
AYR
Notes
NL
NL
Feb.Dec.
Feb.Mar.
AYR
?
?
Adult
period
AprMay
Jul-Nov
Almost
AYR
Mar.Dec.
AYR
AYR
AYR
AYR
AYR
AYR
104
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
28
Theretra suffusa (Walker)
?
29
30
31
32
33
Rhagastis hayesi (Diehl)
Rhagastis sp. 2
Rhagastis sp. 3
Cechenena helops helops (Walker)
Cechenena minor (Butler)
?
?
?
?
?
?
Mar,
May,
Jul-Oct.
Oct.
NL
AYR
Mar.Oct.
105
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
APPENDIX 5: LIST OF BIRD SPECIES RECORDED FROM BAI TU LONG
BAY NATIONAL PARK, 2002: FRONTIER-VIETNAM
Habitat:
records.
AG
=
Agriculture.
Abundance: Rare
=
1
-
2
SC
=
Scrub & Forest edge.
Occasional
=
3 -
FO
=
Forest.
Common
=
9 +
WT
=
Waterside habitat.
8 records.
records.
Notes:
Status:
AR
D, C
RE
Res
=
=
=
=
Altitude reduction from that stated in Robson (2000).
Identified from specimen observed dead or captured.
Range extension from that stated in Robson (2000).
Resident in East Tonkin.
}VN = endemic to
PM
=
Migrant.
V
=
Vagrant
Vietnam
2 = CITES appendix 2
listed
IUCN
categories:
WV
SPECIES
Winter visitor
Habitat
AG
Phasianidae:
pheasants,
partridges, quails
Bar
backed
partridge
(Arborophila brunneopectus)
Anatidae: ducks and geese
Gargeney (Anas quercuedula)
Picidae: woodpeckers
Eurasian
wryneck
(Jynx
torquilla)
Bay woodpecker (Blythipicus
pyrrhotis)
Megalaimidae: Barbets
Green
eared
barbet
(Megalaima faiostricta)
Bucerotidae: hornbills
Oriental
pied
hornbill
(Anthracoceros albirostris)
Alcedinidae
:
Smaller
Kingfishers
Common Kingfisher (Alcedo
atthis)
Halcyonidae:
Larger
kingfishers
White throated kingfisher
(Halcyon smyrnensis)
Black-capped
kingfisher
(Halcyon pileata )
Cerylidae: Pied kingfishers
Pied kingfisher (Ceryle rudis)
Cuculidae: Drongo cuckoo
Plaintive cuckoo (Cacomantis
merulinus)
Drongo cuckoo (Surniculus
=
SC
FO
Abundance
Res
R
Notes
Location
WT
*
*
Status
BM
WV
FIPI
WV
FIPI
Res
FIPI
*
Res
O
*
Res
C
+ FIPI
BM, TN
Res/WV
O
+ FIPI
BM, MC
Res
R
+ FIPI
MC
*
PM/WV
R
MC
*
Res
R
MC
*
*
Res
*
Res
BS, MC
FIPI
R
BS
106
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
lugubris)
Centropodidae : Coucals
Greater coucal (Centropus
sinensis)
Lesser coucal (Centropus
bengalensis)
Apodidae: swifts
Fork tailed swift (Apus
pacificus)
Strigidae : Typical Owls
Brown hawk owl (Ninox
scutulata)
Caprimulgidae:
Typical
nightjars
Large-tailed
nightjar
(Caprimulgus macrurus)
Columbidae: Pigeons and
doves
Spotted dove (Streptopelia
chinensis)
Red
collared
dove
(Streptopelia tranquebarica)
Emerald dove (Chalcophaps
indica)
White-bellied green pigeon
(Treron sieboldii)
Rallidae:
Rails,
coots,
gallinules
Slaty breasted rail (Gallirallus
striatus)
White-breasted
waterhen
(Amaurornis phoenicurus)
Ruddy breasted crake (Porzana
fusca)
Watercock (Gallicrex cinerea)
Scolopacidae
Scolopacinae:
Woodcocks
and snipes
Eurasian woodcock (Scolopax
rusticola )
Common snipe (Gallinago
gallinago)
Tringinae:
Curlews,
sandpipers & allies
Black tailed godwit (Limosa
limosa)
Bar tailed godwit (Limosa
lpponica)
Black-winged
stilt
(Himantopus himantopus)
Whibmrel
(Numenius
phaeopus)
Eurasian curlew (Numenius
arquata )
Common redshank (tringa
tetanus)
Common greenshank (Tringa
nebularia )
Common sandpiper (Actitis
hypoleucos)
Dunlin (Calidris alpina)
Charadriinae: Plovers and
lapwings
*
*
Res
O
+ FIPI
MC
*
Res/WV
R
Confirmation
req’d
MC, BM
PM
*
*
*
FIPI
Res
BM
*
Res
R
Confirmation
req’d
BM
*
Res
R
+ FIPI
BM
*
Res
R
+ FIPI
BS
*
Res
R
*
Res
R
Res,/PM
*
Res
*
BM
AR
FIPI
R
+ FIPI
WV
FIPI
PM
FIPI
WV
BM
R
BS
BM
WV
FIPI:
confirmation
req’d
WV
FIPI
WV/PM
FIPI
FIPI
*
Status
uncertain
WV/PM
R
MC
*
WV
R
BM, MC
WV/PM
FIPI
*
WV/PM
R
MC
*
WV/PM
C
*
WV
O
MC,
BM, BS
MC
107
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Lesser
sand
plover
(Charadrius mongolus)
Pacific
golden
plover
(Pluvialis fulva)
Grey
plover
(Pluvialis
squatorala)
Grey-headed
lapwing
(Vanellus cinereus)
Little
ringed
plover
(Charadrius dubius)
Kentish
plover
(C.
alexandrinus)
Glareolinae: Pratincoles
Oriental pratincole (Glareola
maldivarum)
Laridae: Skuas, gulls & allies
Gull sp. (? Larus heuglini/ L.
ichthyyaetus)
Herring gull (L. argentatus)
Caspian tern (Sterna caspia)
Common tern (S. hirundo)
Accipitridae: Hawks, eagles
and allies
Black kite (Milvus migrans)
White bellied sea eagle
(Haliaetus leucogaster)
Crested
serpent
eagle
(Spilornis cheela)
Crested goshawk (Accipiter
trivirgatus)
Japanese sparrowhawk (A.
gularis)
Common
buzzard
(Buteo
buteo)
Peregrine
falcon
(Falco
peregrinus)
Ardeidae : Egrets, herons,
bitterns
Little egret (Egretta garzetta)
Pacific reef egret (Egretta
sacra)
Grey heron (Ardea cinerea)
Chinese pond heron (Ardeola
bacchus)
Little
heron
(Butorides
striatus)
Cinnamon bittern (Ixobrychus
cinnamomeus)
Black
bittern
(Dupetor
flavicollis)
Laniidae : Shrikes
Long-tailed shrike (Lanius
schach schach)
Corvidae
:
Magpies,
Minivets, Drongos
Subfamily Corvinae
Tribe Corvini; Jays, Magpies,
Crows
Common green magpie (Cissa
chinensis)
Large billed crow (Corvus
macrorhychnos)
*
WV
FIPI
WV/PM
FIPI
WV/PM
O
Confirmation
req’d
FIPI
MC
Confirmation
req’d
MC
WV
*
WV
O
*
PM
O
MC
*
PM
O
MC
*
WV
R
MC
Not
definitely
recorded
WV
WV
*
*
*
*
Res
Res
C
R
*
Res
R
*
Res
O
*
PM
R
*
WV
R
*
WV
R
C + FIPI
(MC)
*
WV
Res
C
FIPI
+ FIPI
All
*
WV
Res
O
FIPI
+ FIPI
TN
*
*
*
FIPI:
confirmation
req’d
FIPI
FIPI
*
+ FIPI
All
MC
BS
Confirmation
req’d
+ FIPI
BM
BM
BS
Res
FIPI
Res
FIPI
Status
uncertain
FIPI
Res
O
+ FIPI
MC
Res
R
BS
Res
C
MC, BM
108
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
Oriolini: Orioles
Black-naped oriole (Oriolus
chinensis)
Subfamily Dicrurinae
Tribe Rhiphidurini: Fantials
White
throated
fantail
(Rhiphidura albicollis)
Tribe Dicrurini: Drongos
Ashy
Drongo
(Dicrurus
leucophaeus leucogenis)
Black
drongo
(D.
macrocercus)
Spangled
drongo
(D.
hottenttotus)
Muscicapidae: Thrushes
Subfamily Turdinae: Thrushes
Chesnut bellied rock thrush
(Monticola rufiventris)
Blue Rock thrush (Monticola
solitarius)
Grey backed thrush (Turdus
hortulorum)
Black breasted thrush (Turdus
dissimilis)
Japanese
thrush
(Turdus
cardis)
Eurasian blackbird (Turdus
merula)
Chinese
thrush
(Turdus
mupinensis)
Subfamily
Muscicapinae:
Flycatchers
Asian
brown
flycatcher
(Muscicapa dauurica)
Red
throated
flycatcher
(Ficedula parva)
Hainan
blue
flycatcher
(Cyornis hainanus)
Grey- headed canary flycatcher
(Culicicapa ceylonensis)
Tribe saxicolini: Robins, Chats
Japanese robin (Erithacus
akahige)
Rufous tailed robin (Luscinia
sibilans)
Orange-flanked bush robin
(Tarsiger cyanurus)
Oriental
Magpie
Robin
(Copsychus saularis)
White
rumped
shama
(Copsychus malabaricus)
Common stonechat (Saxicola
torquata)
Grey bushchat (S. ferrea)
Sturnidae : Starlings, Mynas
Red-billed starling (Sturnus
sericeus)
White shouldered starling (S.
sinensis)
Crested Myna (Acridotheres
cristatellus)
Paridae : Tits
Great Tit (Parus major)
Hirundinidae: matrins and
WV/PM
*
FIPI
*
Res
O
*
Res
O
*
Res
O
Res
*
*
BM, TN
R
BM
*
Res
O
MC
*
WV
R
BM
*
WV
R
*
WV
R
*
WV/PM
R
*
V
R
AR
MC
MC
+ FIPI
SN
BM
FIPI
*
WV/V
R
*
Res/PM
R
Res
R
BM
*
WV/V
R
MC
*
WV
R
BM
WV/PM
O
BM
Res
C
Res
O
BM,
MC, BS
MC, BS
*
Res/WV
R
MC
*
WV
R
MC
*
WV
O
*
*
*
*
*
Res
*
+ FIPI
R
*
*
BM
*
*
*
SN, TN
FIPI
WV/PM
*
+ FIPI
*
*
*
BM, SN
D
+ FIPI
+ FIPI
BM
MC
FIPI
Res
C
MC
Res
O
MC, BM
109
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
swallows
Barn
swallow
(Hirundo
rustica)
Pycnonotidae : Bulbuls
Red-whiskered
Bulbul
(Pycnonotus jocosus)
Black
crested
bulbul
(Pycnonotus melanicterus)
Light vented bulbul (P.
sinensis)
Puff-throated
Bulbul
(Alophoixus pallidus)
Ochraceous bulbul (Criniger
ochraceus)
Cisticolidae:
Cisticolas,
prinias & allies
Zitting cisticola (Cisticola
juncidis)
Zosteropidae: White eyes
Chesnut flanked white eye
(Zosterops erythropleurus)
Sylviidae: Warblers and
babblers
Subfamily
Atrocephalinae:
Warblers
Asian stubtail (Urosphena
sqameiceps)
Oriental
reed
warbler
(Acrocephalus orientalis)
Common
Tailorbird
(Orthotomus sutorius)
Dark-necked
Tailorbird
(Orthotomus atrogularis)
Dusky warbler (Phylloscopus
fuscatus)
Yellow-browed warbler (P.
inornatus)
Puff
throated
babbler
(Pellorneum ruficeps)
Streaked
wren
babbler
(Napothera brevicaudata)
Rufous
fronted
babbler
(Stachyris rufifrons)
Striped
Tit
Babbler
(Macronous gularis)
White-bellied Yuhina (Yuhina
zantholeuca)
Alaudidae: larks
Oriental
skylark
(Alauda
gulgula)
Nectariniidae : Sunbirds,
Spiderhunters
Scarlet backed flowerpecker
(Dicaeum cruentatum)
Crimson sunbird (Aethopyga
siparaja)
Passeridae
:
Wagtails,
Weavers, Munias etc
Eurasian tree sparrow (Passer
montanus)
Yellow wagtail (Motacilla
flava)
White
rumped
munia
*
*
Res
O
Res
C
BS
*
Res
O
*
*
Res
C
*
*
Res
C
*
Res
O
TN, MC,
BM
BM,
MC, BS
BM
*
Res
R
BM
WV
O
MC
WV
O
BM
*
*
*
WV/PM
BM
+ FIPI
FIPI
*
Res
C
MC, BM
*
Res
R
MC
*
WV
O
*
WV/PM
R
BM
*
Res
O
BM
*
Res
O
TN, BS
Res
O
BM
*
Res
O
BM
*
Res
C
SN, BM
*
*
*
Res
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
+ FIPI
MC
FIPI
Res
O
MC
Res
C
MC,
BM, SN,
TN
Res
C
WV/PM
*
+ FIPI
*
*
*
BM, SN
Res
+ FIPI
MC
FIPI
O
BM, BS
110
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
(Lonchura striata )
Scaly breasted munia
Little
bunting
(Emberiza
pusilla)
Chesnut bunting (E. rutila)
*
*
Res
WV
O
FIPI
BM
*
*
WV
O
BM
111
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
APPENDIX 6a: LIST OF BAT SPECIES RECORDED FROM BAI TU LONG
BAY NATIONAL PARK JAN-DEC 2002: FRONTIER-VIETNAM
Family/Genus
Species
Common name
Status
IUCN
Phase
Site
RDBV
Pteropodidae
Cynopteris
sphinx
Rhinolophidae
Short-nosed fruit
-
-
Rhinolophus
pearsoni
Rhinolophus
marshalli
Rhinolophus
affinis
Hipposideridae
Pearson’s
Marshall’s
1,2
2
3
2,5,6,8
7
9
3
2
1,2
2,3
2
1,2,3
10
5
3,5,8
5,6,8,11
6
2,5,6,9
1,3
2
2
2,3,9
8
7
3
9
Hipposideros
fulvus
Hipposideros
armiger
Hipposideros
bicolor
Hipposideros
larvatus
Hipposideros
turpis
subsp.
Aselliscus
stoliczkanus
Vespertillionidae
Myotis
siligarensis
Murina
cyclotis
Murina
huttoni
Emballonuridae
Taphozous
melanopogon
Himalayan leafBicoloured
Intermediate
Lesser leaf-nosed
Stolicza’s trident
LR/nt
EN
Small-toothed
Round-eared
LR/nt
Black-bearded
112
Frontier-Vietnam Environmental Research: Report 26
APPENDIX 6b: LIST OF NON-VOLANT MAMMALS RECORDED AT BAI
TU LONG BAY NATIONAL PARK, 2002: FRONTIER-VIETNAM.
No
Species
Source
O Ps
I
H
Sn
S
T
Status
IUCN
RDBV
Con.
PHOLIDOTA
1
Manis pentadactyla
LR/nt
V
2
INSECTIVORA
2
Crocidura fuliginosa
3
PRIMATES
3
LR/nt
Macaca mulatta
2
CARNIVORA
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Ursus thibetanus
Melogale moschata
Lutra lutra
Viverra zibetha
Viverricula indica
tr, sc
VU
E
VU
V
1
2
2
?sc
Paradoxurus hermaphroditus
Herpestes urva
Prionailurus bengalensis
?sc
2
tr
3
1
3
ARTIODACTYLA
12
13
14
Sus scrofa
Cervus unicolor
Muntiacus muntjak
V
RODENTIA
15
16
17
18
19
20
R
Ratufa bicolor
Callosciurus erythraeus
Niviventer sp.
Rattus rattus
Rattus flavipectus
Atherurus macrourus
Source Codes:
O = Observed in wild
I = Interview
2
2
3
3
2
3
Confidence score:
0 = out of range
1 = unconfirmed
and
unsure
H = Trapped by Hunter
2 = unconfirmed but confident
Sn = Specimen
3 = confirmed and certain
S = Signs: (sc) = scat, (br) = browse, (sk) = skull, (tr) = tracks.
T = Trapped but no specimen taken
Ps= Previous survey (FIPI 2000)
113