FAUNA & FLORA INTERNATIONAL (INDOCHINA PROGRAMME)

NA HANG
RAINFOREST CONSERVATION PROJECT

Ramesh Boonratana, Ph.D.

Hanoi, January 1999.
This report is published by Fauna & Flora International (Indochina Programme) with funding
from IUCN (Netherlands).

Copyright: (1999) Fauna & Flora International (Indochina Programme)

Reproduction of this publication for educational, conservation and

other non-profit purposes is authorized without prior permission from
the copyright holder, provided the source is cited and the copyright
holder receives a copy of the reproduced material.

Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited

without prior written permission of the copyright holder.

Citation: Boonratana, R. 1998. Na Hang Rainforest Conservation Project. FFI

(Indochina Programme), Hanoi.

Report layout by: Stephen A. Reynolds, Fauna & Flora International (Indochina
Programme), Hanoi, SR of Vietnam.

The presentation of material in this report does not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of Fauna & Flora International and the funding agency, IUCN
(Netherlands), but wholly that of the author’s. Also, the author takes no responsibility
whatsoever of any misrepresentation of material that may result from the translation of this
report into any other language.
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Na Hang Nature Reserve, located in northern Vietnam, is currently the only known protected
area with extant populations of the extremely rare, critically endangered, endemic Tonkin
snub-nosed monkey (Rhinopithecus [Presbyticus] avunculus). Like many other protected areas
in the region, there are many people living in the Na Hang Nature Reserve or adjoining it,
carrying out subsistence cultivation and harvesting a wide range of forest products, which is
currently neither sustainable nor complementary to the reserve’s long-term objectives.

The Na Hang Rainforest Conservation Project was designed with the primary objective of
strengthening the management and protection of Na Hang Nature Reserve through data
gathering and capacity building. Basic data gathered on wildlife, habitat and local
communities, aims at providing essential background information towards a planned
integrated conservation and development programme for the area, and towards producing a
document that can be a management tool for the reserve authorities as well as a basis for
future conservation activities in the reserve.

The information gathering process, closely linked to the building of institutional capacity, was
achieved through a five-day classroom training and a nine-week ‘on-the-job’ training in the
field. Participants included staff from the reserve, the district forest enterprise, and members of
the surrounding local communities. Training was designed to equip the participants with basic
but important skills and experience for activities related to protected area management. These
included imparting knowledge on the basics of conservation, map reading and compass use,
wildlife and human impact surveys, camping and field equipment, note taking and recording
techniques, and report-writing.

Intensive and extensive surveys covering a total distance of 1,522 km of trails in

approximately 3,808 work hours resulted in one new reptile record (Pyxidea mouhotii), nine
new bird records (Aborophila cambodiana, Aborophila rufogularis, Porzana fusca, Culicicapa
ceylonensis, Criniger ochraceous, Oriolus chinensis, Phylloscopus trochiloides, Lanius
collurioides and Mycerobas melanozanthos), and one new mammal record (Viverra
taingyensis), for the Na Hang Nature Reserve. Thus, making the list of wildlife recorded in the
reserve to currently comprise 90 mammals, 247 birds, 61 reptiles, and 20 amphibians. Of
particular significance was confirming the continued presence of the Tonkin snub-nosed
monkey in both sectors of the reserve. Compared to five years ago, the abundance of wildlife
is relatively lower, even though there has been a reduction of human impacts on the habitat
and wildlife. The forests have, however, regenerated in some places.
Socio-economic surveys have shown that more than two-thirds of the communities residing in
and adjacent to the reserve are still living in poverty, and much of their subsistence are
dependent on shifting cultivation and harvesting forest products. The main problems identified
were the lack of suitable agricultural lands, and shortage of water for double rice-crop
cultivation. Extension assistance is deemed necessary to prevent further loss of natural
resources and biodiversity. Assistance should aim at providing better alternatives, and should
also be extended to include settlements away from the reserve to prevent migration into the
reserve or close to it.

Findings also show that the boundary and management zones of the reserve need to be
corrected to avoid conflict between the reserve authorities and the stakeholder communities,
and to suit the current needs of the reserve. Existing boundary and management zones are
neither feasible nor practicable. Options to boundary demarcation, and new management
zones are offered based on data gathered and other observations made. These included
defining where the reserve should actually be, designating areas as strict protection zones and
regeneration zones, and introducing the ‘village enclave’ concept. These proposed zones will
allow easier implementation of activities specific to the objectives of each management zone,
and better planning for future activities. Rules and regulations with regard to village enclave
should be developed in consultation with the local communities.

Involvement of the stakeholder communities in decision-making is important towards

producing an effective and sound management plan, and towards a participatory management
of the reserve. Conservation of Na Hang Nature Reserve should be the efforts of all relevant
agencies at the provincial level and in the district, and not solely that of the reserve authorities.
The reserve authorities currently lack the expertise and experience to manage the reserve well.
Thus, capacity building of the reserve staff should be an important component of all future
activities in the reserve, to allow them to carry forward the processes initiated by those
activities. Only then could the staff work towards the long-term protection and conservation of
the reserve’s natural resources, and sustainable development of the communities living in and
adjacent to the reserve.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project funded by IUCN Netherlands, would not have been made possible without the
enthusiastic support from the following persons and the institutions they represent: Mr. Vu
Manh Thang, Vice-chairman, Tuyen Quang People’s Committee; Mr. Le Van Tap, Director,
Tuyen Quang Forest Protection Department; Mr. Nguyen Sang Vang, General Secretary, Na
Hang National Communist Party; Mr. Chau Van Lam, Chairman, Na Hang People’s
Committee; Mr. Le Tien Thang, Director, Na Hang Forest Protection Department; and Mr. Le
Hong Binh, Director, Na Hang Nature Reserve.

Acknowledgments are due to the trainees who not only diligently participated in the training
exercise, but also made my stay in Na Hang memorable. Mr. Dong Thanh Hai deserves special
mention - as a trainee, he made tremendous achievements and progress, and as an assistant, he
gave his time unselfishly to the project until its bound form. Also, many thanks to Ms. Bettina
Martin, Allwetterzoo’s in situ curator, for her assistance (use of vehicle, GPS, etc.). To the
villagers who directly or indirectly contributed to this project by providing information,
accommodation and transporting goods to the various campsites - “cแ m ๓ n nhiu nhiu”. In
particular, the warmth shown by Mr. Quan Ngoc Tuong and Mr. Vi Van Tan of Khau Tinh
Commune, and Mr. Trieu Thi Thuong of Thanh Tuong Commune, will always be cherished.

At Fauna & Flora International (Indochina Programme), my personal thanks to Mr. Joe
Walston, past Programme Manager for inviting me to carry out this project; and programme
officers Mrs. Nguyen Bich Ha and Mr. Stephen A. Reynolds, for untiringly back-stopping me
and this project.

Many sincere thanks to Drs. Viatcheslav V. Rozhnov, Colin Groves, Harry Van Rompaey,
Pham Trong Anh and William Duckworth for the identification of Viverra taignuensis
photographed at the Na Hang Nature Reserve. Reptiles and amphibians photographed during
this project were identified by Mr. Bryan Stuart of Wildlife Conservation Society (Lao PDR).
Painting of the Tonkin snub-nosed monkey for the ‘conservation awareness’ T-shirts was done
by Ms. Emma Johnson of Wildlife Conservation Society (Lao PDR). Maps in this report were
prepared by Mr. Nguyen Huu Trung and Mr. Tran Van Hung of FIPI. Mr. Stephen A.
Reynolds and Mr. Dinh Trong Hai kindly commented on this manuscript.

Ramesh Boonratana, Ph.D.

aka Zimbo
 CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CONTENTS
CHAPTERS
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
1.2. Aims and Objectives
1.3. Activities and Outputs
2. Area Description
2.1. Location
2.2. Topography
2.3. Climate
2.4. Flora
2.5. Fauna
2.6. People
3. Socio-economic Surveys
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Results and Observations
4. Training
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Training/Capacity Building
4.2.1. Classroom Training
4.2.2. On-the-job Training
4.3. Results
4.4. General Assessment
5. Biological Research
5.1. Introduction
5.2. Results
5.2.1. Mammals
5.2.2. Birds
5.2.3. Reptiles and Amphibians
5.2.4. Human/Habitat Impact
6. Mapping & Demarcation
6.1. Introduction
6.2. Reserve Boundaries
6.3. Management Zones
7. Discussions & Recommendations
7.1. Introduction
7.2. Training/Capacity Building
7.3. Socio-economic Situation
7.4. Forest Product Industry
7.5. Conservation of Tonkin Snub-nosed Monkey
7.6. Recommendations
7.6.1. Training & Training Needs
7.6.2. Patrols & Monitoring
7.6.3. Surveys & Research
7.6.4. Reserve Boundaries & Management Zones
7.6.5. Equipment
7.6.6. General
7.7. Conclusions
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
I. Assessment of Trainees' Performance
II. Ethics of Field Surveys and Patrols
III. Locations and Preparation of Camps
IV. List of Field Equipment
V. Wildlife Data Recording Format
VI. Human/Habitat Impact Data Recording Format
VII. List of Mammals Recorded in the Na Hang Nature Reserve
VIII. List of Birds Recorded in the Na Hang Nature Reserve
IX. List of Reptiles Recorded in the Na Hang Nature Reserve
X. List of Amphibians Recorded in the Na Hang Nature Reserve
XI. Project Manager's Itinerary
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND
There are three major components of a successful protected area management: the effective
management of its wildlife, habitat and the people who use it. There are two approaches
towards managing these components; field-based through surveys, monitoring, patrolling, and
law enforcement, and village-based through extension work. Both approaches are
complementary to each other and essential towards the long-term goals of any protected area,
particularly within the Vietnamese context.

Na Hang Nature Reserve, proposed as Na Hang National Park in 1994 (Boonratana & Le,
1998b) is yet to be formally gazetted as a Totally Protected Area. Currently, by designation, it
remains a provincial reserve comprising the Tat Ke and Nam Trang - Ban Bung sectors
following a decree issued in 1994 by the People's Committee of Tuyen Quang Province
(Boonratana & Le, 1998b).

The Na Hang Nature Reserve, in northern Vietnam (figure 1.1) is currently the only protected
area with existing populations of the Tonkin snub-nosed monkey (Rhinopithecus
[Presbytiscus] avunculus). This extremely rare, critically endangered, and endemic monkey
might possibly still exist in Ba Be National Park in the adjoining Bac Can Province, but this is
subject to confirmation (Boonratana & Le, 1994). Once thought extinct, this species was
rediscovered in 1992 (Ratajszczak et al., 1992) and since then has drawn much attention from
the international scientific community. Furthermore, this reserve along with Ba Be National
Park possibly represent two potentially viable protected areas with Tropical Limestone Forests
in Vietnam. The reserve, however, has several ethnic communities living in and around it,
carrying out both permanent and subsistence cultivation, and using a wide range of forest
produce. These activities pose serious threats to the reserve and, in the longer term and
because of the unsustainable manner in which the resources are exploited, might possibly
threatened the livelihoods of those communities themselves.

Since the reserve was established1, there has been little outside assistance and the reserve staff
currently lacks adequate capacity and resources to protect and manage the reserve effectively.
As a result of this, a Fauna & Flora International (Indochina Programme) initiative, funded by
IUCN Netherlands, was designed to strengthen the management and protection of the reserve
primarily through:

1
The year when the reserve was established varied with sources: 1977 in UNDP (1995); 1986 as the Chiem Hoa -
Na Hang Nature Reserve in the UN list of protected areas; 1992 in Dinh (1998); 1995 in Hill et al. (1996).
1. gathering and compiling basic information on the:
• socio-economic status of the local communities;
• current status of the habitat and human impacts on it;
• wildlife in the reserve.
2. training/capacity building of the reserve staff;
3. demarcation of the boundaries of the reserve;
4. making relevant management and conservation recommendations.

Although a UNDP project2 has been planned for the reserve, it has yet to see any
implementation. So, this project not only filled this void, but will also complement and
expedite the UNDP project by providing essential background information, as well as insights
into an integrated conservation and development programme for the reserve and the local
communities. This report synthesizes the different components of this project into a document
that can be a management tool for the reserve authorities as well as a basis for future
conservation activities in the area.

1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

1. To conduct a socio-economic survey of some settlements in and around the Na Hang
Nature Reserve.
2. To train the reserve staff in basic field management techniques.
3. To propose a more feasible and practicable boundary for the reserve.
4. To conduct a survey of human impacts on the reserve.
5. To conduct a general wildlife survey in the reserve with focus on the Tonkin snub-nosed
monkeys.
6. To provide recommendations towards the protection and management of the reserve.

1.3 ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS

• Socio-economic survey: This survey carried out by Vietnamese researchers focused on
the reliance and impact of local populations on the Na Hang Nature Reserve. This survey
resulted in a report in both English and Vietnamese, which included information on areas
of high-impact forest use and suggestions towards the management of the reserve. Overall
information obtained is intended to assist the ‘mapping and demarcation’ component of the
project, and to assist the reserve's authorities in understanding and identifying human-
related issues in regard to the conservation and management of the reserve.
• Biological Research: A study on the current status of the habitat and the impacts of
human use of the area was conducted to identify threats to the reserve. Some wildlife
surveys have previously been conducted in the reserve. Further information has, however,
been gathered as this is one important component in the preparation of a management plan
for the reserve. A study on the Tonkin snub-nosed monkey is an equally important
objective of the project, as this reserve is currently the only known area where the presence
of this extremely rare, critically endangered, endemic species has been confirmed. So, the
wildlife survey was conducted with focus on this primate. Information gathered on the
habitat and wildlife in the Na Hang Nature Reserve with focus on the Tonkin snub-nosed
monkey, including specific management recommendations, is presented in this report.

• Training of Reserve Staff: The Na Hang Nature Reserve staff are responsible for the
protection of the reserve, curtailing illegal activities and maintaining good relations with
local people. An intensive training programme was therefore designed to prepare the
reserve staff for field management activities. Training also covered biological survey
techniques, and increased awareness of the legal status of the reserve, highlighting its
importance. Through this training it is hoped that there will be an increase in the capacity
of the reserve staff to manage and conserve the reserve. Details of the course given and
methodologies learnt, including an overall assessment is presented in this report.

• Mapping and Demarcation of Reserve Boundary: This will enhance the effectiveness of
basic conservation through an exercise in mapping and demarcation of the reserve
boundary, incorporating information gathered from the above three components of this
project. Maps of the reserve with a new proposed zoning system to suit the current needs is
presented in the final report.

• Final Output: Synthesizing the above components into a report that can be a management
tool for the reserve authorities and a basis for future conservation activities in the area. A
wrap-up presentation was also conducted in Na Hang at the end of the project.

2
Initially estimated to start in September 1997 (VIE/95/G31/1G/31), and later estimated to start on October 1,
1998 (VIE/95/G31), but now supposeddly to begin implementation in February 1999.
Figure 1.1: Map of Vietnam and Na Hang Nature Reserve (inset).
 2. AREA DESCRIPTION

2.1 LOCATION
The Na Hang Nature Reserve, comprising two distinct non-contiguous areas (Tat Ke and Nam
Trang - Ban Bung), is located in the Na Hang District of Tuyen Quang Province3, between 22º
16' - 22º31'N and 105º22'- 105º29'E, (figure 1.1). Biogeographically, it falls within the Tonkin
subdivision of Delacour and Jabouille's (1931) classification, or Thailandian Monsoon Forest
(unit 4.10.4) of Udvardy's (1975) classification, or South China (unit 6a) of MacKinnon and
MacKinnon's (1986) classification for the Indo-Malayan Realm.

The reserve covers an area about 27,520ha, and has a proposed buffer zone measuring
14,410ha (UNDP, 1995). Some documents4 (Anon., 1993; 1997) currently in use by the
provincial, district and reserve authorities regard the 14,410ha proposed buffer zone as the
regeneration area and administrative area, and the 27,520ha reserve as strict protected area5,
therefore making the total area at 41,930ha. There are apparently no maps accompanying these
documents. These documents have the reserve6 located between 22º14' - 22º35'N and 105º17' -
105º35'E, covering five communes, Thanh Tuong, Son Phu, Khau Tinh, Vinh Yen and Con
Lon. The boundary of the PC reserve apparently follows the commune boundaries, and
comprised:
i. 12,500ha Tat Ke strict protection area: 7,030ha (Con Lon) + 5,490ha (Khau Tinh);
ii. 15,000ha Nam Trang - Ban Bung strict protection area: 6,500ha (Vinh Yen) + 8,500ha
(Thanh Tuong);
iii. 8,410ha Son Phu regeneration area;
iv. 4,500ha Thanh Tuong regeneration area;
v. 1,500ha administrative centre

Although the UNDP document was probably based on the documents prepared by the
provincial People’s Committee, the former is more correct in identifying the two areas, Tat Ke
and Nam Trang-Ban Bung, as the reserve area, and not designating any management zones to
the reserve. The documents prepared by the provincial people’s committee has made a gross
error in designating zones (section 6.3) to the PC reserve without ‘ground-truthing’ it first.
There are 61 settlements in the five communes (Dinh, 1998) that makes up the PC reserve,
with one major concentration of settlements in the Nam Trang - Ban Bung strict protection

3
Tuyen Quang and Ha Giang Provinces previously formed a single province, Ha Tuyen.
4
Prepared by the Tuyen Quang People’s Committee.
5
The zoning system for protected areas currently in use in Vietnam comprise strict protection area, regeneration
area, and administrative/service area. Furthermore, in both the Vietnamese and International context, buffer zone
is not part of the protected area. See section 6 for discussions on zones.
zone (figure 6.3). A map (1:25,000) at the reserve’s headquarters in Na Hang Town shows a
demarcated area that supposedly include the PC reserve and a buffer zone. This map includes
the Na Hang urban area, and is similar to a map (figure 6.1) prepared by a management
feasibility study (Cox, 1994), but to the exclusion of Da Vi, Yen Hoa, Thuong Lam, Trung
Khanh and Nang Kha Communes.

In the same study, the Na Hang Nature Reserve was proposed to cover a total area of 21,725ha
(section 6.2). This comprised Tat Ke sector, measuring 9,975ha and Nam Trang - Ban Bung
sector measuring 11,750ha, and covers three communes, Khau Tinh, Thanh Tuong and Vinh
Yen. The UNDP document (UNDP, 1995) similarly has the Tat Ke and Nam Trang - Ban
Bung sectors measuring 9,975ha and 11,750ha respectively. The UNDP document most
probably based its figures on the management feasibility study. Albeit with some weaknesses
(sections 6.2 & 6.3), the Na Hang Nature Reserve comprising Tat Ke and Nam Trang - Ban
Bung sectors described in the study (Cox, 1994), is more appropriate. An earlier study
(Boonratana & Le, 1994), and later ones (Hill et al., 1996; 1997) including the UNDP
document (UNDP, 1995), similarly regard these two sectors as the reserve area. Hence, for all
intents and purposes, this report will treat these two sectors as the reserve area.

2.2 TOPOGRAPHY
About two-thirds of the reserve comprise steep rugged limestone hills (>300m amsl7) and
mountains (>600m amsl). Earlier maps (Sheet 6053I/Series L7014/Edition 2-TPC/1978) show
an area in the Tat Ke sector above 1,200m amsl, and the highest peak in the Nam Trang - Ban
Bung sector at 1,153m amsl, whereas more recent maps show that there are no area in Tat Ke
sector (Sheet F-48-55-D/1994) reaching 1,070m amsl, and the same peak in the Nam Trang -
Ban Bung sector (Sheet F-48-67-B/1994) at 1,052.1m amsl. Furthermore, landform and
drainage features in the earlier maps were often different from those observed in reality. It
must therefore be assumed that information8 on the latter maps is more reliable, hence they are
referred to in this report.

Several permanent and intermittent streams in the reserve drain into the Gam, Nang and Pac
Von Rivers. There is little surface water during the dry season, and due to its limestone
geology, much of the water is quickly drained into underground streams. There also exist
some small floodplain areas in the reserve that have been converted into cultivation areas,
mainly rice.

6
For ease of explanation, this area will be referred to as the PC reserve.
7
amsl = above mean sea level.
8
Subsequent to the production of these maps, some commune boundaries have changed (Mr. Nguyen Huu Trung,
pers. comm.)
2.3 CLIMATE
The climate in the reserve is influenced by its elevation, the south-west monsoon during the
wet season (c. April to September), and the cold north-east winds in the dry season (c. October
to March). Mean monthly minimum and maximum temperatures obtained by the Na Hang
Meteorological Station for 1998 were 10ºC and 33ºC respectively. Minimum temperatures in
the reserve are, however, much lower than that recorded at the station (pers. obs.). Mean
monthly minimum and maximum rainfall data for 1998 ranged from 3.6mm to 562mm, and
the total annual rainfall was 1,660mm, while the annual average was 200mm. The mean
annual relative humidity recorded for 1998 was 85%.

2.4 FLORA
The reserve, comprising mainly forest over limestone hills and mountains (c. 70%) and some
mixed evergreen and semi-evergreen broadleaf/bamboo forest, has a unique floral diversity.
Primary forest is, however, restricted to the steep karst mountains. Botanical surveys in the Tat
Ke and Nam Trang - Ban Bung sectors yielded 917 species from 134 plant families (Hill et al.,
1997), and 607 species from 123 plant families (Hill et al., 1996) for the two areas
respectively. Particularly important are the presence of Asarum balansae (Aristilochiaceae), a
terrestrial forest herb used for medicinal purposes, and Excentrodendron hsienmu (Tiliaceae),
a highly prized durable timber (Hill et al., 1996). It is highly likely that species lists for both
the sectors are far from exhaustive.

2.5 FAUNA
Various wildlife surveys carried out since 1993 have yielded much information on the wildlife
present in the reserve (Boonratana & Le, 1994; Hill et al., 1996; 1997), which in all likelihood
is yet exhaustive. Prominent among those mammals recorded in the area included the Tonkin
snub-nosed monkey (Rhinopithecus [Presbytiscus] avunculus), François langur
(Trachypithecus francoisi francoisi), pygmy loris (Nycticebus pygmaeus), Owston's palm civet
(Chrotogale owstonii), Asiatic black bear (Selanarctos thibetanus), leopard (Panthera
pardus), and leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis).

2.6 PEOPLE
The human populations living in and around the reserve comprise mainly Kinh, Tay, Dao and
Hmong ethnic groups, with Tay forming the majority. Most are farmers practicing both
permanent and shifting cultivation, with rice as the dominant crop. Other main crops grown
include maize, pumpkin, cassava, sweet potatoes, cabbages and peanuts. Livestock reared
include buffaloes, cows, pigs, ducks and chickens. They also harvest a wide range of forest
produce, notably bamboo shoots (Boonratana & Le, 1994).
 3. SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY

3.1 INTRODUCTION
Na Hang Nature Reserve, not unlike many other protected areas in the region, has human
populations living in and immediately adjacent to the reserve. Dinh (1998) reported that there
are 61 villages in and around the reserve, with a human population of 10,734 from 1,801
households, comprising Tay (50.65%), Dao (29.15%), Kinh (11.89%), Hmong (8.03%) and
other ethnic groups (0.28%). These figures reported by Dinh apparently include all the five
communes of the PC reserve.

Besides carrying out both permanent and shifting cultivation, these people utilise a wide range
of forest produce, which have had detrimental effects on the fauna and flora of the reserve
(Boonratana & Le, 1994; Hill et al., 1996; 1997). Recognizing the fact that if conservation
efforts in the reserve are to have any measure of success, there is an important need to win the
support of the local people and include them in the efforts. Hence, through an integrated
conservation and development programme. This is, however, beyond the scope of this project.
Nevertheless, information necessary to assist the development of such a programme was
collected through two socio-economic surveys (Dinh, 1998; Nguyen et al., 1998) carried out
by Vietnamese social scientists under the umbrella of this project. Although socio-economic
surveys (Hill et al., 1996 & 1997) have been conducted in the area, further surveys were felt
necessary to update some of the information gathered then, and to include settlements not
covered by the earlier surveys. Hence, the recent surveys were complementary to the earlier
ones.

Detailed information of the surveys carried out by Dinh (1998) and Nguyen et al., (1998) are
presented in separate reports, in both English and Vietnamese. Only a summary of some of
their findings, plus some observations based on those reports are presented here. The villages
surveyed are listed in table 3.1.

3.2 RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS

The principal source of subsistence and income for all the villages surveyed is agriculture,
with wet rice as the main crop cultivated (table 3.2). Rice cultivation in most areas is carried
out once a year due to unsuitable weather and water shortage during the winter months. Other
crops cultivated include cassava, sweet potato, sugar cane, groundnut, taro, and soya bean. Pac
Von Village, however, does not cultivate rice but grow maize and cassava instead, due to
unavailability of suitable land for rice cultivation.
Areas for existing land use did not restrict to that as allocated by the 1993 Red Book for Land
Tenure, but encroached to other nearby areas, both on flat and sloped lands. This was
apparently due to an increase in the local demand for food crops (Nguyen et al., 1998). Also,
lack of suitable agricultural land has resulted in traditional slash and burn cultivation.
Generally carried out by Hmong and Dao ethnic groups, this initially involved the clearing of
a forested area, followed by cultivation and harvest for six months. These areas are then
abandoned for about three years, then the process is repeated several times over (Dinh, 1998;
Nguyen et al., 1998).

Among the villages surveyed, Phia Chang Village apparently harvests a significantly high
amount of both wood and non-wood forest products (table 3.3a). This is most likely a
reflection of its significantly higher population size (table 3.1). It should be noted that the
figures shown in these tables might not represent a true picture of forest products harvested,
but nevertheless an important indication. Significant amounts of bamboo shoots are harvested
by Tin Tat Village (table 3.3b), which probably generates an important cash income for the
residents. Some form of wildlife is harvested by all the villages, but of particular concern are
Phia Chang, Na Pai, Pa Lang, Ban Bung, Tin Tat, Tat Ke, Na Tang and Pac Von. It should
also be noted that many of the figures shown for Ban Bung Village collected by Dinh (1998)
differed from that collected by Nguyen et al. (1998), although the surveys were carried out
only a few months apart.

Harvest of forest products is carried out throughout the year, albeit mainly during the dry
season, that is from October to March, when agricultural activity is much reduced. Being
generally farther from Na Hang Town, the Dao and Hmong settlements are dependent on
forest products for daily subsistence. Conversely, the Tay settlements, being closer to the town
sell some of the forest products harvested (Dinh, 1998).

The amount of fuelwood consumed varied from a daily average of 30kg per household during
summer months and 50kg per household during winter months. About 1-1.5m³ of timber is
collected per annum of which 70% is for sale. The amount of timber for domestic use varied
with ethnic communities. The Tay community with raised houses use about 10-15m³ of timber
for house construction, whereas Dao and Hmong communities, which construct houses with
hardened ground as their floors, use about 5m³ of timber (Dinh, 1998).

Wildlife harvested are both for own consumption and sale. Those for sale include frogs
(VND5,000-10,0009/kg), snakes (VND10,000-100,000/kg), geckos (VND8,000-10,000 each),
tortoises (VND40,000-50,000/kg), birds (VND15,000-30,000 each) and serows

9
VND = Vietnam Dong (USD1 = approx. VND14,000)
(VND20,000/kg) (Dinh, 1998). To some residents, sale of wildlife is an important source of
income. During the ‘on-the-job’ training, it was observed that individuals in Thanh Tuong
Commune who traded in geckos, priced at VND28,000 a gecko, had better living standards.
Sale of bamboo shoots and honey is an important source of cash income to many settlements.
For Tin Tat Village alone, the annual bamboo shoot yield converted to cash amounts to almost
VND36,000,000 (Nguyen et al., 1998).
Table 3.1: Population structure of the villages surveyed

Village Commune Ethnic group Households Pop. Males Females

1. Lung Vai Con Lon Hmong 10 67 ? ?
2. Khau Tinh Khau Tinh Tay 22 155 ? ?
Luong
3. Phieng Lung Khau Tinh Hmong 31 199 ? ?
4. Na Pai Vinh Yen Tay 42 205 ? ?
5. Phia Chang Son Phu Dao 83 593 ? ?
6. Pa Lang Thanh Tay 32 171 ? ?
Tuong
7. Ban Luoc Na Hang Tay ? ? ? ?
8. Ban He Xuan Lac Tay+Nung ? ? ? ?
9. Ban Bung Thanh Tay+Dao 20+7 162 ? ?
Tuong
10. Ban Bung Thanh Tay+Dao+Kinh 17+10+1 150 79 71
Tuong
11. Pac Von Con Lon Dao+Kinh 27+1 184 93 91
12. Tin Tat Vinh Yen Kinh+Tay+Muong 24+4+3 136 66 70
13. Na Tang Khau Tinh Dao 22 128 61 67
14. Tat Ke Khau Tinh Tay+Dao+Kinh 10+6+1 95 51 44
Source: Villages 1-9 = Dinh, 1998; Villages 10-14 = Nguyen et al., 1998.
Note: Villages 9 & 10 are the same village.
Table 3.2: Current land use practices

Village Rice (ha) Other crops (ha) Orchard (ha) Total (ha)
1. Lung Vai 2.1 6.08 0.2 8.38
2. Khau Tinh Luong 15.7 10.3 0 26
3. Phieng Lung 1 30 0 31
4. Phia Chang 5.7 45 0 50.7
5. Na Pai 12.75 4 1.7 18.45
6. Pa Lang 8.7 55.3 40.8 104.8
7. Ban Luoc 0.57 30.05 0.55 31.17
8. Ban He 9.5 5 0 14.5
9. Ban Bung 10.3 8 0 18.3
10. Ban Bung 9.39 7.04 0 16.43
11. Na Tang 7.48 6.90 0 14.38
12. Pac Von 0 10.05 0 10.05
13. Tat Ke 8.82 3.35 0 12.17
14. Tin Tat 2.85 5.55 3.55 11.95
Source: Villages 1-9 = Dinh, 1998; Villages 10-14 = Nguyen et al., 1998.
Note: Villages 9 & 10 are the same village.
Table 3.3a: Harvest of forest product (source: Dinh, 1998)

Forest product Lung Khau Phieng Phia Na Pai Ban Pa Ban Ban He
(per annum) Vai Tinh Lung Chang Bung Lang Luoc
Luong
Timber (m³) 28 60 40 75 60 30 25` 23 14
Fuelwood (ton) 164 395 65 420 300 275 545 630m³ 191m³
Bamboo (poles) 1,000 3,100 2,200 3,800 63,300 3,500 2,100 4,200 1,200
Rattan (kg) - - - - 4,000 5 - - -
Bamboo shoot 390 550 800 4,000 3,000 850 1,090 3,100 1,050
(kg)
Edible plants 80 170 300 40,000 1,500 2,600 1,800 180 130
(kg)
Wild tubers 170 - 550 37,000 2,100 1,850 600 - -
(kg)
Banana (stem) 3,600 1,800 13,000 22,000 12,500 - - 2,100 2,600
Banana 60 - - - - - - - 400
inflorescence
(no.)
Jute (kg) - - - - - - 600 - -
Palm leaves - - - - - - 1,500 - -
(no.)
Mushroom (kg) - - - 200 - - - - -
Job's ear (kg) 36 - - 200 - - - - -
Wild taro (kg) - 540 - - - - - - -
Medicinal 60 60 - 162 60 - - - 24
plants (kg)
Honey (litre) - - - 300 30 20 8 - 65
Serow (no.) - - - - - - 6 - -
Civet (no.) - - - 15 - - - - -
Racoon dog - - - 9 - - - -
(no.)
Pangolin (no.) - - - - 6 - - - -
Squirrel (no.) - - - 30 - - - - -
Bamboo rat - - - 10 10 - - - -
(no.)
Jungle fowl - - - - - - 15 6 -
Bird (no.) 15 - 30 32 - - 10 - -
Crab (kg) 30 40 60 6 - - 100 9 -
Fish (kg) - - 15 - - - 200 - -
Tortoise (no.) - - - - 15 - 15 9 -
Snake (no) - - - - 11kg 18kg - 30 150
Gecko (no.) - - - - - 40 - - -
Frog (kg) 54 - - - - - 150 15 45
Snails (kg) - - 45 - - - 180 - -
Centipede (no.) - - - - - 20 - - -
Ant's eggs (kg) 2 - - - - - 5 2 -
Grasshopper 9 - - - - - - - -
(kg)
Note: unit follows that as shown in the first column unless indicated otherwise
Table 3.3b: Harvest of forest product (source: Nguyen et al., 1998)

Forest product (per annum) Ban Bung Tin Tat Tat Ke Na Tang Pac Von
Timber (m³) 77 61 33 31 70
Firewood (ster?) 876 702 533 602 826
Bamboo (poles) 10,050 7,750 6,300 12,700 10,650
Bamboo shoot (kg) 1,580 23,96010 668 725 964
Edible plants (kg) 134 122 70 139 122
Wild bananas (stems) 1,410 540 1,415 1,560 942
Mushroom & Job's ear (kg) 87 76 45 62 37
Medicinal plants (kg) 14 - 7 17 14
Raw material for paper (kg) 21 - - 26 70
Honey(kg) 60 - - - -
Crab & fish (kg) 104 111 183 98 134
Frog & eel (kg) 21 6 50 13 6
Snake (kg) 15 12 3 1 3
Tokay gecko (no.) 56 69 7 17 18
Tortoise (no.) 3 2 - - -
Bird (no.) 8 1 6 6 5
Jungle fowl (kg) 7 1 10 5 14
Porcupine (no.) 9 4 10 - 4
Squirrel (no.) 8 - 3 - 2
Civet (no.) 13 3 7 4 10
Deer (no.) 2 - - - -
Others (kg) 33 35 56 11 29

10
1,450 kg/annum for consumption and 22,510 kg/annum for sale
 4. TRAINING

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Training and capacity building of protected area staff are recognized as two important
components of protected area management, needed for proper implementation of its
management plans and activities. For every protected area, it is essential to obtain information
on:
1. the presence, distribution and abundance of the wildlife present in the area;
2. the habitat types and key wildlife habitats found in the area;
3. the threats to the wildlife and habitat in the protected area;
4. the status of people living in and around the protected area, and how they use the area,
including their impacts on wildlife and the habitats.

This information will then assist the protected area managers/staff to effectively plan and/or
develop:
1. a programme for biodiversity resource monitoring;
2. a programme for protected area patrolling;
3. implementing effective and practicable zones for the protected area.

Hence, training and capacity building of protected area staff in gathering, interpreting, and
using this information are important steps and contributions towards making wise
management decisions in the conservation and protection of natural resources.

4.2 TRAINING/CAPACITY BUILDING

Altogether there were 16 trainees (table 4.1) which included staff from the reserve, the district
forest enterprise and village foresters. Most of the trainees based in Na Hang were selected by
the Na Hang People's Committee in consultation with the District Forest Protection
Department and the Na Hang Nature Reserve. Training was carried out over a period of nine
weeks, both in the classroom, and ‘on-the-job’ training in the field. Field training was
conducted by actually carrying out surveys and patrols for human impacts and wildlife.
Prolonged and repeated on-the-job field training is possibly the only way to equip protected
area and associated conservation staff with the basic skills and experience required to
implement field management activities (Boonratana, 1997b; 1998a, b & c). Training was
designed to provide the most basic of field techniques; easily understood and practical, yet
essential for protected area management. Furthermore, these techniques require a minimal of
monetary input. Topics and instructions were adapted to satisfy the individual trainee’s
aptitude and to suit the needs of the reserve. Training was conducted in both English (with
interpretation11 into Vietnamese and Tay12 languages, and primarily focused on developing the
staff’s skills in:
1. field surveys for wildlife and key wildlife habitats, including village-based interviews;
2. observing and assessing human and habitat impacts;
3. mapping trails and recording locations of wildlife, and evidence of human/habitat impacts.

Throughout the training, notes were maintained on the progress, strengths and weaknesses of
each trainee. An assessment of the trainees' performance is summarized in appendix I. The
schedule for the training was as follows:
Jul. 27-31 Classroom training at Na Hang.
Aug. 1 Briefing for first field trip.
Aug. 2-23 On-the-job training in Tat Ke area, northern sector of reserve.
Aug. 24-26 Data compilation and analysis, and teams’ report write-up at Na Hang.
Sep. 6 Briefing for second field trip.
Sep. 7-17 On-the-job training in Nam Trang area, southern sector of reserve.
Sep. 18-20 Data compilation and analysis, and teams’ report write-up at Na Hang.
Sep. 20 Briefing for third field trip.
Sep. 21-Oct. 5 On-the-job training in Ban Bung area, southern sector of reserve.
Oct. 6-8 Data compilation and analysis, and teams’ report write-up at Na Hang.

The above training activities can be summarized into data collection, data compilation, and
data analysis. Topics of training included lectures and discussions on the basics of
conservation, map reading and compass use, wildlife and human impact surveys, camping and
field equipment, note taking and recording techniques, and report-writing (table 4.2). The
training was so designed to assist the field staff in planning their field trips efficiently, to make
accurate observations and record these accurately, and to clearly report their findings in a
simple but detailed format. The training began with a five-day ‘classroom’ training carried out
in Na Hang town. This was to prepare the participants for the ‘on-the-job’ field training
activities.

4.2.1 Classroom Training

The topics of classroom training comprised the following:

• Basics of Conservation: The classroom training began with brief lectures and several
discussions on protected areas and protected area management, conservation of natural

11
English-Vietnamese intepretation during the classroom training was made by Mr. Muoi and Ms. Nga, and
intepretation during the field training was made by Mr. Hai and Ms. Nga.
12
The main ethnic language spoken in Tuyen Quang Province.
 resources, conservation biology, and wildlife ecology and behaviour. This was to give the
trainees a better understanding the objectives of the protected area, and the need of reliable
and relevant information towards effectively managing species and protected areas. In
addition, a simple understanding of wildlife ecology and behaviour was to assist them in
recording observations in the field.

• Map and Compass: This was followed by detailed lessons in the use of maps and
compasses. Competence in map and compass use is the basis to effective field
management of any protected area. Lessons in map reading included understanding the
map’s description, details, directions, distances and designations. Lessons in compass use
were mainly on taking accurate bearings and determining back-bearings, followed by the
use of compass together with maps. Trainees were also given exercises and assignments to
improve their map and compass skills. Basic use of GPS and altimeter were imparted to
some trainees.

• Recording Techniques: Lessons in making observations and recording evidence in the

field, including identifying tracks and other wildlife signs were then imparted to the
trainees. These also included the use of field guides to mammals, birds, and mammal
tracks. Detailed note taking was emphasized throughout the training. The presence of all
wildlife species observed and evidence of human activities was recorded into data sheets
(appendices V & VI). These data recording sheets or adapted versions are currently in use
in five protected areas in Lao PDR (Boonratana, 1998a, b, & c). Trainees were instructed
to sketch unidentified wildlife species, tracks, etc., and take measurements or estimate
their sizes in the case of wildlife species sighting. This was to assist them in species
identification.

• Wildlife Observation: Only a single method of wildlife survey based on animal presence
through actual sighting and based on indirect evidence, was imparted to the trainees. This
method based primarily on diurnal surveys, and carried out along existing trails is practical
- simple to understand and carry out, and less time-consuming than other methods.
Furthermore, it does not require much equipment. To improve the quality of data collected
during wildlife surveys, trainees were taught how to identify species and cross-refer to
field guides. Mammal identifications were referred to Lekagul & McNeely (1977) and
Corbet & Hill (1992), and bird identifications were referred to Lekagul & Round (1991)
and King et al., (1991). Although most trainees could not read in English, they
nevertheless found the illustrations useful. Lessons in identifying and recognizing wildlife
based on indirect evidence (tracks, scats, etc.) were emphasized. It is relatively difficult to
sight wildlife in dense forests, hence data is mostly gathered from signs. There was also a
brief discussion of the ethics of fieldwork (appendix II).
• Camping and Field Equipment: Preparation and location of campsites (appendix III),
essential field equipment (appendix IV), and suggested food items for the field were
discussed in detail. Much field time would otherwise be wasted if there were no proper
planning and adequate preparation prior to field surveys. Suggested food items were based
on the reserve staff’s per diem, and what were locally available.

• Data Analysis and Reporting: After each field trip, data collected was compiled and a
simple report for each trip/location was prepared. The report comprised a table of wildlife
recorded, a table for human activities recorded, map/maps for important sighting of
wildlife, routes traveled, human activities, mineral licks, etc., and a written summary
highlighting significant finds (including comments and suggestions). This report-writing
format will hopefully be maintained for future surveys and patrols. This format is currently
being used by the field staff at five National Biodiversity Conservation Areas in Lao PDR
(Boonratana, 1998a, b, & c), with plans to extend this format to other protected areas
throughout the country.

• Patrolling and Monitoring: Repeated surveys and patrols of an area were emphasized to
the trainees. Once initial data is collected, there should be a programme of continuous
collection of data to see changes, if any, in terms of wildlife presence and relative
abundance, habitat changes and human activity. Monitoring is an important component for
making management decisions. A discussion was held on the criteria to assist the trainees
in identifying key species and habitat, for monitoring purposes.

4.2.2 On-the-job Training:

Following the classroom training, three on-the-job training field trips, lasting from two to
three weeks, were carried out in the Na Hang Nature Reserve. In the Tat Ke sector of the
reserve, the main camp was established at Khau Taep, and one sub-camp each was established
at Doi Mot and Na Trang. In the Nam Trang - Ban Bung sector, base camps were established
at Nam Trang and Ban Bung. Activities carried out during the field training comprised:

• Logistics Preparations and Allocation of Responsibilities: Participants were divided

into teams of two to four persons. Care was also taken to ascertain that teams were of
similar, if not equal, strengths. Team leaders and membership changed after each field trip
to encourage leadership and to promote teamwork and cooperation between individuals.
Pre- and post-survey briefings were held before and after every field trip. Responsibilities
were issued and objectives were clarified during the pre-survey briefing. Supplies’
coordinators were responsible for purchasing, preparing, and maintaining food and
 equipment. Team leaders were responsible for the team’s and team members’ equipment,
and planning survey routes.

• Village-based Interviews: Interviews with villagers for general presence/absence of

wildlife were carried out in those villages/settlements within and adjacent to the nature
reserve. In addition, villagers were asked about the presence of mineral licks, caves, etc.,
known to them. The general direction and distance (in kilometers or hiking time) of the
key wildlife species and habitat were also recorded. These interviews, besides providing
information on wildlife and habitats, also allowed the team to plan their activities.

• Daily Trip Preparations: Areas to be surveyed were based on interviews with villagers
and existing literature on the reserve. Criteria for selection included areas where wildlife is
regularly sighted and where key species, particularly the Tonkin snub-nosed monkeys, are
known to occur. If those areas are within half a day’s hike from the village, the team
would then based themselves at the village. If, however, those areas require a full day’s
hike or two, then the team would camp out in the forest. Survey routes were pre-
determined from 1:50,000 topographic maps and/or based on villagers’ information.
Routes normally took the shape of irregular loops, originating and terminating at
campsites. This allowed greater coverage of an area. Simpler routes, going along streams
or ridges and returning the same way were given to trainees that had no prior experience
with forest work. One team of two participants usually stayed back at camp and was given
the tasks of maintaining camps, preparing food, gathering firewood, etc.

• Observations and Recording: Wildlife presence was recorded based on sightings or other
evidence, i.e., tracks, scats, and vocalizations (appendix V). No trapping was carried out.
Surveys were carried out on foot, along existing tracks and trails, particularly along ridges
and waterways. Using animal trails have been observed to be effective in covering large
areas in tropical rainforests (Boonratana, 1997a & b; 1998a, b, & c). The chances of
encountering an animal or its signs are higher when patrols are carried out along existing
animal trails. During patrol surveys, team members would simultaneously search for
evidence of wildlife. Speed of travel when carrying out surveys was maintained between
40 to 60 minutes for every kilometer, with regular pauses of at least a minute, to observe
the general surroundings. This was to avoid missing cryptic animals or animal signs. Thus,
up to an average of eight kilometers per day was covered on each route by each team.
Surveys usually began between 0700h to 0730h and teams returned to camp between
1530h to 1730h. Occasionally teams would depart as early as 0600h and return as late as
2030h. Type of evidence was recorded, along with date, time, species, and location
(appendix V). Evidence such as tracks and scats were aged, described, sketched and
measured. Locations of important sightings (key wildlife species and habitats, and human
 impacts) were determined using maps and compass, and where feasible, a GPS unit was
used. Observations on human activities and impacts were also recorded onto data
recording sheets (appendix VI) and maps.

• Daily Debriefing: Debriefing was conducted nightly after meals. This was to review the
day’s findings and plan surveys for the next day. Survey teams would report the results of
surveys, highlighting the main findings. Team members would alternate on a daily basis in
reporting their findings, to encourage participation by all. Comments and suggestions were
offered to improve their field performance and skills.

Note:
1. Capacity building of Mr. Dong Thanh Hai, one of the trainees, was carried on beyond the
above training programme. As his educational background was much higher than the other
trainees, and because of his other positive qualities, it was decided to involve him in every
aspect of this project until its bound form. This was with the objective of preparing him for
future conservation projects, and ultimately in producing a qualified Vietnamese scientist.
2. Training was also extended to a graduate student from IEBR, Mr. Dinh Ngoc Luong. This
was in the form of a two-day theory training on the behaviour and ecology of primates, in
particular colobines, with focus on the Tonkin snub-nosed monkey. Also, data collection
techniques appropriate for the snub-nosed monkey in the Na Hang Nature Reserve were
explained.

4.3 RESULTS
Interest and attitude towards field activities, and skills in field techniques, knowledge
concerning protected areas and conservation of natural resources varied considerably among
the trainees. This was a reflection of their background and qualification.

• Basics of Conservation: Prior to this training, the trainees did not truly understand the
objectives and concepts of protected area, protected area management and conservation of
natural resources. Hence, basics of conservation were emphasized throughout the training
exercise, beginning with discussions at the start of the training and regularly discussing
them during daily debriefings in the field; thereby reinforcing their understanding based on
actual field experience. By the end of the training most trainees understood the basic
concept of protected area and conservation of natural resources. Thus, are much clearer
with the tasks and responsibilities that lay ahead of them. In general, trainees were not
entirely clear about wildlife ecology, but found it much easier to comprehend wildlife
behaviour.
• Map and Compass: Similarly, map and compass ability were initially almost non-
existent. In the classroom, lessons in map and compass were continued until the trainees
were ready to move on to different topics. The better trainees were placed besides the
weaker ones to provide more practice for the former and provide better attention to the
latter. Thus, simultaneously encouraging teamwork. By the end of the classroom training,
most trainees were fairly skilled in the use of map and compass, and were able to
distinguish vegetation types and drainage features. However, distinguishing landform
features was still limited, hence a major handicap in selecting the best routes of travel and
survey routes. Under field conditions, skills at the use of map and compass were limited to
only a few trainees.

• Data Collection and Report Write-up: Initially, none were adept at recording
information, making observations on wildlife and human impacts, analysing data and
writing reports. Skills at correct recording of information and wildlife observation could
only be achieved under constant guidance, by having the instructor accompanying the
survey teams daily. Wildlife identification based on direct and indirect observations
improved with time. Daily debriefings further reinforce their recording skills. Most were
fairly adept at observing wildlife and its signs. Use of field guides for identification
purposes was weak in most. Note taking, sketching and measuring specimens improved
with time, although sometimes lacking in important details. To familiarise the trainees and
give them the much-needed practice, each team had to analyse their data and submit their
reports. Guidance was offered and several corrections were made before the reports were
finally accepted. The quality of the reports progressed with each field trip.

4.4 GENERAL ASSESSMENT

During the classroom session, the trainees initially did not participate in the discussions and
were reluctant to ask questions. This was, however, overcome when the trainees became
familiar with one another and with the instructor. More interest was observed during the field
trips, when trainees started applying skills acquired in the classroom. Although important, not
all aspects of map and compass use were imparted to the trainees. Only skills needed for them
to perform their tasks well were imparted. Skills at maps in the field could have been further
improved had there been available updated maps of the study area (see section 2.2). Updated
maps were made available to the project manager only after the training exercise.

In the field, almost all trainees worked together quite well, showing good cooperation and
division of labour. Briefings carried out every night in the field apparently proved quite
effective in allowing the trainees to improve their performance. The accompaniment of survey
teams by the instructor served to reinforce their training, particularly when applying
techniques learnt in the classroom to field situations. In addition, it allowed doubts and
questions that usually arose during the daily patrols to be immediately resolved. Furthermore,
several field techniques such as detecting and identifying wildlife signs, and orienteering
could only be clarified under field conditions. Having binoculars generated interest in bird-
watching and improved the quality at bird identification. Binoculars could, however, be made
available to the trainees only after the first field trip.

There were a few weaknesses observed during the training programme. Some of these were
neither by design nor choice. In terms of trying to achieve a ‘participatory’ approach towards
management of the reserve, participants of the training should include individuals from key
villages, that is from the villages that are located in the reserve. Some of the key villages
include Na Trang, Khau Tinh, Doi Mot of Khau Tinh Commune, and Ban Bung of Thanh
Tuong Commune. Also, staff of the Na Hang Forest Protection Department would have
benefited from the training had they attended it, as many of the skills imparted are important
to them. Furthermore, the protection of Na Hang Nature Reserve is not the work of the reserve
staff only. Another weakness of the training programme was the instructor’s inability to train
in the Vietnamese language. Much information was lost through interpretation. Initially there
were a few occasions where misinterpretation or bad interpretation created a gap between the
trainees and instructor. This was, however, quickly overcome when Mr. Dong Thanh Hai’s
command of the English language, and the instructor’s command of the Tay language,
improved. Finally, trainees would have acquired their skills better had there been essential
equipment from the start (correct maps, binoculars, etc.).
Table 4.1: List of trainees

1. Mr. Nguyen Huy Chien Na Hang Nature Reserve

2. Mr. Le Cong Vien
3. Mr. Pham Van Sanh
4. Mr. Nguyen Ngoc De
5. Mr. Nguyen Van Anh*
6. Mr. Hoang Van Thuy*
7. Mr. Hoa Van Tam*
8. Mr. Hoang Van Lap
9. Mr. Ma Van Tu
10. Mr. Tang Bang Giang
11. Mr. Chau Van Ngoi
12. Mr. Chau Trong Tam
13. Mr. Quan Van Thanh
14. Mr. Hoang Van Thu13
15. Mr. Dong Thanh Hai14
16. Ms. Nguyen Thien Nga 15
*Attended only the classroom training.
Na Hang Nature Reserve
Na Hang Forest Enterprise
Na Hang Forest Enterprise
Na Hang Forest Enterprise
Na Hang Forest Enterprise
Na Hang Forest Enterprise
Commune Forester, Pac Ban Village
Commune Forester, Thanh Tuong Commune
Trung Khanh Village
Thuong Lam Village
Khoun Ha Village
Khoun Ha Village
Pac Ban Village
Teaching assistant, Xuan Mai Forestry College
Undergraduate student, Columbia University

13
Inducted into the nature reserve’s patrolling unit after training programme.
14
Also acted as field assistant to the project manager.
15
Joined the training at the request of Mr. Joe Walston, FFI (Indochina Programme) Programme Manager.
Table 4.2: Topics of classroom training

MAJOR TOPICS SKILLS/SUB-TOPICS

Conservation basics • protected areas & protected area management;
• conservation of natural resources;
• conservation biology;
• wildlife ecology & animal behaviour.
Map & Compass • types and purposes of maps;
• information from maps: description, details, directions, distances &
designations;
• description: map no., edition & location;
• details: colours, vegetation types, drainage & landform features;
• directions: bearings & location determination;
• distances: map scale, linear & non-linear distances;
• designations: names & significance;
• best routes of travel & feasible camp locations;
• types & purposes of compasses;
• taking compass bearings & determining back-bearings;
• altimeter & GPS use;
• assignments & exercises.
Recording Techniques • note-taking, sketches & measurements;
• wildlife & human activity data recording sheets;
• hunter/villager interviews;
• photography;
• specimen collection: scat, skull & skin collection, specimen record
book;
• assignments & exercises.
Wildlife Observation • presence/absence;
• survey routes;
• identifying species & using field guides;
• indirect evidence: tracks & scat (sketch & measure), vocalization,
scrapes, etc.;
• speed of travel & precautionary measures.
Camping & Field • ideal locations & set-up;
Equipment • field equipment list & significance;
• pre-survey preparations.
Data compilation & • tabulation of human activities & wildlife data;
Report-writing • maps for routes traveled, important sightings: wildlife, human
activities, mineral licks, etc.
• scat analysis;
• highlights of significant finds.
Monitoring • focus on key species and habitats
 5. BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

5.1 INTRODUCTION
Previous surveys have provided much information on the fauna (Dang & Hoang, 1993;
Boonratana & Le, 1994; Hill et al., 1996; 1997) and flora (Dang & Hoang, 1993; Hill et al.,
1996; 1997) in the Na Hang Nature Reserve or in the general surrounding area. Species
recorded are however, far from exhaustive. Hence, a general wildlife survey based on direct
observations and indirect evidence was carried out. This was carried out in conjunction with a
training programme in the reserve (section 4) to provide ‘hands-on’ experience to the trainees,
and at the same providing valuable input towards management of the reserve. Data collection
was not only limited to surveying for the presence of wildlife but included recording signs and
evidence of human activity in the reserve. The latter information will be useful in assessing the
impacts of human on the reserve, hence identifying threats to the long-term viability of the
reserve and its denizens.

Survey methodology follows that as described in section 4.2.2. Wildlife surveys focused
mainly on mammals and birds. Information on reptiles and amphibians were opportunistically
gathered. No trapping was carried out. Information on human activities in the area was
recorded simultaneously while carrying out wildlife surveys.

5.2 RESULTS
Both intensive and extensive surveys on wildlife and habitat/human impact carried out while
‘on-the-job’ covered a total distance of 1,522 km of trails (including replicated routes), in
approximately 3,808 work hours. Mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians recorded in and
around the reserve including those recorded by previous authors (Dang & Hoang, 1993;
Boonratana & Le, 1994; Hill et al., 1996; 1997) are listed in appendix VII, VIII, IX, and X
respectively. Altogether, there are 90 mammals, 247 birds, 61 reptiles, and 20 amphibians
recorded from the area.

5.2.1 Mammals
Of the 90 mammals listed (appendix VII), 13 are listed in IUCN's Red list of threatened
animals (IUCN, 1996). However, it is doubtful that the black gibbon (Hylobates concolor)
exists in the area. Inquiries with the older residents in the area did not yield any indication that
any gibbon species ever occurred in the reserve. One significant finding includes a new
mammal record for the area, and a new distributional record for the species. A Viverra sp.
photographed in the Ban Bung area using remote photography was identified as Viverra
tainguensis Sokolov, Rozhonov & Pham 1997, a newly described civet species (Sokolov et
al., 1997). The other significant output of surveys carried out during this project was
confirming the continued presence of the Tonkin snub-nosed monkey in the reserve, as the last
confirmed record from the area was in 1994 (Boonratana & Le, 1994). Albeit there have been
several reports of sighting since then, none of these were ever confirmed.

Boonratana and Le (1994) observed 72 individuals (estimated 80 individuals) in the Tat Ke

sector, and observed 23 individuals (estimated 50 individuals) in the Nam Trang - Ban Bung
sector. During this project five encounters with the snub-nosed monkeys were made in the Tat
Ke sector. Three of these encounters were visual, and two were non-visual (vocalizations
heard). Based on the visual encounters, it was observed that there was at least one uni-male
group of 13 individuals (estimated 16 individuals), comprising one adult male and at least
three adult females, and one sub-adult, three juveniles and one infant. One encounter was
made in the Ban Bung area by Mr. Luong16 and Mr. Hai17. They reportedly observed 35
individuals from this area. The number of Tonkin snub-nosed monkeys in both these areas are
most likely more than that observed, but this remains to be confirmed. What is more
important, however, is that these extremely rare, critically endangered, endemic monkeys are
still present, and not extirpated as feared and rumored.

In addition to encounters made during the project period, additional information gathered on
the Tonkin snub-nosed monkeys showed that for the past several months, villagers reported
occasionally seeing the monkeys in an area close to Ban Bung and Binh Son villages. In 1997,
an infant snub-nosed monkey was reportedly kept at Keo Nang Village (Bac Can Province) for
a few days before it died. Apparently, this infant was caught when its mother was shot for
food. Tonkin snub-nosed monkeys were reported observed by villagers of Khau Tinh Luong in
March 1998, on the trail between Khau Tinh Luong and Pac Von. There were two other
reports of Tonkin snub-nosed monkey sighting in August 1998. One (20-30 animals) was on a
trail from Ban Bung to Ban Vai (Bac Can Province). The other reported sighting (40-50
individuals) was on a trail from Chiem Hoa District (Tuyen Quang Province) to Bac Can
Province. An estimated 40 individuals were reportedly observed in the Khe Mon area of Nam
Trang - Tat Ke sector in October 1997. There was also a report of a hunter observed in 1997
with a dead snub-nosed monkey in Ha Giang Province.

Densities of large mammals were generally low with a patchy distribution. Primates were
rarely observed. This was most probably due to past and current hunting pressures. Besides the
Tonkin snub-nosed monkeys, pig-tailed macaques (Macaca nemestrina) were observed once,

16
Mr. Dinh Ngoc Luong is a graduate student from IEBR who joined the project's participants during the
project's third 'on-the-job' training trip.
17
Mr. Hai is Mr. Luong's guide from Ban Bung village.
in the Lung Kham area of Nam Trang - Ban Bung sector. Macaques of indeterminate species
were also heard in the Doi Mot area of Tat Ke sector. Captive Assamese macaques (Macaca
assamensis) supposedly originating from the reserve were observed in Na Hang Town and in
Thanh Tuong Commune. In October 1998 a hunter from Keo Nang Village (Bac Can
Province) reported shooting a stump-tailed macaque (Macaca arctoides) in a forested area
between the reserve's boundary and Ban Vai Village (Bac Can Province).

Evidence of wild pig and common muntjac was frequently encountered in both sectors, but
particularly more in the Ban Bung area. Evidence of sambar deer was rare. Serow tracks and
dung were observed along the steeper forested areas and along the escarpment. There were
also recent reports of some villagers having seen tiger tracks - two sets in the Nam Trang area
in September 1998, and a set in Tat Ke sector in August 1998. Hog-badgers were encountered
twice in the Tat Ke sector.

5.2.2 Birds
The 247 birds listed (appendix VIII) include one threatened species, red-collared woodpecker
(Picus rabieri), listed as Vulnerable (IUCN, 1996), and two endemic species, red-vented
barbet (Megalaima lagrandieri) and bar-bellied pitta (Pitta elliotti). There are nine new
records for the area, namely bar-backed partridge (Aborophila cambodiana), rufous-throated
partridge (Aborophila rufogularis), ruddy-breasted crake (Porzana fusca), grey-headed
flycatcher (Culicicapa ceylonensis), ochraceous bulbul (Criniger ochraceous), black-naped
oriole (Oriolus chinensis), greenish warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides), Burmese shrike
(Lanius collurioides) and spot-winged grosbeak (Mycerobas melanozanthos). In general bird
diversity is still quite high, although their density could not be ascertained. In the latter part of
the survey, bird sightings were common. This was probably due to a mast fruiting throughout
the reserve.

5.2.3 Reptiles and Amphibians

There are 61 species of reptiles (appendix IX) and 20 species of amphibians (appendix X)
recorded from the reserve. The list of reptiles includes one new record, the keeled box-turtle
(Pyxidea mouhotii) observed in the Nam Trang area.

5.2.4 Human/Habitat Impact

Interestingly, much of the forest cover remains intact, showing little disturbance. Some of the
forested areas appeared, in fact, much better than they were five years ago (pers. obs. 1993).
This is possibly due to the:
1. translocation of several small scattered settlements out of the reserve;
2. commitment of the reserve and forestry staff in carrying out patrols and enforcing laws;
3. commitment of some of the remaining communities towards the forestry laws;
4. banning of gold-seeking activities described in Boonratana & Le (1994; 1998b)

Human intrusion was, however, observed throughout most of the areas surveyed. Old and
recent temporary shelters and campfires were occasionally encountered. The shelters are
usually in relation to log poaching and inevitably, wildlife poaching. Campfires are usually
used by wildlife poachers to ‘smoke’ their kill. An Arenga pinnata (Arecaceae) alcohol
‘distillery’ was also observed in the forested area west of Doi Mot Village (Tat Ke sector).
Several distilling implements were found at the site. Evidence suggested that the distillers
frequently used the area. Several trees in the vicinity were either chopped or girdled, most
probably for use as firewood for future distilling processes. Also, there were a few
Dracontomelum dupreanum and Canarium album trees that had been chopped down in order
to harvest their fruits. Some parts of the reserve had also been cleared for shifting cultivation.

Gunshots were frequently heard during the field trip, particularly towards the northern and
eastern parts of the Nam Trang - Ban Bung sector. On four occasions, all in the Nam Trang
area, the survey teams ‘scared’ away hunting parties. Compared to 1993, the current hunting
pressures were apparently much lower, albeit still an imminent threat. Signs of gecko-
collecting were frequently encountered in the Nam Trang - Ban Bung sector, and is apparently
a major source of income to some households.

Note: According to the reserve staff, the first attempt at translocation was carried out in 1995,
and this involved settling the scattered Hmong settlements from the Tat Ke sector to Khau
Lung in Khau Tinh Commune. This was, however, not successful as the translocated Hmong
returned to their old sites not too long thereafter. This failure was attributed to ‘bad’
management on the part of the People’s Committee in Khau Tinh Commune. Then, in 1997 a
second translocation was carried out with the same group of people, this time to Phieng Lung,
also in Khau Tinh Commune. This ethnic group was apparently targeted for the translocation
process because of the widespread shifting cultivation they were practising. Although this may
be true, shifting cultivation was not limited to only this ethnic minority, but were also
observed among the other ethnic minorities in the area. Also, there are currently plans to
translocate the settlement at Pac Von to another area. The ethnic group at Pac Von is primarily
Dao.
 6. MAPPING AND DEMARCATION

6.1 INTRODUCTION
One of the most fundamental activities needed in establishing a protected area is to clearly
demarcate its boundary. Once it is established, review/reviews is/are then needed to refine or
modify the boundary, based on management objectives and information on resource inventory,
human use, etc. Following this, management zones should then be developed to cater to
different objectives and uses.

This has so far not been true with the Na Hang Nature Reserve (section 2.1). The local
authorities’ version (Anon., 1993; 1997) of the reserve boundaries and its management zones
(section 2.1) are neither manageable nor viable (section 6.2 & 6.3). The Na Hang Town and
several major settlements, with human populations totalling to more than 10,000 individuals,
are located in this version of the reserve and the buffer zone (figures 6.2 & 6.3). The
establishment and enforcement of rules and regulations for the PC reserve will undoubtedly
cause serious conflicts with the stakeholder communities. Hence,it will be extremely difficult
or possibly impossible to achieve both the short and long term objectives of the reserve based
on the current PC reserve boundaries and zones Furthermore, it may not complement the
UNDP’s plans for an integrated conservation and development programme for the area. The
authorities, apparently did not have a clear understanding of the protected area concept when
the documents were being prepared. Boundaries and zones were designated without first
seeking information on wildlife, forest cover and land use patterns. However, given their
familiarity with the subject, the Province and District Forest Protection Departments, and the
reserve authorities should have pointed this out, and made necessary recommendations to
redesign the reserve boundaries.

Also, according to Article 2 of the Prime Minister’s decree on the 1998 draft regulation on
management, protection and development of protected areas in Vietnam18, a nature reserve is a
“natural land with clear boundaries or little disturbed land with natural characteristics, intact
ecological systems, free from or with only few scattered inhabitants which are managed and
protected to ensure continuity of ecological processes to facilitate scientific research or
environmental management." Thus, the PC reserve with its current area is not appropriate.

Thus, in light of the above situation, the exercise in mapping and demarcation of the reserve
boundary was adapted towards providing information and justifications for a more feasible
and practicable boundary, and management zones for the reserve. This exercise incorporated

18
From hereon, this will just be referred to as the Prime Minister’s decree.
information gathered through the socio-economic surveys (section 3) and biological research
(section 5), and from previous studies in the area (Cox, 1994; Boonratana & Le, 1994; Hill et
al., 1996; 1997). The main objective of this exercise is to assist the reserve staff in effectively
managing the reserve.

In spite of serious efforts, the actual exercise at mapping and demarcation could not be fully
realized due to the fact that:
1. updated topographic maps (section 2.2) of the area were made available to the project
manager only at the end of the field phase of this project;
2. aerial and satellite maps were not made available to the project manager;
3. Dinh’s (1998) report did not include a map to show patterns of land use in the villages
where he surveyed.

6.2 RESERVE BOUNDARIES

Based on observations made in sections 2.1 and 6.1, it is clear that the reserve boundary as
documented by the province is neither feasible nor practicable. Also, for all intents and
purposes, the reserve basically comprised two non-contiguous areas, known as Tat Ke and
Nam Trang - Ban Bung sectors (Cox, 1994; Boonratana & Le, 1994; UNDP, 1995; Hill et al.,
1996; 1997).

Tat Ke, covering an area measuring approximately 9,975ha, is located towards the north-west
of Na Hang town between 22º23' - 22º31'N and 105º22' - 105º29'E (figure 6.2). Following
Cox’s description (Cox, 1994), Tat Ke sector is bordered by the Pac Von River (a tributary of
Song19 Gam) to the north, and the common boundary of Khau Tinh and Con Lon20
Communes. To the east, this sector is bordered by the Yen Hoa River (a tributary of Song
Nang), and the road from Con Phay to Na Hang. The southern boundary is formed by Song
Nang, and the western boundary is formed by Song Gam.

Nam Trang - Ban Bung, with an area covering approximately 11,750ha, is located towards the
south-east of Na Hang town between 22º16' - 22º23'N and 105º22' - 105º29'E (figure 6.3).
Again, following Cox’s description (Cox, 1994), this sector has its northern boundary formed
by the orders of Na Hang urban area with Thanh Tuong and Vinh Yen Communes, and the
common boundary of Vinh Yen and Son Phu Communes. To the east, this sector is bordered
by the common boundary of Tuyen Quang and Bac Can Provinces21. The southern boundary is
formed by the common boundary of Chiem Hoa and Na Hang Districts, and the western

19
Song = River.
20
This commune boundary has changed since then.
21
Bac Can and Thai Nguyen Provinces previously formed a single province, Bac Thai.
boundary is formed by Song Gam, and the common boundary of Na Hang urban area and
Thanh Tuong Commune.

The proposed boundaries were identified primarily on the basis of:

1. Boonratana and Le's (1994) information on the known range of the Tonkin snub-nosed
monkey;
2. FIPI’s22 forest cover and land-use maps;
3. Na Hang District administration’s data on the distribution of local human settlements.

The proposed boundaries, much of which are yet to be assessed for their viability (Cox, 1994)
resulted in a reserve having a human population of more than 2,000 people living in it. This is
particularly visible in the Thanh Tuong Commune part of the Nam Trang - Ban Bung sector of
the reserve (figure 6.3). Furthermore, Cox’s (1994) map (figure 6.1) of the Nam Trang - Ban
Bung sector does not show the northern boundary conforming to his description of proposed
boundary, that is the “boundary follows, firstly, the Na Hang urban area border with Thanh
Tuong and Vinh Yen Communes and, secondly, the border separating Vinh Yen Commune
and Son Phu Commune.” Similarly, maps in a report by Hill et al., (1996) gave a different
version of this northern boundary. Nevertheless, Cox’s proposed boundaries (Cox, 1994) are
more plausible that described in the documents (Anon., 1993; 1997) at Tuyen Quang.

Based on observations made during this project and by earlier workers (Boonratana & Le,
1994; 1998a & b; Hill et al., 1996; 1997), two options are proposed:

• Option I: Retain boundaries of both sectors as originally proposed/mapped by Cox

(1994), but with changes to the category of management zones (section 6.3).
Furthermore, a clarification should be made as to where the northern boundary of the
Nam Trang - Ban Bung sector should actually be.

• Option II: Excise the northern part of Tat Ke sector, to exclude Khau Tinh Luong
Village and all areas north of it (figure 6.2). Excise the main concentration of
settlements of Thanh Tuong Commune out of Nam Trang - Ban Bung sector, and
refine the reserve’s boundaries, particularly the northern boundary of this sector, to
follow closely existing natural features (figure 6.3). The new proposed management
zones (section 6.3) should also be incorporated into this option.

In addition to these two options, the south-eastern boundary of Nam Trang - Ban Bung sector
should be extended (figure 6.3) to include areas that are still forested and where several

22
FIPI = Forest Inventory and Planning Institute
wildlife species including the Tonkin snub-nosed monkeys have been recorded (Boonratana &
Le, 1994; 1998b).

6.3 MANAGEMENT ZONES

The delineation of areas within a protected area into management zones is to allow specific
objectives to be fulfilled by allowing or not allowing certain activities to be carried out within
those zones. The ultimate goal, however, is to provide long-term protection and conservation
of natural resources of the protected area through better implementation of activities and better
planning for future activities. With clear management zones, the conflict among stakeholders
can be avoided or will greatly be reduced.

Cox (1994) proposed management zones for the Na Hang Nature Reserve that comprise a
wilderness zone, a buffer zone and a recovery/intensive use zone (figure 6.1). Anon. (1993;
1997) has two main zones for the PC reserve, strict protection zone and regeneration zone
(section 2.1). The status of wilderness zones as proposed by Cox (1994) and strict protection
zones as designated by Anon. (1993; 1997) for Tat Ke and Nam Trang - Ban Bung sectors are
not feasible because there are numerous settlements in both sectors, including the Hanoi - Na
Hang Road in the Nam Trang - Ban Bung sector.

By definition, a wilderness zone is supposedly a zone “where no visitors are allowed,

restrictions may be placed on the types of scientific research conducted and only those
management measures essential for protection (e.g. firefighting, monitoring reserve condition,
pursuit of poachers) are permitted” (MacKinnon et al., 1986), therefore obviously not
appropriate for these two sectors.

Likewise, they cannot be assigned strict protection zones because all activities prohibited by
Article 13 of the Prime Minister’s decree are being carried out in both sectors. These
prohibitions are:
i. all activities that make changes to the natural scenery;
ii. all activities affecting the natural life of wild animals/plants;
iii. releasing animal and planting plant species introduced from other areas, that had no
historical distribution in the protected area;
iv. exploitation of forestry and fishery products;
v. collecting samples of mineral, soil, wildlife;
vi. animal grazing;
vii. activities causing environmental pollution.
Although the areas surrounding Tat Ke and Nam Trang - Ban Bung sectors (figure 6.1) could be
designated a buffer zone (Cox, 1994), some complications could be expected because the Na
Hang Town is located in this zone. According to MacKinnon et al., (1986), a buffer zone is
“where management is aimed at reducing the friction between neighbouring incompatible
land-uses, such as strict nature reserves and agricultural settlement, and in which various types
of harvesting may be permitted, e.g. firewood collection, sport hunting, production of plant
materials.” However, to have the Na Hang Town in the buffer zone is not possible within the
Vietnamese context, because according to Article 13 of the Prime Minister’s decree, it is
prohibited, among other things, “to move people into the buffer zone.” Furthermore, having
Na Hang Town in the buffer zone could likely interrupt progress and upset plans for future
development activities for the urban area.

Thus, new management zones are proposed for the reserve (figures 6.2 & 6.3). The
management zones proposed here are within the Vietnamese context and complementary to
Article 13 of the Prime Minister’s decree. However, some modifications to the article are
offered to suit the current needs of the reserve, and to reduce conflict of interests among the
stakeholders.

The new management zones proposed are:

1. Strict Protection Zones: There are two areas proposed, one in Tat Ke sector (figure 6.2)
and one in Nam Trang-Ban Bung sector (figure 6.3). These proposed areas, although
smaller than that currently regarded by the authorities, are feasible and practicable. Much
of the forest in these areas are still intact, relatively higher in wildlife density, and within
the Tonkin snub-nosed monkey’s known range. Furthermore, there are no human
settlements in these areas, therefore, avoiding any conflict of legitimate interests.

2. Regeneration Zones: These are all the areas outside the proposed strict protection zones
(figures 6.2 & 6.3), but within the nature reserve. The current terminology of this zone
according to Article 13 of the Prime Minister’s Decree prohibit:
i. exploitation of forestry and fishery products;
ii. hunting wild animals;
iii. exploitation of land, soil and mineral sources;
iv. activities causing environmental pollution.

As there are human settlements in the proposed regeneration zones forming ‘enclave villages’
in the reserve, a sub-zone is therefore proposed. This sub-zone can be termed ‘village
enclave’. The proposed village enclave will comprise lands designated for agriculture and
grazing domestic animals, and a forested area where certain activities carried out in a
sustainable manner can be permitted. Only residents of the village concerned should be
allowed any rights, and are therefore directly responsible for maintaining the integrity of their
respective village enclave, albeit through a set of ‘village rules and regulations’. Furthermore,
no migration into the village enclaves should be allowed.

The above proposal of a village enclave complements Article 18 of the Prime Minister’s
decree regarding residents living in the protected areas, which expresses that:
i. the State will invest more on socio-economic development, adopt policies to improve the
living conditions of the residents living in the protected areas and buffer zones creating a
positive impact in the protection of the protected areas;
ii. all residents living in the protected areas should be stabilized without further growth in
population. Limit migration of people to the protected and buffer zone areas. In special
case, moving people inside protected areas, a proposal must be made for consideration;
iii. resident and cultivated lands of the population living inside protected areas are not
included in the protected area; but they must be marked with clear boundaries in the field;
iv. all residents living in the protected areas and buffer zone must comply to the regulations
and rules.

‘Village rules and regulations’ should be developed in consultation with all the concerned
stakeholders, as these will significantly impact on the traditional rights and livelihoods of the
local communities. It is imperative to carry out this consultation in good faith and with strong
commitment by representatives from the nature reserve; provincial, district and commune
people’s committee; and elected representatives of the villages concerned, including the
women in those communities. Responsibility for managing the village enclave should be
shared in collaboration with the villages concerned. Also, residents in the reserve and local
institutions/organizations should be encouraged to participate in the management of the
reserve, and should contribute in any manner that is appropriate to the long-term goals of the
reserve.
Figure 6.1: Map of the Na Hang Nature Reserve and its management zones as proposed by
Cox (1994).
Figure 6.2: Map of Tat Ke sector with proposed management zones23.

23
The reserve’s boundary shown here do not imply the legal boundaries, but merely descibed the area.
Figure 6.3: Map of Nam Trang - Ban Bung sector with proposed management zones and
extension area24.

24
The reserve’s boundary shown here do not imply the legal boundaries, but merely descibed the area.
 7. DISCUSSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 INTRODUCTION
The primary aim of this project was to strengthen the management and protection of the
reserve firstly, through the collection of basic information on the socio-economic status,
wildlife, human/habitat impact and current reserve’s boundaries; secondly, through training
and capacity building of the reserve staff and associated individuals; and thirdly, through
recommendations towards the management of the reserve. The secondary aim is to
complement and expedite the UNDP project planned for Na Hang, by providing essential
background information, as well as insights into an integrated conservation and development
programme. Results, observations and assessments of the main activities carried out were
presented in sections three, four, five and six. Other activities that were carried out during this
project included:
1. Maintaining Trails: Some trails that were overgrown were cleared by the participants of
the training exercise, and some trails that were considered important for field management
activities were marked with flagging. This was to assist future patrols and monitoring in
the reserve.

2. Equipment Handover: Complementary to the aims and objectives of this project, Fauna
& Flora International (Indochina Programme) has equipped the Na Hang Nature Reserve
with a few basic office and field equipment (motorcycle, computer, printer, fax machine,
wildlife books, maps, binoculars, compasses, field uniforms, camping gear, etc.), to assist
the reserve staff in their efforts towards protection and conservation of the reserve.

3. Wrap-up Presentation: A presentation was held in Na Hang on January 23, 1999,

wrapping up the project. Invitees to the presentation included key officials from the
province, district and communes, and representatives from communities living in the
reserve, and the trainees. The purpose of the presentation was not only to describe and
present the results, but also to provide ‘subtle’ conservation education regarding the
conservation of natural resources, management of protected area, generate interest and
awareness, and hopefully to draw some commitments from the invitees and the institutions
they represent. The presentation aided with overhead and slide projectors proved quite
effective in emphasizing the conservation, development and management needs of the
reserve. The visual aids also aroused much positive excitement, as this was the first ever
presentation in Na Hang using such aids. During this presentation, certificates were
awarded to the trainees, and albums with photographs taken during this project were
presented to the reserve director, and key invitees from the province and district.
4. Conservation Awareness: T-shirts depicting general wildlife were distributed to officials
and villagers in Na Hang at the beginning of the project manager’s consultancy to generate
interest in the project. In January 1999, T-shirts depicting the Tonkin snub-nosed monkeys
were distributed to the participants attending the wrap-up presentation. T-shirts were also
distributed to some residents living in the reserve. The words “Na Hang que em” meaning
“Na Hang my homeland” were printed on the reverse of the T-shirts. It was felt that this
wording was more appropriate than the usual messages seen on awareness materials.
Currently, the Tonkin snub-nosed monkey is only known to exist in Na Hang, hence is a
“homeland” to the monkeys too. Furthermore, “Na Hang que em” is also the title of a very
popular song known to every man, woman and child in the district. Thus, three messages
were delivered:
i. the monkeys are ‘residents’ of Na Hang, hence have every ‘right’ to continue their
existence;
ii. the monkeys, by their very existence have placed Na Hang on the world map and have
made ‘Na Hang’ synonymous with the ‘Tonkin snub-nosed monkey’;
iii. the residents of Na Hang are very proud to belong to Na Hang, as strongly expressed
through the song. Hence, by associating the monkey with the song, it is hoped that a
sense of pride regarding the monkey would similarly be instilled into the local
communities.

In this final section, some comments and further discussions are made based on the activities
carried out and other observations made during the course of this project. Specific and general
recommendations are also made here that will hopefully assist the reserve staff and other
agencies with interests in the reserve or its surroundings, in the management of the reserve,
and future conservation and development activities in the area.

7.2 TRAINING/CAPACITY BUILDING

An important feature of all training programmes, be it in field techniques, extension work or
participatory conservation, must be followed up with on-the-job training, actually carrying out
activities. It is only in this manner that one can hope to build the capacity of the protected area
staff. Observations made during this training exercise and earlier ones (Boonratana, 1997b;
1998a, b; & c) showed that training and capacity building of protected area staff can only be
achieved through intensive long-term on-the-job training. Such training and capacity building
are likely to be significantly more effective when provided systematically over a period of
several years within each protected area, rather than delivered in a centralized ‘one-off’
training event, which may not be adequately absorbed or acted on. However, given the short
duration of this project, it now depends on the head of the reserve and the UNDP project to
provide the necessary leadership and motivation. Likewise, it is equally important that the
trainees translate the skills acquired into meaningful activities, carrying forward the processes
initiated during this project.

7.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SITUATION

In general, the socio-economic situation of the settlements in and around the reserve does not
present a healthy picture. Apparently, based on Dinh’s (1998) and Nguyen et al.’s (1998)
information, most of the households (more than 80%) have very low income, categorised as
Class I (incomes of less than VND1,400,000/person/year) of the Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural Development’s classification for household income. Under the same ministry’s
classification for food deficiency, there could be about 50% of the households having food
deficiency up to four months in a year (Nguyen et al., 1998). Hence, the current socio-
economic situation in combination with the current infrastructure, will not see a reduction in
the communities’ dependency on the reserve for agricultural lands and forest products for
subsistence. Providing alternatives alone will not stop pressure on the forests and wildlife, but
providing better alternatives might significantly reduce the pressures.

Rice is the most important item for the subsistence of these communities, but in most areas
rice is grown only once a year, because of the lack of water during the dry season. If ways can
be found to supply water throughout the year, then rice could be harvested twice a year. This
will not only meet the needs of the communities, but also reduce human intrusion into the
reserve, as most intrusions take place during the dry season.

Another related problem is that some settlements do not have suitable agricultural lands, hence
they have to resort to shifting cultivation on sloped lands. Possibly, through agro-forestry,
permanent cultivation could be made feasible on sloped lands. This, however, should be
restricted to already cleared areas close to the settlements.

Conversations with several villagers showed that many of them knowingly extract timber and
bamboo illegally from the reserve for the construction and repairs of their homes as they could
not afford to purchase the building materials. Hence, a solution must be found soon, otherwise
forest destruction will still continue. Possible solutions include a) the establishment of village
enclave where extraction in a sustainable manner could be allowed; b) growing selected tree
species for future needs in the village enclaves, or other suitable areas.

Extension assistance should not be concentrated in ‘key’ settlements only (i.e. settlements in
and adjacent to the reserve), but should also be extended/directed to other nearby settlements
and districts. This is to prevent migration into the key settlements. Assistance should be just
adequate enough to prevent pressures on the reserve, but development projects outside the
reserve should be attractive, so as to possibly draw people out of the reserve.

7.4 FOREST PRODUCT INDUSTRY

In general, residents of the nature reserve and those living nearby the reserve harvest forest
products for their own use and to supplement cash income, although in some cases it has
become a lucrative business - geckos and bamboo shoots.

Bamboo shoot forms a major dietary item for the residents of Na Hang and adjoining districts,
and is an important source of income for several residents. Apparently, due to overharvesting,
the export of bamboo has been banned from Tuyen Quang Province, and only local sale is
allowed. Thus, due to the demand, this has created a lucrative illegal trade in bamboo shoots.
Furthermore, Tuyen Quang Province is famed in Vietnam for the quality of its bamboo shoots.
Looking at this scenario, one cannot but help think of ways to make the sale of bamboo shoot
legal, therefore making bamboo shoot an important item for local community development,
and possibly a major source of revenue for the district and the province. Thus, ways must be
found in which bamboo shoots can be harvested in a sustainable manner.

Alternatively, bamboo could be cultivated. Several species of bamboo are already widely
cultivated in many countries, notably in South-east Asia. The various species cultivated have
numerous uses: shoots for human consumption, fodder for horses, building material, furniture,
handicrafts, fishing poles, pulpwood, fiber for paper-making, in addition to their role in
windbreaks, riverbank stabilization and erosion control. Bamboo shoots, if canned and
exported, provide a good source of income. A market for canned shoots is readily available in
America and western Europe where demand is higher than supply (FAO, 1978).

There are several areas of land in Na Hang District that are just lying vacant, these could
possibly be used to cultivate bamboo for their shoots. Properly fertilised and managed, one
hectare of bamboo can annually yield from 500-1,000kg of shoots, in addition to 2-3 tons of
dry bamboo. Bamboo cultivation can bring a good income to farmers 3-4 years after planting
(FAO, 1978).

Thus, bamboo cultivation could be very important towards an integrated conservation and
development programme in Na Hang, and possibly in other areas too. Its cultivation could be
initiated at several levels:
i. to individual farmers with private lands;
ii. as a joint venture at the commune level;
iii. a district-managed activity for participating individuals and communes;
iv. a province-managed activity on both provincial lands and participating individuals;
v. as one component of extension work to the residents living in and adjacent to the reserve;
vi. or all the above, possibly with assistance from the UNDP project.

This, if carried out, must be properly planned and implemented well. Equally important is to
identify areas where cultivation can or cannot be carried out (for example viable forested areas
should not be cleared). Looking positively at a bigger picture, large-scale bamboo cultivation
could lead to a whole new industry offering employment to the local communities. A canning
industry could be envisaged with large scale production of bamboo shoot, and possibly several
other small scale or cottage industries producing furniture, paper, handicrafts, etc.

7.5 CONSERVATION OF TONKIN SNUB-NOSED MONKEY

Observations on the ecology and behaviour of the Tonkin snub-nosed monkey (Boonratana &
Le, 1994; 1998a) have revealed some significant findings, important towards conservation of
the species. The basic social unit of the Tonkin snub-nosed monkey is a one-male group,
comprising one fully adult male, several females and young animals. Extra males formed all-
male groups. The different one-male and all-male groups frequently come together at sleeping
and feeding sites, and are sometimes observed travelling together, implying inter-group
tolerance and the absence of defence for food resources. Observations also suggest that they
are selective feeders. Based on these findings, Boonratana & Le (1994; 1998b) recommended
that there should not be any attempt to capture the species for any purpose, including
translocation, until there is a better understanding of its ecology and behaviour. Furthermore,
given the monkey’s social structure and extremely low population size, any attempt at removal
will be disastrous.

7.6 RECOMMENDATIONS
7.6.1 Training & Training Needs
1. Whenever possible, training should be carried out in the Vietnamese language without an
interpreter. Rapport between the instructor and the trainees cannot be easily and quickly
achieved with the use of an interpreter. Much information would also be ‘lost’ during
interpretation or misinterpreted, and in even worse situations, misinterpretation could lead
to animosity towards the instructor.
2. Instructors should partake in the activities that follow any training programme, to guide the
process of translating skills acquired by the trainees into meaningful activities, and to
allow any queries to be resolved on the spot.
3. Future training programmes and activities should be carried out along similar lines, and
repeated annually for three continuous years. This will not only reinforce the trainees’
 capability, but will also allow them to learn other skills still unfamiliar to them and/or
needed for the changing needs of the reserve. Furthermore, repetitive on-the-job training
will allow wildlife and habitats to be monitored and assessed, besides maintaining some
continuity in developing skills of protected area staff.
4. It is important that all members of the reserve staff, including the director, participate in all
training activities carried out in the reserve, to give them a better understanding of the
reserve’s objectives and assist them in managing the reserve better.
5. Training programmes should be extended to include staff of the Provincial and District
Forest Protection Department, graduate students from Vietnamese educational institutions,
and local schoolteachers. Exposure of this type would provide a better understanding of
the reserve, the reserve’s objectives, and the activities needed to achieve those objectives.
Also, it will assist the Forest Protection Department staff in their day to day duties. It will
prepare graduate students from relevant fields for future conservation work in the country,
and provide ‘materials’ for schoolteachers to introduce conservation education in the
schools.

7.6.2 Patrols & Monitoring

1. Patrolling activities should be carried out regularly but randomly, so as not to familiarize
poachers with the patrolling schedule and routes.
2. Patrols and monitoring should be carried out throughout the reserve to provide an overall
assessment, but focus should be in areas having key wildlife species and habitats, and
major human impact.
3. Patrolling teams should submit their reports including data recording sheets immediately
on return to the reserve’s headquarters, so that actions, if needed, could be followed up and
the reports properly filed.
4. Ensure that there is continued existence of the reserve’s patrolling unit,25 which has had a
significant impact in curbing detrimental activities in the reserve.
5. Increase the size of the patrolling staff, and to include individuals from ‘key’ villages and
from different ethnic groups.
6. Unauthorized persons should not be allowed to carry firearms in the reserve.

7.6.3 Surveys & Research

1. A long-term study on the ecology and behaviour of the Tonkin snub-nosed monkeys
should be initiated. Information gathered will be extremely useful towards a management
and conservation action plan of the species, and towards management of the reserve.

25
A patrolling unit was iniated in mid-1998 by Ms. Bettina Martin, the in situ curator for Allwetterzoo, and funds
currently available do not ensure the unit’s continued existence.
2. Initiate surveys for the Tonkin snub-nosed monkeys in other areas outside the Na Hang
Nature Reserve, extending it to nearby districts and provinces. This survey need not be
species-specific, but should include searching for other key species and identifying viable
forested areas.
3. A list of key wildlife species as they are known by the different ethnic groups living and
around the reserve should be prepared. This list will assist both the reserve staff and
biologists in correct data collection.
4. Conduct a feasibility study into the idea of bamboo cultivation (section 7.4) and agro-
forestry (section 7.3) to improve the livelihoods of communities in Na Hang.

7.6.4 Reserve Boundaries & Management Zones

1. A correction should be made to the documents currently in use by the provincial, district
and reserve authorities (section 2.1) with regard to the terminolgy used for ‘reserve’ and
‘zones’, and a new document should be prepared in the Vietnamese language subsequent
to recommendations 2, 3, and 4 below.
2. A feasibility study should be carried out to consider the two options regarding the
proposed excision, zoning and extension of the reserve (section 6.2).
3. This must then be followed by an intensive three-month exercise to demarcate the
boundaries of the reserve. This will involve walking the perimeters of the reserve, clearly
marking it, making necessary adjustments to make the boundaries feasible and practicable.
4. Following this, there would need to be at least six months of intensive and extensive work
to designate the strict protection zones and village enclave, including designating
agricultural lands, grazing lands and production forest within these village enclaves. This
exercise and that mentioned in recommendation 3 would probably require aerial surveys
using helicopters.
5. There must be some agreed-upon commitments by the People’s Committee at both the
district and commune level, and the villages’ elders with regard to the proposed
regeneration zone and village enclave. Systematic process of discussion is needed to
develop an effective and accepted set rules and regulations for the regeneration zone and
village enclave.
6. Consider extending the reserve boundaries in the Nam Trang - Ban Bung sector to include
critical wildlife habitats located in Ban Can Province.

7.6.5 Equipment
1. More basic field equipment (tents, backpacks, etc.) should be purchased for the reserve’s
field staff.
2. The purchase of walkie-talkies should be seriously considered as this is an important item
needed when carrying out field management activities.
3. Field equipment should be cleaned after every field trip. Equipment like compasses,
binoculars, GPS, cameras, should be kept out of their cases and stored in airtight
containers with desiccating materials, kept safely in a cabinet.

7.6.6 General
1. The Na Hang Nature Reserve should maintain a few copies of master maps showing the
reserve boundaries, zones and village enclaves. There should also be maps showing
settlements and trails, both major and minor. Maps showing the locations of important
wildlife sightings and major human impacts should also be maintained, and these should
be frequently updated.
2. Reforestation activities in Na Hang, particularly in the reserve should avoid the
conventional plantation forestry (single and/or introduced species) approach. Natural forest
ecosystems are complex, but nature has great powers of regeneration. Thus, the correct
approach to forest restoration is to accelerate natural forest regeneration by increasing tree
density and species diversity, and by encouraging the dispersal of seeds (FORRU, 1998).
This is brought about by carefully planting selected species to the already existing seedling
community. The selected species are those that grow rapidly, shade out weeds and attract
seed-dispersing wildlife. These include several species of figs and legumes.
3. Domestic animals belonging to residents living outside the reserve should not be allowed
to enter the reserve, and domestic animals belonging to residents living in the reserve
should be kept within the grazing and agricultural lands, possibly through fencing.
Allowances should, however, be made for residents living in the reserve to bring their
domestic animals into town or vice versa. Equally important, the Na Hang Nature Reserve
with assistance from the district and province, should conduct free or subsidised
inoculation exercise for the livestock of residents in and adjacent to the reserve. This will
not only ensure improved livestock, but also prevent the transmission of diseases to
wildlife.
4. Extension assistance should also be extended to the settlements in Bac Can Province, that
are adjacent to the reserve. Due to their current socio-economic conditions and lack of
agricultural lands, they frequently encroach into the reserve and carry out forest clearance
for shifting cultivation, and log and wildlife poaching.
5. Tourism in the Na Hang Nature Reserve should not be encouraged until there is a
management plan for the reserve, with a clear component dealing with tourism.
6. Although the trade of wildlife (including domestic cat for consumption) is banned in the
province, and the ban enforced, there are still individuals selling wildlife for medicine and
food, and restaurants serving wild meat. Stricter enforcement and conservation awareness
 are needed, and more importantly, curb the demand through joint efforts at the national
and international level.

7.7 CONCLUSIONS
The management needs of the Na Hang Nature Reserve, not unlike many other protected areas
in the region have to address and satisfy the needs of the people using the reserve. This is not
an easy task to accomplish, given the fact that human communities living in and around the
reserve are socio-economically backwards. Their limited options to generate income, and low,
declining agricultural productivity have resulted in an unsustainable exploitation of forest
resources. Nevertheless, only though a joint and concentrated effort, involving all the
stakeholders, and through an integrated conservation and development programme, can
possible solutions be found to prevent further loss of natural resources. Furthermore,
settlements receiving extension assistance must comply to the mutually-agreed-upon village
regulations, and adhere to the reserve rules in exchange for the assistance received.

Even with extension assistance, the reserve must still carry out traditional protected area
activities - patrols, monitoring and law enforcement, which are important and very much
needed. These activities should preferably be carried out jointly with the stakeholder
communities, hence encouraging and ultimately achieving participatory management of the
reserve.

It is imperative that a management plan for the reserve be developed as soon as possible to
ensure the long-term viability of the reserve and its denizens, particularly the Tonkin snub-
nosed monkey. Also by virtue that this reserve was established with the primary aim to
conserve the critically endangered, endemic Tonkin snub-nosed monkey, the plan must
therefore lay emphasis on a species management plan for the monkey. Equally important is to
build the reserve staff’s capacity and capability to continue whatever positive processes
initiated by past, present and future conservation and development activities.
 REFERENCES

Anonymous. 1993. Du án xây dung khu báo tôn thiên Tát Ké - Bán Bung, huyên Ná Hang,
Tuyên Quang. UBND, Tuyen Quang.
Anonymous. 1997. Báo cáo tình hình thuc hiên du án khu bao tôn thiên nhiên.
Boonratana, R. 1997a. A state-wide survey to estimate the density of the Sumatran rhinoceros,
Asian elephant and banteng in Sabah. WCS, New York.
Boonratana, R. 1997b. Field training in wildlife conservation research techniques and large
mammal survey at Nam Phui National Biodiversity Conservation Area, Lao PDR.
IUCN/LSFP, Vientiane.
Boonratana, R. 1998a. Wildlife survey training at Dong Hua Sao and Phou Xiang Thong
National Biodiversity Conservation Areas. IUCN/BCP, Vientiane/Pakse.
Boonratana, R. 1998b. Field management of Nam Poui and Phou Xang He national
biodiversity conservation areas. IUCN/LSFP, Vientiane.
Boonratana, R. 1998c. Nakai – Nam Theun Conservation Project [Phase 2]: Wildlife
monitoring techniques and participatory conservation at Nakai- Nam Theun NBCA.
IUCN/WCS, Vientiane.
Boonratana, R. and Le, X.C. 1994. A report on the ecology, status and conservation of the
Tonkin snub-nosed monkeys (Rhinopithecus avunculus) in northern Vietnam.
WCS/IEBR, New York/Hanoi.
Boonratana, R. and Le, X.C. 1998a. Preliminary observations of the ecology and behaviour of
the Tonkin snub-nosed monkey (Rhinopithecus [Presbytiscus] avunculus) in northern
Vietnam; in Jablonski, N.G. (ed.). 1998. The Natural History of the Doucs and Snub-
nosed Monkeys. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore. pp. 207-215.
Boonratana, R. and Le, X.C. 1998b. Conservation of Tonkin snub-nosed monkeys
(Rhinopithecus [Presbytiscus] avunculus) in Vietnam; in Jablonski, N.G. (ed.). 1998.
The Natural History of the Doucs and Snub-nosed Monkeys. World Scientific
Publishing, Singapore. pp. 315-322.
Corbet, G.B. and J.E. Hill. 1992. The Mammals of the IndoMalayan Region: A Systematic
Review. Oxford University Press, New York.
Cox, C.R. 1994. A Management Feasibility Study of the Proposed Na Hang (Tonkin Snub-
nosed Monkey) Nature Reserve, Tuyen Quang Province, Vietnam.
Dang, H.H. and M.K. Hoang. 1993. Etude de la diversité biologique des forêts de Tuyen
Quang et proposition de mesures de protection pour en assuger la pérennité. IEBR,
Hanoi.
Delacour, J. and P. Jabouille. 1931. Les oiseaux de l’Indochine Française. Exposition
Coloniale Internationale, Paris.
Dinh, T.T. 1998. Na Hang Rainforest Conservation Project: Socio-economic research on
dependency by the people on forest resources. FFI, Hanoi.
FAO. 1978. Forestry for local community development. FAO Forestry Paper 7. FAO, Rome.
FORRU. 1998. Forests for the Future: Growing and Planting Native Trees for Restoring
Forest Ecosystems. FORRU, Chiang Mai.
IUCN,.1996. 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Hill, M., N. Kemp, N.C. Dung, V.L. Truong, and V.T. Ha. 1996. Biological survey of Na
Hang Nature Reserve, Tuyen Quang Province, Vietnam, Part 1: Ban Bung Sector.
SEE, Hanoi.
Hill, M., D. Hallam, K.D. Nguyen, K.S. Nguyen, and D.N. Tran. 1997. Na Hang Nature
Reserve, Part 2: Tat Ke Sector. SEE, London.
King, B, M. Woodcock, and E.C. Dickinson. 1991. A Field Guide to the Birds of South-East
Asia. Collins, London.
Lekagul, B. and J. A. McNeely. 1977. Mammals of Thailand. Saha Karn Bhaet Co., Ltd.,
Bangkok.
Lekagul, B. and P.D. Round. 1991. A Guide to the Birds of Thailand. Saha Karn Bhaet Co.,
Ltd., Bangkok.
MacKinnon, J. and K. MacKinnon. 1986. Review of the Protected Areas System in the Indo-
Malayan Realm. IUCN/UNEP, Gland and Cambridge.
MacKinnon, J., K. MacKinnon, G. Child, and J. Thorsell. Managing Protected Areas in the
Tropics. IUCN, Cambridge.
Nguyen, H.T., Tran, V.H., Nguyen, H.T., and Mai, A.V. 1998. Na Hang Rainforest
Conservation Project: Report on socio-economic survey, Tat Ke-Ban Bung Nature
Reserve, Na Hang District, Tuyen Quang Province. FFI, Hanoi.
Ratajszczak, R., C. Ngoc, and N. Pham. 1992. A survey for Tonkin snub-nosed monkey
(Rhinopithecus avunculus) in north Vietnam. Unpublished report.
Sokolov, V.E., Z.V. Rozhnov, and T.A. Pham. 1997. New species of viverrids of the genus
Viverra (Mamalia, Carnivora). Zool. Zh. Vol. 76:585-589.
Udvardy, M.D.F. 1975. A classification of the Biogeographical Provinces of the world. IUCN
Occasional Paper 18:1-48.
UNDP. 1995. Creating Protected Areas for Resource Conservation using Landscape Ecology
(PARC). VIE/95/G31.
APPENDIX I: Assessment of Trainees' Performance

Categories
1. Map & compass (classroom) 7. Field ethics
2. Map & compass (field) 8. Field craft
3. Wildlife survey & observations 9. Commitment
4. Note-taking 10. Interest & attitude
5. Use of field guides 11. Teamwork & leadership
6. Report-writing 12. Diligence

Assessment
Trainees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 GPA
Nguyen Huy B+ B B B C+ B B B B B+ B B+ B+
Chien
Le Cong Vien B C C+ C C C B+ B B B B B B
Ma Van Tu C+ C B+ B C C+ B+ A B B+ B+ A B
Quan Van C C B B C+ B B+ B+ B+ B B B+ B
Thanh
Tang Bang C C B B C C B B+ B B B C+ B
Giang
Hoang Van Lap B B B+ B C+ B B+ A B+ B B B+ B+
Chau Trong B B B B C+ B B B+ B B B B B
Tam
Pham Van Sanh B B B B B B B+ B B+ B B B+ B+
Nguyen Ngoc B B B B B B+ B B+ B B B B B+
De
Chau Van Ngoi C+ C+ C+ B B B B B+ B B B B B
Hoang Van Thu - C B+ B+ C+ C+ B+ A+ A+ A+ A A A
Dong Thanh A B+ A A A+ A B+ B A+ A+ B+ A A
Hai
Nguyen Thien A C B A B B B D A B+ D B+ B
Nga
GPA: Grade Point Average

Grade & Points

A+ 4 Excellent
A 3.5 Very Good
B+ 3 Good
B 2.5 Average
C+ 2 Fair
C 1.5 Weak
D 1 Poor
APPENDIX II: Ethics of Field Surveys and Patrols

The following ethics are strongly recommended to improve chances at wildlife sighting:
• A patrolling/monitoring team should comprise not more than three persons per survey route.
Fewer persons mean less noise produced.
• Cigarette smoking should be totally avoided when conducting survey patrols, and be allowed
only at camps. In dense primary forest, the smell of cigarette smoke can linger for up to three
days, and be detected up to a radius of 500 meters.
• Team members should maintain a distance of at least three meters from each other, and travel
at a speed of an hour to a kilometer (or at least not less than 40 minutes to a kilometer).
Frequent pauses of at least a minute should be made every 25-30 m to observe the general
surroundings for cryptic animals and/or wildlife signs.
• Clothing and daypack should be dull-coloured and inconspicuous.
• Radios at camp should be just audible to the immediate listener and not too loud as to scare
away animals or ‘drown’ wildlife vocalizations that could otherwise be heard.
• Establish camps at least 800 m away from key wildlife habitats such as mineral licks,
lakes, etc.
APPENDIX III: Locations and Preparation of Camps

An ideal campsite should have the following criteria:-

• Campsites should be approximately centrally located within the study area, to allow adequate
coverage of the area.
• Campsites should be in a relatively flat area and close to a water source, to allow a
comfortable and convenient campsite.
• Campsites should be checked for dead standing trees before setting up camps, to prevent
injury/injuries, if the tree/trees should fall.
• Campsites should not be less than 800 m from key wildlife habitats (for example, mineral
licks, water pools, etc.), to avoid disturbing the animals.
Preparations and maintenance of campsites:-
• Campsites should preferably be established by 1630 h, to prevent chaos once it gets dark or at
the worst, when it rains. Hence, campsites should be reached by 1500 h to allow adequate time
for establishing campsites. The distance and the terrain from the point of hike to the proposed
campsite should be considered when planning the time at the start of the hike. [Note: speed of
travel with a full backpack along forest trails ranges from 2-3 km/hr.]
• On arrival at campsites, team members should first prepare the ‘kitchen’. These include
having two fireplaces (to speed up cooking, therefore preventing loss of field time), a rack for
storage of edibles, and a tarpaulin over the kitchen area to ensure the kitchen remains dry in
case of sudden rains.
• Water for drinking should immediately be boiled.
• Pit toilets should be prepared, and some soil should be thrown into the pit after every
'visitation'. Toilets should be closed and buried at the end of the trip.
• Rubbish at camps should be burnt and buried, and campsites should be thoroughly checked for
any leftover litter before campsites are abandoned.
APPENDIX IV: List of Field Equipment

I. For each Participant:

1. Backpack & daypack
2. Sleeping bag or light blanket
3. Tent or mosquito net & tarpaulin (5 x 5 m)
4. Binoculars
5. Compass
6. Global Positioning System unit*
7. Altimeter*
8. 35 mm autofocus camera* & ASA 200 films
9. Watch
10. Flashlight (with spare batteries & bulbs)
11. Machete
12. Notebooks (1 pocket size for the field & 1 regular size for camp)
13. Ball-point pens & pencils
14. Measuring tape (2-3 m)
15. Dull-colored field clothes & cap
16. Light canvas shoes with studded soles & slippers
17. Insect repellent & leech socks
18. Water canteen
19. Lighters
20. Whistle
21. Mug, spoon & bowl
22. Personal medication
23. Personal toiletries
II. For each Survey Team:
1. Global Positioning System*
2. Altimeter*
3. Camera (35 mm with ASA 200 films)*
4. First-aid kit
5. Topographic maps & photocopies of proposed survey areas
6. Data recording sheets
7. Cooking pots
8. Sharpening stone
9. Plastic string (2 rolls)
10. Plastic pails
11. Candles (approximately two 20cm candles per night)
12. Plastic bags (various sizes) & rubber bands
13. Small spade
* if available
Note: all items except those in italics should be issued by the protected area
APPENDIX Va: Wildlife Data Recording Format

Location:...........................………………………………….......................... Date:………………...
Time Start:….......……… Time End:....…................. Distance Covered:...........................................
Personnel:.............................................................……….…….......……………......................……
Evidence: 7.Feeding Signs
1.Sighting 8.Other:
2.Tracks - Wallows
3.Vocalization - Bathing Pools
4.Scat/Dung - Mud Smears
5.Nests - Antler/Horn marks
6.Scrapes/Claw Marks 9.Reliable Report
Time Species Location Evidence Remarks
APPENDIX Vb: Wildlife Data Recording Format (in Vietnamese)
APPENDIX VIa: Human/Habitat Impact Data Recording Format

Location:...........................…………………………..................……… Date:…………..............….
Time Start:……….....… Time End:............…......... Distance Covered:.............................................
Personnel:.......................................................................……….………………..................………
A: Hunting Activities B: Non-Hunting Activities
1. Traps/Snares 1. Forest clearance
2. Guns/Crossbows 2. Timber-cutting
3. Fishing gear 3. Huts
4. Hunting dogs 4. NTFP26 collection
5. Camps 5. Livestock grazing
6. Wildlife 6. House construction
7. Other 7. Other
Time Activity Location* Active/Non-active Remarks**

*Latitude and longitude, if possible

26
NTFP = Non-timber forest product
**To also include information on the number of persons, their ethnic group, purpose,
residence, names, etc.
APPENDIX VIb: Human/Habitat Impact Data Recording Format (in Vietnamese)
APPENDIX VII: List of Mammals Recorded in the Na Hang Nature Reserve

Note:
(?) = provisional; (??) = doubtful; + = present; 1 = Tat Ke; 2 = Nam Trang - Ban Bung;
* = new record; ** = endemic

MAMMALS27
Common name Scientific name 199328 199429 199630 199731 199832
1. Himalayan mole Talpa micrura +
2. Common treeshrew Tupaia glis + + + +2
3. Savi’s pygmy shrew Suncus etruscus + +
4. Horsfield's shrew Crocidura horsfieldi + +
5. SE Asian white- Crocidura fulignosa +
toothed shrew
6. Leschenault's Rousettus leschenaulti +
rousette
7. Greater false Megaderma lyra + +
vampire bat
8. Blyth's horeshoe bat Rhinolophus lepidus + +
9. Least horseshoe bat Rhinolophus pusillus + +
10. Rhinolophus paradoxolophus + +
11. Rhinolophus macrotis + +
12. Bornean horseshoe Rhinolophus borneensis/nereis + +
bat
13. Rhinolophus rouxii + +
14. Intermediate Rhinolophus affinis +
horseshoe bat
15. Rhinolophus pearsoni + +
16. Rhinolophus subbadius +
17. Rhinolophus sp. +
18. Himalayan leaf- Hipposideros armiger +
nosed bat
19. Dusky leaf-nosed Hipposideros ater +
bat
20. Hipposideros larvatus + +
21. Hipposideros pomona (?)
22. Hipposideros sp. +
23. Aselliscus stoliczkanus + +
24. Myotis longipes + +
25. Daubenton's bat Myotis daubentonii + +
26. Scotomanes ornatus + +
27. Schreiber's long- Miniopterus schreibersi + +

27
Taxonomy generally follows IUCN (1996).
28
Dang & Hoang, 1993.
29
Boonratana & Le, 1994.
30
Hill et al., 1996 (Nam Trang - Ban Bung).
31
Hill et al., 1997 (Tat Ke).
32
This study.
Common name Scientific name 199328 199429 199630 199731 199832
fingered bat
28. Pipistrellus sp. (?) (?)
29. Indian pipistrelle Pipistrellus coromanra +
30. Javan pipistrelle Pipistrellus javanicus +
31. Ia io + +
32. Murina sp. +
33. Pygmy loris VU Nycticebus pygmaeus +1 +
34. Slow loris Nycticebus coucang +2 + +2
35. Stump-tailed Macaca arctoides + +1,2 +2
macaque VU
36. Assamese macaque Macaca assamensis + +1 +2
VU
37. Rhesus macaque Macaca mulatta + +1
38. Pig-tailed macaque Macaca nemestrina + +2 + +2
VU
39. Francois's leaf Trachypithecus francoisi + + (?)2
monkey VU francoisi
40. Phayre's leaf Trachypithecus phayrei + (?)1
monkey
41. Tonkin snub-nosed Rhinopithecus avunculus + +1,2 + + +1,2
monkey CR
42. Black gibbon EN Hylobates concolor (??)
43. Hare Lepus peguensis +1
44. Chinese pangolin Manis pendactyla + +1,2 + + +2
45. Black giant squirrel Ratufa bicolor + +1,2 + + +1,2
46. Red-bellied squirrel Callosciurus erythraeus (?) +1,2 + + +1,2
47. Tree squirrel Callosciurus inornatus (?) +
48. Striped tree-squirrel Tamiops sp. +1,2
sp.
49. Burmese striped Tamiops maclellandi (?) + + +
tree-squirrel
50. Red-cheeked Dremomys rufigenis + + +
squirrel
51. Striped ground Menetes berdmorei + +
squirrel
52. Red giant flying Petaurista petaurista + + + +2
squirrel
53. Hairy-footed flying Belomys pearsoni + + + +2
squirrel
54. Hoary bamboo rat Rhizomys pruinosus + + + +2
55. House mouse Mus musculus +
56. Rattus flavipectus (?)
57. Bower's rat Rattus bowersii + +
58. Sladen's rat Rattus koratensis + + +
59. Greater bandicoot Bandicota indica +
rat
60. Bush-tailed Atherurus macrourus + +2 +1,2
porcupine
61. Crestless Himalayan Hystrix brachyura + +2 + + +2
porcupine
Common name Scientific name 199328 199429 199630 199731 199832
62. Dhole VU Cuon alpinus + +2
63. Racoon dog Nyctereutes procyonoides + +2 + +
64. Burmese ferret- Melogale personata + +1 +2
badger
65. Hog badger Arctonyx collaris + + + +1,2
66. Yellow-bellied Mustela kathiah +
weasel
67. Yellow-throated Martes flavigula +
marten
68. Oriental small- Aonyx cinerea +
clawed otter
69. Common otter Lutra lutra + + + +2
70. Binturong Arctictis binturong +2
71. Large Indian civet Viverra zibetha + +2 + +
72. * Viverra tainguensis +2
73. Small Indian civet Viverricula indica + +2 +
74. Spotted linsang Prionodon pardicolor +
75. Masked palm civet Paguma larvata + + +1,2
76. Owston's palm civet Chrotogale owstoni + +1,2
VU
77. Small Asian Herpestes javanicus +
mongoose
78. Crab-eating Herpestes urva + + +
mongoose
79. Leopard cat Prionailurus bengalensis + +2 + +
80. Golden cat Catopuma temminckii + +2 +
81. Leopard Panthera pardus + + +
82. Clouded leopard Neofelis nebulosa + +
VU
83. Tiger EN Panthera tigris + (?)1
84. Bear spp. + +1,2
85. Sun bear Helarctos malayanus +
86. Asiatic black bear Ursus thibetanus + +1,2 + +
VU
87. Wild pig Sus scrofa + +1,2 + +1,2
88. Barking deer Muntiacus muntjac + +1,2 + + +1,2
89. Sambar deer Cervus unicolor + +1,2 + +
90. Serow VU Capricornis sumatrensis + +1,2 + + +1,2
APPENDIX VIII: List of Birds Recorded in the Na Hang Nature Reserve

Note:
(?) = provisional; (??) = doubtful; + = present; 1 = Tat Ke; 2 = Nam Trang - Ban Bung;
* = new record; ** = endemic

BIRDS33
Common name Scientific name 199334 199435 199636 199737 199838
1. Little heron Butorides striatus + +2
2. Chinese pond-heron Ardeola bacchus + +
3. Northern hobby Falco subbuteo + +1
4. Oriental hobby Falco severus +2
5. Black kite Milvus migrans + +1,2
6. Black eagle Ictinaetus malayensis +
7. Crested serpent-eagle Spilornis cheela + + +1,2
8. Shikra Accipiter badius +
9. Besra Accipiter virgatus +
10. Crested goshawk Accipiter trivirgatus +
11. Northern sparrowhawk Accipter nisus +
12. Grey-faced buzzard Butastur indicus + +2
13. Pied falconet Microhierax melanoleucos + +
14. Bar-backed partridge* Arborophila cambodiana +2
15. Rufous-throated Arborophila rufogularis +2
partridge*
16. Scaly-breasted partridge Arborophila chloropus +
17. Ruddy-breasted crake* Porzana fusca +2
18. Red jungle fowl Gallus gallus +2 + + +1,2
19. Silver pheasant Lophura nycthemera +1,2 + + +1,2
nycthymera
20. Grey peacock-pheasant Polypectron bicalcaratum +1,2 +
21. White-breasted waterhen Amaurornis phoenicurus +
22. Eurasian woodcock Scolopax rusticola +
23. Yellow-vented pigeon Treron seimundi +
24. Thick-billed pigeon Treron curvirostra +2 +
25. Green imperial pigeon Ducula aenea +
26. Mountain imperial Ducula badia +2 + +2
pigeon
27. Spotted dove Streptopelia chinensis + + +1,2
28. Emerald dove Chalcophaps indica + + +1,2
29. Red-collared dove Streptopelia tranquebarica +
30. Red-breasted parakeet Psittacula alexandri + + + +2

33
Taxonomy generally follows Lekagul & Round (1991).
34
Dang & Hoang, 1993.
35
Boonratana & Le, 1994.
36
Hill et al., 1996 (Nam Trang - Ban Bung).
37
Hill et al., 1997 (Tat Ke).
38
This study.
31. Common sandpiper Tringa hypoleucos +
32. River lapwing Vanellus duvaucelii +
33. Coral-billed ground Carpococcyx renauldi +1
cuckoo
34. Large hawk-cuckoo Cuculus sparverioides + +
35. Plaintive cuckoo Cacomantis merulinus +
36. Indian cuckoo Cuculus micropterus +
37. Common cuckoo Cuculus canorus + +
38. Common Koel Eudynamys scolopacea + +
39. Green-billed malkoha Phaenicophaeus tristis + + +2
40. Greater coucal Centropus sinensis +1,2 + +
41. Lesser coucal Centropus bengalensis +
42. Mountain scops owl Otus spilocephalus + + +1,2
43. Collared scops owl Otus bakkamoena + +
44. Collared owlet Glaucidium brodiei + +
45. Asian barred owlet Glaucidium cuculoides + +1,2
46. Brown hawk-owl Ninox scutulata + +
47. Grey nightjar Caprimulgus indicus +
48. Himalayan swiftlet Collocalia brevirostris (?)
49. Silver-backed needletail Hirundapus cochinchinensis +
50. Brown-backed needletail Hirundapus giganteus +
51. Fork-tailed swift Apus pacificus + +
52. Asian palm swift Cypsiurus batasiensis + + +1,2
53. House swift Apus affinis +
54. Scarlet-rumped trogon Harpactes duvaucelli +1 +1
55. Red-headed trogon Harpactes erythrocephalus +2 + + +1,2
56. Common kingfisher Alcedo atthis + +
57. Black-capped kingfisher Halcyon pileata +
58. White-throated kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis + +
59. Blue-bearded bee-eater Nyctyornis athertoni + +
60. Dollarbird Eurystomus orientalis +2 +
61. Hoopoe Upupa epops + + +1,2
62. Brown hornbill Ptilolaemus tickelli +1,2 + +2
63. Pied hornbill Anthracoceros malayanus +1,2
64. Rufous-necked hornbill Aceros nipalensis +2
65. Great barbet Megalaima virens +1 + + +1,2
66. Red-vented barbet** Megalaima lagrandieri + +
67. Green-eared barbet Megalaima faiostricta +1 + +
68. Blue-throated barbet Megalaima asiatica +1 + + +1,2
69. Coppersmith barbet Megalaima haemacephala +1,2
70. Golden-throated barbet Megalaima franklinii +1,2 +
71. Blue-winged minla Minla cyanouroptera +2
72. White-browed piculet Sasia ochracea +2 + +
73. Grey-headed woodpecker Picus canus +
74. Rufous woodpecker Celeus brachyurus + +1,2
75. Red-collared woodpecker Picus rabieri +
VU
76. Greater yellownape Picus flavinucha +2 + + +1,2
77. Lesser yellownape Picus chlorophus +2 + + +1,2
78. Grey-capped woodpecker Picoides canicapillus + +
79. Bay woodpecker Blythipicus pyrrhotis + +
80. Greater flameback Chrysocolaptes lucidus +
81. Siver-breasted broadbill Serilophus lunatus + +
82. Long-tailed broadbill Psarisomus dalhousiae +2 + + +1,2
83. Rusty-naped pitta Pitta oatesi +
84. Blue-rumped pitta Pitta soror +
85. Bar-bellied pitta** Pitta ellioti +
86. Eared pitta Pitta phayrei +
87. Grey-headed flycatcher* Culicicapa ceylonensis +2
88. Bar-winged flycatcher- Hemipus picatus + +
shrike
89. Large wood-shrike Tephrodornis virgatis +
90. Large cuckoo-shrike Coracina macei + +2
91. Small minivet Pericrocotus cinnamomeus +
92. Short-billed minivet Pericrocotus brevirostris + +2
93. Grey-chinned minivet Pericrocotus solaris +2
94. Scarlet minivet Pericrocotus flammeus +2 + + +1,2
95. Blue-winged leafbird Chloropsis cochinchinensis + +1
96. Orange-bellied leafbird Chloropsis hardwickii + + +1,2
97. Ochraceous bulbul* Criniger ochraceous +2
98. Black-crested bulbul Pycnonotus melanicterus + +
99. Red-whiskered bulbul Pycnonotus jocosus + + +1,2
100. Light-vented bulbul Pycnonotus sinensis +
101. Sooty-headed bulbul Pycnonotus aurigaster + +
102. Brown-breasted bulbul Pycnonotus xanthorrous +2
103. Puff-throated bulbul Criniger pallidus +1,2 +
104. Olivaceous bearded Alophoixus pallidus +
bulbul
105. Grey-eyed bulbul Iole propinquus +
106. Chestnut bulbul Hypsipetes castanotus + +
107. Black bulbul Hypsipetes + +
madagascariensis
108. Crow-billed drongo Dicrurus annectans +
109. Ashy drongo Dicrurus leucophaeus + +2
110. Spangled drongo Dicrurus hottentotus +1
111. Black drongo Dicrurus macrocercus +1,2
112. Bronzed drongo Dicrurus aeneus + +
113. Greater racket-tailed Dicrurus paradiseus +2 + + +1,2
drongo
114. Lesser racket-tailed Dicrurus remifer +1 +
drongo
115. Black-naped oriole* Oriolus chinensis +2
116. Maroon oriole Oriolus trailii + +
117. Large cuckooshrike Coracina macei +
118. Black-winged Coracina melaschistor +
cuckooshrike
119. Asian fairy bluebird Irena puella +
120. Green magpie Cissa chinensis + + +1
121. White-winged magpie Urocissa whitheadi + +
122. Blue magpie Urocissas erythrorhyncha + + +1
123. Grey treepie Dendrocitta formosae +
124. Racket-taile treepie Crypsirina temia +
125. Ratchet-tailed treepie Temnurus temnurus +2 + + +2
126. Large-billed crow Corvus macrorhynchos + + +1
127. Ashy woodswallow Artamus fuscus +
128. Barn swallow Hirundo rustica +
129. Sultan tit Melanochlora sultanea +2 + + +1,2
130. Great tit Parus major + +
131. Chestnut-bellied nuthatch Sitta castanea +
132. Velvet-fronted nuthatch Sitta frontalis + + +2
133. Buff-breasted babbler Pellorneum tickelli +
134. Puff-throated babbler Pellorneum ruficeps + +
135. Streak-breasted scimitar- Pomatorhinus ruficollis +
babbler
136. Red-billed scimitar Pomatorhinus ochraceiceps + +
babbler
137. Slender-billed scimitar- Xiphirhynchus superciliaris +
babbler
138. Streaked wren-babbler Napothera brevicaudata +1,2 + +
139. Eye-browed wren- Napothera epilepidota + +
babbler
140. Golden babbler Stachyris chrysaea + +
141. Grey-throated babbler Stachyris nigriceps + +
142. Spot-necked babbler Stachyris striolata + +
143. White-hooded babbler Gampsorhynchus rufulus + +
144. White-browed shrike- Pteruthius flaviscapis +
babbler
145. Striped tit-babbler Macronous gularis + +
146. White-crested Garrulax leucolophus + + +1,2
laughingthrush
147. Lesser necklaced Garrulax monileger + +
laughingthrush
148. Grey laughingthrush Garrulax maesi + +
149. Masked laughingthrush Garrulax perspicillatus +
150. Red-tailed laughingthrush Garrulax milnei +
151. Black-throated Garrulax chinensis + + +1,2
laughingthrush
152. Hwamei Garrulax canorus + + +1
153. Silver-eared mesia Leiothrix argentauris +2 +
154. Rufous-throated fulvetta Alcippe rufogularis + + +2
155. Mountain fulvetta Alcippe morrisonia + +
156. Long-tailed sibia Heterophasia picaoides +2 + +2
157. Striated yuhina Yuhina castaniceps +
158. Black-chinned yuhina Yuhina nigrimenta + +
159. White-bellied yuhina Yuhina zantholeuca +2 + +
160. Black-browed broadbill Paradoxornis +
atrosuperciliaris
161. Greater rufous-headed Paradoxornis ruficeps + +
parrotbill
162. Lesser shortwing Brachypteryx leucophyrys +
163. Orange-flanked bush- Tarsiger cyanurus +
robin
164. Oriental magpie-robin Copyschus saularis + + +
165. White-rumped shama Copyschus malabaricus + +
166. Plumbeous redstart Rhyacornis fuliginosus +
167. White-tailed robin Cinclidium leucurum +
168. Little forktail Enicurus ruficapillus +1,2
169. Slaty-backed forktail Enicurus schistaceus + +1,2
170. White-crowned forktail Enicurus leschenaulti + +
171. Green cochoa Cochoa viridis +
172. Common stonechat Saxicola torquata +
173. Grey bushchat Saxicola ferrea +
174. Blue rock-thrush Monticola solitaurius +
175. Blue whistling thrush Myiophoneus caeruleus +
176. Black-breasted thrush Turdus dissimilis +
177. Japanese thrush Turdus cardis +
178. Grey-winged blackbird Turdus boulboul +
179. Common blackbird Turdus merula +
180. Arctic warbler Phylloscopus borealis +
181. Golden spectacled Seicercus burkii + +
warbler
182. Chestnut-crowned Seicercus castaniceps +
warbler
183. Yellow-bellied warbler Abroscopus superciliaris + +
184. Inornate warbler Phylloscopus inornatus +
185. Lemon-rumped warbler Phylloscopus proregulus +
186. Blyth's leaf warbler Phylloscopus + +
reguloides/davisoni
187. Greenish warbler* Phylloscopus trochiloides +1,2
188. Sulphur-breasted warbler Phylloscopus ricketti + +
189. Common tailorbird Orthotomus sutorius + +
190. Mountain tailorbird Orthotomus cuculatus +
191. Dark-necked tailorbird Orthotomus atrogularis +
192. Rufescent prinia Prinia rufescens + +2
193. White-browed prinia Prinia atrogularis +
194. Grey-breasted prinia Prinina hodgsonii +
195. Grey-bellied tesia Tesia cyaniventer +
196. Black-naped monarch Hypothymis azurea +
197. Dark-sided flycatcher Musciapa sibrica +
198. Asian paradise flycatcher Terpsiphone paradisi +
199. Asian brown flycatcher Musciapa latirostris + +
200. Verditer flycatcher Euymius thalassina +
201. Mugamaki flycatcher Ficedula mugimaki +
202. Red-throated flycathcher Ficedula parva +
203. Snowy-browed flycatcher Ficedula hyperythra +
204. Common iora Aegithinina tipia +
205. Large woodshrike Tephrodornis gularis +
206. Blue whistling thrush Myiophoneus caerulens +
207. Orange-headed thrush Zoothera citrina +
208. Scaly thrush Zoothera dauma +
209. Lesser shortwing Brachypteryx leucophrys +
210. Small niltava Niltava macgrigoriae + +
211. Fulkien niltava Niltava davidi +
212. Asian brown flycatcher Muscicapa dauurica +
213. Slaty-blue flycatcher Ficedula tricolor +
214. Yellow-rumped Ficedula zanthopygia +
flycatcher
215. White-tailed flycatcher Cyornis concreta + +
216. Hainan blue flycatcher Cyornis hainana + +
217. Grey-headed canary Culicicapa ceylonensis + +1
flycatcher
218. White-throated fantail Rhipidura albicollis +2 +
219. Forest wagtail Dendronanthus indicus +
220. Grey wagtail Motacilla cinerea + +
221. Olive tree-pipit Anthus hodgsoni +
222. Red-throated pipit Anthus cervinus +
223. Tiger shrike Lanius tigrinus +
224. Long-tailed shrike Lanius schach + +2
225. Burmese shrike* Lanius collrioides +1
226. Grey-backed shrike Lanius tephronotus +
227. Chestnut-tailed starling Sturnus malabaricus +
228. Black-collared starling Sturnus nigricollis + +2
229. White-vented myna Acridotheres javanicus + +
230. Crested myna Acridotheres cristatellus + +
231. Golden-crested myna Ampeliceps coronatus +
232. Hill myna Gracula religiosa +1 + + +1,2
233. Olive-backed sunbird Nectarinia jugularis + +
234. Fork-tailed sunbird Aethopyga christinae + +
235. Black-throated sunbird Aethopyga saturata +
236. Crimson sunbird Aethopyga siparaja +
237. Little spiderhunter Arachnothera longirostra + +
238. Streaked spiderhunter Arachnothera magna + + +2
239. Plain flowerpecker Dicaeum concolor + +
240. Buff-belllied Dicaeum ignipectus +
flowerpecker
241. Japanese white-eye Zosterops japonicus +
242. Oriental white-eye Zosterops palpebrosus + +1,2
243. White-rumped munia Lonchura striata + +
244. Chestnut bunting Emberiza rutila +1
245. Chestnut-eared bunting Emberiza fucata +
246. Black-faced bunting Emberiza spodocephala +
247. Spot-winged grosbeak* Mycerobas melanozanthos +2
APPENDIX IX: List of Reptiles Recorded in the Na Hang Nature Reserve

Note:
(?) = provisional; (??) = doubtful; + = present; 1 = Tat Ke; 2 = Nam Trang - Ban Bung;
* = new record; ** = endemic

REPTILES
199339 199440 199641 199742 199843
1. Gecko sp. +1,2 +1,2
2. Gecko gekko +
3. Gecko japonicus +
4. Hemydactylus frenatus + +
5. Hemydactylus karenorum +
6. Acanthosaura lepidogaster + +1,2
7. Calotes emma +
8. Calotes mystaceus +
9. Calotes versicolor +
10. Draco sp. +2
11. Draco maculatus + +
12. Physignathus concincinus +
13. Mabuia chapaensis +
14. Mabuia longicaudata + + +
15. Mabuia multifasciata +
16. Tropidophorus hainanus +
17. Tropidophorus sinicus +
18. Takydromus sexlineatus +
19. Varanus salvator +
20. Varanus bengalensis +
21. Typhlops braminus +
22. Xenopeltis unicolor +
23. Python molurus +
24. Pareas hamptonii +
25. Pareas sp +
26. Achalinus spinalis +
27. Amphiesma sp +
28. Amphiesma khasiensis +
29. Amphiesma stolata +
30. Calamaria sp +
31. Dendrophis pictus +
32. Dinodon fussingense +
33. Elaphe radiata +

39
Dang & Hoang, 1993.
40
Boonratana & Le, 1994.
41
Hill et al., 1996 (Nam Trang - Ban Bung).
42
Hill et al., 1997 (Tat Ke).
43
This study.
34. Elaphe taeniura +
35. Elaphe moellendorffii +
36. Elaphe prasina +
37. Elaphe porphyracea +
38. Natrix percarinata +
39. Oligodon sinensis(chinensis) + +
40. Oligodon cinereus +
41. Ptyas korros +
42. Ptyas mucosus +
43. Rhabdophis chrysarrgus +
44. Rhabdophis suminiatus + +
45. Sibynophis sinensis +
46. Xenochrophis piscator +
47. Boiga multimaculata + +
48. Dryophis prasinus +
49. Enhydris plumbea +
50. Bungarus fasciatus +
51. Bungarus candidus +
52. Calliophis macclellandii +
53. Naja naja +
54. Ophiophagus hannah +
55. Trimeresurus albolabris +
56. Ahaetulla prasina + +1
57. Pseudoxenodon bambusicola + +2
58. Platysternum megacephalum +
59. Clemmys mutica +
60. Clemmys quadriocellata +
61. Cuora galbinifrons +
62. Cyclemys mouhoti +
63. Indotestudo elongata +
64. Trionyx sinensis +
65. Trionyx steindachneri +
66. Cistoclemmys sp +
67. Geoemyda sp +
68. Keeled box turtle* Pyxidea mouhotii +2
69. Acanthosaura lepidogaster + + +1,2
*new record; (1): Tat Ke sector; (2): Nam Trang - Ban Bung sector
APPENDIX X: List of Amphibians Recorded in the Na Hang Nature Reserve

Note:
(?) = provisional; (??) = doubtful; + = present; 1 = Tat Ke; 2 = Nam Trang - Ban Bung;
* = new record; ** = endemic

AMPHIBIANS
Common name Scientific name 199344 199445 199646 199747 199848
1. Megophris longipes +
2. Bufo melanostictus +
3. Bufo galeatus +
4. Rana andersoni +
5. Rana alticola +
6. Rana livida + +2
7. Rana macrodactyla +
8. Rana maosonensis +
9. Rana limnocharis + + +
10. Rana rugulosa + +2
11. Rana nigrovittata +
12. Rana guentheri +
13. Rana spinosa +
14. Rana kuhlii +
15. Rana sautheri + +
16. Rana verrucospinosa +
17. Racophorus leucomystax +
18. Kaloula pulchra +
19. Microhyla pulchra +
20. Microhyla ornata +

44
Dang & Hoang, 1993.
45
Boonratana & Le, 1994.
46
Hill et al., 1996 (Nam Trang - Ban Bung).
47
Hill et al., 1997 (Tat Ke).
48
This study.
APPENDIX XI: Project Manager's Itinerary

Dates Activities
20/7/98 Project manager arrives in Hanoi for 1st phase of consultancy (3 months).
Briefing by Mr. Joe Walston (FFI Indochina Programme Manager) and Mrs.
Nguyen Bich Ha (Programme Officer).
21/7/98 AM: Briefing by Mr. Dinh Trong Thu on socio-economic survey in the Na Hang
Nature Reserve. Interviewed two candidates from Xuan Mai Forestry College, for
training and field assistantship. Mr. Dong Thanh Hai was selected. Briefed Mr.
Vu Ding Muoi, interpreter/translator for the classroom training period.
PM: Presented aims and objectives of project to Mr. Vu Manh Thang, Vice-
Chairman of Tuyen Quang Province People's Committee (PPC). [Note: Mr.
Thang is also the facilitator for this project]. This was followed by discussions
with Mr. Thang on the logistics and other requirements.
22-23/7/98 Preparations for exercise - travel documents, maps and miscellaneous purchases.
24/7/98 AM: Depart Hanoi by road (c. 3 hours) for Tuyen Quang. Team comprised Mrs.
Ha, Mr. Hai, Ms. Nga (Columbia University undergraduate), and myself.
NOON: Meeting and discussions on project's aims/objectives and requirements
with Mr. Tang (Deputy Administration, PPC), Mr. Le Van Tap and Mr. Anh
(Director and Deputy of Provincial Forest Protection Department [FPD]). This
was followed by an informal lunch.
PM: Depart Tuyen Quang for Na Hang (c. 4 hours). Team accompanied by Mr.
Anh. Introductory meeting and discussions with some members of the District PC
- Mr. Khon and Mr. Chau Van Lam49 (Vice-Chairmen) and Mr Thang
(Administrative Head).
25/7/98 AM: Mrs. Ha departs for Hanoi.
PM: Introductory meeting with Ms. Bettina Martin (Allwetterzoo, Munster, FR
Germany). Ms. Bettina Martin is on a two-year project to assist in the
conservation of the Tonkin snub-nosed monkeys (TSN).
26/7/98 AM: Final preparations for classroom training.
PM: Social calls on members of the District PC, including Mr. Ma Van Duc, the
Chairman of District PC..
27-31/7/98 Classroom training in protected area field management activities. Total 15
participants.
31/7/98 PM: End-of-training dinner for participants. Invitees included Mr. Nguyen Sang
Vang and Mr. Nguyen Hong Thang (General Secretary and Deputy of the
Communist Party of Vietnam for Na Hang District), and members of the District
PC. [Note: Mr. Nguyen Sang Vang was the Chairman of the District PC in
1993/94 and had strongly supported the TSN study then].
1/8/98 Final preparations for first on-the-job field training trip.
2-23/8/98 Field trip to Tat Ke (northern sector of Na Hang Nature Reserve [NHNR]).
Activities included wildlife survey and monitoring, patrolling and habitat/human
impact assessment, marking trails and village interviews.
24-25/8/98 Debriefing and report write-up by teams.
26/8/98 Depart for Hanoi.
26/8 - 3/9/98 Hanoi: Miscellaneous preparations for Na Hang project. Conducted two

49
Later to become Chairman in October 1998.
 confidential meetings with Dr. Le Xuan Canh, Deputy Director of the Institute of
Ecological and Biological Resources. Discussions included conservation of TSN,
protection and management of NHNR, and other related issues.
3/9/98 Depart Hanoi for Na Hang.
4-6/9/98 Na Hang: Miscellaneous preparations for Na Hang project.
5/9/98 Noon: Business lunch with Mr. Vu Manh Thang, Mr. Nguyen Sang Vang, and
some members of the District PC. Later briefed on the project's status and other
related issues.
PM: Accompanied by Mr. Dong Thanh Hai, made a day trip by motorcycle to
Khoun Ha Commune. Carried out general habitat and wildlife observations,
including village interviews.
6/9/98 AM: Final preparations for second on-the-job field training trip.
PM: Briefing and equipment distribution to participants.
7-18/9/98 Field trip to Nam Trang (southern sector of NHNR). Activities included wildlife
survey and monitoring, patrolling and habitat/human impact assessment, marking
trails and village interviews.
18-20/9/98 Data compilation and analysis, and teams’ report write-up at Na Hang.
20/9/98 Briefing for third field trip.
21/9-5/10/98 Field trip to Ban Bung (southern sector of NHNR). Activities included wildlife
survey and monitoring, patrolling and habitat/human impact assessment, marking
trails and village interviews.
6-8/10/98 Data compilation and analysis, and teams’ report write-up at Na Hang.
9-13/10/98 General information collection with day trips to different sites.
9/10/98 Day trip to Nam Trang to assess habitat quality.
11/10/98 Day trip to Pac Von to assess habitat quality on the western boundary.
14/10/98 Depart for Hanoi.
15-19/10/98 Mid-term report write-up.
20/10/98 End of 1st phase of project manager's consultancy. Depart from Vietnam
4-31/1/99 Report write-up in Hanoi.
4/1/99 Project manager arrives in Hanoi for 2nd phase (1 month) of consultancy.
6/1/99 PM: Debriefing by Mr. Nguyen Huu Trung on 2nd socio-economic survey in
NHNR.
8/1/99 PM: 2nd debriefing by Mr. Nguyen Huu Trung and Mr. Tran Van Hung on socio-
economic survey.
19/1/99 AM: Briefed Mr. Wim Bergmans Committee Secretary & Scientific Director for
IUCN Netherlands.
22/1/99 Depart for Na Hang. Accompanied by Mrs. Ha and Mr. Stephen Reynolds (FFI
Programme Officers), and Mr. Hai.
23/1/99 AM: Presentation cum workshop at Na Hang.
NOON: Thanksgiving lunch for participants.
PM: Depart for Hanoi.
24-30/1/99 Finalise report.
29/1/99 AM: Debriefing and discussions with Mr. Tran The Lien, Nature Conservation
and Environment Unit, FPD Hanoi.
31/1/99 End of consultancy. Depart from Vietnam.